Hypnotizing Chickens

The following chart is from a PowerPoint presentation given to our top Commanders in Afghanistan.  It was produced by PA Consulting, a UK based international consulting group.   This is so over the top that at first I thought this was a parody, mocking the Obama administration.  But then I realized this is actually a serious document.  That concerned me, because it demonstrates an incredible level of stupidity with regard to actually winning a war.  But I felt better when I realized that this is really brilliant.  It is based on a prior study by the CIA on the use of overly complex PowerPoint presentations to hypnotize chickens.  I suspect that this is actually the Obama administrations’ more humane alternative to waterboarding.


Following is the article explaining this.


(Remember that this chart was developed by the same group that thinks it can manage the U.S. health care system.)


The Silence of the Lambs

I have carefully read the un-redacted motion filed by Rod BlagojevichThe allegations against Barack Obama are stunnding.   The case against Blagojevich is that he had contact with union officials and tried to negotiate an appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the Senate.   President Obama has said publicly that he was “confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”    However, according to this motion, the union president said that he had spoken to another union official who had received a phone call from Obama.  That union official told the FBI and the United States Attorney that Obama had expressed his belief that Valerie Jarrett would make a great United States Senator.  The union official said that Obama was aware he was reaching out to Blagojevich and had spoken to Obama about this.    During a phone call of November 5, 2008, Blagojevich told John Harris the following:  “talked to Barack Obama, wants to come and see me.” … the labor union official “was very explicit with me, ‘I talked to Barack about the Senate seat.  Can I come and se ya?”  Can I do it tomorrow?’  Blagojevich said:  “sure.”

The prosecutor said “there is no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving President-Elect or indicating that President Elect was aware of it.  (The U.S Attorney showed a remarkable lack of curiosity about the possible involvement of Obama.  He believed witnesses, when it comes to convicting Blagojevich, but apparently discounts the same testimony to the extent it implicates Obama.) 

 Blagojevich asserts that either the union officials lied to the FBI and the United States Attorney about their alleged conversation with Obama, or Obama is lying.  He wants Obama to testify to discredit the union officials, by saying the union officials are lying.  It is really hard to believe that Obama was not heavily involved in “helping” Blagojevich choose the “right” person to appoint to the Senate.

 Tony Rezko is one of the government’s main witnesses.  The Blagojevich defense team alleges that “Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s former friend, fund-raiser and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys a different story about President Obama.   In a recent in camera (out of public sight, usually in the judge’s chambers) proceedings, the government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official who is not Rod Blagojevich.  ..  Further, the public official denies being aware of cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions.  …Rezko has also stated in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a fundraiser for the official in exchange for a favorable official action. 

 The motion states that it believed that this public official is Barack Obama.

 The motion describes the land deal between Rezko and Obama.  “For example, in June 2005, President Obama purchased a house for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price.  On the same day Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, paid full price — $625,000 – for the adjoining land.  In January 2006, Obama paid Mr. Rezko $104,500 for a strip of the adjoining land.  The transaction took place when it was widely known that Mr. Rezko was under investigation.”  This miraculous peace of land is approximately 10 feet wide.

The motion goes on to say that Barack Obama denied being asked to do anything to advance Rezko’s business interest.  He also denies discussing a casino license with either Al Johnson or Tony Rezko.

Apparently we are to believe that Obama is pure as the driven snow and that the man convicted for bribing half of Illinois gave Obama about $500,000 but didn’t expect anything in return.  Really? 

The attorneys for Blagojevich alleged that either Rezko is lying, or Obama is lying.  If Rezko is lying, then how can his testimony be used against Blagojevich.  If he is not lying, then Obama is lying. 

Blagojevich refers to an article by Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times,  November 5, 2006.

Senator Barack Obama was asked:  “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or Federal government?   Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko himself ever discuss casino matters with you?”  Senator Obama answered:  “No, I have never been asked to do anything to advance his business interest.  In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony Rezko were interest in being a part of.  I never discussed a casino license with either of them.  I was a vocal opponent of the legislation.”  (While Obama did opposed casino gambling on at least one occasion he voted to allow it, and then later claimed his vote an error).

To put this in perspective, assume that George Bush was still President and there were similar allegations against him.  This would be on the front page of the Washington Post, the New York Times and every other major newspaper.  All of the news networks would be devoting 24 hour coverage to this story.  We would have been hearing somber statements about a Presidency in Peril.  Political commentators on both sides would be questioning whether it would be possible for a President to remain in office under such a cloud.  The appointment of a special prosecutor would be inevitable. 

So far the silence in the Main Stream Media, including Fox news is deafening.  Perhaps they don’t want to be distracted from investigations regarding abuse of library records by Sarah Palin in Wasilla, Alaska.   But, these allegations are all over the internet and these is at least some chance that Obama may have to testify. 


Truth or Consequences

In one of my favorite TV shows, Gomer Pyle and Sergeant Carter had to defuse a ticking time bomb.  Time was running out.  They had to cut either the red wire or the green wire.  If they cut the right wire, the bomb would be defused.  If they cut the wrong wire, the bomb would explode.  Sergeant Carter, in a moment of desperation, asked Gomer which wire he would cut.  Gomer said he would cut the green wire.  Sergeant Carter immediately reached over and cut the red wire.  The bomb was defused.  Gomer asked him why he did that?  Sergeant Carter responded:  “the only thing I was sure about is that you would be wrong.”

 I used to disregard the New York Times as irrelevant propaganda.  This was primarily because the NYT consistently publishes irrelevant propaganda.  But recently I realized that the NYT performs a vital role.  They have replaced Gomer Pyle as the information source almost certain to be wrong about any subject.  All one really needs to do is read the NYT, then assume that the opposite is true.

 For example, yesterday the NYT announced that:

 From the Mall to the Docks, Signs of Rebound


 But if you read the article, it is clear that the opposite is true. 

“much of the improvement appears the result of the nearly $800 billion government stimulus program. As that package is largely exhausted late this year, further expansion may hinge on whether consumers keep spending. That probably depends on the job market, which remains weak.”

 There is only one other source equally valuable in predicting future results, Vice President Joe Biden.  He predicts the following:

US Biden Predicts Job Growth Will Grow 250,000-500,000 Monthly


 Even the Obama administration insiders are smart enough to realize this is dumb.

This reminded me of the time I was on the National Risk Management Panel for Willis.  Top risk managers from all over the country met for a four day session.  The first day the risk manager from well-known Fortune 500 company gave a presentation.  It was a glorious multi-media presentation on how they were leveraging grain prices in Iowa against workers’ compensation claims in California.  It made no mention of any traditional risk management approaches.  In effect, it was the perpetual motion machine for risk management.  After the meeting I met for drinks with a close friend and fellow risk manager.  I said:  “either I know absolutely nothing about risk management, or this guy is an idiot.”  He laughed and said that he had the same reaction.  He then smiled and said:  “Terry, you have been doing this a long time, and you know what is true and more importantly, what is not true.” The risk manager who gave that multi-media presentation was from – ENRON.    About six months later, it was really obvious who was right and who was wrong.

So, here’s the deal.  These guys just aren’t that sharp.  They have made mistake after mistake.  Nothing they say or do makes any sense.  It is not a matter of will they fail, but rather how fast and how badly they will fail.  There are only two possibilities here.  Either they are right, and all the people who have been actually creating jobs for decades are wrong, or they are doomed to fail.  Just like Sergeant Carter.  You can bet on them getting it wrong.


Blago Barks

The trouble with serial liars is that eventually they get confused and forget which lie they told previously.  When they get caught lying, it is embarrassing, but not usually fatal.  For example: think of all those inconvenient videos of Obama promising to put the health care reform debate on C-Span.  But occasionally people like this fall into a perjury trap.  They are forced to answer questions in situation where it is a felony to lie.  The most recent example was Lewis Libby.  In his case he was convicted of perjury for allegedly lying to the FBI about an undocumented conversation with Tim Russert.  The jury believed Russert’s version of events, so they convicted Libby of perjury:


The problem for Obama is that he gave interviews to the FBI regarding Tony Rezko.  The FBI probably recorded those interviews.  At a minimum, they took very good notes.  Blagojevich is calling Obama as a witness to discredit Rezko.  Blagojevich points out that Rezko has claimed on several occasions to have gotten special favors from Obama.  Rezko’s representations regarding conversations and connections with Obama are very different from what Obama said happened.

Obama is going to try and just squash the subpoena on the basis that, as President of the United States he cannot possibly spare the time.  It’s not like he had time to play a lot of golf!  Unfortunately there is legal precedent for requiring a sitting U.S. President to testify in court regarding incidents that took place before he was sworn into office.  Like him or not, Blagojevich has the right to a fair trial.  The Blagojevich lawyers know this very well and have cited this in their brief.

What makes this worse is that when the Blagojevich lawyers filed their motion they did not do a good enough job in making sure the redacted parts stayed redacted.  Within seconds the full original motion was posted on the internet.  The judge is guaranteed to be pissed, but that doesn’t help Obama.

At a minimum, it is pretty hard to read this motion without realizing that Obama’s relationship with Rezko was far more extensive than reported in the main stream media.  But the real problem is that if Obama does testify and it turns out any of his prior statements were lies, he may just fall into a perjury trap, just like Lewis Libby.  Remember, Lewis Libby was convicted of obstructing justice for allegedly lying about something that was not even a crime.

Odds are pretty high that the people in the Obama administration are trying desperately to find an exit strategy.  In effect, Blagojevich has sent them the ultimate; “let’s make a deal message.”  At a minimum, this is going to be fun to watch.  It is a lot more dangerous for Obama than most people realize.


Obama’s Birth Right


White House slams latest ‘birther’ move
CNN, by Ed Henry

This story just will not go away.   Lt. Colonel Lakin, an Army MD, is facing court-martial because he has demanded that Obama produce his birth certificate before he will accept an order to deploy to Afghanistan.   He is either very stupid, or very brave.  Perhaps he is a little of both.  The State of Arizona has passed a law requiring future candidates to prove citizenship before running for President.  The White House is upset.  How unfair is that!  How dare we demand someone prove they are qualified before running for President of the United States.   The next thing you know we will be requiring people to prove their citizenship just to vote!

We are being told by a lot of people, including Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck that this “birther” stuff is just nonsense.    We are told that this issue has been resolved and this is just silliness by a group of die hards who don’t know when to quit.  And, of course, CNN pompously declares that everyone knows that this was all settled long ago when Obama released his birth certificate.

But, the story is just not that simple.  It could be.  It should be.  But it isn’t.  The problem is that if one pays close attention it is clear that Obama has never actually produced an authenticated copy of his birth certificate.  I suspect that everyone reading this has had to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate at some point in time.  What’s the big deal?  But Obama simply has not done that. 

To the best of my knowledge, every other major candidate has produced a certified copy of their birth certificate with little complaint.  McCain did that even though he was born in the Panama Canal zone.  But, when it comes to Obama’s birth certificate, we get sleight of hand tricks similar to what one would expect from a professional magician.  It is the illusion of revealing everything, while not really showing anything at all.

When the Obama campaign was challenged to prove that he had disclosed a true copy of his birth certificate the response was the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii issuing the following statement in October, 2008.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.

Notice that no one was allowed to look at the actual document or even a verified copy of that document because Barack Obama will not sign a release.  This statement only says that the State of Hawaii has the original document. 

According to the townhall.com blog, which is pretty reputable, the following explains the type of birth certificates available in Hawaii in 1961: (I cannot locate the actual statute, but this certainly looks authentic)

1.    In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
    a.    If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of  Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
    b.    In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file.  The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.  (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
    c.    If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

Let me summarize.  Suppose one of Obama’s parents gave testimony or a written statement, as required by statue, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.  The state would accept that as proof of Hawaiian birth, even if no physician or mid wife had ever filed certification of live birth with the Department of Health.   A state official, say the Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, upon review of such a document would say something like this, a statement released in July of 2009: 

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

In other words, like the magician, this is designed to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, but if you read this carefully, it really verifies nothing.  Everything in that statement could be true, but it does not answer the real question.  Does the State of Hawaii have documented proof of exactly where and when Barack Obama was born?  If yes; then what is that proof?   If the only evidence is a statement signed by one of Barack Obama’s parents, is that really proof of where he was born?  Based upon the statute in existence in Hawaii at that time, it would be considered sufficient proof.  But, in other states, that would not be adequate.  Obviously the potential for fraud under such a system would be enormous.

Just recently it was announced that Puerto Rico is cancelling every birth certificate issued because of widespread fraud.



Obama’s parents would hardly be the first people to want to make sure their child was registered as a U.S. citizen, regardless of when or where he was born. 

The Obama campaign has allegedly spent millions in preventing anyone from obtaining the official documents.  Why go to all the time and expense if there is nothing to hide?  What, exactly, would be the point?  Is Obama too superior to bother providing the most basic legal document of all?  Is this really an unreasonable request?   I have a hard time believing that he was born in Kenya, but I also have a hard time coming up with an explanation for the obvious sleight of hand routine.  At best it shows an incredible level of contempt for the American public.  At worst, it is covering up something so dangerous that the people protecting Obama will go to any length to keep this hidden.

There are a lot of bizarre documents and theories about this, but the most bizarre is the following.   The first is the document filed by the DNC to put Obama on the ballot in Hawaii:


Next is the document filed by the DNC to put Obama on the ballot in every state other than Hawaii:

These documents are courtesy of Canadian Free Press.  To the best of my knowledge, no one is disputing that these documents are authentic.  The signatures are obviously made by the same people, but they are not identical.  It certainly looks like these are two different, signed and notarized versions of the same document.  One version, the one filed in Hawaii includes the following wording:  “and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution:”  The other version, filed in every other state, does not include this wording.

 The McCain campaign allegedly contained the same wording used by the DNC in Hawaii in every state.

 I do not know why the DNC would do this.  Apparently they claim it was an innocent mistake.  But, this is a notarized document.  It seems possible, a least to me, that according to Hawaii law, Barack Obama has proven his date and place of birth, but, not necessarily according to the laws in other states.  Perhaps this is just a clerical error, or just maybe Nancy Pelosi was afraid to sign a document representing that Obama was legally qualified under the United States Constitution in any state other than Hawaii.  (If that is the logic, it is really dumb, because it would still represent a material misrepresentation, with or without the wording)

 I do not know what is true about this situation, but I certainly know when someone is working very hard to prevent a peek behind the magician’s curtain.  I frankly find this whole situation alarming and I remain astonished that the main stream media, including Fox is so willing to tolerate this nonsense.  Isn’t it about time that someone stands up and says enough is enough.  Yes, acknowledge that the people leading the “birther” charge are pretty pathetic and they personally have little credibility.  But, what we do know, from undisputed sources, raises very serious questions.     

 One thing is sure.  This is a lot more murky than the main stream media is willing to admit.


Inviting Disaster!

The following article is simply shocking:

White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.

Published: April 18, 2010


The Obama administration is moaning and groaning about the homegrown threat from right-wing extremists, like the Tea Party movement.  Bill Clinton even blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on intemperate comments by talk radio.  Actually, Tim McVeigh was on record as saying that his actions were in response to Janet Reno sending in the military to kill all women and children in Waco.  The Oklahoma bombing took place two years to the day after the Waco fiasco.

Janet Napolitano even said that former U.S military personnel should be viewed with suspicion.  But those who actually do represent significant threats with regard to homegrown terrorism are not just given a pass, they are invited as honored guests.  I have seen numerous reports from England showing how Muslim clerics, who seem to be moderate when speaking English, were stoking the fires of Islamic extremism when speaking in Arabic.  For example; the men who planted the bombs on the London subway were inspired by Abu Hamza Al-Masri: 


Like the two men graciously invited to the United States by Hillary Clinton, Al Masri was once considered to be a moderate Muslim leader who had renounced violence.  But, the problem is that to an Islamic fundamentalist, violence has a different meaning.  Read carefully the following excerpt from the above article.  This was written by Abu Hamza Al-Masri:

“The term ‘violence’ has become a media weapon against Islam and it now serves interested regimes against anyone who defends his faith, himself, and his honor in the face of [the attempt] to rule him by means of legislative and oppressive measures. From the Islamic and realistic point of view, this term [violence] is deceptive and incompatible with Islamic religious law in the struggle for the survival of Islam. The Mujahideen do not recognize this term in any way, because the clear goal of using [this term] is to eliminate the ‘precept of doing good and the prohibition on doing evil,’ at a time that the regimes have a monopoly on terrorism….”

The first person invited was Tarig Ramadan.  His maternal grandfather was Hasan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.  His father, Said Ramadan, led the Muslim Brotherhood through the 1950’s until he was exiled to Egypt.  The following is the proclamation made by Hasan al-Banna in forming the Muslim Brotherhood:

.“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”—Muslim Brotherhood

When Ramadan speaks to a Western Audience he talks about unity and mutual respect.  But, when asked about violence he gives answers very similar to the above quote from Abu Hamza Al-Masri.  There are also consistent reports that when talking to Arabic speaking audiences he talks about his deep-seated hatred of the West.  This is also consistent with Abu Hamza Al-Masri.  He has called for the extermination of Israel.  He endorses Wahhabism, which is considered by some to be the most extreme form of Islam.  He is alleged to have numerous connections to fundamental Islamic militants, and U.S Intelligence reports indicate that he maintains ties with al Qaeda.  This is why the Bush administration banned him from entering the United States.  I checked the Muslim Brotherhood website, and they are thrilled that the enlightened Obama administration had the wisdom to finally allow this great man to visit the United States.

The other person is Adam Habib, from South Africa.  He also was banned by the Bush administration for the similar reasons.  When commenting on the death of a white supremist in South Africa he said that “violence is the product of the polarized nature of our society.”  That is very similar to the things that Ramadan has been saying.  These aren’t really violent people, its’ just that our way of life is so intolerable to them that they can’t help themselves.  This is also similar to the logic expressed by those who say that 9-11 was the inevitable result of U.S. foreign policy toward Muslim nations.

In order to understand what Islamic fundamentalists really want, we just need to listen to what they say.  Perhaps no one explains this better than Osama Bin Laden.  He wrote a letter explaining exactly what he wants.  For those who want to read this letter, following is the link:


Let me paraphrase.  In order to get him to tolerate us, we must do all of the following:

1.  Convert to Islam.  Discard any religion, opinion, order, or theory that contradicts Islam.

2.   Adopt Sharia Law.

3.  Admit that we are a nation without principles or manners.  Admit that we demand from others things which we do not require of ourselves. 

4.  Stop supporting Israel.  Stop supporting any government that is resisting Muslim terrorists.

5.  Withdraw from every Arab country. 

6.  Stop supporting corrupt leaders in Arab countries (corrupt means those who tolerate Western ideas, such as capitalism).  Do not interfere with their politics or method of education.

7.  Interact with Muslim extremists on the basis of mutual interest and benefits.  Stop supporting Jews.

It is hard to read this letter of demands from Osama Bin Laden without recognizing the obvious comparison to actions already taken by Barack Obama.  The first thing Obama did as President was to travel around the world apologizing for the sins of the United States.  (See Item 3 above)

If Obama is supporting Israel, he has sure fooled a lot of people.  Even people like Barbara Boxer had to speak out with regard to the Obama administration’s policy toward Israel. (See Item 4 above)

He appears to be working hard to withdraw our troops from every Arab country, starting with Iraq, followed shortly by Afghanistan. (See Item 5 above)

Obama is the first U.S. President who has failed to even address human rights issues when talking with Arab nations.  Look at how Obama recently tried to distance himself from Karzai. (See Item 6 above)

Now, Obama has invited Muslim leaders, formerly considered links to international terrorism, to come to the United States to talk about our mutual interests and benefits. 

At best, Barack Obama thinks he can reason with the Islamic fundamentalists.    Unfortunately, this is incredibly naïve.  Islamic fundamentalists are not interested in co-existing with non-believers.  Obama, to a hard-core Muslim, is someone who was raised as a Muslim that later converted to Christianity.  In their eyes, this makes him the worst of all – a Muslim apostate. 

Islamic fundamentalists are only interested in destroying us.  Obama either ignores or does not understand that the first, non-negotiable tenant of Islam is the discarding of any religion, opinion, order, or theory that contradicts Islam.  There is no room for toleration from those who view tolerance itself as evil.


Making An Ash Out Of Ourselves

Sometimes I think God has a sense of humor.  While I am certainly not claiming that the Iceland volcano erupting is retribution for much of the civilized world turning their back on God, it is interesting to consider the following verse from Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 28:18

Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

 One thing is sure, this volcano should be a wake-up call as to who is really in charge.




 Clinton warns of violence from those opposed to Obama administration.  He literally equates this with the Oklahoma City bombing:



 Pictures from an anti-war protest in Los Angeles: 


 Signs from anti-war protestors during Bush administration: 

(You don’t have to read the words, just page down and look at the pictures.) 


 Pictures from a Tea Party event in Searchlight, Nevada:


 Finally.  The Most Outrageous Depictions From Tax Protests Across The Country, according to the Huffington Post:


 Why some of these people are literally threatening to vote Democrats out of office.  How dare they? 



The Boxer Rebellion

When a Democratic administration gets a letter like this from Barbara Boxer, the Party is over, at least with regard to the administrations Israel policy.

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We write to urge you to do everything possible to ensure that the recent tensions between the U.S. and Israeli administrations over the untimely announcement of future housing construction in East Jerusalem do not derail Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations or harm U.S.-Israel relations. In fact, we strongly believe that it is more important than ever for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into direct, face-to-face negotiations without preconditions on either side.

Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen for over a year. Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions. By contrast, Israel’s prime minister stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Direct negotiations are in the interest of all parties involved – including the United States.

We also urge you to reaffirm the unbreakable bonds that tie the United States and Israel together and to diligently work to defuse current tensions. The Israeli and U.S. governments will undoubtedly, at times, disagree over policy decisions. But disagreements should not adversely affect our mutual interests – including restarting the peace process between Israel and her neighbors and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

From the moment of Israel’s creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special relationship between our two nations. Israel continues to be the one true democracy in the Middle East that brings stability to a region where it is in short supply. Whether fighting Soviet expansionism or the current threats from regional aggression and terrorism, Israel has been a consistent, reliable ally and friend and has helped to advance American interests. Similarly, by helping keep Israel strong, the United States has helped to reduce threats to Israel’s security and advance the peace which successive Israeli governments have so avidly sought.

It is the very strength of our relationship that has made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who desired Israel’s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace. As the Vice President said during his recent visit to Israel: “Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel.” Steadfast American backing has helped lead to peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

We recognize that our government and the Government of Israel will not always agree on particular issues in the peace process. But such differences are best resolved amicably and in a manner that befits longstanding strategic allies. We must never forget the depth and breadth of our alliance and always do our utmost to reinforce a relationship that has benefited both nations for more than six decades.

Thank you for your consideration.


Barbara Boxer 
United States Senator

Johnny Isakson

United States Senator