Latest News

House GOP chairman accuses key government agency of acting as Biden 'campaign arm'

FIRST ON FOX: The top Republican on the House Small Business Committee is accusing the Biden administration of using a key government agency as its "campaign arm" in a critical swing state ahead of the 2024 election.

"Earlier this month, my colleagues and I sent a letter to the SBA inquiring into their Memorandum of Understanding with the Michigan Department of State. It appears that the SBA is diverting its resources away from assisting Main Street so it can register Democrat voters," Chairman Roger Williams, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital.

"Federal agencies should not act as campaign arms for their Administrations, period. Americans have a right to know the extent of the SBA’s involvement, and based on further investigation, it appears even more concerning. I look forward to hearing from Administrator Guzman as to why her agency is engaging in election efforts on the taxpayer’s dime."


It comes as President Biden’s re-election campaign eyes Michigan as a must-win state in the 2024 race. Biden beat former President Trump by less than 3% there in 2020.

Williams’ committee is investigating the Small Business Administration’s collaboration with the Michigan Department of State on a program "to promote civic engagement and voter registration in Michigan," according to a press release announcing the partnership.

The press release said the Michigan Department of State would "create a unique URL for the SBA to use to drive online visitors to register to vote," and that the SBA’s Michigan field office would allow state government officials to facilitate in-person voter registration at the federal agency’s business outreach events. It is part of an overall effort by the Biden administration to expand access to voter registration, launched by a 2021 executive order.


An investigation by the House Small Business Committee found that 22 out of 25 of such outreach events have taken place in counties with the highest population of Democratic National Committee (DNC) target demographics.

Meanwhile, 11 of 15 Michigan counties that showed the largest voter registration increase over the last year have ranked highest in population of young voters and Black voters, according to the committee – two of the left’s most-sought voting blocs.

Williams sent a letter last week to SBA Administrator Isabel Guzman demanding more information on whether her federal office is helping expand Biden’s voter base.


"The Committee wrote to you on April 4, 2024, requesting further information about your involvement in voter registration in Michigan. You failed to provide a briefing, narrative response, or any documents by the deadline. The Committee is incredibly concerned that the Small Business Administration (SBA) improperly involved the federal government in America’s electoral processes," Williams wrote.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Biden campaign and the SBA for comment.

2024/04/22 04:00

Trump trial: Opening arguments to begin as Trump flouts gag order and attorney previews defense

Opening arguments in former President Trump’s historic and unprecedented criminal trial are set to begin Monday morning, and the judge is also expected to rule on several motions that could make the trial even more difficult for the former president.

The full jury of 12, plus six alternate jurors, were selected and sworn in on Friday after four days of jury selection. 

Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, instructed jurors on Friday not to discuss or to research anything relating to the former president’s case over the weekend or while serving on the panel. 


Merchan said opening arguments will be delivered by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team and Trump defense attorneys. 

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. The charges are related to alleged hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts. He has blasted the trial as pure politics, a "political persecution" and maintains his innocence. The former president, and the first ever to be a defendant in a criminal trial, vowed to "tell the truth" if he takes the stand. 


Trump attorney Will Scharf told Fox News Channel on Sunday that the case should never have been brought, and that the facts are on his client's side.

"While the prosecution and the media are hell-bent on sensationalizing this case, we're focusing on the facts because the facts show that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong," Scharf said. "This is a business records case, those business records accurately reflected payments to one of President Trump's lawyers as legal retainer fees. Additionally, those records weren't actually entered by President Trump. He was busy running the country from the White House while all this was happening in Trump Tower in New York."

The former president is subject to a gag order, which Merchan imposed upon him last month before the trial began. Merchan ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about witnesses concerning their potential participation or about counsel in the case – other than Bragg – or about court staff, DA staff or family members of staff.

Merchan also ordered that Trump cannot make or direct others to make public statements about any prospective juror or chosen juror. But on Saturday, he let loose with an all-caps rant on his social media platform.


Bragg argued in the first week of the trial that Trump has violated his gag order more than seven times, and wants him to pay a $1,000 fine. Bragg, in his motion, urged the judge to warn the former president that another violation could be punishable by up to 30 days' incarceration. 

Trump and his defense attorneys have argued that the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee should not be bound by the gag order, and said it violates his First Amendment rights, as well as the First Amendment rights of his supporters. 

The judge is expected to rule on whether Trump actually violated the order by early next week. 

Also Monday, Merchan said he would make a decision on what evidence Bragg's team can use in their effort to "discredit" the former president should he testify in his own defense. 


Bragg, in a filing last week, said he intends to use Trump’s alleged prior "misconduct and criminal acts" to discredit him.

But Trump has never been convicted of a crime.

Bragg's office said it intends to refer to information from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against the former president and the determination from New York Judge Arthur Engoron after the months-long non-jury civil fraud trial against Trump and his family.

Engoron ruled Trump was liable for fraud and "falsifying business records," "issuing false financial statements," "conspiracy to falsify false financial statements," "insurance fraud" and "conspiracy to commit insurance fraud." 

Trump was required to post a slashed judgment bond of $175 million as he appeals the ruling.


That trial took place without a jury. Trump’s defense attorneys Friday objected to any cross-examination of the former president related to James’ case and Engoron’s ruling due to the appellate division’s decision to put the judgment on pause during appeal.

But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the findings from Engoron showed "persistent and repeated fraud and illegality." While the appellate division did pause the judgment, Colangelo said it says nothing about the merits of the case. 

Meanwhile, Bragg's office also intends to use information from E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against Trump, and more. 

Trump defense attorneys on Friday said each piece of "evidence" Bragg's team hopes to use are "just distractions." 

Trump has said he will testify in his defense at the trial, telling reporters last week: "I tell the truth." 

Merchan said he will reserve his decision on what information prosecutors can cross-examine the president with until Monday morning. 

2024/04/22 04:00

Supreme Court prepares to debate Trump immunity claim in election interference case

In what may be the most closely watched case this term at the Supreme Court – involving the highest-profile appellant – former President Donald Trump has offered a sweeping argument for why he should not face trial for alleged election interference.

The high court will hold arguments Thursday morning in what could determine the former president's personal and political future. As the presumptive GOP nominee to retake the White House, Trump is betting that his constitutional assertions will lead to a legal reprieve from the court's 6-3 conservative majority – with three of its members appointed to the bench by the defendant himself.  

The official question the justices will consider: Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office?

This is new territory for the Supreme Court and the nation. No current or former president has ever been criminally indicted.

The stakes could not be higher – both for the immediate election prospects, and the long-term effect on the presidency itself and the rule of law. But it will be the second time this term the high court will hear a case directly involving the former president. 


On March 4, the justices unanimously ruled that Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot over claims he committed insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

The decision to intervene at this stage in the immunity dispute is a mixed bag for both Trump and the Special Counsel. The defendant wanted to delay the process longer – ideally past the November election – and Jack Smith wanted the high court appeal dismissed immediately so any trial could get back on track quickly. 

A federal appeals court had unanimously ruled against Trump on the immunity question.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel wrote. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." 

Smith has charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. 

Those charges stemmed from Smith's investigation into Trump's alleged plotting to overturn the 2020 election result, including participation in a scheme to disrupt the electoral vote count leading to the subsequent Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.

In its brief on the merits submitted this month, the Special Counsel told the high court that "presidents are not above the law."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," said the government. 

But Trump's legal team told the high court, "A denial of criminal immunity would incapacitate every future President with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office, and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents."

His lawyers added: "The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency."

In a series of supporting briefs, 19 GOP-controlled states and more than two dozen Republican members of Congress are among those backing Trump's legal positions.

Some of the issues the court will have to consider:

Can a former president ever be prosecuted for "official acts," or does he enjoy "absolute immunity?"

By including the words "whether and to what extent" in its official question framing the case, the Supreme Court – in the eyes of many legal scholars – may be prepared to limit or narrow "absolute immunity," at least in this case.

But court precedent may give Trump some protection – that former presidents should not face civil liability "predicated on his official acts" (Fitzgerald v. Nixon, 1982). Trump, of course, is facing criminal charges brought by the government. The question remains: Will the court now extend any implied civil protection to a criminal prosecution? 

What constitutes an official act of a president? Will the court distinguish between Trump's alleged election interference as clearly acting in his executive capacity, or was he acting in a purely political or personal capacity as an incumbent candidate? 

A federal appeals court that rejected Trump's arguments in a separate civil lawsuit alleging that he incited the violent Capitol mob with his "Stop the Steal" rally remarks on Jan. 6, 2021 concluded that "his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act." Trump is making the same immunity claims in those pending lawsuits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate 2020 case involving Trump financial records sought by New York prosecutors, wrote, "This Court has recognized absolute immunity for the President from 'damages liability predicated on his official acts,' But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President's nonofficial conduct." 

Thomas cited the 1997 Clinton v. Jones case, which determined that a sitting president did not have immunity from civil suits over his conduct prior to taking office and unrelated to his office. Again, the current dispute involves a criminal prosecution, and the justices may weigh whether that deserves greater deference to the constitutional claims from both sides.

What acts are within the outer rim of a president's constitutional duties?  

The lower federal courts deciding the matter pointedly avoided addressing that issue, but the high court now has full discretion to take it up. Questions or hypotheticals from the bench may offer hints about how broadly the justices may want to explore the orbit of presidential authority, when weighing political or "discretionary" acts vs. duty-bound or "ministerial" acts.

During January oral arguments before the DC-based federal appeals court, Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, suggested that if a president were to order Seal Team Six military commandos to assassinate a political rival, he could then be criminally prosecuted only if first found guilty by Congress through the impeachment process. 

Given the stakes, the Supreme Court may compromise here and issue a mixed ruling: rejecting Trump's broad immunity claims while preserving certain vital executive functions, like the national security role of commander-in-chief. The big unknown is what side Trump's election-related conduct would fall, in the eyes of the nine justices.  

Do federal courts have any jurisdiction to consider a president's official discretionary decisions?  

On this separation-of-powers question, Smith's team and others have cited the 1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case that limited a president's power to seize private property – even in a wartime emergency – absent any express congressional authorization. That landmark ruling curbing executive power also affirmed the judiciary's binding role to review a president's actions in office.

Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide not to decide, and throw the competing issues back to the lower courts for further review?

The justices may get buyer's remorse and conclude that weighty questions were not fully considered at the intermediate appellate or trial court level. That could significantly delay any trial.

Or they may let the trial play out first, and give both sides a chance to make their claims before a jury. Depending on the verdict, the Supreme Court would then likely revisit the immunity questions. 

Despite Trump's urging, the court pointedly chose not to address another lingering issue: whether the criminal prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on "double jeopardy," since he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 for election subversion, following his second impeachment.       

Trump faces criminal prosecution in three other jurisdictions: He faces a federal case over his alleged mishandling of classified documents while in office; a Georgia case over alleged election interference in that state's 2020 voting procedures; and a New York fraud case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star in 2016.

Jury selection in the New York case began on April 15.

But the start of the election interference trial in Washington remains in doubt. Depending on how the court rules, proceedings might not get underway until later this summer, in early fall or perhaps much later.


There is one other factor to consider: Trump could win re-election and then, upon taking office, order his attorney general to dismiss the Special Counsel and all his cases. Neither side's legal team has yet to publicly speculate on that scenario. 

So, Jack Smith's case is frozen for now.

And while this appeal would normally be decided in late June at the end of the Court's term, it is being expedited – so a ruling could come sooner.  

If the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor, the trial court will "un-pause" – meaning all the discovery and pre-trial machinations that have been on hold would resume.  

Trump's team would likely argue to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan that they need several months at least from that point to actually be ready for a jury trial.  

Chutkan said in December that she does not have jurisdiction over the matter while it is pending before the Supreme Court, and she put a pause on the case against him until the justices decide the matter on the merits.

A sweeping constitutional victory for the former president would almost certainly mean that his election interference prosecution collapses, and could implicate his other pending criminal and civil cases. 

But for now, Trump may have achieved a short-term win, even if he eventually loses before the Supreme Court – an indefinite delay in any trial that may carry over well past Election Day on Nov. 5.   

2024/04/22 04:00

Satanic Temple co-founder challenges Florida Gov DeSantis to debate on religious freedoms

The Satanic Temple’s (TST) co-founder challenged Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to a debate on religious freedom after the governor singled out satanists by saying they were not allowed to participate in a new chaplain program signed into law last week.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that allows school districts to adopt volunteer school chaplain services.

Under the bill, each school in the state has the option to adopt a policy allowing volunteer school chaplains to provide support services and programs for students. The bill also requires principals of schools with volunteer school chaplains to inform all parents of the services being provided, while also requiring written parental consent before students participate or receive the services.

On Thursday, DeSantis stressed the program was "totally voluntary for a parent or a student to participate."


He also made clear that members of TST would not be able to serve as public school chaplains.

"Some have said that if you do a school chaplain program, that, somehow, you're going to have satanists running around in all our schools. We're not playing those games in Florida," DeSantis assured the people in the crowd. "That is not a religion. That is not qualified to be able to participate in this. So, we're going to be using common sense when it comes to this. You don't have to worry about it."

As the bill moved through the state legislative process, TST threatened to sue the state if any of its members were banned from serving as chaplains in the program.


TST co-founder, Lucien Greaves told Fox News Digital the governor has made multiple comments about the organization without any knowledge of who they are or what they believe.

"This should be of significant concern to anybody, regardless of their own religious views," Greaves said. "Worse, in signing HB 931 into law, the governor simply announced, from the podium at a press conference, that Satanists were to be considered unqualified for the school chaplaincy program while citing no legal theory to support his view."

The co-founder of TST said the legislation indicates DeSantis is unaware of how the law works and unaware that the bill he signed into law "does in fact allow Satanic chaplains in schools," revealing the governor is unaware of the limits of his authority.


After making the comments, Greaves posted on X that the IRS recognizes TST as a tax-exempt church.

"If FL’s Republican administration deliberately excludes the group from the state’s new school chaplain program, that would constitute the kind of discrimination that would likely fail in court," he posted.

The executive director of operations at TST, Rachel Chambliss, also sent an invitation to DeSantis to participate in a public debate with Greaves, regarding their status as a federally recognized religious organization.

"In light of Governor DeSantis’ recent remarks concerning our involvement in Florida’s new School Chaplain program, we find ourselves in respectful disagreement," Chambliss wrote. "We believe that a public debate would provide an excellent platform to thoroughly discuss the principles of religious freedom in America."

DeSantis’ office did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the matter.

Still, Greaves called the governor’s actions "erroneous."

"If I am correct, and DeSantis is merely engaging in empty grandstanding with a complete disregard for the intelligence of the people of Florida, he will surely ignore this challenge," Greaves added.

2024/04/21 21:59

White House condemns ‘blatantly antisemitic’ protests as agitators engulf Columbia University

The White House condemned "in the strongest terms" the ongoing anti-Israel protests at colleges across the U.S., including at Columbia University in New York City, on Sunday, saying they have no place anywhere in the U.S.

"While every American has the right to peaceful protest, calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable and dangerous – they have absolutely no place on any college campus or anywhere in the United States of America," White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said. "And echoing the rhetoric of terrorist organizations, especially in the wake of the worst massacre committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, is despicable. We condemn these statements in the strongest terms."

Anti-Israel agitators occupied the university’s south lawn for hours on Wednesday while the school’s president, Minouche Shafik, testified before congress about the antisemitism on Columbia’s campus. 

An encampment with tents was set up on the main lawn of campus, and the protests continued into the night and for days.


Protests have called for an intifada and the death of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One Jewish Columbia University student was even told to "kill yourself" and repeatedly kicked in the stomach during the protests.

Tensions continued to build, and on Thursday, the New York City Police Department arrested 108 people who refused to leave the encampment, each of whom was issued a summons for trespassing.

Fox News learned that the university began handing out suspension notices to students who were arrested on Thursday.


When reached by Fox News Digital and asked why the president has not spoken out about the protests, Shafik's office released a statement saying, "As President Shafik has said repeatedly, the safety of our community is our number one priority. Columbia students have the right to protest, but they are not allowed to disrupt campus life or harass and intimidate fellow students and members of our community. We are acting on concerns we are hearing from our Jewish students and are providing additional support and resources to ensure that our community remains safe."

Shafik has yet to personally condemn the protests as anger continues to grow over her lack of response.

Billionaire Bill Ackman posted about the protests on X, asking, "How would @Columbia respond if the students took over campus in support of the KKK and called for the genocide of other ethnic minorities? Would @Columbia continue to support the demonstrations on the basis of a commitment to free speech or would the University's code of Conduct suddenly have operative impact?"

The New School said some of its students are also starting their own unauthorized encampment in the lobby of the University Center building.

According to a statement from The New School, President Donna Shalala spoke with the students to resolve the situation and has agreed to set up a meeting on Monday with Mark Diaz, the executive vice president for business and operations, as well as designated members of the student group who want to discuss their interest in divesting from certain holdings within the university's endowment.

The school president also plans to meet with the board of trustees' investment committee to discuss the students' request for financial transparency.

After having a "successful dialogue" with the students, the president and school officials will not punish the students for their demonstration.

"During this especially charged time in our society, the university is strongly committed to supporting the rights of members in our community to peacefully protest and express themselves, and to do so in accordance with the university's code of conduct," the statement reads. "We hope these steps will help us all move forward together."

But the protests continue to evolve at Columbia.

On Monday, students are planning a walk out to demand amnesty for student and faculty protesters as well as the university's divestment from "Israeli apartheid."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called the recent threats against Jewish students "antisemitism."

"The First Amendment protects the right to protest, but students also have a right to learn in an environment free from harassment or violence," she said. "At Columbia or on any campus, threatening Jewish students with violence or glorifying the terror of October 7 is antisemitism."

New York City Mayor Adams said Sunday on X that he is "horrified and disgusted" with the antisemitism being "spewed" at Columbia University.

"Hate has no place in our city, and I have instructed the NYPD to investigate any violation of law they receive a report about and will arrest anyone found to be breaking the law," he said. "We will not be a city of lawlessness, and those professional agitators seeking to seize the ongoing conflict in the Middle East to sow chaos and division will not succeed."

But the mayor reminded people the university is on private property and the NYPD cannot be there unless requested by senior officials at the school.

He urged administrators to improve and maintain open communication with the city’s police department to ensure students and staff are safe on campus.

"As mayor of the city with the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Israel, the pain these protests are causing Jews across the globe is not lost on me, especially as we start Passover tomorrow evening," Adams said. "I also see and hear the pain of those protesting in support of innocent lives being lost in Gaza."

"In this moment of heightened tension around the world, we must stand united against hate," he added."

Fox News Digital’s Gabriel Hays and Fox News' CB Cotton contributed to this report.

2024/04/21 17:35

Support the Movement

Buy The T-Shirt


Order other designs on Cafe Press:


Create Your Own Chapter


Your Ad Here




He is particularly bad for Israel and the Jewish people.

The following is a brief synopsis of the main reasons for which Jewish Americans should strongly consider not voting for Barrack Obama:

1) Mr. Obama has repeatedly lied to and manipulated the Jewish community, telling it what it wants to hear when the cameras are on, and then retracting or "evolving" his position when the cameras are off. No more egregious an example of this exists than that of the speech Obama gave to the annual AIPAC convention several weeks ago. In that speech, Obama ostensibly moved to the right of Condoleezza Rice, insisting that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Those comments clearly moved even the most skeptical of Jewish AIPAC conference attendees, and on that basis many had decided to vote for him. Then of course the truth came out the next day when anonymous sources in the Obama campaign informed Agence France Presse that by "undivided" Obama meant that Jerusalem was "not going to be divided by barbed wire." Essentially, Obama's position is that which many in the Zionist community have always feared – that he is still sympathetic towards the Palestinian Arabs and believes the Palestinian Authority has the right to make parts of Jerusalem its capital. Obama was caught telling a crowd of Iowan activists last March, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian People."

Obama has successfully insulted the intelligence of American Jewry by wooing them with ingratiating phrases and one liners such as how he has been in the "foxholes" in Chicago with Jewish friends with whom he worked closely to heal the rifts between local Jewish-American and African-American communities. He also claims that "nobody has spoken out more fiercely against anti-Semitism than I have," yet not once did he avail himself to speak out against the rampant anti-Semitism in his church, let alone condemn specific anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks on the parts of Reverend Wright, Reverend Meeks, or father Pfleger all of whom have abused the pulpit of the Trinity United Church of Chicago to foment hatred of Jews, as described in '6' below.

2) Whatever short legislative record Mr. Obama has is that of an extreme leftist -- one that does not bode well for the State of Israel. Obama sponsored 129 bills since his arrival in the Senate, but only 9 of them came out of committee and only one of them became law – an testament to how out of touch he is with mainstream law and politics. Obama was one of the few senators not to support the Kyl-Lieberman resolution which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama also opposed the overthrowing of Saddaam Hussein when Obama was an insignificant Illinois State Senator and Hussein was still a vociferous and stark threat to the State of Israel and actively financing Hamas suicide terror attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

Obama made headlines in the primary campaign against Hillary Clinton when he stated his desire to meet with Iranian dictator and vicious anti-Semite Mahmud Ahmajinadad, without any preconditions first met regarding either Ahmajinadad's desire to exterminate the Jews or Iran's dedicated movement toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. Obama has also recently dismissed the threat posed by Iran, considering Iran to be a "tiny" nation that should elicit less concern than that felt by Israel and the majority of Jews. His exact quote, speaking in Pendleton, Oregon, is as follows: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union... In Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." Unfortunately Obama doesn't seem to realize that it doesn't take 2,000 nuclear weapons to destroy Israel; it only takes 2!

Experts agree that Jews should be forewarned about voting for Obama. Mid-East exert Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzeliya, Israel, describes Obama as "not the candidate of the Arab states, but the candidate of the Islamists, whether he knows it or not. . . . If elected, he will be the most anti-Israel president in American history." Obama was even caught saying that he might have difficulty dealing with an Israeli government headed by Likud, which is particularly ominous as it appears Israelis are about to elect a Likud government. What is surprising is that Obama has expressed more concern about dealing with Likudniks in Israel than he has in dealing with Mullahs in Iran. You can't make this stuff up, folks!

3) Obama is surrounded by advisors who have historically been very critical of Israel and the Jewish community. The first such advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to anti-Semitic President Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski, who has stood by Obama's side in public on several occasions, has accused "some people in the Jewish community" as being "McCarthy-ite." Brzezinski has also intimated that Israel may be guilty of war crimes for its defense of itself in the Lebanon War of 2006.

The second such advisor is retired general, Tony McPeak, who has been tapped recently as Obama's military advisor and national campaign co-chair. In a 2003 interview, McPeak blamed much of the troubles in the Middle East on those who "vote here in favor of Israel [in] New York City [and] Miami," whom no "politician wants to run against."

A third such advisor is former Michigan Congressman David Bonior, who represented the Obama campaign at The DNC Rules Committee meeting in Washington D.C. this past May. While in Congress, Bonior was known to be "the biggest supporter of the anti-Israel Arab lobby in Congress." In 1990, Bonior was one of only 34 Congressmen to vote against recognizing Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel. In 1997, Bonior was one of only 15 Congressmen who signed a letter asking President Clinton to pressure Israel into making even further concessions to the Palestinian Authority, despite the PA's constant abrogation of its commitments under the Oslo Accords. In 2002, Bonior was one of only 21 Congressmen who opposed H.R. 392, which buttressed Israel's right to self defense and called upon the PA to dismantle the Hamas terrorist infrastructure. Throughout his tenure in Washington, Bonior repeatedly voted against aid to Israel while continually supporting arms sales to Arab states.

A fourth top Obama advisor is Robert Malley, a long-time fierce critic of Israel who attempted to rewrite history by claming that the 1999 Camp David Accords fell apart because of actions on the part of the Israeli delegation (and not because of Yasser Arafat's intransigence, which we know to be the case). Malley has also called for greater legitimization of and accommodations for terrorist organizations such Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention rouge Muslim states such as Syria and Iran.

A fifth such advisor is Samantha Power, who had to formally resign from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," but is known to play a strong unofficial role in the Obama campaign till this day. Power has called for the suspension of aid to Israel and its redirection to "Palestine." Power has stated that criticism of Obama is solely on the grounds of what is "good for the Jews." She also advocated using U.S. troops to invade Israel and force a peace agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

A sixth such advisor is Senator Chuck Hagel, one of the few Republicans to consistently express anti-Israel views. Obama has chosen Hagel as one of his chief foreign policy advisors. In reference to Hagel and co-advisor Senator Jack Heed (D-RI), Obama said the following: "They're both experts on foreign policy; they reflect I think traditional bipartisan wisdom when it comes to foreign policy. Neither of them are ideologues but they try to get the facts right and make a determination about what's best for U.S. interests, and they're good guys." Let us examine what foreign policy expert Chuck Hagel has done on foreign policy issues most concerning to most Americans:

In August of 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators to refuse to call upon the European Union to declare Hizbullah a terrorist organization. He was even criticized by Democratic organizations for his stance. In December of 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 Senators to refuse to sign a letter to President Bush urging him to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban Hamas and other terrorist organization from participating in parliament. In June of 2004, Hagel refuse to sign a letter urging President Bush to raise the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions at an upcoming G-8 summit. Last but not least, in October of 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators to refuse to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

Finally there is Obama's nuclear proliferation advisor, Joseph Cirincione, who has called upon Israel to completely relinquish its nuclear arsenal, while dismissing claims that Syria has been recently building up its nuclear enrichment capacity.

It is true that Obama has some high-profile Jewish advisors and supporters, but these, such as Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, are largely pro-Oslo Jews who have come to expect and support constant concessions from Israel even in the face of mounting Arab terrorism.

4) Obama and McCain speak of Israel and the Israeli-Arab conflict in starkly different terms.

Obama, in his own words, views the Arab-Israeli conflict as an "open wound" and "open sore" that has a deleterious effect on "all of our foreign policy," according to Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic Monthly who conducted twin interviews with McCain and Obama. This characterization underscores Obama's belief that that there is some sort of parity between Israel and the Arabs and if only we can get both sides together, we can close this open sore; and furthermore, that all the other problems in the middle east stem directly or indirectly from this "open sore." McCain on the other hand understands the ultimate threat of Islamo-facism and views both Israel and America as targets and victims of the constant assault perpetrated by Islamo-fascists. Says McCain: "I don't think the conflict is a sore. I think it is a national security challenge." Asked what would happen if the Israeli-Arab conflict were resolved, McCain responds, "We would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism." When asked about Israel building new homes for Jews in the West Bank, Obama responded by stating that given the prospect of such continual construction, "we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now." McCain, on the other hand, switched the topic of conversation by focusing attention of the plight of Israel's citizens in Sderot who brave every day the constant barrage of Hamas's Kassam and Kytusha rockets from Gaza.

5) Both Barrack and Michelle Obama have a long history of associations with radical leftists and Arabists, neither of whom, it should go without saying, bode well for the Jewish people:

Barrack Obama's first political mentor in Hawaii was a relatively well-known black writer and poet named Frank Marshall Davis who was an activist in the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Obama continued his communist training and indoctrination at his first college, Occidental. According to Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, Obama spent much of his free college time with "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets," with whom he "discussed neocolonialism." Before leaving to college, "Frank" warned the young Barrack, ". . don't start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."

Barrack Obama's leftism continued in full force, albeit subtly, on the streets of Chicago. Obama is known to have been friends with left-wing fanatic and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, who is responsible for dozens of bombings between 1969 and 1975, and who also served on two different boards with Obama. Ayers told the New York Times, "I don't regret setting bombs . . .I feel we didn't do enough." When George Stephanopoulos challenged Obama in an interview to explain his relationship with Ayers, Obama dismissed the relationship as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." Nothing could be further from the truth! Obama's political career began with him raising funds in Ayers living room. Ayers and Obama worked together in the context of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge through which Ayers hoped to include left-wing indoctrination in the city's public school system. Later on in is career as an "organizer", Obama worked closely with Ayers at the Woods Fund which conveniently gave a $6,000 grant to Obama's radical Trinity United Church. Ironically, Ayers, the American terrorist, has accused Israel of terrorism after Israel retaliated for vicious Arab attacks against its own civilians.

Obama's initial financial base was none other than left-wing fanatic hedge fund guru George Soros, who is well known for being a strong critic of Israel and who has explored creating an anti-Israel lobby to countervail the activities of AIPAC. Soros has stated that America needs to go through a "certain de-Nazification process" so that it can extricate itself from Iraq. Soros has also had close relations with the anti-Israel advisors to Obama's campaign noted above.

Obama is known to have been particularly close with ex-PLO member and now Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi. Obama and Khalidi were fellow board members of a foundation that funded the Arab American Action Network, a fiercely pro-Palestinian organization. Obama has admitted that Khalidi has changed Obama's views and attitudes about the world. Obama is considered in Chicago to be a close friend of the Palestinian Arabs. Not a surprise, given the facts.

6) The Obamas have regularly attended a racist and anti-Semitic church for about twenty years and have raised their daughters in same atmosphere.

The Obamas had been proud and regularly attending members of the radical Trinity United Church of Chicago for twenty years.The Trinity United Church of Chicago is a proud member-church of the Black Liberation Theology movement. Much like the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, Black Liberation Theology is neither a theology, nor about Liberation, nor strictly about black people. Black Liberation Theology is a subset of the global Liberation theology movement which was founded in Latin America and spawned vicious socialist dictators and rebels such as Che' Guevara. Black Liberation Theology is and predicated on the notion of saving dark-skinned people through the gradual extermination of light-skinned people and their beliefs. The father of the Black Liberation Theology movement is James H. Cone and the bible of the Black Liberation Theology Movement is Cone's Black Theology and Black Power. The following is a quote from same book: "Black Theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the Black community. If God is not for us, and against white people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black Theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

This is the theological backdrop for Barrack Obama' s political activism. This is the church where the bombastic and racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright had served as pastor for the span of that time. Obama has described Wright as his "moral compass," "sounding board," "confidant," and "mentor." Wright married the Obamas and baptized their children. Only after 20 years, strong political pressure, and Wright disavowing Obama, did Obama finally disavow Wright. But Obama never thought to disavow Wright after any of the numerous racist and anti-Israel remarks made by Wright both at and away from the pulpit over the course of 20 years!

Wright is an anti-Israel activist who has given sermons at Trinity United calling for the US to cease and desist from all aid to Israel. Wright also allowed Hamas officials and Arab activists to contribute to the church's magazine. One such Hamas official accused Israel of building an "ethnic bomb." Wright is also good friends with fierce and notorious anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan, leader of the

Nation of Islam movement. This same Farrakhan, who called Jews "bloodsuckers," was the recipient of an award from the Trinity United Church. Barrack Obama has yet to publicly condemn the granting of this award. In fact, all the evidence suggests that Obama, himself, has had a close relationship with Farrakhan. Obama even chose to march with Farrakhan in the Million Man March of 1995 despite the Anti-Defamation League pleading with African American leaders not to attend.

And it wasn't just Wright who gave anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sermons at Trinity. Father Pfleger and Reverend James Meeks, both supporters of Louis Farrakhan, have been regular guest speakers at Trinity over the years. When Jewish members of an Illinois state board, mandated with monitoring hate speech, resigned after a fellow board member, affiliated with the Nation of Islam, refused to denounce Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, Pfleger retorted with the words, "good riddance." Reverend Meeks has been known to scapegoat "Hollywood Jews" for corrupting the moral climate in America.