Tim Pawlenty - A Time for Truth (Preview of Today's official Presidential Announcement) VIDEO

A Time for Truth

We need a President who understands that our problems are deep, and has the courage to face them. President Obama does not. I do.

Announcing my Presidential campaign at a town hall in Iowa, I will begin a campaign that tells the American people the truth. Together, we will change this country, and this time it'll be for the better.

VIDEO CREDIT: GovernorTimPawlenty

TEXT CREDIT: www.TimPawlenty.com

HERMAN CAIN CLARIFIES "RIGHT OF RETURN" REMARKS

Herman responds to the attempt to create a tempest in a teapot by the "mainstream press". You know how scared they are by how loud they yell.

(Stockbridge, GA)- In an interview this morning on FOX News Sunday with Christopher Wallace, Herman Cain addressed the issue of "right of return" for the country of Israel. In clarification of these remarks, Mr. Cain released the following statement:

I have long been a vocal and unwavering supporter of our friend and ally, Israel.

All Israeli governments have rejected the "right" of large numbers of Arabs or Palestinians to return to what is now the state of Israel. Such an en masse return would unbalance Israel's demographic makeup as the world's sole Jewish state.

In this light, should the "right of return" "be negotiated," as I said, "if that is a decision that Israel wants to make"? Certainly, and to reiterate, it's Israel's call. Israel has a long record of being more gracious to its enemies than its enemies are to it, and this would be yet another example of that. But is the "right of return" a moral imperative? Is it something Israel must grant? Is it something the United States ought to encourage?

The answer is no on every count.

Our policy on Palestinian affairs must be wholly a function of our policy on Israeli affairs. Israel is a friend. Israel is an ally. Israel shares common values with us. Israel shares common interests with us, especially in the eradication of terrorism and the need for bringing peace to the region. As President, I will never lose sight of these basic facts. Any aspirant to the Presidency must have the unshakable US-Israeli alliance at the core of his or her strategic vision in the Middle East.

As your President, I would.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sunday, May 22, 2011 FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Ellen Carmichael, (678) 601-2772 media@hermancain.com

IMAGE CREDIT: thehermancain

TEXT CREDIT: www.hermancain.com

Mitch Daniels In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one, but that, the interests and wishes of my family

Over the last year and a half, a large and diverse group of people have suggested to me an idea that I never otherwise would have considered, that I run for President. I’ve asked for time to think it over carefully, but these good people have been very patient and I owe them an answer. The answer is that I will not be a candidate. What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: on matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.

I am deeply concerned, for the first time in my life, about the future of our Republic. In the next few years Americans will decide two basic sets of questions: Who’s in charge here? Should the public sector protect and promote the private sector or dominate and direct it? Does the government work for the people or vice versa?

And, are we Americans still the kind of people who can successfully govern ourselves, discipline ourselves financially, put the future and our children’s interests ahead of the present and our own?

I am confident that the answers will reaffirm the liberty and vitality of our nation, and hope to play some small part in proving that view true.

TEXT CREDIT: Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will not run for president | The Indianapolis Star

VIDEO CREDIT: Governor Daniels: Home

Paul Ryan Meet The Press My plan is to fight for the fiscal sanity of this nation TEXT VIDEO

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, it started right here.

(Videotape)

FMR. REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA): I don't think right wing social engineering is any more desirable than left wing social engineering.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Newt Gingrich set off a huge battle on the right over Medicare, the debt, and the GOP's 2012 strategy. The target of that criticism, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, whose plan to reform Medicare has made him the most talked about figure in Republican politics. And he is here this morning exclusively to respond to the controversy Gingrich created.

Then, our political roundtable weighs in on all the fallout, Gingrich's rough start and changing story.

(Videotape)

REP. GINGRICH: Those words were inaccurate and unfortunate, and I'm prepared to stand up and--when I make a mistake, and I'm going to on occasion, I want to stand up and share with the American people that was a mistake.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: How are the Democrats trying to take advantage, and what does it all mean for the rest of the GOP contenders who are making fresh moves in the campaign? Mitch Daniels is now out, along with Trump earlier this week. Pawlenty is about to get in. And Huntsman in New Hampshire. Plus, the president's big Mideast speech and the rupture with Israel. With us: ranking member of the House Budget Committee, Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland; Republican strategist and columnist for Time magazine Mike Murphy; chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News, Andrea Mitchell; columnist for The Washington Post Eugene Robinson; and author of the book "Too Big to Fail," now an HBO movie, The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin.

Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.

MR. GREGORY: Good morning.

Breaking news in the 2012 race for the White House. Mitch Daniels will not run for president. The Indiana governor, who many thought would arrive on a white horse to buck up the GOP field, will not join the fray after all, announcing in a surprise statement overnight that family concerns made the difference. From the statement, he writes about his wife Cheri and his four daughters the following: "What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: on matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women's caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more." And with that, the field narrows.

I want to begin here this morning, and I'm joined by the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan.

Chairman, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI): Hey, good morning, David. Nice to be with you.

MR. GREGORY: I want to get your, your reaction to the Daniels news because he is, in many ways, a kindred spirit on a lot of these fiscal issues, fiscal discipline. He won't be a part of that 2012 conversation as a candidate. A big blow to the party, do you think?

REP. RYAN: Well, he called me last night and gave me the news about this, so quite frankly, yes, I am disappointed. I think his candidacy would have been a great addition to this race, and I think it's unfortunate that he's not going to run.

MR. GREGORY: What about your own plans? There's a move afoot this morning, one of the big trending stories is whether you might actually join the race with a fiscal discipline message for 2012. Will it happen?

REP. RYAN: Well, look, I've been very clear about this. I'm not running for president. I feel, because we are in a big budget debate, I'm in a great position as chairman of the House Budget Committee to really weigh in on this debate. And I feel at the moment we are in, I want to stay focused on where we are right now, and that is getting our fiscal house in order.

MR. GREGORY: So under no circumstances would you run or be on the ticket as a number two?

REP. RYAN: Look, I, I'm not going to get into all those hypotheticals. I'm not running for president, I'm not planning on running for president. If you're running for president, you've got to do a lot of things to line up a candidacy. I've not done any of those things. It's not my plan. My plan is to be a good chairman of the House Budget Committee and fight for the fiscal sanity of this nation.

MR. GREGORY: Understood. There's a little bit of door opening there, though, the door's a bit ajar. And you know how, you know how this works.

REP. RYAN: It's not door opening, it's just--I do know how this works, and I'm not going to get into all these hypotheticals in the future. My point is I'm not running for president. You never know what opportunities present themselves way down the road. I'm not talking about right now. And I want to focus on fixing the fiscal problems of this country. And I really believe, David, where I am as chairman of the House Budget Committee puts me in a great position to, to be a great contributor to this debate.

MR. GREGORY: OK. Stay where you are, Chairman, please. The other big political story this week, of course, had to do with Newt Gingrich. He's in Iowa this weekend. He says his presidential campaign is alive and well despite a very tough week that began with his criticism of my guest, Paul Ryan, whose plan to reform Medicare is now the hot topic in Washington and on the campaign trail. We're going to continue our interview with Chairman Ryan in just a moment, but first some of the background.

Just days after announcing his White House run, Gingrich made his 35th appearance on this program and shocked many by upending a centerpiece of the conservative 2012 playbook by calling Ryan's Medicare plan "right wing social engineering."

(Videotape, last Sunday)

REP. GINGRICH: So there are things you can do to improve Medicare...

MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare.

REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Gingrich made headlines, but not the ones he wanted.

(Audiotape, Tuesday, WLS)

REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA): To somehow portray that as a radical step, I think, is a tremendous misspeak.

(End audiotape)

(Videotape, Monday)

MR. RUSH LIMBAUGH: Cuts Paul Ryan off at the knees, it supports the Obama administration.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: He was even confronted by a voter during his first swing through Iowa.

(Videotape)

Unidentified Man: What you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.

REP. GINGRICH: I didn't do anything to Paul Ryan.

Man: Yes, you did.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: By Tuesday, Gingrich began backtracking.

(Videotape, Tuesday)

REP. GINGRICH: I made a mistake, and I called Paul Ryan today, who's a very close, personal friend, and I said that.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: But other conservatives had already moved in.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

FMR. GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): And it sounded pretty clear to me that Newt Gingrich's position, because he articulated this, was that Paul Ryan's plan would be social engineering, and he didn't like it.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: By Thursday, Gingrich moved on to denial.

(Videotape, Thursday)

REP. GINGRICH: It was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer.

MR. LIMBAUGH: Well, then what did you apologize to him about?

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Missteps that gave political commentators and comedians alike material all week long.

(Videotape)

REP. GINGRICH: So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood, and--because I have said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate.

MR. JON STEWART: You know, I, I've always found the hallmark of an honest conversation is one that begins with, "If you quote me directly, utilizing videotape of my comments in context, you're lying."

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: The bigger issue beyond Gingrich's campaign is the sensitivity he exposed among Republicans to Ryan's budget plan, including Medicare. Just how far will and should the GOP go to tackle the debt in this election season?

And I'm back with Chairman Paul Ryan.

How did you respond to all of this? Meet the Press transcript for May 22, 2011 FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: Meet The Press

Newt Gingrich Face The Nation Voters will permit GOP to fix Medicare TEXT TRANSCRIPT VIDEO

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT: May 22, 2011

This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with FACE THE NATION - CBS NEWS (202) 457-4481

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, Newt Gingrich is with us live after a week in which he announces for President and his own party goes nuts.

SARAH PALIN: That we all have a right to ask Speaker Gingrich what in the heck did you mean that Paul Ryan’s budget plan is radical?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: The attack on Paul Ryan, the support for an individual mandate in-- in health care? I-- I-- folks don’t ask me to explain this.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Headlines in conservative newspapers were no kinder. Gingrich to the House GOP: Drop Dead, noted the Wall Street Journal, nor was it any smoother when Gingrich got to Iowa.

MAN: You’re an embarrassment to our--

NEWT GINGRICH (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former House Speaker): Well--

MAN: --party.

NEWT GINGRICH: --I’m sorry if you feel that way.

MAN: Why don’t you get out before you--

NEWT GINGRICH: I’m sorry-- I’m sorry--

MAN: --make a bigger fool of yourself?

NEWT GINGRICH: --sorry.

BOB SCHIEFFER: This morning, he’s here to talk about all of it. And it’s all ahead on FACE THE NATION.

ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. And now from Washington, Bob Schieffer.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning again. Newt Gingrich joins us live in the-- in the studio here. And, Mister Gingrich, let’s just start with the overnight news. Mitch Daniels, the one that a lot of Republicans, establishment Republicans and especially a lot of people who had supported George Bush last time out were really putting pressure on him to run for the Republican nomination. He said last night he’s simply not going to do it. What do you make of that and what--

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Well--

BOB SCHIEFFER: --what is the impact of that on the race.

NEWT GINGRICH: I’d-- I’d-- I mean, Mitch has his own reasons for not running. But he is one of the great reform governors in this country, he’s one of the hopes that you can get things fixed. His educational reforms are remarkable. He’s done a great job of bringing jobs to Indiana. His privatization program on highways is really a benchmark for the country. He has a great future
and I think will play a major role in designing the platform and a major role in helping other people learn that you actually can govern and you can actually be creative. And I think the Scott
Walkers, the John Kasichs, even Chris Christies all of them learned something from I mean--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Why-- why--

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping):--his governorship.

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): --do you think he decided not to run?

NEWT GINGRICH: You’d have to ask him. But he’s-- he’s a terrific talent. He would have been a very formidable competitor. I mean, I really thought he would be in the frontrunners from day one if he had decided to run.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, let’s talk about your campaign.

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Okay.

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You heard at the top of this broadcast, we kind of laid it out there. You began your campaign last week on Meet The Press with what I have to say was just
withering criticism of the plan passed by the Republican House to replace Medicare with government subsidized private insurance and-- and you heard them. You’ve heard them all week. Republicans from Rush Limbaugh to Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina to Paul
Ryan himself cried foul. Then you backed off and said you made a mistake. But you sounded pretty certain. And I just want to go back and-- and let’s listen to what you said--

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): Yeah.

BOB SCHIEFFER: --last week.

DAVID GREGORY (May 9, 2011): Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors--

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping; May 9, 2011): Yeah.

DAVID GREGORY (May 9, 2011): --some premium support and so that they can go out and buy private insurance?

NEWT GINGRICH (May 9, 2011): I don’t think right wing social engineering is anymore desirable than left wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.

BOB SCHIEFFER: So then, you go on television and you just totally retract that. You said I’ve made a mistake. Well, you sounded awfully certain when you said it. What happened here?

NEWT GINGRICH: Look if-- if you go back and replay what David Gregory asked.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I did.

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah. No, I’m just saying. If you listen to his words, he doesn’t say how do you feel about Paul Ryan? I like Paul Ryan. Didn’t even say how do you feel about Ryan’s budget? I would have voted for Ryan’s budget. He said should Republicans pass an unpopular plan? And I made the mistake of accepting his premise. I wasn’t referring to Ryan. I was referring to a general principle. We, the people, should not have Washington impose large-scale
change on us. Paul Ryan has begun a process-- he and I’ve talked about it several times this week. And we go back many years. Paul Ryan has begun a process. It’s an important process. This is the third time we’ve seen a Medi-scare campaign by the Democrats against Reagan and--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Well--

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): --now just listen-- but--

BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): --go ahead.

NEWT GINGRICH (overlapping): --but-- my context was we Republicans have to go to the country, we have to explain what we’re trying to accomplish to save Medicare, how we would save Medicare. The country has to have time, the American people have to have time to ask us questions, to modify the plan if necessary, to get to a point where people are comfortable with it and that was my point. I-- I probably used unfortunate language about social engineering. But my point was really a larger one that neither party should impose on the American people something that they are deeply opposed to. FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT in PDF FORMAT

© 2011, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION."

TEXT IMAGE and VIDEO CREDIT: "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION."

Herman Cain Presidential Announcement VIDEO

Herman Cain officially announces his candidacy for Presidency of the United States of America!

Friends,

The past several months I have been able to meet with people across this country. One thing is clear: America craves for real solutions to the problems we face. That's why I'm running for President of the United States!

Sincerely, Herman Cain

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: thehermancain

TEXT CREDIT: www.hermancain.com

Kay Bailey Hutchison Weekly Republican Address TEXT VIDEO 05/21/11

In the Weekly Republican Address, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison discusses soaring energy prices and how the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress continue to prevent commonsense increases in domestic energy supplies.

Hi, I’m United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas.

With energy prices soaring nationwide, many American families are struggling to put gas in their cars and trucks. We are seeing the price of food and other goods rise. An overwhelming majority of Americans say gas prices are causing financial hardship for their families. And more than half say they have had to make major changes to their budgets to compensate.

Unfortunately, rather than work to increase domestic energy production and help bring down gas prices, the Obama administration is seeking to impose more regulations and taxes on oil and gas companies. This is placing our own valuable resources out of reach and stifling job creation their proposals will actually increase pain at the pump.

Earlier this week, Republicans put a modest bill to increase production on the floor, and Democrats couldn’t even support that with gas hovering around $4 a gallon.

Republicans have consistently called for greater access to our domestic sources of energy to spur good American jobs, and to prepare for circumstances we can’t control, like natural disasters or unrest in the Middle East that creates instability and drives up the cost of a barrel of oil. We have vast resources under our land and we need to safely explore and develop them to have a stable energy supply for our consumers and our economy.

For nearly a year, American energy producers in the Gulf of Mexico our nation’s most abundant source of oil and gas outside of Alaska were sidelined by a drilling moratorium imposed by the administration. Exploration slowed to a halt. Thousands of American workers found themselves out of a job.

Though the moratorium was officially lifted in October, the permit approval process has been burdened by bureaucratic impediments. In energy-rich deep waters in the gulf, only 14 permits have been approved in the last full year. Before the moratorium, an average of eight deep water permits were approved every month.

A federal district court judge recently ruled that the government was unlawfully and improperly’ delaying permit reviews. The federal government should be processing permits with urgency instead it is dragging its feet. In fact, offshore production will decrease by 13 percent next year because of the permitting delays.

The Obama administration’s moratorium will have long-term effects on energy production. While companies were forced to stop operations, they had to continue paying to lease lands they were prohibited from using. Leaseholders sat idle for a year, losing valuable exploration time through no fault of their own.

Earlier this year, I introduced the LEASE Act, a bill to restore time lost to all leaseholders who were impacted by the moratorium. It’s a simple and fair way we can bring these energy producers the equity they deserve. We can help them put their workers back on the job. The House has already passed its own version of this bill. I hope the Senate will also pass it soon.

Our country needs a long-term policy that provides energy from our own ample natural resources. We can provide a clean environment and affordable energy for our nation’s families and businesses.

It is not enough for the president to talk about producing energy in America. We call on him to put policies in place that cut the bureaucratic red tape and put Americans to work doing it.

A comprehensive energy policy can’t be driven by gas prices or polling numbers. It requires a steady approach that will result in a stable supply of energy. We have an abundance of oil and natural gas now we need to access it. Tapping our own vast resources will help lower energy costs for Americans, add high-paying jobs to our economy, and strengthen our security for future generations. I’m Kay Bailey Hutchison. Thank you for listening. ####

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: gopweeklyaddress

Netanyahu to Obama it’s not going to happen Everybody knows it’s not going to happen PODCAST VIDEO TEXT TRANSCRIPT

VIDEO: Obama, Netanyahu Meet Amid Discord Over 1967 Borders Download mp4 (145MB) | Download MP3 for PODCAST mp3 (14MB)

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT: Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel After Bilateral Meeting Oval Office 1:35 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, welcome again Prime Minister Netanyahu, who I think has now been here seven times during the course of my presidency. And I want to indicate that the frequency of these meetings is an indication of the extraordinary bonds between our two countries, as is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to address Congress during his visit here. I know that’s an honor that’s reserved for those who have always shown themselves to be a great friend of the United States and is indicative of the friendship between our countries.

We just completed a prolonged and extremely useful conversation touching on a wide range of issues. We discussed, first of all, the changes that are sweeping the region and what has been happening in places like Egypt and Syria and how they affect the interests and security of the United States and Israel, as well as the opportunity for prosperity, growth and development in the Arab world.

We agreed that there is a moment of opportunity that can be seized as a consequence of the Arab Spring, but also acknowledge that there’s significant perils as well, and that it’s going to be important for the United States and Israel to consult closely as we see developments unfold.

I outlined for the Prime Minister some of the issues that I discussed in my speech yesterday -- how important it was going to be for the United States to support political reform, support human rights, support freedom of speech, religious tolerance and economic development, particularly in Egypt, as the largest Arab country, as well as Tunisia, the country that first started this revolutionary movement that’s taking place throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

We also discussed the situation in Syria, which is obviously of acute concern to Israel, given its shared border. And I gave more details to the Prime Minister about the significant steps that we are taking to try to pressure Syria and the Assad regime to reform, including the sanctions that we placed directly on President Assad.

We continue to share our deep concerns about Iran, not only the threat that it poses to Israel but also the threat that it poses to the region and the world if it were to develop a nuclear weapon. We updated our strategy to continue to apply pressure, both through sanctions and our other diplomatic work. And I reiterated my belief that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon.

We also discussed the hypocrisy of Iran suggesting that it somehow supports democratization in the Middle East when, in fact, they first showed the repressive nature of that regime when they responded to the own peaceful protests that took place inside Iran almost two years ago.

Finally, we discussed the issue of a prospective peace between Israelis and Palestinians. And I reiterated and we discussed in depth the principles that I laid out yesterday -- the belief that our ultimate goal has to be a secure Israeli state, a Jewish state, living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, functioning and effective Palestinian state.

Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language, and that’s going to happen between friends. But what we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluations of any prospective peace deal.

I said that yesterday in the speech, and I continue to believe it. And I think that it is possible for us to shape a deal that allows Israel to secure itself, not to be vulnerable, but also allows it to resolve what has obviously been a wrenching issue for both peoples for decades now.

I also pointed out, as I said in the speech yesterday, that it is very difficult for Israel to be expected to negotiate in a serious way with a party that refuses to acknowledge its right to exist. And so for that reason I think the Palestinians are going to have to answer some very difficult questions about this agreement that’s been made between Fatah and Hamas. Hamas has been and is an organization that has resorted to terror; that has refused to acknowledge Israel’s rights to exist. It is not a partner for a significant, realistic peace process. And so, as I said yesterday during the speech, the Palestinians are going to have to explain how they can credibly engage in serious peace negotiations in the absence of observing the Quartet principles that have been put forward previously.

So, overall, I thought this was an extremely constructive discussion. And coming out of this discussion, I once again can reaffirm that the extraordinarily close relationship between the United States and Israel is sound and will continue, and that together, hopefully we are going to be able to work to usher in a new period of peace and prosperity in a region that is going to be going through some very profound transformations in the coming weeks, months and years.

So, Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Mr. President, first I want to thank you and the First Lady for the gracious hospitality that you’ve shown me, my wife, and our entire delegation. We have an enduring bond of friendship between our two countries, and I appreciate the opportunity to have this meeting with you after your important speech yesterday.

We share your hope and your vision for the spread of democracy in the Middle East. I appreciate the fact that you reaffirmed once again now, and in our conversation, and in actual deed the commitment to Israel’s security. We value your efforts to advance the peace process.

This is something that we want to have accomplished. Israel wants peace. I want peace. What we all want is a peace that will be genuine, that will hold, that will endure. And I think that the -- we both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality, and that the only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakeable facts.

I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines -- because these lines are indefensible; because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.

Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide. It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.

So we can't go back to those indefensible lines, and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan. I discussed this with the President and I think that we understand that Israel has certain security requirements that will have to come into place in any deal that we make.

The second is -- echoes something the President just said, and that is that Israel cannot negotiate with a Palestinian government that is backed by Hamas. Hamas, as the President said, is a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. It’s fired thousands of rockets on our cities, on our children. It’s recently fired an anti-tank rocket at a yellow school bus, killing a 16-year-old boy. And Hamas has just attacked you, Mr. President, and the United States for ridding the world of bin Laden.

So Israel obviously cannot be asked to negotiate with a government that is backed by the Palestinian version of al Qaeda.

I think President Abbas has a simple choice. He has to decide if he negotiates or keeps his pact with Hamas, or makes peace with Israel. And I can only express what I said to you just now, that I hope he makes the choice, the right choice, in choosing peace with Israel.

The third reality is that the Palestinian refugee problem will have to be resolved in the context of a Palestinian state, but certainly not in the borders of Israel.

The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems -- Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now, tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel, accept the grandchildren, really, and the great grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel’s future as a Jewish state.

So it’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen. The Palestinian refugee problem has to be resolved. It can be resolved, and it will be resolved if the Palestinians choose to do so in a Palestinian state. So that's a real possibility. But it’s not going to be resolved within the Jewish state.

The President and I discussed all these issues and I think we may have differences here and there, but I think there’s an overall direction that we wish to work together to pursue a real, genuine peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors; a peace that is defensible.

Mr. President, you're the -- you're the leader of a great people, the American people. And I'm the leader of a much smaller people, the --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: A great people.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: It’s a great people, too. It’s the ancient nation of Israel. And, you know, we've been around for almost 4,000 years. We've experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions. But I can say that even at the dearth of -- even at the nadir of the valley of death, we never lost hope and we never lost our dream of reestablishing a sovereign state in our ancient homeland, the land of Israel.

And now it falls on my shoulders as the Prime Minister of Israel, at a time of extraordinary instability and uncertainty in the Middle East, to work with you to fashion a peace that will ensure Israel’s security and will not jeopardize its survival. I take this responsibility with pride but with great humility, because, as I told you in our conversation, we don't have a lot of margin for error. And because, Mr. President, history will not give the Jewish people another chance.

So in the coming days and weeks and months, I intend to work with you to seek a peace that will address our security concerns, seek a genuine recognition that we wish from our Palestinian neighbors to give a better future for Israel and for the entire region.

And I thank you for the opportunity to exchange our views and to work together for this common end. Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you.

END 1:51 P.M. EDT

VIDEO CREDIT: Obama, Netanyahu Meet Amid Discord Over 1967 Borders | PBSNewsHour

TEXT CREDIT: Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel After Bilateral Meeting | The White House:

Eric Cantor the President's approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself.

Uploaded on December 8, 2009 by republicanconference Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 2.0 GenericW

Washington, DC – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today issued the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s speech on Middle East policy: "Today, the President outlined his hopes for Mideast peace – a goal that we all share – but failed to articulate a serious plan for achieving this goal. This approach undermines our special relationship with Israel and weakens our ally’s ability to defend itself. The President’s habit of drawing a moral equivalence between the actions of the Palestinians and the Israelis while assessing blame for the conflict is, in and of itself, harmful to the prospect for peace. In reality, Israel - since its creation - has always proven willing to make the sacrifices necessary for peace, while the Palestinians on numerous occasions have rejected those offers. "This conflict is not about land or Israel’s neighborhoods beyond the Green Line. Three wars were launched against Israel prior to its establishment of new borders in 1967.

By keeping the burden and thus the spotlight on Israel, the President is only giving the Palestinian Authority more incentive to carry on its unhelpful game of sidestepping negotiations and failing to put an end to terrorism. Creating another Palestinian terror state on Israel’s borders is something that none of us want. The White House referred to today’s speech as a ‘Moment of Opportunity,’ and I’m disappointed that the President’s remarks missed both the moment and the opportunity.”

TEXT CREDIT: Eric Cantor || Majority Leader ||

Allen West to President Obama, the Hamas run Palestinian state envisioned by you would be devastating to Israel and the worlds 13.3 Jews

(WASHINGTON) --- Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:

"Today's endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem's Old City, controlled by Jordan's Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world's Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world's 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian's declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.

It's time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.

While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: 'Who will now lead in Egypt?' and 'Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?'

President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people." ###


TEXT CREDIT: Congressman Allen West Washington DC Office 1708 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 ph: 202-225-3026 • fx: 202-225-8398

IMAGE CREDIT: SmallBizRepublicans

Michele Bachmann Responds to President Obama’s blame Israel first. Policy

Washington, May 19 - Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) released the following response after President Obama’s speech today on his Middle East policy, which included a dramatic shift away from support of Israel: “Today President Barack Obama has again indicated that his policy towards Israel is to blame Israel first. In a shocking display of betrayal towards our ally, President Obama is now calling on Israel to give up yet more land and return to its 1967 borders.

If there is anything that has been proven, the policy of land-for-peace has meant that Israel has continually had to give away increasing amounts of its land and decrease its size. In exchange, it still has not known security. President Obama wants to further this policy by putting Israel in a very vulnerable position with borders that would be extremely difficult to defend.

“I am calling on President Obama to reverse course and clearly renounce the position which he spelled out today. This is an insult to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the day before the Prime Minister is scheduled to come to the United States. President Obama’s remarks are clearly in opposition to the position that Israel has taken in regards to its own borders. These remarks do not reflect the will of the constituents in my district, nor do I believe that they represent the will of the majority of the American people.

“America has stood with Israel since President Harry Truman recognized Israel a mere 11 minutes after Israel became a state in 1948. But during his tenure as President of the United States, President Obama has initiated a policy which shows contempt for Israel’s concern and safety. In an era dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’ we have seen increased volatility in the Middle East region, and President Obama has only added to the heightened hostility by calling on Israel to return to the 1967 borders. I disagree with President Obama and I stand with our friend Israel 100 percent. I am saddened and disappointed deeply by President Obama’s statement.” ###

Contact: Doug Sachtleben 202-225-2331

TEXT CREDIT: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann Proudly Serving the 6th District of Minnesota Washington Office 103 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2331 Fax: (202) 225-6475

Steve Womack the president should be calling on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state

Womack Responds to President’s Speech on Israel and the Middle East Congressman Steve Womack released the following statement in response to President Obama’s U.S. policy speech on the Middle East and North Africa: “It has long been the policy of this country to stand with those who seek freedom from tyranny with a purposeful pursuit of democracy. I appreciate the president for making this a point in his speech earlier today; however, words can only go as far as our actions take them. President Obama’s foreign policy message has been inconsistent with his administration’s proceedings.

“Instead of pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, the president should be calling on the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Furthermore, it should not be our policy to support the creation of a Palestinian state that would mirror the pre 1967 agreement which would only serve to weaken the Israeli state. It is my strong belief that we should stand with Israel—one of our country’s strongest and closest allies—without waver.

“The president further showed his disconnect with the people of America by promising to forgive Egypt’s $1 billion of debt. In our country’s fiscal state, we cannot afford to relieve debt from others when we currently face a deficit of more than $14 trillion.

“My hope is for President Obama, with both chambers of Congress, to construct the right kind of policy which will protect our country, her interests and our allies moving forward.

“Our policy in the Middle East must further encourage a well defined and extremely friendly relationship with Israel that is outlined in peace.” ###

Contact: J.R. Davis (202) 225 - 4301

TEXT CREDIT: Congressman Steve Womack 1508 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4301 tel (202) 225-5713 fax Hours: M-F, 9am-6pm EST

IMAGE CREDIT: This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain per 17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105 and the Department Copyright Information.

Jeb Hensarling response to President Obama’s speech calling on our ally Israel to reinstate its 1967 borders is a deeply wrong-minded

WASHINGTON – House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) issued the following statement today in response to President Obama’s speech at the State Department on U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa.

“I’m pleased to hear the President articulate the United States’ longstanding support for the democratic rights of all people, especially those currently risking so much for democratic reform in the midst of the ongoing ’Arab Spring.’ However, calling on our ally Israel to reinstate its 1967 borders is a deeply wrong-minded approach that ignores the obvious reality beneath the problems that persist in that conflict—namely the Palestinian Authority’s dangerous alignment with Hamas.

“I'm particularly astounded that as the President implores Congress to raise the debt ceiling to its highest level in history, he offers $1 billion in debt relief to the Egyptians and a new infrastructure fund to benefit them without offering any way to pay for either. When it comes to spending money we don't have, the President is clearly out of touch with reality and the American people.” ###

For additional information, contact: House Republican Conference Press Office (conferencepress@mail.house.gov) (conferencepress@mail.house.gov)

TEXT CREDIT: The House Republican Conference Press Office at (202) 226-9000

IMAGE CREDIT: HouseConference

Mike Johanns Responds to President Obama's Comments on Israel

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) today released the following statement about President Barack Obama's speech on the Middle East: "The President's speech set off a firestorm within Israel. Perhaps the President didn't realize how his reference to the 1967 borders would be received. If that's the case, the White House should quickly clarify the message. Otherwise, our relationship with Israel is going to be damaged, along with our position in an unstable region."

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Senator Mike Johanns for the State of Nebraska: Washington, D.C. Office: 404 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-4224 Fax: (202) 228-0436 Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. ET

IMAGE CREDIT: All rights reserved by Senator Mike Johanns

Benjamin Netanyahu to President Obama a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state

Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. (Communicated by the Prime Minister's Bureau) Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace. Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.

Those commitments also ensure Israel's well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority's decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel's destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas's recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end.

TEXT CREDIT: Ministry of Foreign Affairs - The State of Israel.

IMAGE CREDIT: This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain per 17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105 and the Department Copyright Information.

RESOURCES: Remarks by US President Obama on the Middle East and North Africa

Mark Levin On David Gregory And The Racist At MSLSD PODCAST VIDEO

Mark Levin On David Gregory And The Racist At MSLSD PODCAST VIDEO. The Mark Levin Show 5/16/11

"Let’s go play their game a little bit, Let’s go look at NBC News. A very, very white guy is in charge of the company that owns NBC News. NBC News is run by very, very white guys. ‘Meet the Press’ has only had white guys in the anchor chair. ‘NBC Nightly News’ – a white guy. Let’s look at their bastard off-child, MSLSD: Chris Matthews – the whitest of the white guys, Joe Scarborough – white, Ed Schultz – fat and white, Larry O’Donnell – mental patient and white, Rachel, what is her name anyway, Maddow – white. It’s so white over there I’m blinded.”

That prompted Levin to suggest perhaps a government agency should check on the network’s hiring practices since they don’t reflect such a balance.

RESOURCES:

• The Mark Levin Show Auto Rewind 5/16/11 PODCAST of entire show.
• Newt Gingrich Meet The Press 05/15/11 VIDEO and TEXT

VIDEO CREDIT: MrTimotheus85

TEXT CREDIT: Mark Levin Racism MSNBC The Daily Caller

Allen West Q&A during the Politicizing Procurement Hearing on the DISCLOSE executive order VIDEO

Our Federal Government Shouldn’t be Asking Who’s a Democrat and Who’s a Republican in the Procurement Process, Graves and Issa hold joint hearing to examine DISCLOSE executive order.

WASHINGTON, D.C.— House Small Business Committee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) today held a joint Committee hearing to examine President Obama’s proposed Executive Order mandating the disclosure of political donations by government contractors as a prerequisite to receiving a government contract, and evaluate its impact on and consequences for the federal acquisition system.

Since the leak of this proposed executive order in April, Chairman Graves has led the opposition against this attempt to politicize the procurement process. On April 21st, Chairman Graves sent a letter to President Barack Obama objecting to the proposed executive order.

“Our federal government shouldn’t be asking who’s a Democrat and who’s a Republican in the procurement process. They ought to be asking who can get the job done well and for the least amount of taxpayer money. Forcing small businesses to disclose political records will allow this Administration to intimidate the business community and reward political allies. It will also force small businesses out of the federal marketplace due to the burden of additional record-keeping administrative duties, the potential civil and criminal liability of miscertification and fear of losing contracts for making the wrong donations. The result will be continued job loss and another blow to our already faltering economy.

“The Administration claims the donation information won’t be used in the decision making process—so the question lingers as to why they would need this information ahead of making the award. This doesn’t pass the smell test if you ask me.

“It is my hope that the President listens to the chorus of opposition from both Republicans and Democrats and abandons this Executive Order.”

Notable Witness Quotes:
Ms. Marion Blakey, CEO or the Aerospace Industries Association, said, “I am here today representing 393 member companies of the aerospace industry and their 800,000 U.S. workers to express our grave concerns about the provisions contained in the draft Executive Order (EO), “Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors. Political contributions should never be considered by any procurement officer when making a decision to either award or deny a contract to any entity. Does providing this information to a procurement official make them any better informed on the merits of a proposal, or simply make them better informed on who has made political contributions to the administration or any other federal candidate?”

Mr. Alan Chvotkin, Executive Vice President and Counsel, Professional Services Council, said, “The truth is that political contributions currently are not, and should not, be disclosed as part of the bidding and source selection process for federal contract awards. Despite the repeated efforts by some to show a link between campaign contributions and contract awards, I am pleased that there is no evidence that campaign contributions—for either president or Congress—have had any impact on any agency’s procurement evaluation or award decisions. Yet the draft executive order takes the ill-conceived approach of injecting that very information into the contracting process, forcing all bidders for federal contracts to collect and disclose that information as part of their bid.”

Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio said, “Such an order is, in my mind, ill-advised and represents an attempted power grab by the Obama administration on campaign finance issues. In short, it has three major flaws: it imposes junk disclosure requirements that serve no good purpose, it chills protected political activity, and it seems motivated by simple partisan politics. …[S]kepticism is called for when government begins to regulate political speech. This is because of how incumbent governments, politics, and the enforcement process work. The history of ―reform is in part a history of efforts to silence or cripple political opponents. This current initiative seems no different.”

Contact: DJ Jordan, Wendy Knox 202.225.5821

RESOURCES: Politicizing Procurement: Will President Obama’s Proposal Curb Free Speech and Hurt Small Business? witness testimony and other related hearing documents FULL TEXT in PDF FORMAT.

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: SmallBizRepublicans

TEXT CREDIT: House Small Business Committee 2361 Rayburn House Office Building (RHOB) Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5821 Fax: (202) 226-5276

President Obama All Talk, No Action VIDEO

President Obama All Talk, No Action VIDEO, Sick of the All Talk, No Action Obama-Agenda?

VIDEO CREDIT: TheNRCC

Kathy Hochul and Jack Davis Nancy Pelosi’s Puppets VIDEO

Next Tuesday the special election in New York’s 26th district pits Republican Jane Corwin against Democrat Kathy Hochul and independent Jack Davis.

"Jack and Kathy....they can’t fight for us, they come with strings attached"

VIDEO CREDIT: TheNRCC

Weak Americans pay the price of Loose Monetary Policy U.S. Dollar Adds 56.5¢ to Every Gallon of Gasoline

Weak U.S. Dollar Adds 56.5¢ to Every Gallon of Gasoline Americans pay the price of Loose Monetary Policy and Quantitative Easing at the Pump. Washington, DC --A weak U.S. dollar due to the Federal Reserve's unprecedented pumping of dollars into the American economy is adding 56 and a half cents* to the price of every gallon of gasoline, according to a new study by the Joint Economic Committee Republican staff. Titled The Price of Oil and the Value of the Dollar, the study notes the value of the U.S. dollar has declined 14 percent since the Federal Reserve began its program of quantitative easing in November of 2008. With oil an international commodity that trades in U.S. dollars, the declining value of the dollar has added $17.04* per barrel to the price of Brent Crude oil. Crude oil is the primary input in the process of making gasoline.

"Americans are paying a steep price at the pump as a result of the weak dollar policies pursued by this Administration and the Federal Reserve", said U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady, the vice chairman and top Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. "There are two lessons here. Rather than pointing fingers at energy manufacturers the President should be looking to his own Treasury and the Fed for answers to the high price of fuel. And this drives home the point that the Federal Reserve should have one mandate, price stability, to prevent inflation and preserve the value of th U.S. dollar."

The Federal Reserve has maintained an exceptionally low target Federal Funds rate for an extended period of time. The Fed's program of quantitative easing known as QE1 and QE2, the purchase of GSE obligations, mortgage backed securities and Treasury securities have been accompanied by a steady decline in the value of the dollar.

The Price of Oil and the Value of the Dollar The Price of Oil and the Value of the Dollar.pdf (472.2 KBs)

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: Joint Economic Committee | Republicans 433 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 224-5171