Beyond the Cusp

February 2, 2015

Obama’s Deceits Over Israeli Elections


President Obama loudly proclaimed why he would not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explaining how it would be such a horrible and uncouth act to interfere in the Israeli elections by appearing to support the Prime Minister and Netanyahu’s reelection efforts. If only that was even close to being a true statement. There is an entire imbroglio concerning V2015, their campaign to defeat Netanyahu, One Voice and the potential that the United States State Department is funding their efforts to organize a grass roots network to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud Party election efforts in order to place what could euphemistically be called Administration’s pawns in the Prime Minister’s office in Israel all so President Obama will be able to forge a peace which will all but guarantee the end of the State of Israel just to allow the President his legacy. In all fairness we must place this in early in this article and in the campaign in Israel, we also do not support the reelection of Netanyahu to be Prime Minister but we are even more opposed to having the Labor-Hatnua Parties lists placing Yitzhak Hertzog and Tzipi Livni in some form of sharing the Prime Minister position as their efforts appear that they would facilitate another disengagement this time in Judea and Samaria. After witnessing the events which followed the disengagement in Gaza we see such a move as pure folly and potentially bringing forces even more threatening than the Palestinian Authority or Hamas into attempting eradicating Israel’s existence, namely ISIS.


For Prime Minister Netanyahu’s and his Likud Party’s this is something they have witnessed before when the President Clinton successfully interfered in the campaign for elections to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, and thereby denied the Likud Party what initially appeared to be their easy elections victory in 1999 and being chosen to form the ruling coalition and the right to name the Prime Minister according to Israeli law. President Clinton provided some additional assistance in the form of Stanley Greenberg along with partners James Carville and Robert Shrum, who helped Labor Party under Ehud Barak defeat Netanyahu in the 1999 elections. Previously, then-President Bill Clinton was reportedly active in creating rifts within Netanyahu’s coalition, hastening its downfall. Additionally, after orchestrating the crisis which forced Prime Minister Netanyahu to call for early elections in 2012, Stanley Greenberg was involved in helping Labor, under Shelly Yachimovich, to defeat Netanyahu once again, this time to no avail. As has been said, that was then, this is now; as it is now the Obama elections team which will be there to try and influence an Israeli election and defeat Netanyahu.


The efforts in Israel are being coordinated by an organization called V15 whose organizers informed Haaretz that they rather call their campaign “Anyone but Bibi,” they refer to it as “replace the government” which does not reference any Party or particular person. Perhaps this makes their efforts able to skirt the election laws and thus disguise their electioneering efforts in the Israeli elections. Jeremy Bird who was the Obama campaign’s national field director in 2012 will be heading the V-2015 efforts to run a grassroots, Obama-style campaign out of offices in Tel Aviv. By running the campaign to change the government they hope to enlist thousands of individuals and have them canvas as many homes across Israel as they are able in an attempt to influence people not to vote for the Likud Party in order to prevent the reelection of another Likud coalition which would place Netanyahu back as Prime Minister. Though the campaign claims they are not supporting anybody for election, these efforts will work to directly assist the campaign efforts of the Labor and Hatnua Party’s combined list.


Already there is one item which we have found to be something which seriously reeks of an Alinsky-style effort where often where misrepresentation and simple sloganeering are instrumental in the campaign effort. The use by the combined Labor Party with Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua Party choosing to name their partnership for election purposes the “Zionist Camp” despite their positions being anything but Zionist. This is similar in texture and appeal to the use of “Hope and Change” while not defining what is being ‘hoped for’ and what they plan ‘to change.’ Still, on a simple campaign slogan of “Hope and Change” teamed with the chanting of the other half of the campaign trip, “Yes You Can” and the other spin offs such as ‘Yes We Can’ and others, the 2008 election campaign and in a lesser way the 2012 campaign elected and reelected President Obama. I am waiting to hear either Hertzog or Livni calmly, smoothly waving to the gathering of supporters and sauntering, you might even call it strutting, up to the podium, surveying the crowd which awaits their signal, then they preface or finish their speech pumping a fist into the air and repeatedly calling out, “Yes We Can!” “Yes We Can!” “Yes We Can!” until the crowd picks up on the chant and a slogan will have been transplanted to Israel. It is not necessarily the same chant; they might go with something a little less obvious as, “No More Bibi!” or other supposedly organic chant which theoretically spontaneously originated and was not preplanned or anything so diabolical, it just sort of happened.


There is a way of communicating exactly what is happening and quoting a pair of people far more erudite and possessing far more gravitas than I who have stepped up and defined things, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Lee Zeldin. Were this any other pair of nations, it would be beyond the cusp of believable scenarios, but because it is Israel and the history of Democrat campaign specialists from previous Presidential efforts in the United States coming to Israel to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu, anything becomes standard utilization of available and proffered electioneering expertise. This partnership to remove or defeat Netanyahu and by necessity the Likud Party was first launched by then President Bill Clinton with the team of Stanley Greenberg, James Carville and Robert Shrum in 1999 and then simply Stanley Greenberg leading the efforts in 2012, we now have a passing of the baton (Hillary might claim it to be loaning the baton if she decides to run in 2016) to the Obama election machine with Jeremy Bird organizing the efforts, and the combined efforts of V2015, One Voice and others even to the point of using State Department funding to unseat Netanyahu by any methods necessary, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Lee Zeldin have stepped up and authored a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding an investigation and report on any potential use of State Department funding by any of the entities in this ever deepening plot which would indicate not only efforts which would be illegal under both American and Israeli elections law and potentially other laws and statutes are in actually being utilized. Below is their letter in full and it can be verified as authentic at the Ted Cruz official Senatorial Web Address. As promised, their letter below:


Beyond the Cusp



Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

January 29, 2015

The Honorable John Kerry,
Secretary of State
Department of State,
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We write to express strong concerns over the recent media reports that a U.S. taxpayer funded 501(c) non-profit1 organization called OneVoice is actively working with a campaign operation called V15 or “Victory 2015” in an effort to influence the outcome of the elections in Israel on March 17, 2015.

On January 26, 2015, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported2 on the close coordination between these two entities. The reporter described his visit to the campaign operation in Tel Aviv, Israel, and the significant role Jeremy Bird, President Obama’s former deputy national field director (2008) and national field director (2012), is playing with V15.

The Haaretz report makes clear that the purpose of this alliance is to advance a particular ideological agenda: “With the help of American money and a former campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, V15 is trying to replace Israel’s government. The money and organization comes from V15’s partnership with OneVoice…OneVoice is expected to merge with V15 before the March 17 election.”3

V15 organizers reiterated this point to the Haaretz reporter, noting that instead of calling the operation “Anyone but Bibi,” members of V15 merely phrase it slightly differently: “We say ‘replace the government,’ it’s not directed at specific individuals. There have been many years of right-wing governments during which little happened, it’s time to change course and give people hope… We will go to homes and we will win…The work with the research team that Bird brought has really ignited sparks…”4

The January 27th OneVoice press release confirmed this goal. As its Executive Director declared, “We need a prime minister and a government who will be responsive to the people.”5

Of course private American citizens are free to engage in political activities according to their inclinations, but given the overtly partisan nature of this particular case, we are deeply concerned by the relationship that also exists between OneVoice and the U.S. Department of State. OneVoice lists the State Department as a partner on its website.6 In its 2013 annual report, the CEO of OneVoice touted the organization’s work “together in partnership with the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem…made possible by two parallel U.S. Government grants.”7 According to a U.S. government website, OneVoice twice received grants89 from the State Department in 2014.

Given the public statements by a number of Obama administration officials, including the President, that it would be “inappropriate”10 for the government of the United States to exercise any influence over elections in a foreign country including Israel, we believe this issue demands your urgent attention. There appears to be a danger that U.S. taxpayer funds are being used to directly shape the outcome of the upcoming Israeli election–and specifically to campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu–something all would agree would be highly inappropriate.

We request a thorough investigation by the State Department’s Inspector General within the next 15 days that answers the following questions:

How much funding has the U.S. Government provided to OneVoice, PeaceWorks Network Foundation, and any connected initiatives, projects or subsidiaries?

Who approved providing such funds?

What is the oversight and accounting process for how these funds are being spent?

How often and on what dates has such funding been provided?

What were the specific reasons and terms for providing funds, and how are these funds specifically being spent?

Can the Department of State guarantee that none of these funds have been or will be used in the endeavor detailed above, namely the partnership with V15, or any similar effort to exert undue influence over the Israeli political process?

Was there any knowledge from the State Department or other U.S. government officials of the partnership with V15 prior to providing funds to OneVoice?

Does OneVoice’s work with V15 violate its 501(c)(3) status (or the status of the PeaceWorks Network Foundation) as a tax-exempt organization and should such status be revoked?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this disturbing matter, and we look forward to your swift and detailed reply.


Sen. Ted Cruz                                             Rep. Lee Zeldin
Member of Congress                                 Member of Congress



[1] “Recurring Donation Form,” OneVoice,
[2] Roy Arad, “The Obama Campaign Strategist Who Could Break the Israeli Elections Wide Open,” Haaretz, January 26, 2015,
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “OneVoice Israel Partners with V15 to Change Status Quo,” PRNewswire, January 27, 2015,
[6] “Our Partners,” OneVoice,
[7] “The OneVoice Movement Annual Report 2013,” PeaceWorks Foundation/The OneVoice Movement,
[8] “The PeaceWorks Network Foundation-OneVoice Palestine,”,
[9] “OneVoice Israel,”,
[10] “Obama: Netanyahu Meeting Before Israel Election ‘Inappropriate’ – CNN Interview,” Reuters, January 28, 2015,

September 13, 2014

Speech of Presidential Distinction

The speech in question was delivered the same night as another well anticipated speech by President Obama, but unfortunately the President’s speech had little that made it particularly distinctive of being Presidential. Just a few comments on ‘The Plan’ as presented by President Obama first. The concept behind the plan presented by President Obama seemed eerily familiar with its call for air support to turn the tides on the ground for those already having difficulty holding their ground against the juggernaut we will simply refer to as ISIS. There is some hope that such assistance will be put to good use by the Kurdish Peshmerga Militias as they have already shown the willingness to take on ISIS even before the United States provided assistance. The same cannot be said about the Iraqi military which dropped their weapons, left their equipment behind and threw away their uniforms and attempted to blend into the population rather than engage with the initial advance of ISIS into central western Iraq. This tactic of retreat and blend did not turn out so well for many of the Iraqi military troops; especially those who were Shiite were turned over by the predominantly Sunni population who had little love for the Shiite countrymen. The ensuing horrors were gruesome and beyond detestable. President Obama is betting that by simply applying air support and a few advisors Special Forces groups, who have been instructed to advise only and not take part in any of the direct fighting, will add the necessary additional impetus to turn the advancing ISIS forces into retreat in time. President Obama might have wanted to consult former President Clinton and asked him how effective the air only campaign worked for him in the areas of the former Yugoslavia when supporting the breakaway Kosovars against Serbia. Perhaps the former President could have advised the current President of the difficulties in target acquisition from thirty-thousand feet above the ground when flying at near or over Mach speeds. He could have offered how ineffective the air campaign proved against military forces which were very successful at disguising their positions and placing fake tanks and other military hardware made of plywood and equipped with a few gallons of petrol providing the explosion to make the strike appear to have actually destroyed actual targets when only decoys had been struck. The military reviews of this Balkan air campaign proved both embarrassing and educational giving an excellent display of the limitations and the ease with which simple and inexpensive tactics are very capable at neutralizing airpower which is not supported by competent and trained ground personnel. So, President Obama has decided that airpower supported by forces which have mostly proven inadequate in facing ISIS will prove sufficient to deter any further advances and eventually defeat ISIS. There is one item which must be granted the Obama plan; President Obama placed a long term many years, maybe decades, time scale for the eventual defeat of ISIS which places the burden for victory on his successor and removes any responsibility or expectations off of President Obama and onto the next President. Hopefully the next President will be chosen carefully and intelligently by the American voting public, one who is well prepared to face and address the threat the whole world wide.

The Presidential worthy speech was given that same night also from Washington, D.C. which was given as the keynote address at the inaugural dinner of the “In Defense of Christians” organization, a newly formed NGO in order to address the persecutions of Christians in the Middle East. We will never know what the intended length the prepared speech would have been or the entirety of what was planned to be stated. The reason was that the invited speaker apparently misjudged his audience and their particularities, loves, hatreds and other proclivities. The invited keynote speaker was Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a well-known gadfly who has absolutely no problems with upturning the applecart or bucking the status quo. He has taken to the floor of the United States Senate, sometimes referred to as one of the most austere and reserved deliberative halls on Earth. Still, Senator Cruz during one of his filibuster sessions saw no problem with reciting his own particular rendition of Dr. Seuss’s “Green Eggs and Ham” before the less than amused fellow Senators. Needless to say this was used to pillory Senator Cruz by the press and by the opposition Senators who feigned being unamused, how anybody could really be offended and unamused by such a grandiose stunt. This particular night those unappreciative of what Senator Cruz had to say were even less polite and far more aggressive and uninhibited when compared to his Senate compatriots. Apparently, Senator Cruz strayed well into forbidden territory early in his speech and his audience took no prisoners as they let their feelings be known and known without reservation. The reports of the confrontations were titled with titles such as “Senator Cruz booed Off Stage” or similar and some even more descriptive phraseology. So, what could Senator Cruz, described as the consummate Christian, have possibly told his audience of Christians to produce such an aggressive response? Perhaps it would be best told by listening to the entire five minute and fifteen seconds before having to exit the stage, and in defense of Senator Cruz, it was an orderly retreat after one final verbal cannonade. If the video does not appear it can be <a href=>viewed here.</a>

Senator Cruz probably misjudged his audience forgetting to take into consideration that these were Christians from the Middle East. Further, many of those Christians from the Middle East were from Syria and Lebanon, where those from Syria were supporters of Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad and some of those from Lebanon were supporters of Hezballah as by supporting these interests served their interest in living without being persecuted. In the case of Syria’s Bashir al-Assad the Syrian Christians were protected by the secular nationalist Assad from the threats and horrors promised by the Islamist forces and in Lebanon Christians in the south lived amongst Hezballah controlled areas and thus acted with this in mind, and in both cases the Jihadi were Sunnis. Lebanese Christians who resided in the Northern areas of Lebanon lived amongst Sunni Islamists and thus supported these forces and were not so inclined to support Hezballah but would support potential Jihadi, but Sunni and thus were aligned against Shiites. It can easily be assessed that the majority of those in the audience lived in areas outside of Israel and thus also areas where there are no Jews in residence and the prevalent attitude could be described accurately as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist and potentially as anti-Semitic. Senator Cruz made an error in judgment when he equated the existence of anti-Christian with the anti-Semitism, anti-Israel and anti-Zionism prevalent in the nations of the Middle East. This reference by Senator Cruz equating the anti-Christian hatreds with what he viewed as similar anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist hatreds also prevalent in the Middle East he was met with a combination of tepid applause and overt heckling and catcalls. Unlike many lesser human beings, Senator Cruz was initially unfazed by the disturbances and attempted to continue with his prepared speech. This proved problematic and one of the organizers was forced to appear and plead for quiet and respect stating that this was the United States and not the Middle East as if this insignificant fact of geography would make any difference to the injured sensitivities of the hecklers. It didn’t. It rapidly became obvious to Senator Cruz that he would not be permitted to continue with his speech as it was written, so he performed on the fly ad-libbing his comments from that point forward. Senator Cruz did anything but back down, as you witnessed. His final comment before surrendering the stage was a perfect and stately topper to his performance as he wished the entire assembly, including his hecklers, “Thank you, and G0d bless you.” He waved, turned and walked calmly from the podium. His stand to not stand with those who refused to stand with all who are threatened by extreme Islamist Jihadi was simply stated without emotional expressions or raised voice, just a statement evenly delivered which somehow increased its impact though it will likely not have any transformational effects, as once hatreds are instilled in a person from their earliest years and reinforced throughout their lives, freeing oneself from such hatreds becomes near impossible. Senator Cruz probably realized this and did the best with a bad situation and stated what he felt he must present and did so economically thus muting the hecklers who were probably shocked to have a speaker not wilt from their challenge and speak right back with purpose and strength of convictions, very likely for the first time in their lives. God bless you Senator Ted Cruz and thank you for your unwavering support and well stated position in the face of inhuman hatreds.

Beyond the Cusp

Create a free website or blog at