After Cruz Warning to White House, FAA Lifts Israel Travel Ban

ted-cruz-smile

After Senator Ted Cruz’s warning that he would hold all State Department nominees until questions were answered about the political motive behind the FAA’s travel ban on Israel… the FAA suddenly reversed itself.

On the same day that the FAA had announced a 24 hour extension of the ban, the FAA turned around and reversed itself.

These were the 5 questions that Senator Cruz wanted answered.

Was this decision a political decision driven by the White House? For instance, who was this decision made by – a career official, a political appointee, or someone else (at the FAA, State Department or White House?)

If the FAA’s decision was based on airline safety, why was Israel singled out, when flights would be permitted into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?

What was the FAA’s ‘safety’ analysis that led to prohibiting flights to Israel, while still permitting flights to Ukraine—where a commercial airline flight was just shot down with a BUK missile?

What specific communications occurred between the FAA and the White House?  And the State Department?  Why were any such communications necessary, if this was purely about airline safety?

Was this a safety issue, or was it using a federal regulatory agency to punish Israel to try to force them to comply with Secretary Kerry’s demand that Israel stop their military effort to take out Hamas’s rocket capacity?

Instead of providing answers, the FAA lifted the ban.

  • NJK

    Thank you, Senator Cruz.

    • Americana

      If an American plane is downed by the Palestinians what will Cruz say?

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Death to Pal-e-SWINE.

      • truebearing

        If an American plane is downed in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Malaysia, etc, what would Obama say?

        Your question was profoundly moronic. By asking it, you put the focus on Obama’s blatant inconsistency. Are you the best the Left could do for an FPM troll? We should all feel insulted.

        • n o

          Well we know what Reagan did when Americans and a congressman were killed by USSR. 4 days after cutting short his 28 day vacation he made a speech and then did nothing. no sanction , no nothing.

          If you believe the quotes from Reagan’s staff and his diary he didn’t want to cut short his vacation either but was convinced he had too. But his diary mentioned he was heartbroken. no not about the deaths but about missing what.. the beach?

          Remind me what did Reagan do when 200+ sleeping marines where killed?

          • republicc

            Instead of responding to your innuendos and half truths as you wish, I ask you, what does your post have to do with anything? We are wise to your leftist strategy of deflection.

          • n o

            there is no innuendo (do you know the meaning of the word) and no deflection. and you are not wise.

            What is the GOP standard. They cheer inaction by Reagan as the gold standard of how to handle a challenge and actions by the POTUS as “not strong enough” As for 1/2 truths please point them out. Reagan diaries, date of his speech vs the plane getting shot down and comments by staff are all public record. His turning tail and running in Lebanon is legendary.

            so tell us what is the standard by which you judge an administration

            please comment on the below issues as well

            Where was he when the GOP and GWB turned down requests for Iron Dome. They pushed Israel to use less effective, US made, defenses. Where was he when the GOP/GWB turned down advanced radar for Israel?

            Don’t let the rhetoric cloud your judgement… he is no friend of Israel other then just an other way to bolster US Military contractor budgets (we give Israel money and tell them which US military contractor they must spend it on).

            The current POTUS approved Iron Dome and deployed US “technicians” and advanced radar to the Negev. No profit to Us contractors but a huge plus for Israel defenses.

            Imagine the carnage in Israel had the GOP won in 2008 and the GOP was able to continue to block Israel from developing advanced defensive weapons. Recall what happened when Israel tried to design its own fighter plane.

          • truebearing

            The Irone Dome wasn’t even developed during the Bush presidency. You’re full of crap. The US military didn’t believe it was feasible, but that can’t be blamed on Bush.

            Obama approved the Iron Dome? You moron, it was developed in Israel. Obama had nothing to do with approving it. The money the US has put into it is typical of the mutually beneficial weapons development between the US and Israel. The technologymwill be shared with the US, if only Obama was interested in defending the US from missiles. One of the first things he did upon entering office was to gut our missile defense system.

            Anything Obama did to ostensibly help the Iron Dome was done for political reasons, such as getting donations from rich Jews.

          • JDinSTL

            Iron Dome = Reagan Was Right…. again

          • parabellum

            Ubama approves the sun rising in the morning.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What is the GOP standard.”

            React to world events according to reality.

          • hiernonymous

            Presumably, you are addressing your comments both to no’s post and to the post to which it was responding. Innuendo and deflection, indeed.

          • truebearing

            The topic wasn’t Reagan was it? Try to follow along. Americana was making a lame attempt at justifying Obama’s punitive ban on flights to Israel, right after he gave genocidal Hamas terrorist 47 million dollars. My point was clear enough, even for you.

            You seem to be at odds with yourself. You’re complaining about how Reagan treated Israel, but defending Obama’s attacks on Israel. That makes no sense, unless you are yet another leftist moron in a fever to establish a false moral equivalency…the only kind of argument leftists ever make.

            I’m not going to relitigate the past. Reagan did things i didn’t agree with, like amnesty. I thought he should have annhilated every Muslim remotely connected to the barracks bombing, and I never agreed that the US should base its economy so heavily on the service section. That being said, Reagan was infinitely superior to Obama in every conceivable way.

            Reagan didn’t topple governments that were friendly to the US. he didn’t alienate our allies. He didn’t enable nutjob iranians to acquire nukes. He didn’t enable genocidal terrorists to invade the US or expand their global reach. He didn’t intentionally destroy the US economy. He didn’t intentionally weaken our military. The list goes on for longer than I have time for.

            Reagan isn’t president anymore. Wake up. It is 2014. Obama owns this mess and it would be wise of you to stop trying to justify his immense failures by dredging up things from the past…revised or otherwise.

            People who live in the past to justify the present are a unique form of fool.

          • n o

            Actually I was pointing out Obama has helped Israel in substantive ways. The GOP is big on talk but in action the GOP weakens Israel’s ability to defend. GOP roadblocking Iron Dome and advanced radar for Israel is especially, and unfortunately, on point. I had this discuss during the 2008 election cycle.

            Israel’s need for advanced defenses should trump GOP’s need to use Israel as a pork delivery vehicle. but sadly that is not their priority. Go look as to how/why GWB allowed Russia to ship advanced missile technology, that can hit Israel, to Iran in 2000/2001. Another case of GWB/GOP putting pork in front of Israeli security. Neither pork or Israel being threatened by Iran are in our best interests.

            Cruz can pretend he had something to do with the FAA lifting the ban… much the same a rooster thinks it crowing makes the sun rise.

            Opposed to what FOX News and Cruz are are saying the FAA does not allow flights over Ukraine and other war zones and after a risk analysis with Israel the FAA agreed to lift the ban…

            The only politics here is Cruz political theater.

          • truebearing

            Obama has done nothing but try to paint Israel into a vulnerable corner. he has done nothing to help Israel. He has enabled every islamist group in the Middle east with money and weqapons. he has helped Iran produce their nuclear weapons. is that you idea of helping Israel? You are seriously delusional, or pathologically dishonest. maybe both.

            You keep saying that Bush and the GOP roadblocked the Iron Dome. I have found no evidence of that dubious claim. Prove it.

            Cruz didn’t “pretend” anything. He called their bluff and it worked. You have a problem seeing things clearly. Is that intentional?

            Israel worked on the risk analysis that banned the flights to Israel? Where is your evidence for that?

          • n o

            why don’t you read the article in Jewish times…. do you think a rooster crowing tin the AM causes the sun to rise too?

            BTw from your post about Obama and Iran and other ME groups you are parroting the AM radio / fox news b-ls-t. especially Iran. you are completely clueless and off base

            go look at the Sanctions under Obama and what they where under bush. who got the world to boycott Iran oil and currency (Pres Obama)? Which is why they are trying to negotiate GOP did nothing for 8 years and complain that when Obama’s boycott worked … he is not tough enough

            Who took the USA’s name of a treaty and allowed Iran to get advanced tech / missiles from Russia (Pres Bush).

            Who didn’t support Israel desire to deploy iron Dome (bush) who did (Obama) who deployed Us techinicains to the Negev with advanced Radar (Obama)… look it up before you reply with more nonsense

          • truebearing

            You keep insisting that Bush didn’t support Iron Dome but can’t produce evidence. What is your source? Israel hadn’t even committed itself to the system until 2007.

            You also inaccurately state that the GOP wouldn’t support it, but in 2010, all but 4 members of the House voted to fund it. More funding was approved by the Republican held House in 2012. You’re full of crap.

            Iron Dome was the creation of Israelis, with some input from the US. Obama had nothing to do with it. he approved a relatively small amount of funding,and in return wanted access to the technology for the US. That was a purchase more than it was aid.

            “Iron Dome has three central components:[1][23]

            Detection & Tracking Radar: the radar system is built by Elta, an Israeli defense company and subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, and by the IDF.

            Battle Management & Weapon Control (BMC): the control center is built for Rafael by mPrest Systems, an Israeli software company.

            Missile Firing Unit: the unit launches the Tamir interceptor missile, equipped with electro-optic sensors and several steering fins for high maneuverability. The missile is built by Rafael.[24]”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

            Refute that, idiot. Provide something other than your opinion.

          • parabellum

            You really make the case as to why Ubama is so loved in Israel. With friends like him, who needs Hezbollah?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The only politics here is Cruz political theater.”

            He’s a junior senator practicing his chops and speaking up for the forgotten conservatives.

            Part of leadership includes theatrics. It’s only a negative if one relies too much on theatrics to the detriment of other tools and paths to solutions.

          • docd777

            He`s also the Harvard Law school graduate that the Liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called the brightest student of all he`s ever had at Harvard Law school!(That includes William Kuenstler,Ron Kuvee,and all of the other so called brilliant Leftist attorneys whom he also trained.-But of course, you`ll rarely hear this mentioned by the obama government stooges and propagandists who work for MSNBC, CNN,NBC and ABC.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Is this the American ex-pat from Italy that used to be “Americana?”

          • hiernonymous

            There’s a post from 5 months ago on this account noting that the poster lives in Arizona.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Actually I was pointing out Obama has helped Israel in substantive ways.”

            Independent of the will of congress. Sure.

            It ends up being a lot like the way that rapists “help” children by giving them candy first.

          • parabellum

            Amazing how these “theatrics” prompted such immediate action. I guess this junior senator hasn’t yet learned to be a mealy-mouthed, triangulating, calculating, establishment apparatchik.

          • iaminfidel

            Obama won’t do anything about anything. He is anti-American anti-Jew piece of islamonazi scum.

          • Guest

            If only I could “like” this reply more than once. EPIC! And now, from the liberal troll we should hear..crickets.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There is no major global communist Cold War going on where we have any foe to fear. Comparing Reagan’s overt actions to any president’s actions after the fall of the Soviet Union, if you don’t take that major event in to account, is pointless.

          • n o

            not at all. the GOP/fox News is pointing to Reagan and his handling of Russia shooting down the airliners as an example of how a “strong” president should “immediately” react.

            they are however lying (as usual). all the “objective facts” show Reagan did not immediately react.. he took 4 days to make his speech. his diary and comments from his staff show that he really didn’t seem to care about the tragedy other then it interrupted his 28 day vacation… and he really didn’t want to interrupt that vacation to return to DC.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Immediately is how long in this context?

            “his diary and comments from his staff show that he really didn’t seem to care about the tragedy other then it interrupted his 28 day vacation… and he really didn’t want to interrupt that vacation to return to DC.”

            Regardless of your feelings, Reagan did act forcefully in contrast with #44.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…the GOP/fox News is pointing to Reagan…”

            You’re a bit of a lunatic.

          • American Patriot

            You mean like the way the Democrats/MSNBC points to Carter as the so-called “role model” example presidents should follow?

          • Marsha Coleman

            What does Reagan have to do with this????

          • parabellum

            I suppose you are ready to make the argument that Reagan should have done what Bush did with Iraq. You pinko libs are so consistent in your logic and argument.

          • Drakken

            Reagan had the USS New Jersey pull up offshore and shell the bejesus out of Hezbollah, Syrian and pali positions. He also used air strikes, and we got a h*ll of lot more of them, than they got of us.

          • Webb

            I love the words of a troll whining in the morning!

          • Tspeak.us

            What did Reagan do? Would facilitating the dismantling of the USSR a strong enough response? Seems maybe there was a bigger vision at play than you comprehend.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Red herring …

      • Webb

        Fcuk Americana

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Keep trying.

      • glpage

        There’s a better chance an American plane will be shot down in an Islamic country than in Israel. But, on the remote chance it does happen, rather than wonder what Cruz would say, one should wonder what Obama, Kerry, and the rest of the Obama administration would say regarding their aid to terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

        • n o

          see post above. they would certainly do, and have done more than Reagan.

          Now GWB would have used the event as an excuse to cut taxes, raise spending and invade another country hat had nothing to do with the event; of course without proper planning and piss off the world in the process.

          • republicc

            Again with deflection.

          • n o

            is that what you say when you cannot answer the question / facts contradict your partisan positions?

            I would say you use the accusation of deflection… for deflection

            why not respond with a factual argument, or at leas do what’s expected of partisan hacks, find a right wing fringe spin site and quote from that.

          • truebearing

            You’re quite the know-it-all. Only you have the key to right action, right? You contradicted yourself in your moronic assessment of what Obama, Reagan, and Bush did or would do. You whined that Reagan didn’t do enough, then whined because Bush would have done too much, and all the while you have deluded yourself into thinking Obama has done anything positive for Israel, even going so far as to lie and imply that Obama was responsible for the Iron Dome.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            These morons just blow off steam and nobody takes them seriously.

          • n o

            yea ignore any facts from say WSJ, congressional record or even Reagan own published diaries.

            stick with repeating fox news and AM radio… much easier for you to understand. you are wrong but you feel right and that is all that counts

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’ll stick to the facts relevant to the conversation I’m having.

          • n o

            you have not presented any

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “After Cruz Warning to White House, FAA Lifts Israel Travel Ban”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…stick with repeating fox news and AM radio…”

            This is an excellent indication to gauge how you handle evidence.

          • n o

            i watch Hannity, Papa Bear & Co … not much in the way of facts… btw is your name an oxymoron?

            you seem to be big on picking and choosing what you call a “fact” to bolster a partisan conclusion… might as well call yourself “fair and balanced”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Continue with the rants. Some might find them interesting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh, a jihadi…

            n o • 10 hours ago:

            are you serious? the OT was pretty clear about what happens when the messiah shows up, since none of that happened you cannot say Jesus was the messiah, or are you saying the OT was wrong, are you just ignoring the parts of the OT you do not like?

            NT was written 400AD by a bunch of different guys and even then they had too many stories to keep it all straight. King James had to pick and choose the stories you now cling too. OT and Koran where both handed down by G-D… again was he too busy to hand down the NT? Any reason it took 400 years for anyone to bother writing the NT?

          • n o

            why note reply to show why the above is incorrect.

            Let start on an easy one, Who arranged the world boycott of Iran’s oil and currency?

            then lets move onto who did not support Iron dome and who did.

          • truebearing

            You haven’t provided anything but your opinion and some lies. Start citing sources, moron.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Because you just pulled those questions out of some big glass fishbowl?

          • n o

            no I said that Reagan did nothing because that is what he did

            I said that GWB did it poorly because he did (Iraq was a mistake and both were poorly managed)

            I want to know what the GOP expects any POTUS to do? Obama has at least taken poetical action and sanctioned the USSR and has our allies helping. Crap in Iran the GOp/GWB did nothing but make speeches, worse actually GWB took our name of the treaty that allowed Russia to ship missiles to Iran.

            Pres Obama got (almost) the entire world to boycott Iran’s oil; and their currency and drove them to the negotiating table… then the GOP said.. you are not being tough enough… they did nothing for 8 years and then claim to be the tough ones.

            As for Iron dome absolutely GOP/GWB screwed Israel. we give Israel aid but then tell them which defense contractor they have to spend the money with. Israel is just are another GOP pork delivery vehicle.

            I posted already from WSJ and others regarding GOP/GWB not wanting Iron dome but Obama supported it. Had Pres Obama not stood up for Israel the events of the last week would be a horror.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “. we give Israel aid but then tell them which defense contractor they
            have to spend the money with. Israel is just are another GOP pork
            delivery vehicle.”

            Correction, that’s bipartisan Congressional pork delivery vehicle. Why do you think aid to Israel is so large?

            That and the fact that Israeli defense industry tech links up with US defense.

            And the defense industry is notoriously pork, pork, pork.

      • 1Indioviejo1

        Bomb them.

      • iaminfidel

        What’s a “Palestinian”?

      • Abberline

        Haven’t you heard that Palestinians are peace loving people? A**hole!

    • n o

      Where was he when the GOP and GWB turned down requests for Iron Dome. They pushed Israel to use less effective, US made, defenses. Where was he when the GOP/GWB turned down advanced radar for Israel?

      Don’t let the rhetoric cloud your judgement… he is no friend of Israel other then just an other way to bolster US Military contractor budgets (we give Israel money and tell them which US military contractor they must spend it on).

      The current POTUS approved Iron Dome and deployed US “technicians” and advanced radar to the Negev. No profit to Us contractors but a huge plus for Israel defenses.

      Imagine the carnage in Israel had the GOP won in 2008 and the GOP was able to continue to block Israel from developing advanced defensive weapons. Recall what happened when Israel tried to design its own fighter plane.

      • republicc

        Deflection.

        • n o

          is that what you say when you cannot answer the question / facts contradict your partisan positions?

          I would say you use the accusation of deflection… for deflection

      • truebearing

        Provide your sourse for Bush and the GOP turning down the Iron Dome…if you can. If you can’t, then STFU and stop lying.

        • n o

          too lazy to look for your self? Not do you stfu ? using Israel’s security as a pork delivery vehicle and Israel’s battles with Hamas as the stage for political theater is pure GOP disgusting politics and you seem to be perfectly fine playing along

          http://www.politicususa.com/2012/11/28/obamas-support-israels-iron-dome-repubs-fits-cognitive-dissonance.html

          http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324712504578136931078468210

          http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/564038/netanyahu_thanks_obama_for_%27dome%27_missile_funding

        • Judahlevi

          This might help:

          “At least one other point that bears discussion is the funding for Israel’s Iron Dome mobile defense system. This system, which uses an interceptor to detonate incoming rockets and artillery shells, is largely credited with protecting much of southern Israel from its’ neighbors’ escalating aggression. It is a project developed in and produced in Israel, but financed, in large part, by the U.S. The financial agreement was part of a $30 billion 10-year military-aid agreement signed by the Bush administration back in 2007.

          President Obama has not attempted to derail the Iron Dome aid project, but as a binding 10-year agreement, it is not clear that he even has the power to do so. But the project was neither developed during the Obama administration, nor did financial support for it originate with President Obama.”

          Obama also tried to cut funding for Israel and only Congress changed it to a higher amount.

          • truebearing

            That helps. Wikipedia has some of the facts, but as usual, not all of them. n o has none, and refuses to support his lies. Thanks for finding the Bush signed funding. That should shut his fly trap.

          • Judahlevi

            This also takes the wind out of the sail of those leftist trolls who keep harping about Obama’s $3 billion in aid to Israel. It appears he doesn’t have a choice about the matter – he is obligated by a contract signed by Bush.

            And this:

            “But at least as importantly, in this year, when President Obama and the Democrats have crowed so loudly about the enormous funding for Israel’s Arrow systems — two medium- and long-range anti-ballistic missile systems — and David’s Sling, a short-range anti-missile system, President Obama’s proposed budget actually decreased funding for that line item. Congress ignored the President’s effort to reduce funding for Israel’s defense and instead practically doubled the amount requested by the Administration. It was because of Congress that Israel received more “financial and military assistance” during this time period – although it was, indeed, technically, a time period during which Barrack Obama was the president – than ever before.”

          • Judahlevi

            And this:

            “Obama checked the boxes. He did what he had to do in these instances, and not an iota more. Even the Iron Dome funding that Saban touts in the column was one of those “bare minimum” obligations. Financial backing for Iron Dome was part of a deal struck by President Bush in 2007, and Obama fulfilled it. What else was he going to do? Break the promise? Oppose additional funding efforts from congress?”

          • Judahlevi

            And this:

            “A recent issue of The Jerusalem Post revealed a poll that said only 10 percent of Israeli Jews thought Obama was pro-Israel. A whopping 46 percent said that he was pro-Palestine.”

            I think Israelis would know if Obama was helping them or hurting them.

          • hiernonymous

            You plainly don’t know what you are talking about. Funding for Iron Dome, Arrow, and David’s Sling is authorized and procured separately, and in addition to, the $3.1 billion in FMF provided under the terms of the 10-year increase in military assistance.

          • Judahlevi

            And you don’t read well.

            The source mentioned that Obama’s proposed budget (for you, this means it is a separate budget item) had cut funding for missile defense but it was increased by Congress.

          • hiernonymous

            You claimed that the Iron Dome funding was part of the “deal” struck in 2007 by Bush. It is not and never was. The Bush agreement involved increasing the amount of FMF assistance to Israel annually over 10 years for a total of some $30 billion. This money is appropriated through the State/foreign Operations appropriations bills and falls under the strict FMF rules. Iron Dome funding is a completely separate issue. It is now generally a specific line item in the NDA, in the section dealing with missile defense. Out of cycle procurements are dealt with through emergency bills. This Iron Dome authorization was specifically requested by the Obama administration.

            In short, you either have no idea how appropriations for Israeli military aid functions, or you are misrepresenting it. There us precisely no way to honestly portray Iron Dome appropriations as in any way related to Bush Administration policy, decisions, agreements, or appropriations requests.

            Congress routinely bumps up defense appropriations for any number of reasons. In this case, one might speculate that it has something to do with the fact that the system, originally developed and produced by Israel’s Rafael, is now partnered with Raytheon, and something over half of the procured funds are now spent in U.S. constituencies. Or is there any reason that such procurement should be constant or permanent. None of this changes the fact that it was Mr. Obama’s security team that directed the Pentagon to revisit its Iron Dome evaluation, and Mr. Obama’s administration that submitted the request for appropriations to support the system. I trust you are clear on that by now.

          • Judahlevi

            You are about as clear as mud – and just as unrealistic.

            By your own admission, the vast majority of money going to support Israel came from Bush, not Obama. Obama decreased funding for missile defense in his proposed budget for Israel and Congress increased it. If Obama had his way it would have decreased.

            It takes very little knowledge about budgets to know that once the money is transferred, it can be used for almost anything. This is why Palestinian Arabs, like the late Arafat, could amass hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign bank accounts with money earmarked for his government.

            And don’t act like Obama was putting forth most of the money for Israel’s defense – he did not – Bush did. Obama also does not get credit for Iron Dome, the Israelis do. They tested and built it. It is not like he knew that it would be successful. He doesn’t know anything about missile defense systems or even governing a nation for that matter.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Judahlevi AKBAR!

          • hiernonymous

            Please. The U.S. has been providing massive financial assistance to Israel since long before Bush. Thie current 10 year memorandum of understanding succeeds one from the Clinton administration, which succeeded even earlier agreements. Trying to portray military assistance to Israel as a Bush initiative is a farce. But it’s also a diversion.

            The issue in question is your absurd mischaracterization of the origin of the funding for Iron Dome. You very explicitly claimed that Iron Dome was funded under the Bush FMF agreement, and that all that the Obama administration did was not interfere with that funding. You were categorically wrong. Iron Dome funding was a specific initiative of the Obama Administration. The rest is you trying to squirm out from under your error.

            “It takes very little knowledge about budgets…”

            So you demonstrated.

          • Judahlevi

            You still have not learned to read. Show me where I stated that all of Israel’s assistance started with Bush. I will spare you the trouble – it didn’t happen.

            I did not “claim” anything, I provided a quote which claimed something. And frankly, you have not proven it to be incorrect.

            So, the real question is do Israelis believe that Obama is a great friend of theirs and is highly supportive of them? Do they believe he is responsible for their safety today? The answer is a resounding “No!”. And please ask Netanyahu what he really thinks about Obama. Most people react very negatively to arrogant personalities like Obama.

          • hiernonymous

            You wrote that “the vast majority of money going to support Israel came from Bush.” You thus imply that FMF assistance to Israel was a Bush initiative. In fact, there was a longstanding package of economic assistance to Israel comprising about $1.8 billion in FMF and $1.2 billion in economic aid. During the Clinton Administration, the package was re-examined. The economic aid was ended, as Israel was quite clearly a self-sustaining economy by then, and the FMF package was increased to $2.4 billion annually. Bush simply increased that package to an average of $3 billion. So, no, Bush is not responsible for “the vast majority” of military assistance currently going to Israel, he’s responsible for about $600 million out of roughly $3.7 billion (between FMF and the three missile defense programs).

            When you offer quotes in order to advance an argument, you are endorsing them and adopting them as your argument. Yes, I’ve shown it to be wrong. In FY 2010, for example, you will find Iron Dome funding authorized in para 229 of Public Law 111-238, an amendment to the NDA. You will search any NDA for a cent of the “Bush” FMF authorization, or any FMF authorization, in vain, because that program is appropriated through State, not Defense, legislation, even though DoD plays a role in administering the program.

            In short, you are parroting information about a process you plainly do not understand.

            And, no the “real question here” was about the origin of Iron Done financial assistance. But here is a follow-up question for you: if you can’t get your facts straight, and if your understanding of who did what is as fuzzy as you just demonstrated, then why would the grand conclusions you draw from your errors be worth reading? Since you clearly do not understand the nature or history of the FMF assistance, you do not know how Iron Dome was funded, so you have no clear idea of who did or did not “help Israel” in this case, yet that doesn’t stop you from declaiming on the issue. GIGO.

          • Judahlevi

            You have proven nothing other than an obstinate stubbornness to admit that you are wrong. To try to write as if you were an expert in Israeli defense allocations and budgeting is laughable. Please show us your credentials which prove you are a professional in this area. Never mind, you are not.

            And feel free to respond with another lengthy rebuttal which may be verbose but lacks value. For some people, having the last word means they win the argument (in their own minds). As I said, you have proven nothing other than your argument style is wordy, maundering, tortuous, disjointed and basically incoherent.

          • hiernonymous

            An expert? No, but I used to play a small part, professionally. Part of FMF sales are certifications concerning the impact of proposed sales on the region; one of my responsibilities for several years was doing those certifications for a 9-country grouping in the Middle East. So yes, I am familiar with the FMF process.

            “You have proven nothing other than an obstinate stubbornness to admit that you are wrong.”

            Let’s take a look. You claimed that the Iron Dome funding was part of the “Bush” 10-year aid package. I’ve shown you that:
            1. The 10-year aid package is part of the FMF aid process;
            2. FMF funding is appropriated through the State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill;
            3. That Iron Dome funding was requested separately from this process, and
            4. That Iron Dome funding is found, not in the State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill, but in the NDA, and thus
            5. Iron Dome funding is not and cannot be part of the aid package you describe.

            I’m not sure how that could be any clearer, or how you can insist that I have “proven nothing.” You seem to be set on demonstrating the power of invincible ignorance – you will insist that you are correct, though you do not understand what you are talking about.

            On the assumption that, even now, you lack the will to educate yourself, here’s the applicable verbiage from the House version of the FY

          • Judahlevi

            So, you admit to not being an expert which makes this your opinion versus mine. I had already found the information you included, but that verbiage cannot possibly indicate that other funds were not used for Iron Dome or any other Israeli missile defense system. There is also the accumulation of knowledge for any defense system – they are not built from scratch. In addition, the money you indicated was for the purchase of ten Iron Dome systems which had already been developed, not to create it.

            To state that FMF funding had nothing to do with Iron Dome creation and development, or any other Israeli missile defense system, would be false. You admitted that US money was most likely used here:

            “Some of that money might have come from U.S. aid, but it wasn’t designated for Iron Dome.”

            Whether or nor it was “designated” is immaterial, US money was used to develop and create Iron Dome.

            You can write and claim that you have proven this or that, but as I indicated, you have proven nothing. Your claims to proof are not ipso facto proof. It is amazing you would even consider them as such.

            The point of all this is your desire to prove Obama is a wonderful friend of Israel. The truth is, he is not, and the Israelis know he is not – no matter what he funded or didn’t fund.

          • hiernonymous

            “So, you admit to not being an expert which makes this your opinion versus mine.”

            Well, no. I worked with the FMF process professionally, but let’s not rely on argument from authority. I’ve shown you the differing appropriations sources. It’s not a question of “opinions,” it’s a question of facts.

            Which facts are you disputing? That the 10-year military aid package is FMF? That FMF is authorized in the State/Foreign Operations spending bill? That Iron Dome is authorized under the NDA? That the funds for Iron Dome come from the Missile Defense Agency? What fact are you disputing? If you can’t dispute those facts, then, no, it’s not “your opinion versus mine,” it’s “Judahlevi’s unsupported assertion vs an informed opinion backed by supporting fact.”

            To state that FMF funding had nothing to do with Iron Dome creation and development, or any other Israeli missile defense system, would be false. You admitted that US money was most likely used here:

            “Some of that money might have come from U.S. aid, but it wasn’t designated for Iron Dome.”

            FMF funding comes with a string attached – it must be spent buying U.S. systems or U.S. services. To the extent that early Iron Dome procurement might have bought U.S. parts or services, it can’t be ruled out that some of the funding was diverted from FMF sources – but that’s simply being cautious on my part, and not wanting to make a blanket statement that I don’t have facts to back up. Since the early procurement involved violating multiple Israeli protocols, it’s just possible that some FMF funding found its way into the system. That said, that would have constituted a violation of FMF procedures as well as Israeli, and would have jeopardized future assistance, so it’s not likely, and it’s even less likely that such funding constituted any significant portion of the program.

            “Whether or nor it was “designated” is immaterial, US money was used to develop and create Iron Dome.”

            It’s quite material. As I note above, FMF funding doesn’t simply consist of tossing money at the recipient and telling him to spend it as he wills; it must be used in a certain manner, and failure to do so jeopardizes that funding. One of my old professional responsibilities was determining whether countries requesting military assistance had violated the terms of previous acquisitions – this is not a low-stakes game.

            “You can write and claim that you have proven this or that, but as I indicated, you have proven nothing. Your claims to proof are not ipso facto proof. It is amazing you would even consider them as such.”

            They are not proof simply because I say they are. They are proof because the facts support the chain of logic. To recap:

            You claimed that the funding for Iron Dome came from the Bush aid package. Here’s what I’ve shown you. In your next post, rather than plaintively wail that proof isn’t proof, please note which of these specific items you are disputing, and why, and we can revisit the evidence to make sure that we’ve proven that item to your satisfaction.

            1. The aid package is FMF assistance, authorized under the State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill.

            Evidence: Here’s the State Department’s 2008 Budget Request:

            I direct your attention to page 492, where you will find the “Peace and Security” request in the amount of $2.4 billion – you’ll recall that the 2007 increase in funding involved graduated increases by year, and the figure is now about 3.1 billion – and you will see it specifically referenced as FMF.

            Please let me know if you still wish to dispute that the general military aid package to Israel to which you referred as the “Bush” assistance is FMF, or falls under the State Department’s budget.

            2. Iron Dome appropriations are funded through DoD as part of the NDA.

            I have already linked you to a sample NDA and quoted the line item referring to Iron Dome.

            Please let me know if you still wish to dispute that Iron Dome funding falls under the Department of Defense, that it is authorized in the NDA, or that the funding comes out of the Missile Defense Agency’s budget.

            3. The NDA is a separate public law from the State/Foreign Operations appropriations bill. NDA funds Department o fDefense, State/Foreign Operations funds Department of State. They are not the same thing.

            Please let me know if you wish to dispute either of these.

            Note that these are not expressions of opinion. I don’t “believe” that the military aid package to Israel is administered under the State Department’s FMF program – it’s demonstrably so. I don’t “believe” that Iron Dome is authorized under the NDA – it’s there to be read in every year’s NDA, and, when necessary, in emergency authorization bills – such as the one on the table at this moment.

            You are allowing your personal issues to make you write stupid things. This is not a matter of “your opinion versus mine,” it is a matter of very specific, verifiable – and verified – facts. If you wish to dispute any of those facts – if you think for example, that I’ve invented the NDA, and that the line item does not read as I presented it – explain your objection and the facts behind it, and we can have an intelligent conversation about it. Simple obstreperousness on your part, however, doesn’t cut it.

            “The point of all this is your desire to prove Obama is a wonderful friend of Israel.”

            Why, no. The point of all this is to demonstrate that you had exactly no idea what you were talking about when you tried to credit Iron Dome to President Bush. Your “friend of Israel” yammering is fuzzy, meaningless opinionated garbage that isn’t verifiable and is, very much, “your opinion vs mine.” The specific facts behind such opinions, however, are verifiable, so I choose to examine a set – in this case, Iron Dome – and it turns out that the facts are not as you presented them. Your emotional responses to the facts don’t concern me.

          • Judahlevi

            “FMF funding comes with a string attached – it must be spent buying U.S. systems or U.S. services.”

            Absolutely and totally wrong – and if you are wrong about this basic fact, everything else you have said is suspect as well – if one even wants to take the time to review it.

            Here are the “verifiable” and non-emotional facts:

            “Unlike other beneficiaries of Foreign Military Financing, which are legally required to spend funds in the United States, Israel is the only country authorized to set aside one-quarter of its FMF funding for off-shore procurements. This exception provides a significant boost for Israel’s domestic defense industry, helps it to develop indigenous production capacity, and is one of many ways we demonstrate our commitment to meeting Israel’s unique security requirements.”

            QED – Quod Erat Demonstratum – your own “yammering” is flat out wrong. Forget about another blustering, overbearing response that tries to explain your mistake, there is no rationale for it. Facts are facts. But please don’t get “fuzzy” and “emotional” about it because we know that good human beings are non-emotional and reply only with pure logic. In your case, GIGO.

            You are a joke. You come here with your condescending and arrogant attitude and try to inflate your shallow self esteem with argumentative, long-winded, inaccurate and boring posts. Let me give you a clue – this is not a competition. We can do this all day long if that helps your self esteem, but it is not necessary for mine.

          • hiernonymous

            “Absolutely and totally wrong – and if you are wrong about this basic fact, everything else you have said is suspect as well – if one even wants to take the time to review it.”

            Actually, no, it’s not “absolutely and totally wrong.” Here’s the basics on FMF from State:

            Here is the Department of State page on the issue.

            The relevant verbiage (emphasis added):

            Foreign Military Financing (FMF) is a critical foreign policy tool for promoting U.S. interests around the world by ensuring that coalition partners and friendly foreign governments are equipped and trained to work toward common security goals and share burdens in joint missions. In that regard, FMF is vital to supporting U.S. coalition partners in the war on terrorism. FMF provides grants for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment, services and training, which promotes U.S. national security by contributing to regional and global stability…

            You correctly note that Israel receives a partial exemption from the rules of FMF, but only on a quarter of the aid – all this opens the door to is the possibility that some . So, no, I am not incorrect about the nature of FMF assistance, and you will note that I was not incorrect about strings being attached to even Israel’s FMF assistance. The partial exemption you note is not carte blanche to spend as they will, and the bulk of the aid must still be accounted for in terms of purchases of U.S. equipment and training.

            “Facts are facts.”

            Yes, they are. So let’s look at the facts I provided in my last, and see how your revelation impacts them.

            To recap, you claimed that the bulk of Iron Dome funding came from Bush’s aid package. I noted the following facts:

            1. Bush’s aid package was FMF funding. You don’t disagree with that.

            2. Iron Dome funding is appropriated under NDA. You haven’t rebutted that.

            3. FMF and NDA are not the same. You do not refute that.

            Let’s look at the funding history, and compare it to your claim.

            This article traces how Danny Gold got the project going. The initial funding that he diverted from his research budget amounted to $6 million. After encouraging initial results, an additional $10 million was committed. The Israeli government committed $200 million to the project, and approached the U.S. again. The Israeli funding – none of it identified as FMF – bought the first two batteries. The U.S. then provided an initial outlay of over $200 million, and then added over $600 million in additional funding to procure six more batteries.

            So let’s take a look: the program to date has cost about $1 billion. The first fifth was provided by Israel; our 80% has been appropriated through NDA and NDA amendments.

            So here are your facts: You claimed that the funding for Iron Dome came from a Bush aid package (the nature of which you were unclear on), and that all Mr. Obama did was not stop that package. In fact, the roughly $800 million we have provided on Iron Dome has been requested by the Obama administration in specific NDA line items, and is demonstrably not part of the FMF package. If every penny of Israel’s contribution had come from FMF, your statement would still be false. The indisputable fact is that 80% of the funds for Iron Dome are specific Obama Administration procurements.

            Nothing fuzzy or emotional about that, my friend.

            “You are a joke. You come here with your condescending and arrogant attitude and try to inflate your shallow self esteem with argumentative, long-winded, inaccurate and boring posts. Let me give you a clue – this is not a competition. We can do this all day long if that helps your self esteem, but it is not necessary for mine.”

            Not sure why you think it germane to veer off into pop psychology, and don’t really care. It’s not a competition – it’s getting the facts straight. You claimed that Mr. Bush provided the bulk of the funding for Iron Dome, and that Mr. Obama just stood by and let the Bush funding get paid out. That’s demonstrably false. You seem to be upset about that. I don’t really care. Regards.

          • Judahlevi

            Like I said, you have a hard time admitting you are wrong. It is a weakness for some people even when their error is right in front of them.

            Your “facts” are not mine – it is your errors versus my opinion. I told you not to write another post rationalizing your mistake, but you persisted.

            I proved you were wrong, you tried to sidestep it, and that is all we need to know about you and your respect for “facts.”

            But feel free to write another lengthy post spelling out the “facts” as your mind perceives it. It won’t change the fact that you started with garbage and ended with garbage. As I said, we can do this all day if you need to.

          • hiernonymous

            The problem with your post is that I’m not wrong. I’m genuinely curious: you made a bald assertion about Iron Dome being funded by Bush aid, with Obama’ sole contribution being to not interfere.

            You have now been shown, quite clearly, that this is not the case. You know that the $800 million we have committed to Iron Dome was not through the FMF process, and was an Obama Administration initiative. You’ve been shown the specific appropriations. I laid out the supporting evidence, in bold face to help you find it, and invited you to dispute those supporting facts. You have been unable to do so. There can be no further doubt.

            And yet you talk about the inability to admit error.

            Hmmm.

          • Judahlevi

            Yes, I am sure in your ‘mind’ that it all seems so simple – you are right and I am wrong. People who see the world in black and white are like that. The problem is that your mind is not reality.

            In my reality, I have proven you wrong about initial funding, about the use of FMF funds, about Bush’s funding, and about the fact that you are simply stating your opinion without even understanding the basics. It is simple in my mind as well.

            Even when confronted with a blatant error you did not admit you were wrong.

            So, yes, you have a hard time admitting that you are capable of astonishing errors. Again, feel free to come back and try to convince me again that you are right and I am wrong. This may be therapeutic for you. We may even need to go into another day of this.

          • hiernonymous

            Here was your claim: “Even the Iron Dome funding that Saban touts in the column was one of those “bare minimum” obligations. Financial backing for Iron Dome was part of a deal struck by President Bush in 2007, and Obama fulfilled it.”

            You asserted that the financial support that the Obama administration provided to Iron Dome was part of the “deal struck by President Bush in 2007.”

            You are categorically wrong about this. The ‘deal struck by President Bush in 2007′ was an adjustment of U.S. FMF funding.

            The ‘financial support that the Obama administration provided to Iron Dome’ was DoD money, provided in NDA appropriations through the Missile Defense Agency, in response to a request by Israel in 2009 that the U.S. reconsider its earlier demurral.

            To date, Iron Dome has cost $1 billion. $800 million of that is Obama funding demonstrably unconnected to FMF. Can you address that?

            I thought not.

            “So, yes, you have a hard time admitting that you are capable of astonishing errors. Again, feel free to come back and try to convince me again that you are right and I am wrong. This may be therapeutic for you. We may even need to go into another day of this.”

            It’s interesting to see you try to play the 25% exemption as an “astonishing error,” but if it pleases you to do so, knock yourself out. You’ll find that it’s immaterial to the issue, which you continue to dodge – that you asserted that Obama’s contribution was part of a 2007 agreement by Bush, when you’ve been shown hard evidence to the contrary. How, exactly, are you wishing the NDA appropriations away?

          • hiernonymous

            “As I said, you have proven nothing other than your argument style is wordy, maundering, tortuous, disjointed and basically incoherent.”

            Notice that you used five different words where one would have done. Just saying.

          • hiernonymous

            Except that you both got it wrong. Here’s an article by that liberal bastion, the Wall Street Journal, that chronicles the development of Iron Dome. In a nutshell, an IDF general teamed with Rafael to engage in unauthorized use of funds for the initial development. Some of that money might have come from U.S. aid, but it wasn’t designated for Iron Dome, and when the Israelis approached the Bush Pentagon for assistance, they were rebuffed. In 2009, with encouraging early results behind it, Mr. Obama made a specific $200 million request for Iron Dome funding. Portraying his role as simply staying out of the way of Bush-acquired funding is flatly wrong. As usual, you are selectively credulous.

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324712504578136931078468210

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Bush was a friend of Israel, but also a “friend” and dupe of the Saudis.

            0′Bama is a double-talking friend of international socialism and jihad while feigning friendship with every political identity group in existence except for the RP. And even then he simply pretends to be a victim of their “racism” while wanting to be friends with them too.

          • Fred Smith

            Israel is now Saudi Arabia’s new best friend over the Iran issue. Obama is worthless. He cannot make a decision and has a foreign policy based either upon hope or pushing everything out to the next president.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t know about best friend, but they suddenly had to think hard about who is worse between Israel and Iran since the US itself could no longer be counted to keep up its treaties.

  • Franklin25

    Thank you, Senator, for doing the right thing!

  • DogmaelJones1

    He should still ask the five questions. Obama can cry, “No fair! You promised!” Retort? “You, Mr. President, have much to be accountable for. Shall we begin with your border policy?”

    • truebearing

      Absolutely. He never said he wouldn’t ask the questions if they lifted the ban. Obama doesn’t live up to things he promises so he can hardly hold Cruz to something he didn’t promise. Let the crybabies cry. it would be funny to watch them howl about a deal that never existed.

  • Judahlevi

    I agree that he should still go after the answers.

    We have a right to know the answers to see if this is just another political game being played by Obama and Kerry.

    • truebearing

      By backing the FAA (Obama) down, the story now becomes Obama’s animus toward Israel, his unconscionable tactics, his growing weakness, and the ability of Cruz to effortlessly outfox Obama and Kerry, putting them on the defensive. I couldn’t be happier about this. To see someone with courage, great instincts, and a sharp strategic mind make these fools look like the clowns they are makes my day..

      • gerry

        Not very difficult to outfox Obama or Kerry.

        • truebearing

          The Republicans have shown little evidence of that, with the exception of people like Cruz or Gowdy.

      • The March Hare

        Now if only word of this happening would spread through the MSM instead of being ignored we might start to get somewhere.

        • truebearing

          For the most part they will try to ignore it, but even MSNBC idiots are criticizing Obama now, and the media has its own survival to consider. With wheels coming off Obama’s bus, they have to be careful.

          Perhaps the bigger reason they won’t report this is that they justifiably fear a Cruz ascendancy. He handles the press well and he would destroy Hillary or Squaw Lying Dog Warren in a debate.

      • n o

        so after how many commercial jets have gone down lately, had one got shot down over Israel you would have called for Obama’s head for not banning flights. FAA is doing its job.

        Cruz is playing political theater… no different than rooster thinking the sun rises because it crows.

        as for Israel and Obama look up – support of Iron Dome, – advanced radar Negev,- iran world boycott oil and currency – usa takes name off treaty and allows Russia to ship advanced missiles to Iran.

        longer list but that is a start

        check the answer and tell us who is, and is not, looking out for israel

        • truebearing

          You’re delusional and dishonest, but then all Obamorons are.

          • hiernonymous

            What did he say that was dishonest?

  • Tabitha Bliss

    For absolute proof it was politically motivated, see the story from earlier today at politico “Hamas aide: Israel airport targeted”.
    Of course they (Hamas), was taking a cue from Obama that targeting the airport was a winning strategy… But the FAA issuing the OK after the threat was finally made says so much.
    As usual, thank you Sen Cruz for standing on the right side of this matter & calling out the WH!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Cruz is the unofficial people’s whip.

    • truebearing

      He’s the only Republican that really knows how to crack the whip, and the Left fears him.

      • UCSPanther

        Hence their visceral hatred. Sarah Palin is just behind him on their hate list.

        • Drakken

          You know your over the target by the amount of flak your getting.

          • Judahlevi

            Excellent analogy.

          • UCSPanther

            Exactly.

            And you know you hit the target when they start wailing loudly…

          • hiernonymous

            So on D-Day, we were just proving that Hitler was right?

  • truebearing

    Cruz has great political instincts, and the Obama administration is definitely wary of tangling with him. Though unlikely, it would be fantastic to see the Republicans take the Senate in a big way and make Cruz the Majority Leader. Obama would have an aneurysm.

    Cruz for president is another pleasant thought.

    • JDinSTL

      It keeps Mitch awake at night

  • Hank Rearden

    Huzzah!

  • Savingstone

    Exactly…they were caught red handed and would have had to reveal identities. Furthermore, they have unwittingly invalidated one of Hamas supporters’ key argument “legitimizing” rocket attacks…i.e. supposedly the rockets are “harmless” and “don’t have exploding warheads” etc etc…if this is the case what was the danger posed by such “firecrackers”?

    • Gee

      Also ignoring the fact that there is an Iron Dome battery protecting Ben Gurion and that it let’s anything harmless go and takes out those that could cause harm

  • Svietka Riv

    thank u sir, 5questions that solved a whole lot of problems and most important-did not give victory to hamas

  • jsw7533

    Brilliant, Senator Cruz! We need 99 more just like you!

  • WGO

    I was wondering if the move was a political one as well…Thank you Senator Cruz!

    • Pete

      We all know it was.

      So even though they lifted the flight ban, the White House’s political machinations need to be investigated and aired for all to see.

  • Hanita

    Thank God for those brave enough to speak up and make things right.

  • Joan B.

    From Joan: Thank you Senator Cruz for your pursuit of the truth and for more judicious treatment of Israel.

  • Captlee

    Now even the FAA has been politicized thanks to our POtuS.
    Thank you Sen Cruz for fighting back.

    • Gee

      The US Census Bureau was transferred to the White House the first week of Odumba’s regime. That way he has control of all the statistics

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    It’s wonderful to wake-up to good news. Just one brave Senator speaking truth to power …

  • Barbara Hendricks DeVanna

    Thank you Senator – loved what you did today with regards to chuck schumer & 46 other dems attempting to infringe on our First Amendment Right too (they keep hoping we aren’t paying attention) you are like a pit bull going against the status quo – love it

  • Nick Cameron

    Of course this was politically motivated. This is the anti-Israel Obama regime we are talking about here. 47M to Hamas, 2.8B to Iran, 11B arms deal to Qatar. Does anyone really need to ask what side Obama is on?

  • drbob232

    I am glad that Senator Cruz is on top of this one. But why would the FAA care about holding up appointments to the State Department? Isn’t the FAA under the Department of Transportation?

    Well, no matter, who needs a bunch of aviation safety experts telling us where we can and cant land. If I want to fly and land in an airport where rockets are faliing i should have that right.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      The White House would care. And if the political decision came through the White House, rather than the FAA… Cruz’s threat would be effective.

      Which it was.

      • drbob232

        I see ; so since you say that Cruz’s threat was effective, it must have been the White House that directed the FAA decision. Do you seriously believe that the White House would take the unprecedented and possibly illegal action of influencing the decisions of an independent federal agency just to close Ben Gurion airport for a few days? Do you have any evidence to this effect?

        • Gee

          This White House? You have to ask if this White House would commit an “illegal action of influencing the decisions of an independent agency” – that is your question – really?

          Have you ever heard of the EPA or the IRS?

          • drbob232

            Yes that is my question and whether you have a shred of evidence or fact to support your accusations?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            The decision was obviously political. Therefore, it came from the WH.

          • Webb

            What do you think? Shitt for brains.

          • Gee

            Evidence – what planet do you live on? The IRS has admitted in court in writing to their illegal political actions. Trying looking up Z Street.

            As for the EPA – you really have to be dense to have missed ALL of their bizarre rulings that even the courts are starting to slap them down with their illegal fines

        • Nick Cameron

          And you — seriously — believe this wasn’t a politically motivated decision? Still believe in Santa, do you?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It wasn’t even unprecedented before Obama. It certainly isn’t unprecedented under him.

          That’s what the IRS scandal is about.

          But we’ll resolve the question if Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests get answered.

          • phineasgage

            Why not submit a FOIA request to the FAA, State, and White House for records related to this decision as well?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            As I said, I believe JW is on this.

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          Are you serious? This is the White House that directed the IRS to take illegal action against Conservative groups. No administrative agency is “independent” of the radical Obama, and in fact we may question whether the FAA should be independent of the President. The point is that this action was so obviously political in character, designed to strong-arm Israel into an ill-advised cease-fire, that it had to come from the WH.

      • drbob232

        So the FAA has answered your questions and there was no White House conspiracy afer all.

  • PATRIOT.WW48

    Keep going TED.!!!!!!

  • sotarrthewizard

    I expect an epidemic of hard drive crashes at FAA, beginning. . . yesterday. . .

  • sotarrthewizard

    I’ll ALSO note. . . that Werewolves vote Republican. . . . (grin)

    http://www.rhjunior.com/werewolves-vote-republican/

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Zombies vote democrat.

      A dead brain is necessary to vote democrat.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Those without a soul vote Obama/Reid/Pelosi//Biden democrat.

  • Habbgun

    We have just one Republican that shows leadership and strength. He stood up to Obamacare being shoved down Americans throats and he is standing up for Israel. Would that we have Jewish members of Congress who will stand up for Cubans in return but somehow I don’t think the Schumer types are up to it.

    Where are the “electable” Republicans in all this? Doing what is electable about them. They are electing to stay quiet. They are electing to take money and they are electing to work with the Left.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      To be fair to some of the others, they don’t get much media coverage. Cruz is in the spotlight because the media tried to discredit him as they always do to the “dangerous” conservatives, but Cruz prevailed.

  • mikeburke

    Clearly, this is all political. This administration should be forever ashamed of its approach to supporting our allies (everywhere, not just the Israelis). Interesting that we ban the flights under the pretense of protecting American passengers. From whom? Oh, we are protecting them from Hamas rocket attacks? If so, the why do we give $40 billion to the Palestinians at the same time? So, we are banning flights to guard you from the people we are supporting with tax dollars. When it was discovered that Yasser Arafat had a zillion dollars and a huge apartment in Paris bought with US aid money, didn’t anyone take note? There is just so much corruption in all of our government. But, to me, the left is clearly the most corrupt (that is saying a lot considering who is on the right!). Truly, it is also beyond me how ANY Jew can vote for a Democrat. Like they do all people, the Democrats use the Jews to gain political power.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      The 0′Bama administration is neo-Marxism on steroids. It’s unprecedented. The sort of knee-jerk reaction and natural assumption that the entire administration goes by is that all conflict and strife are rooted in material need. Until “oppression” (freedom driven by free market capitalism) is solved, all you can do is compensate by appeasing angry people.

      The more intelligent analysts realize that in making these “adjustments” you also add value to malicious behavior. In other words, we’ve created incentives to behave badly. On a global scale. It pays. On a global scale.

      Crime pays under communists and dupes of communism. Most “communist” dupes get their thinking from the broad array of neo-Marxist materialist arguments.

      And this kind of thinking is propagated at Western universities (and many others throughout the globe) every single day that class is in session. Period. For many decades now.

  • KelliAFranklin

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

    ✒✒✒✒✒✒ JOBS7000.CO­­­M

    =================================

  • maggiejcarter

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

    ✒✒✒✒✒✒ Jobs7000.Com

    ================================

  • Elise Meshel

    Senator Cruz I saw you on FNC last night Thank you for probing to get answers to restablish air travel to Israel

  • 1Indioviejo1

    Senator Cruz is a stand-up guy. To bad American Jews will mostly vote for Hillary. They help elect Obama and should hang their heads in shame.

  • Bash Brannigan

    No need to read between the lines with Cruz! Good job, Senator.

  • bobro

    Senator Cruz is one of the few public figures with integrity and guts! No wonder the coward politicians hate him.

  • JDinSTL

    Cruz for President.

    I’m in for the individual maximum contribution.

  • Libslayer

    I smell Obama.

  • Libslayer

    Cruz/Palin 2016
    My dream ticket.

  • Fred Smith

    Cruz called this one right. At least he had the guts to make this public. Once again, the Jews were held to an entirely different standard. Surprisingly, this is coming more and more from the United States.

  • donqpublic

    Curious how lifting the ban so expeditiously answered those five questions.

  • v

    Now that is a statesman, not a politicia with moral values and standards, NOT CORRUPT like this whole freeking administration. By the way where is John Boehner on this.

  • nelly2004

    Ted Cruz for President- it they don’t nominate him- the people should put him in as a third party candidate. He is the only one calling the corruptness out and is a true American patriot.
    That’s why they are tryint to neutralize him on hbo’s true blood.
    I use to watch that show, it sucks now but even if it didn’t their attacks on conservatives deserves a boycott.