Poll Results--Debt Limit

The result of our most recent poll showed that 50% of our voters said that they thought that not lifting the debt limit would have catastrophic results. 12 1/2% said nothing would occur and another 12 1/2% thought the result would be something else. The remaining 25% thought we would experience a drop in dollar value. 

In summary, 75% thought the results would be negative, a point that I do not necessarily agree with, however, I would never say that I was a world finance expert.  Is this the response to the Treasury Secretary's warning? 

I am more in the group that thinks nothing will happen, so paint me naive if you want. I would hope that I am right and the majority wrong.  I guess time will tell.

Your opinions are welcome.

Representative Alan West On Israel and Obama

The more I read about Representative Alan West, the more I like him.  In an article by Jonathon M. Seidel in the Blaze on May 19, 2011, it is apparent that the Representative is one of the most ardent supporters of Israel that we have in the U. S. Congress.  His clear thinking and understanding of history makes him a very strong counter puncher to the President. Those of you who are represented in Florida's 22nd District, should be proud of him.

Anyone who agrees with the President should reflect on history.  In the 30's Germany was allowed to annex a part of Czechoslovakia without a whimper from world leadership.  The thought was that the Reich would be satisfied with the new territory.  Within weeks, the country of Czechoslovakia disappeared. The lesson learned by Hitler is that the world would let him do anything  he wanted.  Is that what Obama has communicated to the Palestinians when it comes to Israel?  I believe that is so.

Many people have thought that the President is a closet Muslim and one can only wonder if that is true when measured against the stand he took on Thursday.  This is the first time in the history of Israel that an American President has tried to push the country into a position which would be national suicide.  Who but a Muslim would do this?  I believe that is something to ponder.

But getting back to Representative West, I wish I would see the same passion from Jewish legislators, especially those from the Democratic Party.  Are they so compromised due to their party allegiance? I just googled Senator Carl Levin and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, two leaders of the Democratic Party. and cannot find any mention of opposition to the President's statements. (If Simeon's can point  to a statement condemning Obama, please let me know and I will post a retraction.)  Am I surprised?  Really no, it is apparent that they are political hacks and just because they are Jewish does not mean they are willing to speak up against the head of their party.

In the concentration camps there were Jews who worked with the Nazis, they were called Capos. In many cases, these Jews were more violent and cruel to their fellow inmates than the Nazis.  Could our Jewish representatives be the Capos of our generation? 

Please read the attached article and Representative West's statement, I believe you will find it enlightening.  As usual, your comments are welcome.

Allen West on Obama Backing Palestinian Demand: 'Could Be the Beginning of the End' for Israel

Jonathon M. Seidl - The Blaze, May 19th, 2011

Tea Party Rep. Allen West has just issued a response to Obama‘s announcement that he backs the Palestinians’ demand that Israel redraw its borders to where they were in 1967. Not only did he call the move the “most egregious foreign policy decision” the administration has made, but he also feared this “could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.”
“The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism,” West said in an e-mail.
“Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.”
He concluded with some harsh criticisms: “President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people.”
West has been an outspoken supporter of Israel in the past. Back in January he delivered a speech at the Americans Against Hate Pro-Israel Conference in Fort Lauderdale, FL:
West wasn’t the only one to respond with harsh criticism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the 1967 lines “indefensible.”
Read West’s full statement below:

(WASHINGTON) — Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:
“Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.
Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.
America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas
It’s time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.
While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: ‘Who will now lead in Egypt?‘ and ’Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?’
President Obama has not stood for Israel or the Jewish people and has made it clear where the United States will stand when Palestine attempts to gain recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The President should focus on the real obstacle to security- the Palestinian leadership and its ultimate goal to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people

Another View of The Israel Obama Conflict

In a post on Unity Coalition for Israel.org (UCI)   dated  May 17, 2011, Yoram Ettinger of Ynetnews gives us another foreign view of the current conflict between Israel and Obama.   I hope he is right and that Obama will not push Israel. Or is he being too analytical and missing the real driving forces that make up the President.  What do you think?

 

No American Pressure on Israel

Yoram Ettinger - YnetNews, May 17th, 2011

President Obama intends to leverage the elimination of Bin Laden and intensify pressure on Israel. However, the capability of an American President to exert pressure in the international arena is a derivative of his domestic clout, especially when it comes to pressuring the Jewish State. Most Americans consider the Jewish State not only an international issue, but also a domestic issue, related to the Judeo-Christian foundations of the USA, enjoying an inherent bi-partisan high-level public and congressional support.
On May 20, 2011, Prime Minister Netanyahu will meet with President Obama, whose frail popularity constitutes a burden upon Democratic incumbents and candidates as we approach the November 2012 election. The President struggles to gain public support for his legislative agenda and for his reelection campaign, in spite of the overwhelming support of his authorization to eliminate Bin Laden (80%).
On May 20, Netanyahu will meet a president who seeks enhanced cooperation with Congress, lest he become a lame-duck president failing to be reelected in 2012. However, most legislators oppose pressure on the Jewish State, whose solid support is a rare bipartisan common denominator during an era of heated polarization on Capitol Hill. Obama will try to pressure Netanyahu, but will not sacrifice his key goal – a second term – on the altar of the Palestinian issue. Obama is familiar with Tip O'Neill's assertion that “All politics is local.” He has learned from his predecessors that external success usually does not rid presidents of domestic woes.
For instance, Bush 41st surged from 39% to 85% popularity following the 1991 Gulf War. Bush also benefitted from the dismantling of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall – significantly more dramatic developments than the elimination of Bin Laden. Therefore, major Democratic candidates were deterred from challenging Bush in November 1992, which paved the road for the relatively unknown Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton. In contrast to Bush, who was preoccupied with foreign and national security issues, Clinton adhered to the advice of James Carville and Paul Begala: “It's the economy, stupid!” As constituents turned their attention back to economic and health problems, Bush's Gulf War “bonus” gradually dissipated. On election day President Bush reverted to his real political popularity – 38% – and Clinton won.
Presidents Wilson and FDR were heroes of WW1and WW2 – dramatically more notable events than the slaying of Bin Laden – but they lost Democratic majorities in both congressional chambers in the 1918 and 1946 elections. Bush 43rd gained a 35% popularity bonus following 9/11 and the 2003 apprehension of Saddam Hussein, but he barely won in 2004 (51%:48%). His role in the economic meltdown triggered GOP election devastation in November 2008.
The killing of Bin Laden has accorded President Obama an extremely slim, soft and short-term bonus. The counter-terrorism global milestone is unrelated to the long-term issues haunting Obama at home: unemployment, the price of gasoline, the deficit, the national debt, taxation, the mortgage and pension funds crises, declining housing values, the threat of inflation and recession, potential insolvency of states and municipalities, health reform, etc.
Ridding humanity of Bin Laden deserves much praise, but its impact on Obama's domestic clout is minimal, and it does not provide the President with a public or congressional mandate to pressure the Jewish State. Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage public and Capitol Hill support and fend off pressure attempts by President Obama, who has been transformed from a coattail-president to an anchor-chained president? Will Netanyahu leverage the seismic developments in Arab lands – which have exposed the marginal role played by the Palestinian issue in shaping the Middle East agenda – and focus on the need to enhance strategic cooperation between the USA and the Jewish State, in order to face the mounting

Israel and Obama Strangebedfellows or Enemies

Today's speech by President Obama will either strengthen the ties between Israel and the United States or break them. I think the latter will be the result. However, can Israel exist without its big brother or will this result in a break this is reconcilable?

In his speech today at the State Department among other topics, President Obama introduced his requirement which starts (not ends) with Israel retreating to pre-1967 borders. If taken literally, that would mean that Jerusalem would no longer be under Israeli administration but would be returned to Jordanian hands. If this would occur, the Western Wall would be off-limits to Jews (as it was before 1967) and those Jews who have purchased apartments in Jerusalem would have to be relocated which is similar to what ooccurred in Gaza.  Can any Israeli government survive when it gives up Jerusalem for peace?  I do not think so.

Additionally,Samaria and Judea would be made part of the Palestinian State and those developments would also be abandoned.  Would these inhabitants leave peacefully?  I doubt it.

It appears to this observer that Netnayahu has a real problem.  Does he upset Washington (Obama) by telling the President tomorrow that he will not go along with this proposal or does he upset Israel by caving into the demands set out by the President. Initial press releases seem to indicate the prior will be the answer. I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear the give and take, however,  it will not be a pleasant meeting for either side.

My observations of President Obama tell me that he will not take the Israeli Prime Minister's reluctance to accept the proposal as a positive. Unless Bibbi changes his mind, I expect a Chicago-like response such as the following:

    1. In any upcoming armed conflict, the United States WILL NOT support Israel in any way. No military hardware, no dollars, no support in the UN.
    2. Over the next 2 years (which could be more or less), foreign aid to Israel will be cut to zero

    3. Any incursion into Palestinian areas will not be supported. The US will not block any actions by the Security Council and will allow the UN to "protect" the Palestinians under the "obligation to protect" provisions used to justify the UN's actions in Libya. (This could result in UN troops being interjected  into Israel and legal actions being taken against the Israeli leaders by the World Court.)

    4. Should Bibbi still not agree, the final hammer will be that the United States will go to the UN and have Israel declared a pariah nation (like Iraq, Iran or South Africa during apartheid) and ask for censure and penalties. After this is done, American citizens will be prohibited by Federal Law to send any money to Israel.

If he does this successfully, Obama will have completely isolated Israel which would leave it vulnerable to attack from its hostile neighbors. Would the attack be successful?  Could Israel survive such an attack?  Would other US Congressional leaders intervene and resume the aid?  All good questions, I hope we do not have to get the answers.

The State Department has never been a friend of Israel so this is a major victory for them. For the first time since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, they are close to getting this tiny country on the ropes. They must be ecstatic.  They now have a President who sees the world the same way they do. A world without Israel.

Where do you stand? With Israel or with the State Department and President Obama? Will Obama really drop the hammer? Or am I just a worry wart?

Let's discuss it.