Levin Proves He Is More Of A Politician Than A Senator

Carl Levin, one of our Senators from Michigan proved that he would rather wordsmith than to really find out the facts. We hate that from our representatives.  How can we trust what they say when we know they are not looking out for our interests but rather their own.
We expected more of Levin, since he has announced that he will not run when his term expires in 2014. It could not be soon enough for us! He has not been a supporter of Michigan, the military or Israel (even though he is Jewish). Instead he has walked the Democratic line dutifully.  Good riddance.
The following post shows how out of touch he is. Instead of asking straight forward questions, he pre-determines the answer by the question he asked.  Then he promotes the answer as it it came down from on high. What a fraud.
Conservative Tom 

Playing word games while Iran builds bombs

By Rebeccah Heinrichs - 06/17/13 02:00 PM ET

  

Politicians sometimes use word games and bureaucratic trickery to stop initiatives they disagree with. The most recent example: Sen. Carl Levin’s (D-Mich.) June 6 letter to the head of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, ardently opposes building a missile defense facility on the East Coast.  Disturbed that the House is considering a proposal to develop an East Coast site, Levin fired off a letter to Vice Admiral James D. Syring asking if there exists a “validated military requirement” for the missile defense site.

Syring, the director of the MDA, dutifully responded, “No.”  Levin then triumphantly posted the letter on his website, under a headline screaming, “Senior officers: ‘No validated military requirement’ for East Coast missile defense site.”

Understandably, this presentation led many lawmakers and members of the press to believe that there is no military justification for the site.  But that’s not at all what the “senior officers” were saying.

The simple fact is: there is no “validated military requirement” supporting any missile defense program. Even President Obama’s “European Phased Adaptive Approach” for European missile defenses lacks such validation. Why?  Because the MDA is officially excused from having to go through the time-consuming, bureaucratic rigmarole of producing “validated military requirements.” 

Levin knows this. It’s why he used that terminology in his query.  It was bound to elicit a “no,” which could then be used to mislead people into thinking that an East Coast missile defense site would serve no valid purpose.

But the reality is this: Intelligence assessments have found repeatedly that Iran is moving forward in developing long-range missiles.  A recent IAEA report confirmed Tehran is making great progress on its nuclear program as well. Clearly, a capability to intercept Iranian missiles is more crucial than ever.

Even President Obama, no friend of missile defense, recognizes that we need a missile defense site to mitigate the Iranian threat. This was the mission of the SM-3IIB, the missile defense system he planned to deploy in Europe. The administration later cancelled this program for several reasons: technical problems, Russian objections, and the State Department’s desire to reach an arms control agreement with Moscow. But the security rationale behind erecting that defense remains wholly valid.

Admiral Syring’s response acknowledged that an East Coast site would provide “operational capability”—something we really need.  But his letter noted there could be more “cost-effective near term” alternatives to an East Coast site.

Again, lawmakers must read between the lines. Would more interceptors in the California and Alaska sites we already have be helpful? Yes. Would improving the systems we already have in place be helpful? Undoubtedly. And the U.S. should do them. But the U.S. should not implement the cheapest options in place of the option that would provide significantly increased security.

Lt. Gen. Henry “Trey” Obering III (USAF, ret.), a former MDA Director, and other senior military officers have made it clear an additional site would be uniquely helpful.  As Gen. Charles H. Jacoby, commander of the U.S. Northern Command told the Senate Armed Services Committee: “What a third site gives me, whether it’s on the East Coast or an alternate location, would be increased battle space; that means increased opportunity for me to engage threats from either Iran or North Korea.”

When it comes to national security, there’s no place for word games and petty partisanship. Lawmakers should work together to fund and ensure deployment of a third site as quickly as possible.
 
Heinrichs, an expert on nuclear deterrence and missile defense, is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/305739-playing-word-games-while-iran-builds-bombs#ixzz2WVOywbi9 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

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