---
Elliot Abrams writes about Palestine not being a state. What his article failed to 'state' is that Palestine is not a state because Palestinians remain in a 'fitful state. ' that prevents them obtaining legal status. (See 2 below.
---
You are probably not very interested in any used farm equipment but thought you might like to see this ad taken from Craigs List: "Fifty-year old manure spreader. Not sure of brand. Said to have been produced in Kenya . Used for a few years in Indonesia before being smuggled into the US via Hawaii . Of questionable pedigree. Does not appear to have ever been worked very hard. Apparently it was pampered by various owners over the years. It doesn't work very often, but when it does it can really spread the manure and sling it for amazing distances. I am hoping to retire this manure spreader next November. But I really don't want it hanging around getting in the way. I would prefer a foreign buyer that is willing to relocate this manure spreader out of the country. I would be willing to trade this manure spreader for a nicely framed copy of the United States Constitution."
And then:
The problem with political jokes is
they get elected.
~ Henry Cate, VII
We hang the petty thieves
and appoint the great ones to public office.
~ Aesop
If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us
in these acceptance speeches
there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven.
~ Will Rogers
Those who are too smart to engage in politics
are punished by being governed
by those who are dumber.
~ Plato
When I was a boy I was told
that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it
~ Clarence Darrow
Why pay money to have your family tree traced;
go into politics and
your opponents will do it for you.
~ Author Unknown
If God wanted us to vote,
he would have given us candidates.
~ Jay Leno
Politicians are people who,
when they see light at the end of the tunnel,
go out and buy some more tunnel.
~ John Quinton
Politics is the gentle art of
getting votes from the poor
and campaign funds from the rich,
by promising to protect each from the other.
~ Oscar Ameringer
I offer my opponents a bargain:
if they will stop telling lies about us,
I will stop telling the truth about them.
~ Adlai Stevenson
Campaign Speech, 1952
A politician is a fellow who
will lay down your life for his country.
~ Texas Guinan
Any American who is prepared to run for president
should automatically, by definition,
be disqualified from ever doing so.
~ Gore Vidal
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession .
I have come to realize that it
bears a very close resemblance to the first.
~ Ronald Reagan
Politics:
[Poly "many" + tics "blood-sucking parasites"]
~ Larry Hardiman
Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city,
it might be better to change the locks.
~ Doug Larson
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
~ Author Unknown
There ought to be one day
-- just one --
when there is open season on senators.
~ Will Rogers
What, if anything, do the postings above have to do with our current president who smokes a brand that also comes in a 'pack of lies.'
Hope and Change - Despair and racial discord
Govern all the people - divide and conquer
Energy independence - oppose it
Alternate energy - consecutive bankruptcies
America will be loved and respected - Iran, Syria, Egypt, N Korea, Russia
Reduce Unemployment - now higher
Balance budget - More debt than ever
Open government - Chicago cronyism back in style
Protect borders - Sue Arizona
Cheaper/better health care - 2800 pages of bureaucracy
By now you get the point - like a stick in the eye!
---
Now for some humor and cartoons:
THE BLONDE WHO MARRIED A CATHOLIC
On their honeymoon, the blonde bride slipped into a sexy nightie and, with great anticipation, crawled into bed,only to find her Catholic husband had settled down on the couch.
When she asked him why he was apparently not going to make love to her, he replied, 'It's Lent.'
In tears, she sobbed, 'Well, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
Who did you lend it to, and for how long?"
Yesterday I had lunch with my favorite Minister and, as always, we discussed the state of affairs. I mentioned these had to be very fertile times for sermons and someone in his profession because there was so much change taking place in the world of public and personal morality.
The conversation then turned to the episodic events shaking the foundations of our Republic and whether America would really be able to survive in recognizable form or were we going the way of all once great nations.
The elite media and artistic types have turned against God and traditional family structure, our country is being led by a pandering divisive incompetent who is outside the mainstream and is drowning us in a divide and conquer strategy that appeals to the nation's growing number of uneducated and unreasoning. Those increasingly dependent upon government whose feelings of resentment make them ripe for the demagogue's siren song message.
My minister friend could not understand why those who lived in the greatest nation on earth, enjoyed the greatest freedoms and upward mobility of any peoples, lived in a nation that had overcome the ravages of a Civil War and had healed and moved forward,were so discontent and easily swayed.
I responded the less traveled have no idea of how bad it is somewhere else.
As always a pleasure to be with this truly decent man who is very much and justifiably loved by those in his congregation. I introduced him to another friend who was having lunch in the same room and he asked: 'Dick has he converted you yet?' and I responded: ' we do not go there.'
---
Black pride went the way of dependency according to this black author.Trade aspirations of improvement for political slavery.(See 3 below.)
---
An interesting take on Romney's persona and reserved charisma. I attribute Romney's public uncomfortablness to his Mormon religion and middle west upbringing.
I believe the more America comes to really know Romney they will warm to him and the contrast between this decent and competent man and our narcissistic incompetent president will become increasingly evident and more appealing.(See 4 below.)
---
Laffer: Obama gets it, he just does not care because he is hell bent on our destruction (change) through wealth transference under the guise of being for the under-dog.. (See 5 below.)
---
My computer guru friend and fellow memo reader assists a major Israeli Newspaper with their IT needs. He recently wanted to get their take on the mood in Israel towards Obama's statement about having 'Israel's back.' My friend told me last night Israelis overwhelmingly do not trust Obama. (See 6 and 6a below.)
And finally the knife in the back? It was only a matter of time. (See 6b below.)
---
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Charles Krauthammer: Obama v. SCOTUS
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
— Barack Obama, on the constitutional challenge to his health-care law, April 2
“Unprecedented”? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. “Strong majority”? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes.
In his next-day walk back, the president implied that he was merely talking about the normal “restraint and deference” the courts owe the legislative branch. This concern would be touching if it weren’t coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation — Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states — that fealty to it is the party’s litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.
With Obamacare remaking one-sixth of the economy, it would be unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation so broad and sweeping. On the other hand, it is far more unusual to pass such a fundamentally transformative law on such a narrow, partisan basis.
Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party — in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, moreover, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.
The president’s preemptive attack on the court was in direct reaction to Obamacare’s three days of oral argument. It was a shock. After years of contemptuously dismissing the very idea of a legal challenge, Democrats suddenly realized there actually is a serious constitutional argument to be made against Obamacare — and they are losing it.
Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?
Liberals were quick to blame the administration’s bumbling solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, for blowing the answer. But Clarence Darrow couldn’t have given it. There is none.
Justice Stephen Breyer tried to rescue the hapless Verrilli by suggesting that by virtue of being born, one enters into the “market for health care.” To which plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Carvin devastatingly replied: If birth means entering the market, Congress is omnipotent, authorized by the commerce clause to regulate “every human activity from cradle to grave.”
Q.E.D.
Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”
Really? The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn’t even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they’ve grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare’s constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.
As was Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.
— Barack Obama, on the constitutional challenge to his health-care law, April 2
“Unprecedented”? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. “Strong majority”? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes.
In his next-day walk back, the president implied that he was merely talking about the normal “restraint and deference” the courts owe the legislative branch. This concern would be touching if it weren’t coming from the leader of a party so deeply devoted to the ultimate judicial usurpation — Roe v. Wade, which struck down the abortion laws of 46 states — that fealty to it is the party’s litmus test for service on the Supreme Court.
With Obamacare remaking one-sixth of the economy, it would be unusual for the Supreme Court to overturn legislation so broad and sweeping. On the other hand, it is far more unusual to pass such a fundamentally transformative law on such a narrow, partisan basis.
Obamacare passed the Congress without a single vote from the opposition party — in contradistinction to Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid, similarly grand legislation, all of which enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. In the Senate, moreover, Obamacare squeaked by through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation that was never intended for anything so sweeping. The fundamental deviation from custom and practice is not the legal challenge to Obamacare but the very manner of its enactment.
The president’s preemptive attack on the court was in direct reaction to Obamacare’s three days of oral argument. It was a shock. After years of contemptuously dismissing the very idea of a legal challenge, Democrats suddenly realized there actually is a serious constitutional argument to be made against Obamacare — and they are losing it.
Here were highly sophisticated conservative thinkers — lawyers and justices — making the case for limited government, and liberals weren’t even prepared for the obvious constitutional question: If Congress can force the individual into a private contract by authority of the commerce clause, what can it not force the individual to do? Without a limiting principle, the central premise of our constitutional system — a government of enumerated powers — evaporates. What, then, is the limiting principle?
Liberals were quick to blame the administration’s bumbling solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, for blowing the answer. But Clarence Darrow couldn’t have given it. There is none.
Justice Stephen Breyer tried to rescue the hapless Verrilli by suggesting that by virtue of being born, one enters into the “market for health care.” To which plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Carvin devastatingly replied: If birth means entering the market, Congress is omnipotent, authorized by the commerce clause to regulate “every human activity from cradle to grave.”
Q.E.D.
Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare because with the “five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.”
Really? The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it “a train wreck.” It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Democrats are reeling. Obama was so taken aback, he hasn’t even drawn up contingency plans should his cherished reform be struck down. Liberals still cannot grasp what’s happened — the mild revival of constitutionalism in a country they’ve grown so used to ordering about regardless. When asked about Obamacare’s constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.
As was Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Is Palestine A State?
Posted on April 4, 2012 11:18 am
by Elliott Abrams
by Elliott Abrams
Is Palestine a state? The International Criminal Court answered this question this week, and said no.
The Palestinian Authority, apparently calling itself the “Government of Palestine,” tried to lodge a complaint against Israel at the ICC. As American courts would do, the ICC first had to decide if it had jurisdiction. As its statement notes, the ICC has jurisdiction over a matter only when the UN Security Council or a “state” provide it. So is “Palestine” a state?
The Court’s answer was no, as it explained:
The Office has been informed that Palestine has been recognised as a State in bilateral relations by more than 130 governments and by certain international organisations, includingUnited Nation bodies. However, tthe current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of “observer”, not as a “Non‐member State”. The Office understands that on 23 September 2011, Palestine submitted an application for admission to the United Nations as a Member State in accordance with article 4(2) of the United Nations Charter, but the Security Council has not yet made a recommendation in this regard.
Two comments are worth making. First, the ICC’s prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, should be congratulated for upholding legal standards despite obvious political pressures. He went by the book. Moreno Ocampo’s nine year term ends in June, and his successor, Fatou Bensouda of Gambia, should be equally careful and judicious. As she has been his deputy since 2004, one can hope that this will be the case.
Second, the Palestinian failure in the United Nations last year is what produced this dismissal of their complaint. They did not seek the status of “non-member state” from the General Assembly but insisted on having full membership in the UN as a sovereign state accorded by the Security Council. This the United States rightly blocked, preventing the PLO from attaining the necessary number of Security Council votes even to require an American veto in order to block their plan. The PLO is reaping what its diplomacy sowed in 2011.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) What Happened to Black Pride?
By Kevin Jackson
For a few decades, black Liberals have settled for anything. Fake watches, fake purses, and especially fake leaders. If the black Liberal community were truthful, they would admit their disappointment in Barack Obama.
If Obama were a basketball player, he would be the equivalent of the guy who couldn't inbound the ball or constantly double-dribbles. He's the guy to whom you just quit passing the ball; because when he gets the ball, he always shoots and always misses.
What happened to black pride? There was a time when black people didn't settle for failures like Obama; they expected more from blacks who were blessed to get the opportunity for greatness. Whether it was sports, entertainment, or politics, blacks who were set up for something transcendental carried the expectation of the entire black race on their shoulders. Much was riding on his or her success, regardless of the role.
Each time the baton was passed, the next black understood the obligation to represent, to show the world that the black man had a contribution to make, and we would not squander it. We were to be among the best, and expected to be better than whites in terms of our humanity. Many blacks received the admonition that if you were to do a job that put you in the spotlight, do it "twice as good as a white person."
Blacks had known the shackles of slavery; thus we would work to see that no one was ever enslaved. We had witnessed the lack of civil rights at the hands of Democrats first-hand, so we would fight for the civil rights of all. Because of our struggles, blacks had a unique perspective passed on generation to generation as something that could unite us. Black knew something whites in America would never truly know -- the ability to rise above it all.
Every time there was black success, black people would say, "There's another example that you can't keep a black man down." How powerful is it to know that you can overcome anything? This is why black unemployment during the '50s was practically unheard of. Black people were the best employees, the most diligent, innovative and inventive of that time.
Yet in a few short decades, the Democrats managed to destroy that sense of pride in accomplishment in black America, trading it for pride in just being black, real pride of our glorious heritage stolen.
Liberal black "leaders" are the perpetrators of the theft. They victimize other blacks and the rest of the country in order to gain in stature and would sell their children to get ahead, and they have. Nevertheless, black Liberals want these circus clowns as their spokesmen, clowns who have convinced the black people they supposedly represent that a person is evil for simply having been born with slightly different DNA that makes them white.
The majority of blacks are employed by whites. But you won't see black ethno-centric '60s throwback radical quitting their jobs. Because in the time of the first black president, black unemployment is so high that these black radicals are lucky to have jobs. "Who are the real sellouts?"
Lovie Smith, the black coach of the Chicago Bears and member of "African-Americans for Obama" says, "Despite Obama's dismal record, we need to support him because he's black." Since Smith hasn't won a Super Bowl, can we assume that Smith isn't coaching as well as he would for a black owner? Or should we assume that the owner was forced to hire Smith based on the Affirmative Action, and Smith is simply another incompetent black Liberal in over his head.
When does truth trump color for black people? Black people in America have gotten almost everything we have asked of this country, yet it's still not enough for many blacks, Liberal Democrat racist blacks.
Our forefathers would be embarrassed at the outcome of the black community, and the fact that by now we have not overcome being the "black race" and risen to the level of being part of the "human race." Our forefathers pictured an America where faith in God, family, love of country, education and work-ethic were the core of what represented the black community. They expected by now that black people would represent the greatness of America, a country that despite its problems offered those once deemed lowest to rise to the top.
Instead of celebrating America's first recognized black president and all the strides black people have made however, there are those in the black community who want to make sure that black pride remains a thing of the past. Those black demagogues want America's first recognized black president to reset the clock on civil rights and oppress white people who had nothing to do with the past oppression of black people by Democrats.
Though a proud black man, I put no race above another. I believe in the human race above all things, as I believe God made man's essence in his own image, not his color. Color is merely a geographical trait and has no bearing on one's character. It's time black people concede to a higher calling, transcend race, and find the pride in having been a significant part in the building of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Kevin Jackson - The Black Sphere, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Mitt Romney, Antihero
By Malcolm Unwell
The presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney seems at first glance a lightening rod of un-enthusiasm, a man who is provocative for being unprovocative. This is of course a media-created illusion. In fact, Romney has the liberal media quaking in their boots. The media's weapons are smirk and scorn, derision and ridicule.
The left wants desperately to diminish Romney out of the fear that he will grow to become an even more formidable politician. They seek to alienate him -- to make him into what is known in psychobabble as "the other." This is the admitted strategy of the Obama campaign. Instead, Romney fits a paternalist archetype at a time when the country seriously needs a dad at the wheel. Think Don Draper without the sinister plot lines. This is why Romney is feared.
Professional critics always seem to parse their words. They cannot whole-heartedly embrace anything or anyone without caveats. Let's jettison that approach: Why not embrace Romney's candidacy with an uncritical eye, instead of the jaundiced, bored, critics' glance? No, I don't suggest we now drop our analytical functioning, but let's lose the cynicism.
When Romney explains that he does not want to "transform America", as does Obama, but rather to "restore America", rest assured that Governor Romney means to restore our country in the political, economic, and even ethnic sense (though of course he won't spell that out for his audience). This wistfulness for the past, and steel-hearted hope for the future is elegantly put. Let's internalize that slogan, and not forget what it really signifies.
Pundits shouldn't urge Romney to "be himself", with the assumption that a classy reserve is inauthentic. As broadcaster Mark Simone posited once on radio, perhaps America is ready for another patrician president. Historian and National Review editor Richard Brookhiser once identified the WASP culture as one that values a strong work ethic, and one that shuns public sensuality. Clearly Romney embodies these values. Richard Lowry, also of National Review, has deemed Romney "the last WASP, Mormon edition." Waspiness, as Brookhiser has pointed out, has less to do with actually being a Protestant at this point in history, and more to do with prudence and industriousness. It is no wonder that Romney seemed so at ease receiving the endorsement of the equally patrician George H.W. Bush. Both these men have a quiet dignity which is very becoming to the office of president.
This WASPish reserve, combined with his hyper-articulateness, is why Romney does not meet the pop-culture standard of "authentic." Romney does not conform to the new-age, baby-boomer practice of nauseating self-expression and shameless emoting. And why, we shouldn't want him to do so. After all, is there not a conservative backlash against the baby-boomers on the part of "Generation X'rs", of whom I count myself one?
We are too cynical a culture to put anyone up on a pedestal. As Paul Simon once asked, "where did you go Joe DiMaggio?" Simon also asked, "who will be my role model, now that my role model's gone." If these lyrics were relevant at the time of his music's publication, they are even more so today. For if we were to lionize an individual, whom would we choose? Those who have been deified in my generation have either killed themselves or turned out to be child molesters. Granted, those were bad choices for deities.
Romney is an antihero. Whereas an antihero used to signify a rebel, such as Holden Caulfield in the '50s, now a rebel is a generic type, and therefore not "anti" anything, really. With his patrician mannerisms and puritanical lifestyle, it would seem that Romney is the real rebel, a rebel against rebellion, if you will.
Romney presents himself as the archetypical leader of men. This in an age when, as columnist Rebecca Bynum recently put it, "everything is suited to satire, and nothing is sacred." Because of the unchecked cynicism of the electorate, Romney is yet to be taken as seriously as he deserves, and it is hoped that April 3rd's victories in Maryland, D.C., and Wisconsin will change that. But with the incompetence of both the Bush and Obama administrations, we are a country hesitant to sign on enthusiastically to the leadership of any individual.
Malcolm Unwell is that rare bird, a conservative educator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Art Laffer: Obama Doesn't Get It — 'Government Spending Destroys Jobs'
By Julie Crawshaw
Art Laffer, an economist and former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, says President Barack Obama's recent criticism of the Republican budget plan misses the mark.
"What Obama is missing is that government spending doesn't create jobs, it destroys jobs," Laffer told CNBC.
"The tooth fairy doesn't work on the Treasury staff," he said.
“When you cut government spending, you get a boom in the economy,” says Laffer.
“When you increase it, the economy collapses, and it’s exactly what happened under [President George W. Bush] and Obama. They were two peas in a pod.”
Former president Bill Clinton cut government spending as a share of GDP, Laffer notes. “Look at the boom that occurred under Clinton,” he says. “That’s what we’re talking about.”
The same thing happened after World War II, says Laffer, when a massive cut in government spending as a share of GDP sent the private economy "through the ceiling."
Moreover, to help ease the burden of entitlement spending Laffer thinks the age at which people can receive Social Security benefits should be extended “way out.”
“We’re living longer. We’re living much healthier,” Laffer says. “Let us be productive without being on Social Security.”
The Christian Science Monitor reports that In an election-year pitch to middle-class voters, Obama is denouncing the House Republican budget plan as a "Trojan horse," warning that it represents "an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country" that would hurt the pocketbooks of working families.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Eve of Holiday with an Eve of War Atmosphere
Have you considered a scenario in which the Muslim Brotherhood wins the
elections, selects a religious president in Egypt, and de-facto cancels the
peace agreement with Israel? This is not farfetched. The IDF, which
decreased its forces in the south during the stable period during the
Egyptian peace process, must prepare for that scenario as well.
Eve of Holiday with an Eve of War Atmosphere
The IDF will try to reduce the number of Namer APCs by half despite
committing to a minimal acquisition level; the IDF's operational forum and
the forum of defense industries gathered on the eve of the holiday in a
non-festive atmosphere; and the new head of the Planning Branch faces a
near-impossible task
The chief task facing the newly appointed Head of the IDF’s Planning Branch,
Major General Nimrod Shefer, is to restart the debates in the General Staff
for consolidating the IDF’s new multi-year plan, codenamed “Halamish.”
The plan was supposed to enter effect at the start of 2012 and be
implemented at least by the end of 2016. However, its implementation was
postponed by a year due to the arguments over the defense budget and the
upheavals in the Middle East.
The arguments began as a result of the summer protests and the need to
allocate budgets for implementing the recommendations of the Trachtenberg
committee.
As with all the IDF's previous multi-year plans (the last one, Tefen, which
was intended for 2007-2011, was the first in decades to be materialized in
its entirety, without being cut in the middle), the Halamish plan is based
on “reference scenarios." This essentially refers to the worst scenario, to
which the IDF builds its forces accordingly. However, this doesn’t
necessarily mean that the IDF is preparing for the worst-case scenario.
When Halamish was launched, back when Amir Eshel was still the Head of the
Planning Branch (Eshel will soon be appointed the Air Force Commander), the
Middle East truly seemed different. The peace agreements with Egypt were
stable, even if the risk of war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas was
already discernible over the horizon.
The strengthening of the threat posed by the “Iranian Axis,” in parallel to
the strategic change in the southern arena, demanded that the assumptions of
the Halamish plan be examined from the ground up. However, the suitable
conditions for that don’t exist now. Due to a gap of at least six billion
NIS between the defense establishment’s budgetary demands and the budget as
it exists on paper (at least for the time being), the defense establishment
is largely managing from hand to mouth at the moment, like a family going
through hardships, or a business with financial problems maneuvering
payments to its suppliers.
Merkava, with No End
Take the affair of the Merkava project as an example. The project was worthy
of an in-depth examination concerning the question of whether the IDF should
invest most of its allocated ground resources in a heavy armored vehicle, or
in lighter vehicles with active protection. An examination is actually being
done by a special committee, which includes the economist Liora Meridor and
the former commander of the Combat Corps Headquarters, Major General (Res.)
Emanuel Sakal.
According to the decisions made in the framework of the previous plan,
Tefen, the IDF invests approximately two billion NIS annually over a
ten-year period for construction of tanks and APCs. Nearly half of the sum
is funded by the US taxpayer, in the framework of the Namer production
efforts being done in the US. The other half is in NIS, providing a
livelihood to approximately 200 factories involved with the Merkava tank,
and a much smaller number of factories providing Namer components.
Several weeks ago, the Ministry of Defense completely halted new orders in
the framework of the Merkava tank and APC project. In the past few days, it
seems that the most predictable thing happened: small factories, most of
them in the periphery, reached the brink of collapse. An uproar came from
the heads of the periphery municipalities, including Kiryat Shmona,
Nahariya, Sderot, and Netivot.
On Wednesday, the Director General of the Ministry of Defense, Udi Shani,
approved the freeing of 50 million NIS for orders from 15 factories facing
the most distress. The rest of the factories are still crying out for orders
(primarily those that don’t have orders many years in advance). An essential
debate concerning the fate of the project is sluggishly taking place (due to
previous commitments, its closure could end up costing even more money in
the coming years than its continuation).
There are no differences of opinion in the defense establishment concerning
the necessity of the new tanks and APCs. The chief question is whether or
not the ordered amount is excessive, and if the budgets can't be utilized in
a more efficient manner.
The political echelon is urging that the number of APCs intended for
production in the coming years be cut by half. The Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen.
Benny Gantz (who didn’t hesitate when it came to slashing the armored ORBAT
while he was Ground Force Commander, prior to the Second Lebanon War) would
apparently be happy to make the significant cut to the project. The problem
is that the Ministry of Defense committed to GDLS - which constructed a
Namer assembly line in the US city of Lima. In the contract, it stipulated
that a minimal number of APCs be produced in two stages. The IDF is
considering canceling the second stage, but it’s doubtful that they could do
it, from a legal perspective.
The Southern Danger
Despite the cuts, the IDF is very much operating these days in an eve of war
atmosphere. Even if there won't eventually be a war with Iran in the summer,
there’s a possibility that a significant front will erupt in 2012 against
the Gaza Strip or in the north against Hezbollah. A conflict with Syria is
neither fictitious.
The solemn atmosphere was also sensed at the forum of hundreds of
operational commanders that gathered this week at the IDF’s Glilot base. In
contrast to the mood in the IDF, the public finds it preferable to repress
things. Even during tension-filled times, it is the nature of the media to
deal with short, specific events more than with fateful processes that occur
over time.
One example of this is the rocket fired at Eilat this week – an episode that
will soon be forgotten. The rocket was a result of the Egyptian military’s
difficulty in controlling events in Sinai, and the presence of numerous
terrorist groups throughout the vast peninsula.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s decision last weekend to run for elections for the
presidency of Egypt is an example of a far more significant event. However,
it’s doubtful that even a small percentage of the Israeli public noticed it.
This is a surprising decision, from many aspects, as the previous assessment
was that the Brotherhood would avoid a direct conflict over the regime in
the coming years. The movement’s very decision to run for office has a
considerable significance. Have you considered a scenario in which the
Muslim Brotherhood wins the elections, selects a religious president in
Egypt, and de-facto cancels the peace agreement with Israel? This is not
farfetched. The IDF, which decreased its forces in the south during the
stable period during the Egyptian peace process, must prepare for that
scenario as well.
The SIBAT Convention: No Party
The eve of Passover is a period for meetings and proposing toasts. Such was
the atmosphere at the conference held on Thursday morning by SIBAT, the
Ministry of Defense’s defense export and cooperation division, which saw the
participation of senior officials from the Israeli defense industries.
SIBAT is the branch tasked with promoting Israel’s defense exports. The more
that the Israeli defense industries sell overseas, the more they can afford
to develop additional developments for the IDF at a lower cost.
However, there is no festive mood in the defense export arena. The cuts to
the defense budgets in Western countries, primarily in the US, are leaving
their mark. Data for 2011 has yet to be completely compiled, but it is
likely that defense exports saw a specific decline compared to 2010
(although it is still high - nearly $7 billion).
The combination of global budgetary cuts (the US companies, now hungrier
than ever, have increased the competition against Israeli companies in
East-Asian markets) and the frugality of the Ministry of Defense is no
simple matter. Elbit has already started cutting hundreds of employees from
its manpower quotas (a process expected to continue after the holiday).
Rafael and IAI have stopped recruiting new employees. Plasan Sasa is
suffering from the decline in vehicle protection orders for the US Army.
Moreover, the situation is even more complicated in small and medium-sized
companies, which have fewer layers of fat to trim.
Eyes Towards the Comptroller
After the holdiday, Lt. General (Res.) Gabi Ashkenazi, Minister of Defense
Ehud Barak, and the other heroes of the Galant document affair will submit
their references to the State Comptroller’s draft report on the affair.
In addition, a full report will be published after the holiday on another
issue: the conduct of the political echelons and the defense establishment
concerning the flotilla of the Turkish ship Marmara in May 2010. An
interesting topic will be addressed in the report - should the Head of the
National Security Council take an active part in the sensitive deliberations
of the security cabinet, as stated in the NSC law? Or should he be
compartmentalized out of some of these debates, as is actually taking place?
6a)The eternal liberation movement
By Caroline B. Glick
Unfortunately for Israel, while the Arab world is increasingly uninterested in the Palestinian war against Israel, Europe and the American Left are more than happy to pick up the slack
Hamas terror boss Fathi Hamad is a notable figure. Hamad is both the director of Hamas's al Aksa television station and the terror group's "minister" of the interior and national security. His double portfolio is a clear expression of the much ignored fact that for terrorists, propaganda is inseparable from violence.
Hamad's key posts make him a man worth listening to. His statements necessarily indicate Hamas's general direction.
On March 23, Hamad was interviewed by Egypt's Al Hekma television station. The interview was translated by MEMRI.
Hamad made two central points. First he claimed that the Palestinian war against Israel is the keystone of the global jihad. Second he said the Palestinians are not a distinct people, but transplanted Egyptians and Saudis.
In his words, "At Al-Aqsa and on the land of Palestine, all the conspiracies, throughout history, have been shattered -- the conspiracies of the Crusaders, and the conspiracies of the Tatars. At Al-Aqsa and on the land of Palestine, the Battle of Hattin was waged. The [West] does not want this noble history to repeat itself, because the Jews and their allies would be annihilated --- the Zionists, the Americans, and the imperialists.
"Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aqsa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad."
Hamad next explained, "Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, [Egyptians] whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians."
What Hamad's interview tells us is that today Hamas -- the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- is more interested in unity with Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt than with Fatah. Whereas in the past it joined Fatah in obscuring the direct link between the jihad against the Jews and the jihad against the non-Muslim world, today it seeks to emphasize the connection. To this end, Hamas is willing to abandon the myth of Palestinian nativism and acknowledge that the Palestinians are an artificial people, invented for the purpose of advancing the global jihad in the key battlefield of Israel.
Hamad's statements underscore a widespread sentiment among Israelis about the revolutions now tearing apart the Arab world. That sentiment is that while the results of these revolutions will be catastrophic in the medium and long term, in the short term they bring respite to Israel. With Arab regimes -- new and old -- struggling to consolidate power, they have little time or energy to devote to their war against Israel.
In this situation, the thinking goes, Israel should be able to devote its attention to attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.
Unfortunately for Israel, while the Arab world is increasingly uninterested in the Palestinian war against Israel, Europe and the American Left are more than happy to pick up the slack.
Consider two recent events. First, two weeks ago the UN Human Rights Council voted to launch a commission whose goal is to criminalize Israel for the existence of Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines.
The council's decision to form a new kangaroo court to criminalize Israel was not the result of the Arab diplomatic war against Israel. It is the consequence of the European diplomatic war against Israel. It is Europe, not the Arabs that has barred Israel from caucusing with its UN regional group — the Western European and Others Group. By barring Israel from the caucus, the Europeans have denied Israel the ability to make its case to other UN member nations.
For its part, the Obama administration pays lip service to the need to end the Human Rights Council's obsessive war against Israel. But at the same time, it has effectively joined that war by legitimizing the anti-Israel council both by joining it, and by refusing to use its membership as leverage to coerce the council into abandoning its campaign against Israel.
Following the council's vote to form a new Goldstone-style commission to attack Israel, the State Department issued a statement in which it claimed that due in part to US membership in the council, the council had been spurred to "action on a series of important human rights situations around the world."
Then there was last Friday's Global March to Jerusalem in which a consortium of protesters organized by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and the international Left intended to storm Israel's borders and fill the state with hostile foreigners.
As Ribhi Holoum, the coordinator of the march said last year, the goal of the GMJ was "to move the right of return possessed by Palestinian refugees from theory to practice." In a press conference in Amman days ahead of the operation, Haloum said that organizers expected for two million people to mass at Israel's borders and attempt to breach them.
In the end, the GMJ failed to mount its planned invasion. The sum total of the day's events amounted to several violent local demonstrations by Palestinians in Judea and Samaria joined by foreign and Israeli leftists. Israel's borders were not breached.
The GMJ's failure to achieve its aims owed to the same pan-Arab distraction that Hamad tried to address in his interview with Egyptian television. But while the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese have more urgent business to attend to, the international Left has intensified its own campaign against Israel.
Leading anti-Israel, (and anti-Jewish) leftists including George Galloway, Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Noam Chomsky, Jeremiah Wright, Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin served as members of the GMJ's various organizing committees. These self-proclaimed human rights activists had no problem with the fact that the Iranian regime took a central role in organizing the operation or that the clear goal of the campaign's Muslim organizers is the destruction of Israel.
To the contrary, this goal is now openly shared by growing numbers of Western leftists. In an oped at the Guardian's online opinion forum, Sarah Colborne, a member of the GMJ's organizing committees and its national coordinator for the UK as well as the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK wrote, "The struggle for Palestinian rights is at the core of the global movement for social and economic justice."
Judith Butler, one of Colborne's American counterparts has opined that "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important."
So just as Hamas's Hamad claims that the jihad on Israel is the key campaign of the global jihad, Hamad's Western partners claim that destroying Israel is the key to the Left's campaign for socialism.
Disturbingly, the international Left is receiving indirect support for its goal of destroying Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, (and through it, destroying Israel), from the US government. Just days before the GMJ failed to unravel Israel's physical control over Jerusalem, in a jaw dropping exchange between State Department Spokesperson Victora Nuland and AP reporter Matthew Lee, Nuland refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The US has always been deeply hostile to Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. Beginning in 1950 the State Department directed US diplomats to discourage other governments from establishing their embassies in Jerusalem. But while the US has always undermined its own alliance with Israel by aligning its policy on Jerusalem with Israel's worst enemies, under President Barack Obama, the US's willingness to express this hostility has been unprecedented. This hostility has been demonstrated most famously by Obama's demand that the government stop respecting Jewish property rights in the city.
It has also been given graphic expression by the administration's decision to move the Consular Section of the US Consulate in Jerusalem from an Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem to the site that Israel allocated for a new US embassy. The site is located in the Jewish Arnona neighborhood in western Jerusalem.
Israel allocated the land to a future US Embassy after Congress passed the US Embassy Act in 1995 which obligated the US government to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The site was chosen, among other reasons, because its location in western Jerusalem put it outside the dispute regarding whether or not Israel will retain sovereignty over eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem in a hypothetical peace treaty with the Palestinians. The US government uses the non-resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel as its justification for refusing to accept Jewish property rights in those areas of the city.
The US Consulate in Jerusalem is not subordinate to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. It presents itself as the unofficial US embassy to the non-existent state of Palestine. By utilizing the site in western Jerusalem allocated for a future embassy as an extension office of the consulate, the Obama administration made clear its rejection of Israel's right to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. And in light of the US law that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and orders the government to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, the Obama administration not only indirectly legitimized the cause of those who seek the destruction of Israel. It did so in contempt of US law.
In truth, there is nothing new about the West's rejection of Israel's right to sovereignty or even to its support and sponsorship for the Arab war for the destruction of Israel. Such animosity predates not only the 1967 Six Day War. It predates the establishment of Israel.
British Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, who served as an intelligence officer in wartime and post-World War I Mandatory Palestine made this point clearly in his memoir Middle East Diary.
Meinertzhagen wrote that the first Arab terror assaults on Jews under the British military government were instigated by the British military. Just before Easter in 1920, British military authorities contacted future Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and encouraged him to attack the Jews of Jerusalem. They told him, "He had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine�and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, [the British High Commanders] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home."
Tonight the Jewish people begin our eight-day celebration of Passover, the Jewish festival of freedom. This evening we will read in the Hagada that in fight for freedom is an eternal struggle.
When we assess the global nature of the current assault on Jewish freedom and sovereignty in our country, we see the truth of that message. While our present circumstances give us much to celebrate, the work of Jewish liberation is far from over
6b)'US to accept civilian nuke program in Iran'
President Obama signals Iran that US would endorse nuclear program if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei backs up claim that Islamic Republic won't purse atom bomb, US paper reports
By Yitzhak Benhorin
US President Barack Obama has signaled Tehran that the Washington would accept an civilian nuclear program in Iran if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent claim that his nation “will never pursue nuclear weapons,” the Washington Post reported Friday.
According to the report, the verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met with Khamenei last week. A few days prior to leaving for the trip, Erdogan held a two-hour meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit in Seoul, in which they discussed what the Turkish leader would tell Khamenei about the nuclear issue.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that Obama advised Tehran, via Edrogan, that time is running out for a peaceful agreement. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically. The issue evidently is to be discussed during the talks between the Islamic Republic and the West, which are slated start on April 13 at a venue yet to be decided.
Words into actions
Edrogan is said to have agreed with Obama that the primary challenge faced by the negotiators is turning Khamenei’s public rhetoric into a serious and verifiable commitment not to build a bomb.
Erdogan reportedly conveyed Obama’s message to Khamenei when he met the Iranian leader on Thursday. Erdogan also met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials during his visit.
Western diplomats remain skeptic about the success of the diplomatic path, especially in light of the recent disagreement over the venue for the upcoming negotiations. According to the report, Istanbul was expected to host the talks, but the Iranians last weekend balked and suggested instead to meet in Iraq or China.
US officials consider this foot-dragging a sign that the Iranian leadership is still formulating its positions ahead of the talks.
Meanwhile, the US pressed on with sanctions that aim to deprive Tehran of revenue needed to develop its nuclear program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) What Happened to Black Pride?
By Kevin Jackson
For a few decades, black Liberals have settled for anything. Fake watches, fake purses, and especially fake leaders. If the black Liberal community were truthful, they would admit their disappointment in Barack Obama.
If Obama were a basketball player, he would be the equivalent of the guy who couldn't inbound the ball or constantly double-dribbles. He's the guy to whom you just quit passing the ball; because when he gets the ball, he always shoots and always misses.
What happened to black pride? There was a time when black people didn't settle for failures like Obama; they expected more from blacks who were blessed to get the opportunity for greatness. Whether it was sports, entertainment, or politics, blacks who were set up for something transcendental carried the expectation of the entire black race on their shoulders. Much was riding on his or her success, regardless of the role.
Each time the baton was passed, the next black understood the obligation to represent, to show the world that the black man had a contribution to make, and we would not squander it. We were to be among the best, and expected to be better than whites in terms of our humanity. Many blacks received the admonition that if you were to do a job that put you in the spotlight, do it "twice as good as a white person."
Blacks had known the shackles of slavery; thus we would work to see that no one was ever enslaved. We had witnessed the lack of civil rights at the hands of Democrats first-hand, so we would fight for the civil rights of all. Because of our struggles, blacks had a unique perspective passed on generation to generation as something that could unite us. Black knew something whites in America would never truly know -- the ability to rise above it all.
Every time there was black success, black people would say, "There's another example that you can't keep a black man down." How powerful is it to know that you can overcome anything? This is why black unemployment during the '50s was practically unheard of. Black people were the best employees, the most diligent, innovative and inventive of that time.
Yet in a few short decades, the Democrats managed to destroy that sense of pride in accomplishment in black America, trading it for pride in just being black, real pride of our glorious heritage stolen.
Liberal black "leaders" are the perpetrators of the theft. They victimize other blacks and the rest of the country in order to gain in stature and would sell their children to get ahead, and they have. Nevertheless, black Liberals want these circus clowns as their spokesmen, clowns who have convinced the black people they supposedly represent that a person is evil for simply having been born with slightly different DNA that makes them white.
The majority of blacks are employed by whites. But you won't see black ethno-centric '60s throwback radical quitting their jobs. Because in the time of the first black president, black unemployment is so high that these black radicals are lucky to have jobs. "Who are the real sellouts?"
Lovie Smith, the black coach of the Chicago Bears and member of "African-Americans for Obama" says, "Despite Obama's dismal record, we need to support him because he's black." Since Smith hasn't won a Super Bowl, can we assume that Smith isn't coaching as well as he would for a black owner? Or should we assume that the owner was forced to hire Smith based on the Affirmative Action, and Smith is simply another incompetent black Liberal in over his head.
When does truth trump color for black people? Black people in America have gotten almost everything we have asked of this country, yet it's still not enough for many blacks, Liberal Democrat racist blacks.
Our forefathers would be embarrassed at the outcome of the black community, and the fact that by now we have not overcome being the "black race" and risen to the level of being part of the "human race." Our forefathers pictured an America where faith in God, family, love of country, education and work-ethic were the core of what represented the black community. They expected by now that black people would represent the greatness of America, a country that despite its problems offered those once deemed lowest to rise to the top.
Instead of celebrating America's first recognized black president and all the strides black people have made however, there are those in the black community who want to make sure that black pride remains a thing of the past. Those black demagogues want America's first recognized black president to reset the clock on civil rights and oppress white people who had nothing to do with the past oppression of black people by Democrats.
Though a proud black man, I put no race above another. I believe in the human race above all things, as I believe God made man's essence in his own image, not his color. Color is merely a geographical trait and has no bearing on one's character. It's time black people concede to a higher calling, transcend race, and find the pride in having been a significant part in the building of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Kevin Jackson - The Black Sphere, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Mitt Romney, Antihero
By Malcolm Unwell
The presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney seems at first glance a lightening rod of un-enthusiasm, a man who is provocative for being unprovocative. This is of course a media-created illusion. In fact, Romney has the liberal media quaking in their boots. The media's weapons are smirk and scorn, derision and ridicule.
The left wants desperately to diminish Romney out of the fear that he will grow to become an even more formidable politician. They seek to alienate him -- to make him into what is known in psychobabble as "the other." This is the admitted strategy of the Obama campaign. Instead, Romney fits a paternalist archetype at a time when the country seriously needs a dad at the wheel. Think Don Draper without the sinister plot lines. This is why Romney is feared.
Professional critics always seem to parse their words. They cannot whole-heartedly embrace anything or anyone without caveats. Let's jettison that approach: Why not embrace Romney's candidacy with an uncritical eye, instead of the jaundiced, bored, critics' glance? No, I don't suggest we now drop our analytical functioning, but let's lose the cynicism.
When Romney explains that he does not want to "transform America", as does Obama, but rather to "restore America", rest assured that Governor Romney means to restore our country in the political, economic, and even ethnic sense (though of course he won't spell that out for his audience). This wistfulness for the past, and steel-hearted hope for the future is elegantly put. Let's internalize that slogan, and not forget what it really signifies.
Pundits shouldn't urge Romney to "be himself", with the assumption that a classy reserve is inauthentic. As broadcaster Mark Simone posited once on radio, perhaps America is ready for another patrician president. Historian and National Review editor Richard Brookhiser once identified the WASP culture as one that values a strong work ethic, and one that shuns public sensuality. Clearly Romney embodies these values. Richard Lowry, also of National Review, has deemed Romney "the last WASP, Mormon edition." Waspiness, as Brookhiser has pointed out, has less to do with actually being a Protestant at this point in history, and more to do with prudence and industriousness. It is no wonder that Romney seemed so at ease receiving the endorsement of the equally patrician George H.W. Bush. Both these men have a quiet dignity which is very becoming to the office of president.
This WASPish reserve, combined with his hyper-articulateness, is why Romney does not meet the pop-culture standard of "authentic." Romney does not conform to the new-age, baby-boomer practice of nauseating self-expression and shameless emoting. And why, we shouldn't want him to do so. After all, is there not a conservative backlash against the baby-boomers on the part of "Generation X'rs", of whom I count myself one?
We are too cynical a culture to put anyone up on a pedestal. As Paul Simon once asked, "where did you go Joe DiMaggio?" Simon also asked, "who will be my role model, now that my role model's gone." If these lyrics were relevant at the time of his music's publication, they are even more so today. For if we were to lionize an individual, whom would we choose? Those who have been deified in my generation have either killed themselves or turned out to be child molesters. Granted, those were bad choices for deities.
Romney is an antihero. Whereas an antihero used to signify a rebel, such as Holden Caulfield in the '50s, now a rebel is a generic type, and therefore not "anti" anything, really. With his patrician mannerisms and puritanical lifestyle, it would seem that Romney is the real rebel, a rebel against rebellion, if you will.
Romney presents himself as the archetypical leader of men. This in an age when, as columnist Rebecca Bynum recently put it, "everything is suited to satire, and nothing is sacred." Because of the unchecked cynicism of the electorate, Romney is yet to be taken as seriously as he deserves, and it is hoped that April 3rd's victories in Maryland, D.C., and Wisconsin will change that. But with the incompetence of both the Bush and Obama administrations, we are a country hesitant to sign on enthusiastically to the leadership of any individual.
Malcolm Unwell is that rare bird, a conservative educator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Art Laffer: Obama Doesn't Get It — 'Government Spending Destroys Jobs'
By Julie Crawshaw
Art Laffer, an economist and former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, says President Barack Obama's recent criticism of the Republican budget plan misses the mark.
"What Obama is missing is that government spending doesn't create jobs, it destroys jobs," Laffer told CNBC.
"The tooth fairy doesn't work on the Treasury staff," he said.
“When you cut government spending, you get a boom in the economy,” says Laffer.
“When you increase it, the economy collapses, and it’s exactly what happened under [President George W. Bush] and Obama. They were two peas in a pod.”
Former president Bill Clinton cut government spending as a share of GDP, Laffer notes. “Look at the boom that occurred under Clinton,” he says. “That’s what we’re talking about.”
The same thing happened after World War II, says Laffer, when a massive cut in government spending as a share of GDP sent the private economy "through the ceiling."
Moreover, to help ease the burden of entitlement spending Laffer thinks the age at which people can receive Social Security benefits should be extended “way out.”
“We’re living longer. We’re living much healthier,” Laffer says. “Let us be productive without being on Social Security.”
The Christian Science Monitor reports that In an election-year pitch to middle-class voters, Obama is denouncing the House Republican budget plan as a "Trojan horse," warning that it represents "an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country" that would hurt the pocketbooks of working families.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Eve of Holiday with an Eve of War Atmosphere
Have you considered a scenario in which the Muslim Brotherhood wins the
elections, selects a religious president in Egypt, and de-facto cancels the
peace agreement with Israel? This is not farfetched. The IDF, which
decreased its forces in the south during the stable period during the
Egyptian peace process, must prepare for that scenario as well.
Eve of Holiday with an Eve of War Atmosphere
The IDF will try to reduce the number of Namer APCs by half despite
committing to a minimal acquisition level; the IDF's operational forum and
the forum of defense industries gathered on the eve of the holiday in a
non-festive atmosphere; and the new head of the Planning Branch faces a
near-impossible task
The chief task facing the newly appointed Head of the IDF’s Planning Branch,
Major General Nimrod Shefer, is to restart the debates in the General Staff
for consolidating the IDF’s new multi-year plan, codenamed “Halamish.”
The plan was supposed to enter effect at the start of 2012 and be
implemented at least by the end of 2016. However, its implementation was
postponed by a year due to the arguments over the defense budget and the
upheavals in the Middle East.
The arguments began as a result of the summer protests and the need to
allocate budgets for implementing the recommendations of the Trachtenberg
committee.
As with all the IDF's previous multi-year plans (the last one, Tefen, which
was intended for 2007-2011, was the first in decades to be materialized in
its entirety, without being cut in the middle), the Halamish plan is based
on “reference scenarios." This essentially refers to the worst scenario, to
which the IDF builds its forces accordingly. However, this doesn’t
necessarily mean that the IDF is preparing for the worst-case scenario.
When Halamish was launched, back when Amir Eshel was still the Head of the
Planning Branch (Eshel will soon be appointed the Air Force Commander), the
Middle East truly seemed different. The peace agreements with Egypt were
stable, even if the risk of war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas was
already discernible over the horizon.
The strengthening of the threat posed by the “Iranian Axis,” in parallel to
the strategic change in the southern arena, demanded that the assumptions of
the Halamish plan be examined from the ground up. However, the suitable
conditions for that don’t exist now. Due to a gap of at least six billion
NIS between the defense establishment’s budgetary demands and the budget as
it exists on paper (at least for the time being), the defense establishment
is largely managing from hand to mouth at the moment, like a family going
through hardships, or a business with financial problems maneuvering
payments to its suppliers.
Merkava, with No End
Take the affair of the Merkava project as an example. The project was worthy
of an in-depth examination concerning the question of whether the IDF should
invest most of its allocated ground resources in a heavy armored vehicle, or
in lighter vehicles with active protection. An examination is actually being
done by a special committee, which includes the economist Liora Meridor and
the former commander of the Combat Corps Headquarters, Major General (Res.)
Emanuel Sakal.
According to the decisions made in the framework of the previous plan,
Tefen, the IDF invests approximately two billion NIS annually over a
ten-year period for construction of tanks and APCs. Nearly half of the sum
is funded by the US taxpayer, in the framework of the Namer production
efforts being done in the US. The other half is in NIS, providing a
livelihood to approximately 200 factories involved with the Merkava tank,
and a much smaller number of factories providing Namer components.
Several weeks ago, the Ministry of Defense completely halted new orders in
the framework of the Merkava tank and APC project. In the past few days, it
seems that the most predictable thing happened: small factories, most of
them in the periphery, reached the brink of collapse. An uproar came from
the heads of the periphery municipalities, including Kiryat Shmona,
Nahariya, Sderot, and Netivot.
On Wednesday, the Director General of the Ministry of Defense, Udi Shani,
approved the freeing of 50 million NIS for orders from 15 factories facing
the most distress. The rest of the factories are still crying out for orders
(primarily those that don’t have orders many years in advance). An essential
debate concerning the fate of the project is sluggishly taking place (due to
previous commitments, its closure could end up costing even more money in
the coming years than its continuation).
There are no differences of opinion in the defense establishment concerning
the necessity of the new tanks and APCs. The chief question is whether or
not the ordered amount is excessive, and if the budgets can't be utilized in
a more efficient manner.
The political echelon is urging that the number of APCs intended for
production in the coming years be cut by half. The Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen.
Benny Gantz (who didn’t hesitate when it came to slashing the armored ORBAT
while he was Ground Force Commander, prior to the Second Lebanon War) would
apparently be happy to make the significant cut to the project. The problem
is that the Ministry of Defense committed to GDLS - which constructed a
Namer assembly line in the US city of Lima. In the contract, it stipulated
that a minimal number of APCs be produced in two stages. The IDF is
considering canceling the second stage, but it’s doubtful that they could do
it, from a legal perspective.
The Southern Danger
Despite the cuts, the IDF is very much operating these days in an eve of war
atmosphere. Even if there won't eventually be a war with Iran in the summer,
there’s a possibility that a significant front will erupt in 2012 against
the Gaza Strip or in the north against Hezbollah. A conflict with Syria is
neither fictitious.
The solemn atmosphere was also sensed at the forum of hundreds of
operational commanders that gathered this week at the IDF’s Glilot base. In
contrast to the mood in the IDF, the public finds it preferable to repress
things. Even during tension-filled times, it is the nature of the media to
deal with short, specific events more than with fateful processes that occur
over time.
One example of this is the rocket fired at Eilat this week – an episode that
will soon be forgotten. The rocket was a result of the Egyptian military’s
difficulty in controlling events in Sinai, and the presence of numerous
terrorist groups throughout the vast peninsula.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s decision last weekend to run for elections for the
presidency of Egypt is an example of a far more significant event. However,
it’s doubtful that even a small percentage of the Israeli public noticed it.
This is a surprising decision, from many aspects, as the previous assessment
was that the Brotherhood would avoid a direct conflict over the regime in
the coming years. The movement’s very decision to run for office has a
considerable significance. Have you considered a scenario in which the
Muslim Brotherhood wins the elections, selects a religious president in
Egypt, and de-facto cancels the peace agreement with Israel? This is not
farfetched. The IDF, which decreased its forces in the south during the
stable period during the Egyptian peace process, must prepare for that
scenario as well.
The SIBAT Convention: No Party
The eve of Passover is a period for meetings and proposing toasts. Such was
the atmosphere at the conference held on Thursday morning by SIBAT, the
Ministry of Defense’s defense export and cooperation division, which saw the
participation of senior officials from the Israeli defense industries.
SIBAT is the branch tasked with promoting Israel’s defense exports. The more
that the Israeli defense industries sell overseas, the more they can afford
to develop additional developments for the IDF at a lower cost.
However, there is no festive mood in the defense export arena. The cuts to
the defense budgets in Western countries, primarily in the US, are leaving
their mark. Data for 2011 has yet to be completely compiled, but it is
likely that defense exports saw a specific decline compared to 2010
(although it is still high - nearly $7 billion).
The combination of global budgetary cuts (the US companies, now hungrier
than ever, have increased the competition against Israeli companies in
East-Asian markets) and the frugality of the Ministry of Defense is no
simple matter. Elbit has already started cutting hundreds of employees from
its manpower quotas (a process expected to continue after the holiday).
Rafael and IAI have stopped recruiting new employees. Plasan Sasa is
suffering from the decline in vehicle protection orders for the US Army.
Moreover, the situation is even more complicated in small and medium-sized
companies, which have fewer layers of fat to trim.
Eyes Towards the Comptroller
After the holdiday, Lt. General (Res.) Gabi Ashkenazi, Minister of Defense
Ehud Barak, and the other heroes of the Galant document affair will submit
their references to the State Comptroller’s draft report on the affair.
In addition, a full report will be published after the holiday on another
issue: the conduct of the political echelons and the defense establishment
concerning the flotilla of the Turkish ship Marmara in May 2010. An
interesting topic will be addressed in the report - should the Head of the
National Security Council take an active part in the sensitive deliberations
of the security cabinet, as stated in the NSC law? Or should he be
compartmentalized out of some of these debates, as is actually taking place?
6a)The eternal liberation movement
By Caroline B. Glick
Unfortunately for Israel, while the Arab world is increasingly uninterested in the Palestinian war against Israel, Europe and the American Left are more than happy to pick up the slack
Hamas terror boss Fathi Hamad is a notable figure. Hamad is both the director of Hamas's al Aksa television station and the terror group's "minister" of the interior and national security. His double portfolio is a clear expression of the much ignored fact that for terrorists, propaganda is inseparable from violence.
Hamad's key posts make him a man worth listening to. His statements necessarily indicate Hamas's general direction.
On March 23, Hamad was interviewed by Egypt's Al Hekma television station. The interview was translated by MEMRI.
Hamad made two central points. First he claimed that the Palestinian war against Israel is the keystone of the global jihad. Second he said the Palestinians are not a distinct people, but transplanted Egyptians and Saudis.
In his words, "At Al-Aqsa and on the land of Palestine, all the conspiracies, throughout history, have been shattered -- the conspiracies of the Crusaders, and the conspiracies of the Tatars. At Al-Aqsa and on the land of Palestine, the Battle of Hattin was waged. The [West] does not want this noble history to repeat itself, because the Jews and their allies would be annihilated --- the Zionists, the Americans, and the imperialists.
"Thus, the conspiracy is very clear. Al-Aqsa and the land of Palestine represent the spearhead for Islam and for the Muslims. Therefore, when we seek the help of our Arab brothers, we are not seeking their help in order to eat, to live, to drink, to dress, or to live a life of luxury. No. When we seek their help, it is in order to continue to wage Jihad."
Hamad next explained, "Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis. Who are the Palestinians? We have many families called Al-Masri, [Egyptians] whose roots are Egyptian. Egyptian! They may be from Alexandria, from Cairo, from Dumietta, from the North, from Aswan, from Upper Egypt. We are Egyptians."
What Hamad's interview tells us is that today Hamas -- the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- is more interested in unity with Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt than with Fatah. Whereas in the past it joined Fatah in obscuring the direct link between the jihad against the Jews and the jihad against the non-Muslim world, today it seeks to emphasize the connection. To this end, Hamas is willing to abandon the myth of Palestinian nativism and acknowledge that the Palestinians are an artificial people, invented for the purpose of advancing the global jihad in the key battlefield of Israel.
Hamad's statements underscore a widespread sentiment among Israelis about the revolutions now tearing apart the Arab world. That sentiment is that while the results of these revolutions will be catastrophic in the medium and long term, in the short term they bring respite to Israel. With Arab regimes -- new and old -- struggling to consolidate power, they have little time or energy to devote to their war against Israel.
In this situation, the thinking goes, Israel should be able to devote its attention to attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.
Unfortunately for Israel, while the Arab world is increasingly uninterested in the Palestinian war against Israel, Europe and the American Left are more than happy to pick up the slack.
Consider two recent events. First, two weeks ago the UN Human Rights Council voted to launch a commission whose goal is to criminalize Israel for the existence of Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines.
The council's decision to form a new kangaroo court to criminalize Israel was not the result of the Arab diplomatic war against Israel. It is the consequence of the European diplomatic war against Israel. It is Europe, not the Arabs that has barred Israel from caucusing with its UN regional group — the Western European and Others Group. By barring Israel from the caucus, the Europeans have denied Israel the ability to make its case to other UN member nations.
For its part, the Obama administration pays lip service to the need to end the Human Rights Council's obsessive war against Israel. But at the same time, it has effectively joined that war by legitimizing the anti-Israel council both by joining it, and by refusing to use its membership as leverage to coerce the council into abandoning its campaign against Israel.
Following the council's vote to form a new Goldstone-style commission to attack Israel, the State Department issued a statement in which it claimed that due in part to US membership in the council, the council had been spurred to "action on a series of important human rights situations around the world."
Then there was last Friday's Global March to Jerusalem in which a consortium of protesters organized by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and the international Left intended to storm Israel's borders and fill the state with hostile foreigners.
As Ribhi Holoum, the coordinator of the march said last year, the goal of the GMJ was "to move the right of return possessed by Palestinian refugees from theory to practice." In a press conference in Amman days ahead of the operation, Haloum said that organizers expected for two million people to mass at Israel's borders and attempt to breach them.
In the end, the GMJ failed to mount its planned invasion. The sum total of the day's events amounted to several violent local demonstrations by Palestinians in Judea and Samaria joined by foreign and Israeli leftists. Israel's borders were not breached.
The GMJ's failure to achieve its aims owed to the same pan-Arab distraction that Hamad tried to address in his interview with Egyptian television. But while the Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians and Lebanese have more urgent business to attend to, the international Left has intensified its own campaign against Israel.
Leading anti-Israel, (and anti-Jewish) leftists including George Galloway, Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire, Noam Chomsky, Jeremiah Wright, Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin served as members of the GMJ's various organizing committees. These self-proclaimed human rights activists had no problem with the fact that the Iranian regime took a central role in organizing the operation or that the clear goal of the campaign's Muslim organizers is the destruction of Israel.
To the contrary, this goal is now openly shared by growing numbers of Western leftists. In an oped at the Guardian's online opinion forum, Sarah Colborne, a member of the GMJ's organizing committees and its national coordinator for the UK as well as the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the UK wrote, "The struggle for Palestinian rights is at the core of the global movement for social and economic justice."
Judith Butler, one of Colborne's American counterparts has opined that "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important."
So just as Hamas's Hamad claims that the jihad on Israel is the key campaign of the global jihad, Hamad's Western partners claim that destroying Israel is the key to the Left's campaign for socialism.
Disturbingly, the international Left is receiving indirect support for its goal of destroying Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, (and through it, destroying Israel), from the US government. Just days before the GMJ failed to unravel Israel's physical control over Jerusalem, in a jaw dropping exchange between State Department Spokesperson Victora Nuland and AP reporter Matthew Lee, Nuland refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
The US has always been deeply hostile to Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. Beginning in 1950 the State Department directed US diplomats to discourage other governments from establishing their embassies in Jerusalem. But while the US has always undermined its own alliance with Israel by aligning its policy on Jerusalem with Israel's worst enemies, under President Barack Obama, the US's willingness to express this hostility has been unprecedented. This hostility has been demonstrated most famously by Obama's demand that the government stop respecting Jewish property rights in the city.
It has also been given graphic expression by the administration's decision to move the Consular Section of the US Consulate in Jerusalem from an Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem to the site that Israel allocated for a new US embassy. The site is located in the Jewish Arnona neighborhood in western Jerusalem.
Israel allocated the land to a future US Embassy after Congress passed the US Embassy Act in 1995 which obligated the US government to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The site was chosen, among other reasons, because its location in western Jerusalem put it outside the dispute regarding whether or not Israel will retain sovereignty over eastern, southern and northern Jerusalem in a hypothetical peace treaty with the Palestinians. The US government uses the non-resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel as its justification for refusing to accept Jewish property rights in those areas of the city.
The US Consulate in Jerusalem is not subordinate to the US Embassy in Tel Aviv. It presents itself as the unofficial US embassy to the non-existent state of Palestine. By utilizing the site in western Jerusalem allocated for a future embassy as an extension office of the consulate, the Obama administration made clear its rejection of Israel's right to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. And in light of the US law that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital and orders the government to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, the Obama administration not only indirectly legitimized the cause of those who seek the destruction of Israel. It did so in contempt of US law.
In truth, there is nothing new about the West's rejection of Israel's right to sovereignty or even to its support and sponsorship for the Arab war for the destruction of Israel. Such animosity predates not only the 1967 Six Day War. It predates the establishment of Israel.
British Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, who served as an intelligence officer in wartime and post-World War I Mandatory Palestine made this point clearly in his memoir Middle East Diary.
Meinertzhagen wrote that the first Arab terror assaults on Jews under the British military government were instigated by the British military. Just before Easter in 1920, British military authorities contacted future Nazi agent Haj Amin el Husseini and encouraged him to attack the Jews of Jerusalem. They told him, "He had a great opportunity at Easter to show the world that the Arabs of Palestine would not tolerate Jewish domination in Palestine�and if disturbances of sufficient violence occurred in Jerusalem at Easter, [the British High Commanders] would advocate the abandonment of the Jewish Home."
Tonight the Jewish people begin our eight-day celebration of Passover, the Jewish festival of freedom. This evening we will read in the Hagada that in fight for freedom is an eternal struggle.
When we assess the global nature of the current assault on Jewish freedom and sovereignty in our country, we see the truth of that message. While our present circumstances give us much to celebrate, the work of Jewish liberation is far from over
6b)'US to accept civilian nuke program in Iran'
President Obama signals Iran that US would endorse nuclear program if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei backs up claim that Islamic Republic won't purse atom bomb, US paper reports
By Yitzhak Benhorin
US President Barack Obama has signaled Tehran that the Washington would accept an civilian nuclear program in Iran if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent claim that his nation “will never pursue nuclear weapons,” the Washington Post reported Friday.
According to the report, the verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met with Khamenei last week. A few days prior to leaving for the trip, Erdogan held a two-hour meeting with Obama on the sidelines of the nuclear security summit in Seoul, in which they discussed what the Turkish leader would tell Khamenei about the nuclear issue.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that Obama advised Tehran, via Edrogan, that time is running out for a peaceful agreement. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically. The issue evidently is to be discussed during the talks between the Islamic Republic and the West, which are slated start on April 13 at a venue yet to be decided.
Words into actions
Edrogan is said to have agreed with Obama that the primary challenge faced by the negotiators is turning Khamenei’s public rhetoric into a serious and verifiable commitment not to build a bomb.
Erdogan reportedly conveyed Obama’s message to Khamenei when he met the Iranian leader on Thursday. Erdogan also met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials during his visit.
Western diplomats remain skeptic about the success of the diplomatic path, especially in light of the recent disagreement over the venue for the upcoming negotiations. According to the report, Istanbul was expected to host the talks, but the Iranians last weekend balked and suggested instead to meet in Iraq or China.
US officials consider this foot-dragging a sign that the Iranian leadership is still formulating its positions ahead of the talks.
Meanwhile, the US pressed on with sanctions that aim to deprive Tehran of revenue needed to develop its nuclear program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment