Why Bibi was right about no two states in his next term. (See 1a below.)
Maybe Obama should send Bibi his teleprompter. (See 1 and 1b below.)
Obama also wants Netanyahu to take a lesson from his approach and negotiate with terrorists and, when they remain obdurate, Bibi should give in and let them have their way. What difference does it make if Israel is next to them and America ais 11,000 miles away. What Obama says requires everyone to jump because he is king and always right. Everyone else, starting with G.W, is always wrong.
Obama's reaction has provided cover for Abbas to proceed with allowing terrorists to move closer to Israel's borders. Everything Obama touches he screws up. He reminds me of a pin ball machine's ball that just bounces willy nilly.(See 1c below.)
===
It is about time Congress stopped our Monarch. (See 2 below.)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/
===
My friend , Tom Glaser, just stopped by to borrow some bikes and called my attention to an article he wrote and our house guests this past weekend also mentioned a member of my father's law firm is part of a group of key Georgia Corporate Executives in Israel attending a high powered cyber security conference.
I am in the process of getting Annie Anton, a chaired Ga. Tech Professor, to come to Savannah and speak on cyber security. (See 3 below.)
===
An Israeli tech index:
Try http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/
===
Sent to me by a long standing dear friend and fellow memo reader.
It will never happen, lamentably, because Democrats love to spend your money as do far too many Republicans. Special interests refuse to go hungry and the politicians will continue to feed them.
If you believe these cuts could happen then Ted Cruz or Gov. Walker are your candidates.(See 4 below.)
===
Gezundheit! (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Two States: In Principle? Yes. Now? No.
Let’s concede that Netanyahu’s comments about not allowing the creation of a Palestinian state while he was prime minister was a brazen attempt to lure voters away from right-wing allies in order to boost his Likud Party totals. But whether this was necessary or not, it must be accepted that it helped him and that it was not unfair of critics to conclude that he was retracting his 2009 Bar-Ilan University speech in which he accepted a two-states as the basis for peace. But his subsequent effort in an interview with NBC’s Andrew Mitchell to claim that he still favors such a solution is, while seemingly inconsistent, actually correct.
Whatever he may have said on Monday, the left’s talking point about the campaign proving that Netanyahu had been lying for six years doesn’t hold water. Whether you like the prime minister or loathe him, the fact remains that Netanyahu did freeze settlement building at President Obama’s behest. He also sent his recent electoral opponent Tzipi Livni to negotiate peace with Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas. As we now know, documents have revealed that he went a long way toward accommodating Kerry’s ideas for a framework during those talks and even Livni concedes that it was Abbas who torpedoed them by never negotiating in good faith. Had Abbas been serious about a two state solution at any point during the last six years he could have said he was willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state but he refused to do so no matter where its borders might be drawn. He also continued to assert that he could never give up the right of return for the descendants of the 1948 refugees. Both stands are reflective of the fact that Palestinian nationalism has always been inextricably tied to the war on Zionism. Assuming he wanted to, Abbas is incapable of abandoning these stands and surviving. Hamas has no interest in such a scenario.
Moreover, Palestinian actions during the last 20 years of peace processing have convinced the overwhelming majority of Israeli voters, including many who voted for Netanyahu’s opponents, that neither Abbas nor his Hamas rivals ruling in Gaza have any interest in signing a peace agreement that will end the conflict for all time. Even if you want to ignore what happened in the 1990s when Yasir Arafat was running the Palestinian Authority and it set out on a course of fomenting hatred and subsidizing terrorism, Abbas’s record is not better. In 2008, he rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer of independence and a state in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza and a share of Jerusalem just as Arafat had done in 2000 and 2001. Even worse, after Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, the strip has become an independent Palestinian state in all but name and transformed into a base for terrorism by its Hamas rulers.
Under those circumstances and with the PA refusing to hold elections about of fear that the corrupt kleptocracy that runs the West Bank might be replaced by their Islamist rivals, it’s little wonder most Israeli voters think Netanyahu was right when he warned that two states now meant another Hamasistan next to the Jewish state’s population centers.
A two state solution in which a demilitarized Palestinian state lives peacefully next to Israel with both Jews and Arabs free to live unmolested on either side of the border is the ideal solution to the conflict. But until a sea change in the Palestinian political culture happens to make that an actual possibility rather than merely a fantasy, no rational Israeli government would consent to a complete withdrawal from the territory.
Is it possible to oppose a two-state solution under the current circumstances but to be for it in principle? Netanyahu’s detractors would argue that it isn’t. What’s more they claim that his vow and his “Hamasistan” comments show that he merely wants to preserve the status quo.
But this reflects the basic myth that has been the foundation of the mistaken policies pursued by the Obama administration. Like some on the Jewish left, they’ve wrongly assumed that the only thing that is missing for peace to become a reality is a willingness on Israel’s part to take risks to achieve it. But Israel has been taking such risks for 20 years and has discovered that it traded land for terror, not peace. That realization has rendered the Israeli left unelectable and given Netanyahu a fourth term in office. Even if Isaac Herzog’s Zionist Union had beaten the Likud on Tuesday, he was no more likely to create a Palestinian state than Netanyahu.
Palestinian intransigence and terror remain the real obstacles to peace. The United States needs to stop reflexively blaming Israel. Peace will happen when the Palestinians decide they are ready for a two state solution that has always been favored more by Israelis than Arabs. Until that happens, it can remain a theoretical goal but one that, like Netanyahu, sensible Israelis will not choose to pursue under the present circumstances.
Islamic Jihad's central base is in the Gaza Strip, and it has been a loyal Iranian proxy for many years, depending on Tehran for funds, training, and weapons.
Iran, for its part, has attempted to get money into the West Bank to spread its influence, so far with very limited success, due to Israeli security efforts and the Palestinian Authority's resistance to Iranian sponsorship.
A second force that is emerging in the West Bank is the Fatah Tanzim, which was once a dominant terrorist group during the years of the Second Intifada. Youths from Fatah Tanzim are not bound by an agreement that older members came to with Israel in the previous decade, which saw Israel remove them from its wanted list in exchange for a cessation of terror activities.
Fatah Tanzim are not attacking Israel at present, but they could become a game changing threat. The group's younger members, who do not remember the Second Intifada and the high toll it took on Palestinian society, could in the future pose a threat to Israeli security, by launching attacks like firing on Israeli traffic in the West Bank, or infiltrating settlements and carrying out killing sprees. Such attacks do not require millions of shekels to prepare, or cross-border tunnels to carry out.
One possibility being considered by the IDF's Central Command is that Fatah Tanzim could rebel against the Palestinian Authority in the future.
Meanwhile, Hamas in Gaza together with operatives from its headquarters in Turkey continue their efforts to try and orchestrate terrorism in the West Bank. These efforts are wide in scope, and getting wider with time. Hamas is forging growing operational ties among West Bank Palestinians and seeking to construct new networks that can carry out attacks. Every night, the IDF and the Shin Bet successfully thwart these efforts, by gathering accurate intelligence and quickly converting it into arrest operations.
These efforts by security forces prevent deadly terrorism on a daily basis.
In Judea and Samaria, Hamas can take more than one form. In addition to cells remotely set up and controlled from Gaza, localized Hamas cells, made up mainly of local operatives continue to pose a threat. Such cells leave a lower intelligence signature, making them harder for Israeli intelligence to detect.
The IDF's Central Command continues to prepare for the possibility of a security escalation. Although the current situation on the ground is relatively stable, security officials assess that the diplomatic confrontation raging between Ramallah and Jerusalem could rapidly spill over into a wave of violence.
As a result, the Central Command has been practicing sending more conscripted battalions to the territorial brigades in the West Bank. It has also simulated the deployment of additional division headquarters to the territories.
The Central Command marked the end of March as a period that requires increased preparations. The factors that can lead to escalation are many, and the coming months will reveal whether they outweigh the factors that lead to stability.
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Two States: In Principle? Yes. Now? No.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement today claiming that he still favors a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians isn’t likely to persuade his detractors that he wants peace. The day before his decisive victory in Tuesday’s election, he vowed that there would be no Palestinian state established on his watch. This provoked a torrent of international criticism and served as justification for Obama administration threats to abandon Israel at the United Nations. But while Netanyahu can certainly be accused with some justice of being a cynical flip-flopper, this episode doesn’t justify the claims that Israel wasn’t negotiating in good faith with the Palestinians during the past few years. Nor is it entirely illogical. In fact, the two statements show that Netanyahu is very much in tune with the views of most Israelis. They support a two-state solution with the Palestinians in principle. But they also know that isn’t a realistic option under the current circumstances.
Let’s concede that Netanyahu’s comments about not allowing the creation of a Palestinian state while he was prime minister was a brazen attempt to lure voters away from right-wing allies in order to boost his Likud Party totals. But whether this was necessary or not, it must be accepted that it helped him and that it was not unfair of critics to conclude that he was retracting his 2009 Bar-Ilan University speech in which he accepted a two-states as the basis for peace. But his subsequent effort in an interview with NBC’s Andrew Mitchell to claim that he still favors such a solution is, while seemingly inconsistent, actually correct.
Whatever he may have said on Monday, the left’s talking point about the campaign proving that Netanyahu had been lying for six years doesn’t hold water. Whether you like the prime minister or loathe him, the fact remains that Netanyahu did freeze settlement building at President Obama’s behest. He also sent his recent electoral opponent Tzipi Livni to negotiate peace with Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas. As we now know, documents have revealed that he went a long way toward accommodating Kerry’s ideas for a framework during those talks and even Livni concedes that it was Abbas who torpedoed them by never negotiating in good faith. Had Abbas been serious about a two state solution at any point during the last six years he could have said he was willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state but he refused to do so no matter where its borders might be drawn. He also continued to assert that he could never give up the right of return for the descendants of the 1948 refugees. Both stands are reflective of the fact that Palestinian nationalism has always been inextricably tied to the war on Zionism. Assuming he wanted to, Abbas is incapable of abandoning these stands and surviving. Hamas has no interest in such a scenario.
Moreover, Palestinian actions during the last 20 years of peace processing have convinced the overwhelming majority of Israeli voters, including many who voted for Netanyahu’s opponents, that neither Abbas nor his Hamas rivals ruling in Gaza have any interest in signing a peace agreement that will end the conflict for all time. Even if you want to ignore what happened in the 1990s when Yasir Arafat was running the Palestinian Authority and it set out on a course of fomenting hatred and subsidizing terrorism, Abbas’s record is not better. In 2008, he rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer of independence and a state in almost all of the West Bank, Gaza and a share of Jerusalem just as Arafat had done in 2000 and 2001. Even worse, after Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, the strip has become an independent Palestinian state in all but name and transformed into a base for terrorism by its Hamas rulers.
Under those circumstances and with the PA refusing to hold elections about of fear that the corrupt kleptocracy that runs the West Bank might be replaced by their Islamist rivals, it’s little wonder most Israeli voters think Netanyahu was right when he warned that two states now meant another Hamasistan next to the Jewish state’s population centers.
A two state solution in which a demilitarized Palestinian state lives peacefully next to Israel with both Jews and Arabs free to live unmolested on either side of the border is the ideal solution to the conflict. But until a sea change in the Palestinian political culture happens to make that an actual possibility rather than merely a fantasy, no rational Israeli government would consent to a complete withdrawal from the territory.
Is it possible to oppose a two-state solution under the current circumstances but to be for it in principle? Netanyahu’s detractors would argue that it isn’t. What’s more they claim that his vow and his “Hamasistan” comments show that he merely wants to preserve the status quo.
But this reflects the basic myth that has been the foundation of the mistaken policies pursued by the Obama administration. Like some on the Jewish left, they’ve wrongly assumed that the only thing that is missing for peace to become a reality is a willingness on Israel’s part to take risks to achieve it. But Israel has been taking such risks for 20 years and has discovered that it traded land for terror, not peace. That realization has rendered the Israeli left unelectable and given Netanyahu a fourth term in office. Even if Isaac Herzog’s Zionist Union had beaten the Likud on Tuesday, he was no more likely to create a Palestinian state than Netanyahu.
Palestinian intransigence and terror remain the real obstacles to peace. The United States needs to stop reflexively blaming Israel. Peace will happen when the Palestinians decide they are ready for a two state solution that has always been favored more by Israelis than Arabs. Until that happens, it can remain a theoretical goal but one that, like Netanyahu, sensible Israelis will not choose to pursue under the present circumstances.
1a) Analysis: Islamic Jihad gaining strength in the West Bank
Palestinian Islamic Jihad is gaining strength in Judea and Samaria, representing a new terrorist threat. Senior IDF officials from the Central territorial command consider Islamic Jihad to be a small yet highly focused entity, making it a dangerous and disturbing addition to the plethora of actors in the territories.
Islamic Jihad's central base is in the Gaza Strip, and it has been a loyal Iranian proxy for many years, depending on Tehran for funds, training, and weapons.
Iran, for its part, has attempted to get money into the West Bank to spread its influence, so far with very limited success, due to Israeli security efforts and the Palestinian Authority's resistance to Iranian sponsorship.
A second force that is emerging in the West Bank is the Fatah Tanzim, which was once a dominant terrorist group during the years of the Second Intifada. Youths from Fatah Tanzim are not bound by an agreement that older members came to with Israel in the previous decade, which saw Israel remove them from its wanted list in exchange for a cessation of terror activities.
Fatah Tanzim are not attacking Israel at present, but they could become a game changing threat. The group's younger members, who do not remember the Second Intifada and the high toll it took on Palestinian society, could in the future pose a threat to Israeli security, by launching attacks like firing on Israeli traffic in the West Bank, or infiltrating settlements and carrying out killing sprees. Such attacks do not require millions of shekels to prepare, or cross-border tunnels to carry out.
One possibility being considered by the IDF's Central Command is that Fatah Tanzim could rebel against the Palestinian Authority in the future.
Meanwhile, Hamas in Gaza together with operatives from its headquarters in Turkey continue their efforts to try and orchestrate terrorism in the West Bank. These efforts are wide in scope, and getting wider with time. Hamas is forging growing operational ties among West Bank Palestinians and seeking to construct new networks that can carry out attacks. Every night, the IDF and the Shin Bet successfully thwart these efforts, by gathering accurate intelligence and quickly converting it into arrest operations.
These efforts by security forces prevent deadly terrorism on a daily basis.
In Judea and Samaria, Hamas can take more than one form. In addition to cells remotely set up and controlled from Gaza, localized Hamas cells, made up mainly of local operatives continue to pose a threat. Such cells leave a lower intelligence signature, making them harder for Israeli intelligence to detect.
The IDF's Central Command continues to prepare for the possibility of a security escalation. Although the current situation on the ground is relatively stable, security officials assess that the diplomatic confrontation raging between Ramallah and Jerusalem could rapidly spill over into a wave of violence.
As a result, the Central Command has been practicing sending more conscripted battalions to the territorial brigades in the West Bank. It has also simulated the deployment of additional division headquarters to the territories.
The Central Command marked the end of March as a period that requires increased preparations. The factors that can lead to escalation are many, and the coming months will reveal whether they outweigh the factors that lead to stability.
1b)Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for re-electing Netanyahu
By Isi Leibler
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory surprised the nation and shocked the media “experts” who were already writing his obituaries. Gideon Levy of Haaretz even remarked that the only solution for Israel now “was to replace the people.”
All the odds were stacked against Netanyahu. The prevailing "time for a change” mood which gained traction from the “anyone but Bibi” campaign was manifested in an unprecedentedly ferocious and vulgar media promotion of personal character assassination. Netanyahu was attacked for neglecting the economy, failing to reduce the widening gap between rich and poor and stemming the escalating rise in house prices. He was blamed for the deterioration of relations with the Obama administration and even castigated for his triumphant address to Congress discussing the Iranian nuclear threat.
But despite polls indicating that Likud was trailing the Zionist Union, Netanyahu achieved the greatest political achievement of his career -- a landslide victory providing him with a powerful mandate to lead the nation and become the longest-serving Israeli prime minister.
Most pundits believe that this was primarily achieved during the closing week of the election when he personally campaigned with more intensity than during his entire term of office.
Brutally, and in some cases even resorting to divisive terminology, he succeeded in drawing the attention of the electorate to the critical security threats facing Israel. He convinced them of the need for a strong leader to confront the barbarians at our gates and one who could resist the pressures of the Obama administration to make further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians which would undermine security and lead to increased terror.
Most pundits believe that this was primarily achieved during the closing week of the election when he personally campaigned with more intensity than during his entire term of office.
Brutally, and in some cases even resorting to divisive terminology, he succeeded in drawing the attention of the electorate to the critical security threats facing Israel. He convinced them of the need for a strong leader to confront the barbarians at our gates and one who could resist the pressures of the Obama administration to make further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians which would undermine security and lead to increased terror.
The majority of Israelis demonstrated that despite reservations about Netanyahu’s policies and personality, their choice was to elect a strong and experienced leader. Presumably that is why Likud gained so many votes at the last moment.
Prior to the election, U.S. President Barack Obama had already signaled his malicious intent by appointing Robert Malley, known for his hostility to Israel, as White House coordinator for the Middle East, and designated White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as keynote speaker at the anti-Israeli J Street Conference. Still smarting over Netanyahu’s address to Congress and having failed to bring about his downfall, Obama was clearly devastated by his spectacular electoral victory.
But having regard to the fact that the electorate in the only democratic country in the region had extended a clear vote of confidence in Netanyahu, it is anticipated that Israel's long-standing ally -- which purports to support democracy -- would accept the will of the people in good faith.
Besides, an analysis of the votes indicates Netanyahu’s victory was anything but a lurch to the far right. It was a vindication of the center right with the most radical party failing to meet the threshold, and the other two more conservative parties being reduced from 25 to 13 seats.
Nevertheless, the administration effectively declared war against Netanyahu. Obama grasped two remarks expressed by Netanyahu, somewhat out of context at the height of the election fever, to justify a veiled threat that the U.S. would "reassess” relations with Israel, hinting that the U.S. would punish Israel by failing to exercise its veto to protect Israel at the U.N. Security Council.
Netanyahu was condemned as a racist because, in an effort to jolt his supporters to vote, he drew attention to the massive effort funded from overseas to transport Arab voters to vote for the Joint Arab List, which includes supporters of Hamas and terrorism. It was a clumsy statement and a blunder but he hastily clarified his remark, noting that he used similar arguments about the Left in his efforts to encourage a maximum turnout of Likud voters. He stressed that he was proud that Arabs enjoyed equal voting rights to Jews, but that he was no less entitled to be critical of their political party than any other opposing party.
For the administration to transform this into a major racist incident and a basis for reassessing the bilateral relationship becomes even more ludicrous when noting that it consistently ignores the obscene incitement and vicious hatred generated at all levels by the Palestinian Authority, including Abbas’ call for ethnic cleansing by declaring that he would not contemplate allowing a single Jew to remain in a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu was also quoted as stating that no Palestinian state would emerge under his government. Yet, he made it abundantly clear that he remains opposed to annexation and that like the majority of Israelis, he remains committed in the long term to separating Israel from the Palestinians, thus enabling them to have a state. But this is impossible under current circumstances while Israel is surrounded by jihadists pledged to its destruction and creating a new terrorist entity, extending the carnage rampant in the region.
The fact is that Israel remains a democratic oasis of stability in a region in which barbarism is at an all-time high and where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions displaced. There is not a single sane Israeli politician who could today possibly contemplate endorsing statehood for a criminal Palestinian society based on a culture of death that glorifies mass murders and extolls terrorism. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that were it not for the Israel Defense Forces, Hamas would already have wrested control from the corrupt and duplicitous Palestinian Authority whose leader’s term expired five years ago.
Most Israelis expect Netanyahu to firmly resist pressures to make further territorial concessions and are outraged that Obama makes these demands after Abbas and his predecessor Arafat had both rejected offers to cede over 95% of the former Jordanian occupied territories. Moreover, Abbas is adamant that even if Palestine achieved statehood, that would not presuppose an end to conflict and he would refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and not compromise on the right of return of Arab refugees.
Most Israelis expect Netanyahu to firmly resist pressures to make further territorial concessions and are outraged that Obama makes these demands after Abbas and his predecessor Arafat had both rejected offers to cede over 95% of the former Jordanian occupied territories. Moreover, Abbas is adamant that even if Palestine achieved statehood, that would not presuppose an end to conflict and he would refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and not compromise on the right of return of Arab refugees.
The U.S. approach becomes even more obscene when Obama, who has no hesitation in publicly displaying his loathing of Netanyahu, virtually grovels to terrorist Iran, allies himself with Qatar, a major funder of Hamas and other terrorist groups, develops close personal relations with Recep Erdogan, the dictatorial anti-Semitic Turkish leader, embraces the Muslim Brotherhood, and most recently suggested that the U.S. would need to cooperate with Assad, the Syrian butcher recently reported for again employing chemical weapons against his own people.
Obama’s chilling threats of distancing the United States from Israel at the United Nations, possibly endorsing a Palestinian state based on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, would amount to an outright betrayal of an ally -- effectively throwing Israel to the wolves.
Netanyahu needs the support of the nation to resist these pressures and one would hope after the election, the opposition parties will set aside rivalries and act in the national interest by displaying unity in the face of global pressures threatening Israel's security.
Netanyahu needs the support of the nation to resist these pressures and one would hope after the election, the opposition parties will set aside rivalries and act in the national interest by displaying unity in the face of global pressures threatening Israel's security.
We are blessed with the support of the majority of the American people and, despite the controversy surrounding Netanyahu’s extraordinary address, he does enjoy the support of the majority of Congress, including most Democrats.
Some Jewish groups, such as the organizational leaders of the Conservative and Reform rabbinical movements and other bodies that had condemned Netanyahu for addressing Congress, have echoed the administration’s criticisms. The more radical anti-Israeli Jewish groups are even calling on Obama to “punish” the Jewish state and for Jews to demonstrate against Israel.
On the positive side, many committed Jewish leaders are now speaking up. For the first time, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee urged Obama to reach out to Israel and strongly criticized the White House for rebuffing Netanyahu’s reaffirmation of his support for a two-state solution when Israel’s security will not be endangered. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations made a similar statement. Abe Foxman, national director the Anti-Defamation League, described the anti-Israeli reactions as “an intemperate, inappropriate overreaction” to “election overzealousness” and described the administration’s response as “unbecoming.”
There is no doubt that Netanyahu will do his utmost to try to repair the relationship. But if Obama continues to be vindictive and remains obsessed with forcing America’s only loyal and democratic ally in the region to retreat to indefensible borders, we will need to stand firm. Hopefully, Congress and friends of Israel will use their influence to convince Obama that such a course of action would have catastrophic global implications and trigger powerful protests among his own people.
1c) ABBAS PAVING THE WAY TO TURN WEST BANK INTO AN ISLAMIST STATE
Author: Khaled Abu Toameh
These columns believe that Presidents deserve their cabinet nominees in nearly all cases, but Mr. Obama’s governance presents Congress with a larger Madisonian dilemma.James Madison designed a constitutional system of checks and balances to prevent executive or legislative tyranny. This works best when Presidents and Congresses assert their legal powers but step back from constitutional excesses that lead to judicial intervention or political crises.
Mr. Obama honors no such limits even when he admits they exist. On immigration policy, he said 22 times that he lacked the authority to issue work permits to millions of illegal immigrants only to order precisely that. He is negotiating a nuclear arms deal with Iran that he will submit for approval to the United Nations but not Congress.
But above all Congress has been frustrated by a President who has used the threat of government shutdowns as a political bludgeon to erode Congress’s power of the purse. Most Presidents negotiate compromises over spending priorities, as George W. Bush did in his last two years with the Pelosi-Reid Congress and Bill Clinton did with Newt Gingrich. Mr. Obama negotiates more sincerely with Ayatollah Khamenei than he does with Congress.
So what can the Congressional majority do? Impeachment is a political loser and makes no sense in the last two years anyway. Shutdowns don’t work, though regular order on spending will at least give the GOP more leverage to win some smaller victories. That leaves the Senate’s power of advice and consent over Mr. Obama’s nominees for the executive branch and judiciary.
This is the leverage the Senate GOP is now exercising against Ms. Lynch. She was headed toward easy confirmation until Mr. Reid decided to filibuster a previously agreed upon and bipartisan human-trafficking bill over an obscure abortion-funding provision. Mr. Reid’s goal, like Mr. Obama’s, is to show that Republicans can’t govern.
As usual, Democrats are playing the race card by claiming that the hold on Ms. Lynch is because she is black. But no one believes this. Current AG Eric Holder is black, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested she will still get a vote if Mr. Reid stops the filibuster.
The Lynch hold nonetheless signals that the GOP Senate should consider using its advice and consent power more aggressively—as a constitutional response to Mr. Obama’s unconstitutional abuse of his executive authority. In her confirmation hearings Ms. Lynch defended Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration, which is a fair reason to vote against her, though Mr. McConnell and other Republicans should explicitly repudiate the false racial charge on the Senate floor.
The more fruitful area for resistance may be on Mr. Obama’s appellate-court nominees, as Curt Levey recently argued on these pages. Simply refuse to confirm all of his appellate nominees until he stops abusing his power. This would be proportionate political justice after Messrs. Obama and Reid broke Senate rules to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
The President and liberals would protest, but the public would barely notice. Mr. Obama might make recess appointments to the bench, but these would end with his Presidency. In 2017 a Republican President would still have more judicial openings to fill.
Most important, Mr. Obama would begin to pay a measurable price for failing to operate within the Constitution’s guardrails. And Republicans would be in the good constitutional comp any of James Madison.
1c) ABBAS PAVING THE WAY TO TURN WEST BANK INTO AN ISLAMIST STATE
Author: Khaled Abu Toameh
Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO leadership in the West Bank are once again threatening to halt security coordination with Israel — this time in protest over the victory of Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party in Israel's March 17 general elections.
The latest threat was made during a meeting of PLO leaders, headed by Abbas in Ramallah, to discuss the outcome of the Israeli elections.
At the meeting, the PLO leaders decided to ask the commanders of the PA security forces in the West Bank to come up with a “detailed plan” to stop security coordination with Israel.
Halting security coordination with Israel means that Abbas and the PLO would be paving the way for Hamas to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. With that, the Palestinians would have another Islamist state that seeks to eliminate Israel.
Abbas and the PLO leadership are, in effect, saying: “We don't like the results of the elections and that is why we are going to facilitate a Hamas takeover of the West Bank.”
It is only the Palestinian Authority's security coordination with Israel that has thus far foiled Hamas's plans to stage a coup against Abbas's regime in the West Bank.
Were it not for this coordination, Abbas would have been removed from power several years ago — as was the case in 2007, when Hamas drove him and his PA out of the Gaza Strip. Even senior Palestinian officials acknowledge that Abbas would not survive in power without security coordination with Israel.
But now, Abbas and the PLO have decided to respond to the victory of Netanyahu by not only cutting off security coordination, but also intensifying their efforts to isolate and delegitimize Israel in the international community.
Abbas and the PLO have also decided to engage in a “comprehensive dialogue” with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, in response to the victory of Netanyahu. These two radical groups seek to destroy Israel and are opposed to any peace process in the Middle East.
In other words, Abbas has decided to join forces with the enemies of peace, simply because he does not like the results of the Israeli elections.
Abbas's decision to reach out to Hamas and Islamic Jihad means that he sees these two organizations as legitimate players in the Palestinian arena and partners in a future Palestinian state. This is the same Abbas who has been warning over the past few years of Hamas's repeated attempts to stage a coup against him in the West Bank.
Best Frenemies? Mahmoud Abbas (r) meets with the Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal in Qatar, July 20, 2014. (Image source: Handout from the Palestinian Authority President's Office/Thaer Ghanem)
Best Frenemies? Mahmoud Abbas (r) meets with the Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashaal in Qatar, July 20, 2014. (Image source: Handout from the Palestinian Authority President's Office/Thaer Ghanem)
The Palestinian Authority initially responded to the results of the elections by threatening to pursue its efforts with the International Criminal Court to file “war crimes” charges against Israel. Now the PA and PLO leaders have gone a step further, by threatening to cut off security and economic ties with Israel.
These threats are primarily aimed at scaring the international community into providing the PA with more financial and political support. Moreover, these threats are designed to rally the world against Israel, so that it would be forced to submit to Abbas's demands and withdraw to the pre-1967 lines.
Abbas has chosen to align himself with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, thus facilitating these two organizations' dream of taking over the West Bank. This alliance could also result in renewed terrorist attacks against Israel, because Hamas and Islamic Jihad will interpret Abbas's anti-Israel moves and rhetoric as a green light for such actions.
Abbas's rapprochement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad will only confirm the fears of many Israelis that the West Bank will fall into the hands of Islamists once Israel withdraws from that area.
However, Abbas's decision to wage a diplomatic and political campaign against Israel in the international arena is not going to bring Palestinians closer to achieving their aspirations.
Abbas and the international community — especially the U.S. Administration — are ignoring the fact that the Palestinians already have two separate mini-states, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The two-state solution was born the day Hamas kicked Abbas out of the Gaza Strip and turned it into an Islamist emirate. In the end, the Palestinians got two states that are even at war with each other.
Now, by joining forces with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Abbas is paving the way for turning the West Bank into another Islamist state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Loretta Lynch’s Obama Problem
Nominations are one way the GOP can fight the President’s executive excesses.
How does Congress deal with a President who exceeds his appointment power, rewrites laws when it suits him, and shuts down the government rather than compromise with a co-equal branch over policy differences? That’s the dilemma Republicans on Capitol Hill have faced, and it explains why Loretta Lynch may not be confirmed as Attorney General for weeks, if it all.
Senate Republicans are blocking a vote on Ms. Lynch, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York who would be the first black woman to run the Justice Department. Most Republicans don’t have a problem with Ms. Lynch’s qualifications. Their problem is with President Obama and his willful disregard for the limits of executive power.
These columns believe that Presidents deserve their cabinet nominees in nearly all cases, but Mr. Obama’s governance presents Congress with a larger Madisonian dilemma.James Madison designed a constitutional system of checks and balances to prevent executive or legislative tyranny. This works best when Presidents and Congresses assert their legal powers but step back from constitutional excesses that lead to judicial intervention or political crises.
Mr. Obama honors no such limits even when he admits they exist. On immigration policy, he said 22 times that he lacked the authority to issue work permits to millions of illegal immigrants only to order precisely that. He is negotiating a nuclear arms deal with Iran that he will submit for approval to the United Nations but not Congress.
The Supreme Court has scolded Mr. Obama for making recess appointments when Congress wasn’t in recess. It has rebuked him for rewriting the Clean Air Act without statutory authority. And it is now hearing a challenge to his decision to spend billions of dollars in subsidies without clear authorization in the ObamaCare statute.
The normal constitutional response would be for Congress to use its own powers to check these executive excesses. Republicans have been stymied in part by Senate Democrats, especially Harry Reid, who did a deal with the President to protect him at all costs if Mr. Obama used appointments at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop a nuclear waste facility in Nevada.
But above all Congress has been frustrated by a President who has used the threat of government shutdowns as a political bludgeon to erode Congress’s power of the purse. Most Presidents negotiate compromises over spending priorities, as George W. Bush did in his last two years with the Pelosi-Reid Congress and Bill Clinton did with Newt Gingrich. Mr. Obama negotiates more sincerely with Ayatollah Khamenei than he does with Congress.
So what can the Congressional majority do? Impeachment is a political loser and makes no sense in the last two years anyway. Shutdowns don’t work, though regular order on spending will at least give the GOP more leverage to win some smaller victories. That leaves the Senate’s power of advice and consent over Mr. Obama’s nominees for the executive branch and judiciary.
This is the leverage the Senate GOP is now exercising against Ms. Lynch. She was headed toward easy confirmation until Mr. Reid decided to filibuster a previously agreed upon and bipartisan human-trafficking bill over an obscure abortion-funding provision. Mr. Reid’s goal, like Mr. Obama’s, is to show that Republicans can’t govern.
As usual, Democrats are playing the race card by claiming that the hold on Ms. Lynch is because she is black. But no one believes this. Current AG Eric Holder is black, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested she will still get a vote if Mr. Reid stops the filibuster.
The Lynch hold nonetheless signals that the GOP Senate should consider using its advice and consent power more aggressively—as a constitutional response to Mr. Obama’s unconstitutional abuse of his executive authority. In her confirmation hearings Ms. Lynch defended Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration, which is a fair reason to vote against her, though Mr. McConnell and other Republicans should explicitly repudiate the false racial charge on the Senate floor.
The more fruitful area for resistance may be on Mr. Obama’s appellate-court nominees, as Curt Levey recently argued on these pages. Simply refuse to confirm all of his appellate nominees until he stops abusing his power. This would be proportionate political justice after Messrs. Obama and Reid broke Senate rules to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
The President and liberals would protest, but the public would barely notice. Mr. Obama might make recess appointments to the bench, but these would end with his Presidency. In 2017 a Republican President would still have more judicial openings to fill.
Most important, Mr. Obama would begin to pay a measurable price for failing to operate within the Constitution’s guardrails. And Republicans would be in the good constitutional comp any of James Madison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Many U.S. cities, states, and regions are recognizing the expertise and entrepreneurial strength of Israel’s Cyber Security industry and working to develop relevant linkages with business and government in Israel. The state of Georgia and its capital city Atlanta are staking a claim this week as the “go to” center in the United States for Israeli cyber companies as a powerful delegation visits the country to seek technology and business partnerships.
Read more: Georgia Stakes Claim on Israel Cyber Security | Tom Glaser | The Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/georgia-stakes-claim-on-israel-cyber-security/#ixzz3VEwe5fi5
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
3)
Georgia Stakes Claim on Israel Cyber Security
By Tom Glaser
Many U.S. cities, states, and regions are recognizing the expertise and entrepreneurial strength of Israel’s Cyber Security industry and working to develop relevant linkages with business and government in Israel. The state of Georgia and its capital city Atlanta are staking a claim this week as the “go to” center in the United States for Israeli cyber companies as a powerful delegation visits the country to seek technology and business partnerships.
Organized by Atlanta-based Conexx: America Israel Business Connector, the Georgia Cyber Security Mission is led by Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed whose government operates the world’s busiest airport as well as the data security for one of the country’s major cities. In addition to the city government’s top cyber decision makers, the delegation includes senior IT and Security executives from The Coca-Cola Company, U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence, IBM, Delta Air Lines, Georgia Technology Authority, Southern Company, Carter’s, Inc., AT&T, and NCR. Co-sponsoring the mission are the Georgia Department of Economic Development, Metro Atlanta Chamber, and Technology Association of Georgia that have also sent top representatives to the delegation.
The lure to Israel was underscored by Israel’s Cyber Security ecosystem that has become a hotbed for cutting edge innovation in the global market. From dealing with a continued existential homeland security threat to the protection of infrastructure and commerce, Israeli companies have stepped up to the challenge of the increased need for advanced solutions for information security threats that are becoming ever more sophisticated and damaging to companies and the economy.
The delegation is participating at the CyberTech International Conference in Tel Aviv on March 24-25 where several of the group’s members are featured in keynotes and on panels. The Georgia group is also being hosted for meetings and briefings in the Tel Aviv area by Verint, RSA Israel, The Time incubator, RAD Group, and Sasa Software. A day-long visit to Beer Sheva is set to meet with Ben-Gurion University, Gav-Yam Technology Park, and CyberSpark. The group will also travel to Atlanta’s official sister city in Israel, Ra’anana, where they will receive briefings at the Amdocs / AT&T Israel Foundry and NCR Israel (Retalix). There will be a meeting with the Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce and a luncheon hosted by The Coca-Cola Company’s innovative accelerator, The Bridge. The group will also be hosted for a luncheon briefing by Credorax, an Israeli financial technology company that recently announced plans to establish a major business center in Atlanta.
In my pre-mission discussions with Conexx’s COO Guy Tessler and Ronen Kenan who represents the Georgia Department of Economic Development in Israel, I came away deeply impressed with the large size and quality of the delegation members and the enthusiastic reception they are getting in Israel this week by government and industry. With the expectation of rubbing shoulders with Israeli leaders and meeting innovative Israeli start ups, they believe that Georgia will have firmly established itself as a top destination for Israel-based companies that are innovating in cyber security.
Having organized many Southeast delegations to Israel over the years, I believe in the formula that by successfully recruiting top U.S. decision makers, real business with Israel is more than an expectation—it’s a sure thing. I wish the Georgia delegation a great week, and look forward to sharing reports on the success of this mission in future blogs.
Read more: Georgia Stakes Claim on Israel Cyber Security | Tom Glaser | The Blogs | The Times of Israel http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/georgia-stakes-claim-on-israel-cyber-security/#ixzz3VEwe5fi5
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)---
Absolutely Jaw Dropping !!
| |
 |
PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS
A List of Republican Budget Cuts
Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list .
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting.
Read to the end.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U..S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon , eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U..S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
*Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.
* Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings..
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings..
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings. WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress. WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings. WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs -- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?!
Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)
THE SNEEZE
They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-two students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With their rich maroon gowns flowing and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt.
Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and Moms freely brushed away tears.
This class would NOT pray during the commencements, not by choice, but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it..
The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates or their families.
The speeches were nice, but they were routine until the final speech received a standing ovation.
A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened.
All 92 students, every single one of them, suddenly SNEEZED !!!!
The student on stage simply looked at the audience and said,
'GOD BLESS YOU'
And he walked off the stage...
The audience exploded into applause. This graduating class had found a unique way to invoke God's blessing on their future with or without the court's approval.
Isn't this a wonderful story? Pass it on to all your friends.........and
GOD BLESS YOU!!!!
This is a true story; it happened at Eastern ShoreDistrict High School inMusquodoboit Harbour , Nova Scotia.
No comments:
Post a Comment