‘Obama Not That Powerful’

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I liked former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. In this Y Net piece (“Say ‘no’ to Obama”), his son, Yair Shamir, tries to persuade Israelis, most of whom are dovish, that there is no harm in acting less like an American satellite and more like a sovereign state.
Indirectly, such conduct comports with American interests. From “Thank You, Nancy Pelosi”: “Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent—and out of the affairs of others—recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach. Patriots for a sane American foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, Israel included, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours.”

SAY ‘NO’ TO OBAMA
Fending off American pressure requires us to alter our tactics but not our goal
Yair Shamir

Ever since Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States he has been recognized in Israel as a superstar. To the Israeli media and policy makers every word of his shakes heaven and earth. He is perceived as an omnipotent force and therefore it deters the government from making decisions on building, populating and improving the infrastructure in Jerusalem. It also fears to implement decisions that were already approved by previous left-wing governments. At the same time the authorities are afraid to impose the law against illegal Arab construction that threatens the future of Jerusalem. The Arabs smell this weakness and this emboldens and encourages them to harden their positions towards Israel.

However, there is no basis for this fear and overreaction. With all due respect to President Obama he is not that powerful. The polls in recent weeks point to a drastic decline in his popularity in the United States. Support for the Democrats in the Senate and Congress is now at an all time low and the Republican legislators are now perceived more worthy of being elected to Congress. Two thirds of the population feels that America is not heading in the right direction.

As the Congressional campaign goes into motion this month and the rate of unemployment continues to rise, the president becomes more and more contingent on Congress. During an election campaign Democratic legislators are attuned to their constituency more than they are to the president. The relative weight of Congress rises during economic crises and the assertiveness and independence of legislators grow as congressional campaign season approaches.

Polls in the US show that there is still strong and unwavering support among the American public for Israel. Democratic legislators are aware of this and therefore will not allow the president to break Israel’s back by imposing withdrawals from land vital to its security.

True leadership understands that saying no and standing up against pressure is vital to attain strategic goals while surrender and acquiescence only leads to abandonment of these goals. At the same time it increases international pressure on Israel. Fending off pressure requires you to alter your tactics but not your goal.

My father, former PM Yitzchak Shamir, may he live and be well, knew that defying American pressure would harm his personal popularity and Israel’s image in the short run but in the long run would turn Israel into the US strongest ally and strategic partner.

World has changed in Israel’s favor

Nothing illustrates this better than Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s words in his dedication to the book “Yitzchak Shamir: Firm as A Rock” published last year:

“During President George Bush’s (the father) term in office while I was serving as the IDF’s chief of staff I was once summoned to the Prime Minister’s Office to meet with then US Secretary of State James Baker who had been demanding that Israel make far-reaching concessions. Upon the request of Shamir, I briefed our prominent guest with the range of military threats that is facing Israel. Baker did not retract from his demands. Instead, carrying the weight of the only superpower leading the free world today, he insisted that Israel concede.

“At one point I noticed Shamir’s face became very tense and alert, it looked like a volcano about to explode. He banged on the table and told the secretary of state in a very blunt and undiplomatic manner, in a very sharp but self-controlled tone: ‘Mr. Secretary, you can demand what you choose to demand but this is our country and we will not agree to do anything that will harm its interests and future even if our best friend demands it from us.”

My father’s refusal to budge from his principles did not lead to a round of applause and praise in the media but it elicited respect for the man and improved Israel’s national security. His heritage now forewarns Israeli prime ministers to stand up to pressure and not to define American pressure as a reason to withdraw from your vision and strategic goal. This will only erode Israel’s power of deterrence and that of the US in the Middle East.

I’m sure there will be those who will claim that one cannot compare the situation prevailing then to the situation today. They will claim that times have changed, the world has changed and all kinds of baseless reasons aimed at frightening the Israeli public so they would succumb to a strategic withdrawal. True, the world has changed, but in Israel’s favor. Israel has been upgraded dramatically in the military, economic, demographic, technological and medical fields etc.

The US post September 11th and Europe following a wave of Muslim terror and being faced with a demographic Muslim time bomb constitutes a plausible arena for Israel to stand firm and unapologetic.

The US Congress is equal in power and independence to the president. The president initiates and executes policy but Congress controls the American Purse. It has the authority to change, suspend and initiate policy. Congress has always displayed a more hawkish approach than Israeli governments when it came to the security of the state and especially on the issue of Jerusalem.

Very prominent and influential congressional figures have made it clear that we now have a historic opportunity to upgrade the Israeli-US strategic partnership regardless of the present disagreements with the Obama government regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The present Israeli government has a solid majority and backing of the Israeli public who is hoping for change – it wants to see a strong Israel that stands by its rights and principles and does not succumb to the pressure of international elements that have only their self-interests in mind.

Updated: Big Daddy Dodges Questions About Healthcare Diktat

Barack Obama, Healthcare, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Propaganda, Rights, Socialism, Taxation

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos exposes BO’s thesaurus of excuses for what most media are euphemizing as “a mandate to buy health insurance,” also a tax.

Writes Stephanopoulos:

“…in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.

Here it is:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax? …

[Observe the president’s slithering and sliming for yourself.]

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

[SNIP]

BO’s ignorance and evasion would pose no major obstacle given the dogged devotion among the dogs of the media to minimizing and covering up Da Man’s many mistakes.

However, even this master of manipulation might find it hard to slither away from his latest faux paux: The Baucus bill reads:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800. [P. 29]

Of course, the Baucus-Obama coercion is simply a natural extension of the collectivization of choices. If the state is to become the custodian of every individual in this country, and assume the onus of their care—then said serfs cannot act as they please. Big Daddy puts it as follows:

[F]or us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Being a freeman and receiving freebies from the State are mutually exclusive. A pact with the devil has consequences. These will be bearable for the parasites who demand some form of taxpayer-subsidized care. Not so for those of us who yearn to live free.

Update: Here are a few pertinent points (which, naturally, do not address rights) made by Philip Klein of the American Spectator:

“While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there’s two things that Obama isn’t taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn’t mean you elimate [sic] the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care. … Many of those who are currently uninsured simply have very low health care costs, which they are willing to pay out of pocket when they get sick. The reason why Obama supports a mandate is that he wants to be able to force insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions, and the only way to do that is to bring uninsured healthy people into the system. So really, this isn’t about eliminating freeloaders, it’s about forcing healthy people to pay for more health care than they need to so that they can make premiums more affordable for the sick.” [My italics]

The Value Of Lying

Christian Right, Conservatism, Debt, Politics, Religion, Republicans, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin

While we’re on the subject of liars and the lies they tell, a Values Voter Summit took place in Washington earlier today.

Read about John Boehner’s deceptions in this WSJ report.

Contra Boehner, the Democrats did not bankrupt the country; Bush did the dues before them; Barack is finishing what Bush began. The Republicans can’t “take our country back”; and Democrats have no more undermined national security than the Republicans did under Bush.

At the valueless summit, a straw poll was held and some straw men selected as favorites for president in 2012. Some learning curve, Middle America!

Huckabee grabbed nearly 29 percent of the vote. “Romney, Pawlenty, Palin and Pence each won roughly 12 percent of the 597 votes cast.”

Does anyone know if this hapless lot even invited Ron Paul?

Updated: No Experience In Ruining The Country

Capitalism, Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Political Economy, Politics

“My lack of experience is my greatest attribute. I have no experience in ruining the country,” said a witty Peter Schiff, who announced (on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”) a run for the US Senate in his home state of Connecticut. After whipping the Republicans, we hope, Schiff will challenge Democrat Chris Dodd, the poster boy for the “experience” that has ruined this country.

Update (Sept. 19): Van Wijk is correct: As a financial analyst with a considerable clientele, Schiff has wisely steered clear from being excessively political. To me, this means that he is a careful man, who thinks hard before mouthing off. The more issues one expatiates upon as a commentator, the more people one risks angering and alienating. I should know. Why do you think that so-called “courageous” columnists such as Ann Coulter stick to a limited range of issues—“liberal this; liberal that, the wonders of war, and the horrors of abortion, etc.”—while avoiding the hard ones (immigration, the “national question,” the economy)? Because by being completely uncontroversial she never risks alienating the base.

I always come back to Kevin Michael Grace’s aphorism: “The secret to becoming a successful right-wing columnist,” quipped the Canadian conservative, “is to echo the mob while complimenting yourself on your daring.”

Schiff has been fearless on matters economical—fearless and correct. He is also a libertarian and a former adviser to Ron Paul. His positions—and he’ll come out with them in the fullness of time—would correspond with Paul’s.

Another thing: everything does boil down to an understanding that one cannot spend funds one doesn’t have. Think about the Republicans who ran in the primaries. Did you ever hear any of them say, “folks, I’d love to indulge your phony rah-rah-for-the-troops patriotism and keep the army in Iraq, but we’re out of money”?