MTCowboy's blog

http://cufi.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=about_brog_blog#President_2009

Last week, President Obama gave a major speech in Cairo.  There he made a number of important points, including issuing a strong rejection of Holocaust denial in front of an audience that has been far too sympathetic to it.  Yet while confronting this one myth, President Obama unfortunately helped to perpetuate two other dangerous myths concerning Israel's right to exist and the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave what was, at least in part, his response.  In a major policy speech at Bar Ilan University, Netanyahu not only set out his proposal for peace in the Middle East, but he provided a quick and cogent rebuttal of the two myths that President Obama appeared to embrace in Cairo.  It was good that he did so. 
 
The first myth is that Israel's right to exist is based upon Jewish persecution in Europe, namely the Holocaust.  With a thinly veiled reference to Obama's words, Netanyahu clarified that, "The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish people over 2,000 years .. which reached its climax in the Holocaust."  On the contrary, Netanyahu noted, "the right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people."
 
This is a crucial point.  The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel dates back over 3,500 years.  If the Jewish people had not been born in Israel, had not ruled Israel for centuries, had not returned to Israel consistently even after the Roman exile, and had not made Israel the center of their lives even while away, then they would have no right to a state in this land.  The Holocaust did not and could not confer territorial rights -- it merely proved the urgency of exercising these rights. 
 
The second myth Netanyahu confronted is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is driven by Israel's refusal to withdraw from the West Bank and recognize a Palestinian state.  Netanyahu was quick to point out that those who take such a view confuse cause and effect.  He noted that, "The attacks on us began in the 1920's, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950's with the fedayeen attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War with the attempt to strangle Israel.  All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria" (the Biblical name for the West Bank). 
 
If Jewish rejection and occupation is not the source of the conflict, then what is?  Netanyahu was quite clear on this point.  He emphasized that when the United Nations proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state back in 1947, "the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing.  The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever."  Thus, Netanyahu concluded,  "The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland." 
 
In the part of his speech that received the most attention, Netanyahu endorsed a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians.  While this position may be new for Netanyahu, it is hardly new for Israel.  Far from ending in 1947, support for a Palestinian state has been the official policy of Israel's recent governments.  These governments have acted on this policy by withdrawing from all of Gaza and much of the West Bank -- only to return to many West Bank towns to stop a wave of terrorism. 

Yet Israel's support for a Palestinian state alone cannot bring peace because its absence has not been the primary barrier to peace.  The root of the conflict has been and remains the Palestinian failure to accept -- in both word and deed -- the existence of a Jewish state within any border. 
 
In his Bar Ilan speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu set forth an approach to the peace process that enjoys broad public support in Israel.  And he has taken a position that recognizes and seeks to surmount the real barriers to a negotiated settlement.  Let us hope that our government will respect this Israeli consensus, and recognize this historical reality, as it continues to pursue peace in the Middle  East. 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101215

Does any reasonable American believe that Obama is not a Muslim? If anyone doubts his true allegiance, one only has to go back to January 20, 2009, and read what he has said to the Islamic members ang then contemplate the true meaning behind every executive order and legislation that his administration has enacted since January.

The Palestinian Authority has received signs from the U.S. that it should not take seriously Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent major address, according to a top PA official speaking to WND.

Nimer Hamad, senior political adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, also said the PA is not concerned about Netanyahu's policies since Abbas relies on American support for key Palestinian demands.

During Netanyahu's speech Sunday, the Israeli leader called for a demilitarized Palestinian state and said Jerusalem would always be united under Jewish sovereignty.

Hamad countered: "No matter what is the position of the Israeli government and no matter what are the statements of Netanyahu, what counts is what was promised to us by Obama, which is totally the opposite [of Netanyahu's positions]."

"We received encouraging signs from the Americans that we should not take seriously into consideration Netanyahu's speech," Hamad said.

Hamad said the Obama administration holds views that strongly differ from Netanyahu's.

"The U.S. is committed to the evacuation of settlements (in the West Bank)," he said. "We know from what we understand that also Jerusalem will be determined in the final negotiations that will take place on the basis of an international community

The Abbas adviser claimed the Obama administration "understands that the Israeli policy is dangerous not only for the region but also for the U.S."

Hamad said Netanyahu's speech was "destructive for the peace process."

He surmised the Israeli leader's statements were "in the first level directed to his partners in the government and the radicals in Israel."

Separately, a top PA official, speaking to WND from Ramallah on condition his name be withheld, said the Palestinians "never felt strong like we are feeling now."

That PA official claimed the Palestinians "never felt like we had a sympathetic administration like there is now in Washington"

"We know also that Netanyahu will be obliged to carry out the vision of the U.S., which is right now closer to ours than to Israel," he said.

In a speech branded as a response to Obama's Mideast policies, Netanyahu on Sunday called for the "immediate" resumption of "peace talks" with the Palestinians. The Israeli leader said he would support a demilitarized Palestinian state if the Palestinians meet certain conditions, such as first combating terror and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

Netanyahu's remarks were a departure from recent statements in which he refused to tacitly endorse a Palestinian state.

"To achieve peace, courage and honesty are necessary from both sides," Netanyahu said. "The Palestinians must say, 'Enough with this conflict. We recognize Israel's right to exist and want to live by their side."

He continued, "A public Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is a prerequisite for regional peace."

"For peace," Netanyahu said, "we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces. We ask that the U.S. commit that in the end-deal the Palestinian territory will be demilitarized. Without that, sooner or later, we will have another 'Hamastan.' And Israel can't agree to that."

Netanyahu continued, "If we receive a commitment to Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and a demilitarized Palestinian state, we can reach a final agreement."

Netanyahu said Jerusalem would remain the united capital of Israel – a nonstarter for the Palestinians. He also ruled out the option of granting so-called Palestinian refugees the right to settle within Israeli borders.

In a section of his speech that likely did not sit well with Hamas' Yousef, Netanyahu said that Israel would not negotiate with terrorists who wish to destroy it and said that Palestinians must choose between path of peace and Hamas.

Addressing the issue of Jewish communities in the strategic, biblical West Bank, Netanyahu stated, "In the interim there is no intention to create new settlements or expand existing towns, while not preventing the natural needs of settlers, who are not enemies."

Netanyahu was alluding to continuing "natural growth," or adding housing units to settlements to accommodate for the existing settlement population. He is openly defying the Obama administration's strong call for an end to all settlement activity, including natural growth.

There were several aspects to Netanayhu's speech that were direct responses to Obama's address to the Muslim world in Cairo two weeks ago.

During his address, Obama pointed to Israeli West Bank settlements as specifically undermining "efforts to achieve peace."

Netanyahu today stated, "Let me use the most simple words – the root of the struggle is the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The initial Arab refusal was to a Jewish state in any location, before Israeli presence in the West Bank."

"The closer we get to an agreement with the Palestinians, the further it is rejected," Netanyahu continued. "We tried a withdrawal with an agreement, without one, a partial withdraw and we offered a near-complete withdraw. We uprooted Jewish settlers from their homes, and received a barrage of missiles in return."

Also in his address, Obama indicated Israel's creation was a response to "anti-Semitism in Europe

Netanyahu pointed out the Jewish people have been linked to the land of Israel for over 3,000 years.

Over the past 3 1/2 months, our country has been fundamentally transformed by the current administration and Democratically controlled congress. The pace of the change has been at warp speed. It is mind boggling what this current administration and congress have done since January 20, 2009.

Most recently, we have been told that the "stars are aligned" for the implementation of the government controlled health care plan and that this must be accomplished prior to July 31, 2009. I have to ask why? What is the rush? Why is a government controlled health plan the answer to the failing Social Security and Medicare programs? I find this line of thought to be contradictory at best, and dangerous to all. Can anyone provide an example of any program the government has taken over that actually performs better? Who among us believe that GM and Chrysler will produce quality vehicles worth purchasing now that the government and unions have taken control? Why should we believe that the government will actually provide quality health care to all Americans? I, for one, do not believe this will occur. In fact, I expect any and all health care to be rationed based on demographics - age, race,disabilities, income, education, geographical location, and occupation.

What has happened to the arena of public debate and letting Americans discuss the benefits and pitfalls of all proposals and ideas? Do those that represent us in Washington D. C. feel that we cannot add to the discussion? Is this why they now fast track all legislation and hope that we will forget what they have done before they come up for re-election? This certainly seems to be the case.

During the campaign leading up to the general election last November, the MSM did not provide the public with the details of Obama’s plan. He did not hide how he wanted to transform America. While the MSM and organizations like ACORN implemented their plan to elect a liberal to the White House to perfection, we must remember that many independents and conservatives did not vote for McCain because they were tired of Bush and the inability of conservatives to remain true to the foundations of conservative ideology. Sadly, those independents and conservatives that voted for the current president are now beginning to see the error of their decision, but the damage has been done.

The far left understands that they a small window of time in which to accomplish their objectives. That is why the pace of change is occurring at warp speed. By the time we get to the 2010 elections, will it be too late to change what has been done? I don’t know, but I do know that the longer a policy is in place before rational individuals have the opportunity to reverse the action, the harder it will be to undo the effects of the policy.

We are living in troubling times. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we do not know all the actions or decisions this administration has made. We only know what they want us to know. And, what we know is frightening.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/30/obama-breaks-transparency-promise-again/#more-4586

Before President Barack Obama took office he promised to:

not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

In just his first week in the White House, Obama broke this promise twice signing both Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and Medicare expansion bill without posting the bill for five day comment.

Today, Obama will break his promise to the American people yet again, this time by signing the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. There is no way that anyone of these three bills could possibly be considered an emergency. All three are clear broken promises by the Obama Administration.

Worse, the Omnibus Land Bill could definitely use some more scrutiny. Especially the provision that would criminalize casual collecting of paleontological resources on federal land.