Imagine living in a neighborhood where most of your neighbors wish you would move away. Since you have a right to be there and it happens to be the home of many generations of your family, you refuse to be intimidated into leaving, even though you are violently attacked frequently, and sometimes family members are killed. Although painfully saddened, your resolve to remain there is not weakened.

That neighborhood is the dwelling place of Israel, a nation surrounded by many of its enemies.

Having spent last week in Israel talking and listening with many of Israel’s citizens, the deputy speaker of the Knesset, the leader of the opposition party in the Knesset, the mayor of Jerusalem, the mayor of the city of Ariel and the deputy prime minister, and touring the landscape of Israel, I now have a greater appreciation for the threats against Israel, their frustrations and their genuine desire for peace.

Threats against them from some of their neighboring nations and the Palestinians are very real. Those threats are not only from Iran wanting to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth, but also frequent terrorist attacks, most recently along its southern border.

After seeing first-hand the proximity of its enemy’s borders to communities within Israel, and the peaceful and positive developments in the city of Ariel, often referred to as the West Bank, it is easy to understand why the Israelis consider the idea of going back to the pre-1967 borders, as proposed by President Obama, to be unreasonable, impractical and, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, a non-starter.

Unreasonable and impractical demands by the Palestinians have stalled the so-called peace process for decades. This was not just a recent conclusion from one trip to Israel. This is from decades of watching the developments between Israel and the Palestinians as far back as the efforts of former President Jimmy Carter.

One of Israel’s major frustrations stems from a lack of clarity about its relationship with the United States of America.

Different administrations have always shown different levels of support for Israel, but the actions of the Obama Administration have signaled renewed and disappointing confusion about our support of Israel. Suggesting that Israel return to pre-1967 borders is a most egregious suggestion, which only serves to encourage Israel’s enemies to continue their hostility toward them.

Let me be direct and clear. I support Israel’s position that the 1967 borders must stand. I also support the position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and that Jerusalem must never be divided for political or any other reason.

And for those who may challenge or remain silent on these two critical issues, I challenge them to spend the time as I have to experience and see what many people do not know, and what some people don’t want the rest of the world to know.

I am convinced that Israel wants peace with its neighbors, and that they have been willing to make many concessions over the years for the sake of peace, unlike some of its neighbors. All parties must truly want peace, but there comes a time when one must draw a line and give no more.

Glenn Beck’s special event in Israel on “Restoring Courage”, where I attended the closing program, could not have been held in a more appropriate location. No other nation has exemplified courage throughout its history better than the nation of Israel. It has consistently survived and thrived against the odds.

The United States of America must have the courage to stand with its friend Israel despite the enemies around it. It is in our shared interest to do so for the sake of peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

With me as president of the United States of America, we would stand with Israel. 

Analysis:  It may surprise worldwide readers to know that even in the most Conservative of the States, the City of Tulsa is controlled by pubic unions – police, firefighters and public employees.  In the current election cycle another contractor harvesting millions of local tax dollars over decades, the Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce is running candidates for Council in a bid to control the City.  An additional “Chamber-Like” organization has placed on the ballot significant structural changes that, if passed, would evolve the Council into a politburo (adding three “super” councilors) instituting “non-partisan” elections and other changes to reduce Council influence in public debate.

So here we go, it’s time to consider.  The City Council primary is September 13 and over thirty candidates are competing to serve various districts.  This writer has managed campaigns in the past and often served as a communications consultant.  That said, I have declined any campaign role for any city race so with professional detachment intact, here are some observations for your consideration.

Functionally, Tulsa utilizes a Strong Mayor form of government with the City Council primarily responsible for budget approval.  Councilors have objected to this limited role and have pushed for more authority since this form of government was approved by voters – both parties, multiple councilors, over many years.  Independent observers suggest, however, it is not the form of government, but the personalities of those elected and the slant of local media that has generated almost continual dispute even while local government continues to grow and spend more.  This year’s city budget is the largest in history – as proposed by a Republican mayor and approved by a diverse Council.

Sadly, the local daily paper exaggerates conflict and it is fully socialist.  For example: they used the celebration of the birth of Christ to urge rejection of free enterprise (odd given their dependence on advertising), their financial involvement with editorial promotion of a crony capitalist airline (Great Plains), the toadying to established political power(s) and frequent hateful treatment of all things traditional (from religion to lifestyles).  Add the media tendency to pine for a bigger market and the bitterness of those who would rather be writing for the New York Times than “stuck” in fly-over country with the lazy dependence of all media on government sources for news and it is no wonder journalism is held in the lowest if any regard.  Some claim print papers are this generation’s buggy-whip manufacturer destined for dust, but they are still the least expensive way to get print advertising flyers delivered.

In the current election cycle, the daily paper has researched candidates and published, apparently, every brush with the law.  There is good news and bad with that effort.  While it is good to identify convicted felons, arrest records are unsubstantiated allegations awaiting determination of fact.  Further, divorce proceedings are tremendous personal traumas not likely relevant to service on the City Council and finally, expunged records are a “slate wiped clean” thus should not be resurrected even by vicious enemies.  Here is a thought, maybe Tulsa Today should commission a writer who will fully research and document all brushes with the law by the staff of the daily newspaper – as they demand lifelong perfection, maybe they should stand by the same standard.  Their masthead quotes the Bible, "publish and conceal not." Oh wait, that’s establishment media – can’t touch their twisted personal lives don’t ya know. 

In my considered opinion, there is a Fourth Amendment Right to privacy even for public candidates, but that is another story.

Setting aside personal persecutions, consider the editorial cartoon to the right.  This “humor” promotes class warfare.  A family is shown battling to keep from going over a waterfall, but what fall?  Why is the river moving so fast?  Now if the cartoon showed the river as government spending hurling citizens over a financial abyss, it would be coherent, current and correct.  However, the smoky rich businessman sitting on cash is a visual lie from the Socialist Democrat handbook of current talking points.  The publisher, Robert E. Lorton III is responsible – it’s his job to be responsible just like I am responsible for what is published on Tulsa Today.  Are you ready to laugh really hard?  Lorton asserts he is a Republican.

Poorly produced public journalism that seeks to destroy the foundation of the nation begs objection.  I object to the Tulsa World because I know from experience over many years, the prevailing ideology of their news and editorial staff agrees with socialism – they hate American history, free enterprise and most religion.  Blame Lorton.  Claims that he only directs the business side of his business, but not the product is foolishness and a greedy coward’s cover for communists.

Television news doesn’t help much as, on the local level, controversy is shunned to avoid potentially alienating advertisers.  Station managers are also often new to the area and find Chamber of Commerce committees stimulating in support of their self-image of power in setting public agendas – standing as peers to big money because they mold the minds of the masses (never mind that they don’t own the station and are only temporary).

There are no real local radio talk stations on air in Tulsa.  Exempting sports talk, KRMG does morning news and KFAQ does some morning talk, but that’s it.  Digging deep they don’t do thus it is up to you.

There are several candidate debates throughout the city upcoming.  Call your district city councilor’s office or both political parties for dates and times.  Tulsa Today will cover some debates and offer interviews with some candidates, but call the candidates directly yourself – they should welcome your calls.  Ask them questions and search their websites.  Visit with them at every opportunity.  Judge their character as well as their words – do you know anyone who has worked with them or knows them to at least a moderate degree?  Do they make eye contact?  Are they condescending or sickening sweet?  Do they “shoot straight” in debate or doge the question?  How informed are they on issues such as zoning, streets, public safety, etc.  What is their position on public unions?  What is their position on city contractor (Chamber of Commerce) involvement in council political races?  Do they have the time and temperament for tackling a job that only pays a fraction of what they will spend to win?

President Obama has often said, “only government can solve this crisis,” but he has proven – again and in historical proportion – that government is the crisis and it starts local – in Tulsa for us.  This election, do a little of your own investigation.  Learn why to vote or not for whomever you select.  Help them as you can with money and volunteer time.  Don’t depend on media.  Study for your city in this responsibility to “show yourself approved” on the issues.

Oh and for those that live in the suburbs often writing letters to the editor criticizing the governance of the City of Tulsa … if you don’t pay taxes here or at least contribute to good candidates; then just shut up about what is not your business.  This is our city.  Our responsibility.  Our business.  We got this.

The eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling that the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is unconstitutional in the case brought by Florida and 25 other states, two private citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business.  Specifically, it upheld the ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but did not rule that the bill as a whole is unconstitutional, as did Judge Vinson.

One wonders why the judges are so timorous, especially since the bill lacks a severability clause.  Even more fundamentally, as noted by Judge Vinson, James Madison, in The Federalist No 45, specified that the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.

Those powers, delegated by the people and by the states, do not include
interference by the federal government in medical care. As the Tenth
Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”

We should note here that the sovereign States created the federal government. The federal government is thus properly the agent of the sovereign states, in carrying out the duties which the powers delegated to the federal government delineate.

As the early Chief Justice John Marshall noted, and as Judge Vinson quotes him; “that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.”  This remains true despite the bloodless coup d’etat carried out by FDR in the 1930s, which fundamentally subverted our constitutional system, and which has led to the morass in which we struggle today.

Congress twisted the Commerce Clause into a pretzel in an attempt to justify forcing 305 million people to buy government-approved health “insurance.”  The meaning of “commerce” in the Constitution boils down to the word “trade.” Trades are not forced exchanges. The sole means the government has is force. With force, there is no trade. The major intent of the commerce clause was to prevent barriers to trade across state lines.

Judge Vinson refers to the Wickard v Filburn case, decided in 1942, as “until recently…considered the most far-reaching expansion of Commerce Clause regulatory authority.” Filburn lost the case, which turned on 12 acres too many of wheat grown by Filburn for the government to stomach, and he was penalized. The Supreme Court stated:
That appellee’s own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.

This is called the “aggregation principle,” the idea that even little things add up to something big.

How about applying it to the government’s constant incursions into our freedom? Some may seem trivial, but, added up, their actions have caused us to lose the freedom that is our birthright, guaranteed to us in our Constitution. The effect of the Filburn decision, of course, is not trivial, as it allows Washington, D.C., to reach down to areas as tiny as 12 acres or even less, and to keep a person from growing his own food. How can anyone cite it without shuddering?

It is only in the wielding of government power that this obsessive concern is warranted, because government operates only by force. Force is the least humane way to treat human beings, and should be used only to prevent unlawful force.

Government has become so accustomed to using force to change Americans’ decisions and behavior that it has become impossible to presume that federal legislation is constitutional. Ms Pelosi derided the question, when asked directly if the health reform bill was constitutional, and James Clymer, another member of Congress, said that a lot of what Congress does is unconstitutional. Under the circumstances, what we need are criminal sanctions for members of Congress and the other two branches who violate their oath of office.

Judge Vinson notes that the defendants themselves state that the law cannot function without the “individual mandate” and that a severability clause was included in an earlier version of the bill, but was removed.

If a law depends on the unconstitutional use of force in order to function, why isn’t the whole law unconstitutional?  One hopes the Supreme Court gets rid of this obscene monstrosity, which turns citizens into livestock on a government ranch.

About the Author:  Dr Tamzin Rosenwasser earned her MD from Washington University in St Louis.  She is board-certified in Internal Medicine and Dermatology and has practiced Emergency Medicine and Dermatology.  Dr. Rosenwasser served as President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in 2007-2008 and is currently on the Board of Directors.  She also serves as the chair of the Research Advisory Committee of the Newfoundland Club of America.  As a life-long dog lover and trainer, she realizes that her dogs have better access to medical care and more medical privacy than she has, and her veterinarians are paid more than physicians in the United States for exactly the same types of surgery. 

"Mendacity is a system that we live in." – Brick, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances "rhetoric."

But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ’em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we’ve gotten a first-hand insider’s view of the president’s long list of lies.

"I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling," Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn’t a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.

"I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations," he said.

Not so: "The White House made offers during the negotiations," said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, "and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down."

Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: "The discussions we’ve had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. … Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform."

But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. "You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they’ve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues," Mr. Obama said.

That, too, was a lie. "The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill," our insider said.

The negotiations just before breakdown called for $800 billion in new "revenues" (henceforth, we’ll call those "taxes"), but after the supposedly bipartisan plan came out — and bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase.

Mr. Boehner was blunt: "The White House moved the goalpost. There was an agreement, some additional revenues, until yesterday, when the president demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people."

But Mr. Obama, with a straight face, continued. "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

The truth: "Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric," the insider said.

Now, Mr. Boehner and the real leaders in Congress have taken back the process. He’ll write the bill and pass it along to the president, with this directive, which he reportedly said to Mr. Obama’s face in a short White House meeting Saturday: "Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

Watching the one-third-of-a-term-senator-turned-president negotiate brings to mind a child spinning yarns about just how the living room lamp got broken. Now, though, the grown-ups are in charge; the kids have been put to bed. Ten days ago, the president warned the speaker: "Dont call my bluff."

Well, Mr. Boehner has. He’s holding all the cards — and he’s not bluffing.

About the author: Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.

U.S. Rep. Allen West says a planned sale of Abrams tanks to Egypt could play into the hands of radicals and further destabilize the region.  Sunshine State News reports that in a letter Monday to Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, West wrote:

“It has come to my attention that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on July 1, 2011 of a possible foreign military sale to the government of Egypt for 125 M1A1 Abrams tank kits for coproduction and associated weapons, equipment, parts, training and logistical support.

“One of the greatest threats to Egyptian stability, as well as to regional stability, is the growing prospect of a new Egyptian government under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. If given control of the country, the Muslim Brotherhood would nominate its own candidates and turn Egypt into a radical Islamic state.

“America must continue to stand with the Egyptian people and encourage them to build their own democracy with new political parties and freedoms. However, we must exercise caution with regard to military sales and support to the Egyptian government until a government is formed absent of the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that will maintain active peace with Israel,” stated West.

“As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I strongly oppose any military sales of any kind to the government of Egypt as long as the Muslim Brotherhood remains active in the political process. Doing so would seriously jeopardize the safety and security of the state of Israel. The last thing I want to see is Egyptian M1A1 tanks rolling through the Sinai toward Jerusalem.”

Click here to read original posting.