Monday, March 23, 2015

Welcome To The Campaign Senator Cruz

Senator Ted Cruz has announced he is running for president-congratulations and good luck Senator.

Governor Palin said she welcomes conservative ideas and ideals and. most certainly Senator Cruz in all he has said and done fits into the category.

Governor Palin endorsed Cruz for senator from Texas-which endorsement as Cruz freely admits, was crucial to his winning so clearly there is a strong political affinity between them.

Should Governor Palin not run, and especially if she endorses Senator Cruz for president, I would happily vote for him.

Welcome Ted and good luck



Friday, March 20, 2015

Tim Pawlenty For President 2016?



No of course not. I should have, more properly, titled this opinion piece "Tim Pawlenty" 2016? That would have conveyed to readers, once they had got over their shock of thinking I would actually propose "the" Tim Pawlenty  for president in any year, some idea of where I was going with this.

The basic premise is that perhaps America needs an end to "interesting times" after 16 years of Presidents Bush and Obama. I couldn't think of a more boring and nondescript previous presidential candidate than Pawlenty so, for my purposes, he serves as the base line as the highest level of excitement America might put up with in a future president. I considered Jon Huntsman but although he matches Pawlenty in being utterly uninspiring, his Mormon faith brings with it a degree of controversy and that disqualifies him for this exercise.

Dylan Byers at Politico did a piece on the ratings demise of MSNBC where he stated 

"MSNBC's defenders will often argue that the network's woes are due to Americans' waning interest in politics and liberals disenchantment with President Barack Obama"

Byers then canvassed the heights of MSNBC's success during the "incendiary Olberman attacks on the Bush administration" era and concluded on the probable Hillary Clinton campaign and possible presidency.

"Gone was the enthusiasm of the "hope and change" era, gone was the promise of an uplifting campaign that could usher in a new era of progressivism. Gone too were the viewers"

Surely part of the media's current feeding frenzy about Hilary's "Emailgate" is the fond hope, even by those on the left, that somehow Hillary can be derailed and the nation won't have to suffer through four years of endless Clinton scandals and an extension of the current divisive malaise that  encapsulates the latter Obama years.

If liberals are "disenchanted" with President Obama how much more so are conservatives? Perhaps both camps have reached a point where they can agree on one thing-we all need a break and "it's time" and "the one' means it's time for another "silent Cal" Coolidge president.

President Coolidge, a man of a few words and actions presided over what was one of the happiest times in American history and was loved for his hands off, even somnambulist approach to government. Certainly society had its major faults but for its time and place there was prosperity and peace and quiet-a similar such administration at this juncture would be a blessing-surely.

The liberal agenda, such as it was, has been more or less fulfilled, the conservatives control America's legislative chambers in a near unprecedented manner and can put  a stop to whatever the now minority left has in mind. The final element in a return to a President Harding "Normalcy" would be the election of a "do nothing" president. 

In this case both sides could agree that the term "do nothing president" would be a blessed relief and not a title of shame for a wonderful hiatus of four years of letting us all go about our business free from great speech makers or worse charismatic politicians. The reality is that the reserve bank runs the country and grand political schemes from grand schemers are most often more  trouble than they are worth

Is there anyone on the political horizon that we could rally around as the non-charismatic, none hope and change, non-inspiring president? Actually there is a good bench John Thune struggles to come to mind (which is a good thing) and has declined to run, which is a strong point in his favor. John Kasich comes to mind (vaguely) in fact anyone whose name most people would probably to respond with "who" might do.

However of those who have expressed an interest in running (which is a bad thing as it shows a possibly dangerous degree of enthusiasm) a total nonentity like Harding who had no chance until he was bargained into the role, is required at this point.

Former New York Governor George Pataki (who? you say-which is perfect) has had his presidential intentions, slight as they were, laughed out of court, as they were in 2008 and 2012 which is ideal.

He is a boring speaker and has the grayest of gray personalities, I think America may have found their man. "Pataki for President 2016" has the dullest ring to its bell-go for it George, nobody is behind you, is concerned about you or is inspired by you-perfect.



                                            OUR NON-HERO?

Thursday, March 19, 2015

The Federal Republic Of Israel-Palestine?



Even the "progressive left" now advises the "two state solution" for Israel/Palestine is now "dead' after the resounding victory of Prime Minister Netanyahu. And isn't it interesting and instructive that, once again the leftist media, by beating up on their opponents so badly, make what is a comfortable victory a seeming massive landslide "against all the odds."

We saw this with their frantic pile-on on then Governor Sarah Palin when McCain chose her as his running mate. All she had to do was not fall over during her acceptance speech to turn the seething hatred of the media by Republicans into a massive outpouring of support for her, which is of course exactly what happened.

Not enjoying their defeat the New York Times calls on Thomas Friedman to advise that Netanyahu's victory will mark him somewhere between an unwitting Thomas Jefferson and Caligula. Basically the choice for possible "dictator for life" Netanyahu is to lead Israel to a one state that is either a dictatorship run by a Jewish minority in a sea of Arabs-the Hutu/Tutsi solution or, oy, vey iz mir, a non-Jewish democracy-schadenfreude if we are allowed to use a German word at this juncture.

In the world outside of the feverish leftist imagination neither of these two scenarios will come to pass. What are options are the status quo stays in place until the left block gets elected and the two state solution arises phoenix like. Netanyahu could, as Friedman darkly hints, disregard his election statements and revert to his former position and do a Begin/Sadat, most likely under the aegis of a Republican "only Nixon could have gone to China" president, as Obama will have left office long before Netanyahu does.

Or, a federal solution could be created. If, a country could be cobbled together from the Croats/Slovenes/Bosnians/Herzogovinians/Montenegrins/Serbs-have I left anyone out-of yes the Macedonians then putting together some sort of federal republic out of Gaza/West bank and Israel should be a piece of Plava.

What sort of federal state would be put in place would of course be a matter for long and no doubt tortuous negotiations. But, again, if at the creation of the first "Kingdom of the Serbs,Croats and Slovenes" negotiations could put together these disparate religious and ethnic peoples than cobbling together two Semite groups should not be an insurmountable hazard.

One nation of Israel & Palestine could, sensibly encompass having three distinct federal regions. A revolving, symbolic presidency, with governing parliaments for each region whose laws would only affect the regions governed, and a national defense force only manned by the Israeli's with each federal region having its own internal security system. A common currency and reserve bank would be sensible.

Israeli Arabs might have voting rights in either Israel or Palestine and likewise Jews in the Arab regions could have voting rights in Israel. This would remove the current possibility of the larger Arab growth rate, and now united electoral ticket, causing major problems for Jewish nationalists in years to come.

Federalism can be a difficult way to create a country. It almost destroyed the United States, causes sectional antagonism in Belgium and has seen terrible disasters in e.g. Africa. But it has worked in Switzerland and the second Yugoslavia. In the latter it was a more humane situation than what developed with the break-up of the federation surely.

The demographic reality, barring  a massive influx of European Jews, demands either a two state or a federal state solution for Israel. Given the current Balkanization of the Palestinians, with the sorry history of Pakistan/Bangladesh as a warning, something has to be done. Examining federalism at this point is an obvious and sensible way forwards.





Wednesday, March 18, 2015

American Winners-Palin Being Biggest Winner-& Losers From Israeli Election

Once again the polling firms fall flat on their respective faces-with Sarah Palin's dictum "polls are for strippers" moving from an anecdote into accepted wisdom category. This latest disaster for the psephologists "art"refers to the exit polls after Israel's election having Prime Minister Netanyahu's Likud party four seats behind the leftist opposition and ending up six seats ahead-a turnaround of ten seats!

Of course the pollsters were not the only losers from the Israeli elections, the newspaper Haaretz and of course the opposition leaders Herzog and Livni were obviously on the wrong side of the electoral ledger.
But they were joined in this downfall by their American sympathizers and, if the rumors are to be believed, by their abettors in the Obama administration.

Joining the Israeli opposition in defeat is, clearly, President Obama who pointedly refused to meet with Prime Minster Netanyahu before or after his historic address to Congress. 

All that he achieved by this is to now have to deal with a markedly strengthened Netanyahu who will be in office long after President Obama has left. The strength of the Obama circles feeling was strikingly set out in an amazingly petulant Tweet from Obama confidant David Axelrod;



And there were the various journalist who let their wishful thinking and prejudices guide their pens;

"opposition poised to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's party" Paul Waldman Washington Post
"On Election Eve All Signs Point to Benjamin Netanyahu Defeat"
NBC News" Meet Isaac Herzog, Who Could Defeat Netanyahu"

But as there are losers, so too are there winners, and in America the winners have had their reputations hugely enhanced. Enhanced not so much because of prognostications or plain politics, but because their stances were, variously, based on a solid foundation of  a perceived notion of what is best and right for America, ethics, moral values, and Godly imperative.

Here are some of the major notables whose statements, not just subsequent to the election but well before it, encapsulate those eternal values.

Governor Sarah Palin




That Star of David wearing, Israeli flag flying Palin has been a steadfast supporter of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu for years is indisputable. That she sees Israel as a bulwark of defense for America, a land of religious faith for Jews and Christians alike is beyond dispute. That she sees a nuclear weaponed Iran as a real and present danger to not only Israel, but America, is clear and a reason to support Israel's position vis a vis the Obama administrations current negotiations with Iran. 

Has there been one other potential GOP presidential candidate who has had their reputation enhanced by Netanyahu's victory-absolutely not. Certainly those who viewed Rand Paul's commitment to Israel, because of family and supporters history will not be more enamored of Paul if the choice came down to Palin (or her endorsed candidate) and Rand

That her stance is seen as impassioned, moral and in America's interest was noted by the +150,000 so far, who "liked" this Facebook comment: 



"Congratulations, Prime Minister Netanyahu. Thank you to the good people of Israel for supporting a leader who will stand up and fight for all the free world while other leaders sit down. The Heartland of America will sleep better knowing Bibi remains the voice of reason and strength in the beautiful nation of Israel; for when Israel is safe, we are safe."

- Sarah Palin



Should Palin decide to run for president her steadfast and unchanging support for Israel added to her other steadfastly held conservative principles will mark her as a genuine, non flip-flopping alternative. Netanyahu's victory burnishes the credentials.



House Speaker John Boehner





Whatever conservatives had though of Speaker Boehner in the past, and it is fair to say the sentiments have not been too kindly, and whatever they may think of him in the future there is no doubt that his inviting Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress has endeared him, if only for a brief shiny moment, to Israel supporting conservatives. 

The invitation, engendering substantial negativity form the liberal media and obvious annoyance from the Obama administration endeared him to the right. The possibility that Netanyahu's address contributed to the turnaround in Likud's polling fortunes has no doubt caused Boehner's star to shine that much brighter-even if it is only a shooting star.

Senator Tom Cotton 




The new senator from Arkansas has been at the receiving end of the full "Palinization" treatment from the liberal media and especially the "progressive" hate blogs. His crime? Senator Cotton appeared to the media as the prime mover behind a letter "sent" by 46 other Republican senators to the Iranian leaders warning them that any deal hatched by the Obama administration could be "modified or cancelled by a future president or by congressional action"

Senator Cotton had the nerve to not only not change his position but to advise he had "no regrets" in taking it. The re-election of Netanyahu and the obvious implications for the now strengthened Israeli governments attitude to Iran and to the Obama administrations bargaining position has enhanced Senator Cottons statements and his reputation for good judgement. The MSM has, once again enhanced and enabled a career,as they did with Governor Walker, by over the top attacks.

Ambassador John Bolton




Former U.N. Ambassador Bolton has been steadfast in his strong foreign policy statements which are uncompromisingly pro-America and pro-Israel. Pushed aside as a' "neocon" and some sort of warrior relic of the Bush years Bolton has nevertheless not moved an inch form the values and scruples that marked his tenure in public service.

That his time has come again has been proven by uncompromising statement on the Israeli elections;" The White House has done everything they can to defeat Netanyahu." and " Middle East nuclear arms race is already underway."

Ambassador Bolton must surely be now considered a front runner for Foreign Secretary in the next Republican administration.



Columnist Bill Kristol




As with Ambassador Bolton Bill Kristol was marginalized in the leftist media with the Obama ascendancy and put out to pasture by them in the "neocon" corral. As with Bolton, Kristol has been proven right by Netanyahu's victory which is also a victory for all those who, like him, held steadfastly and a doggedly to the best interests of America through years of appeasers and wrongheaded dogmatics in charge. His voice, as witty and acerbic as ever, added to the similarly like minded and clear sighted is now back at the highest levels of public discourse.




Tuesday, March 17, 2015

My Article At Camp Of The Saints;"It Should Have Been Biden-Obama 2008"


At Bob Belvedere's "The Camp Of The Saints"   LINK

It Should Have Been Biden-Obama 2008…

16 MARCH 2015 

MJSheppard-Logo-001cx

if it has to be a Dem in 2016 it should be Biden not Hillary

If there had to be a Democratic president elected in 2008 and, after Lehman Brothers, it did not matter who was heading the ticket there would have been a Democrat elected, then in sad retrospect both America and the Dem’s would have been far better off it Joe Biden had been the presidential nominee.
The Dem’s would have been better off in that, without the rise of the Tea Party and the great swarming of the polls b​y​ conservatives in​ the​ subsequent mid-term elections, their electoral disasters of the past 6 years would have, most likely, not been as severe. “since 2008, Democrats have lost 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 910 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 11 governors’ offices.”
That electoral thrashing has certainly been good for the GOP and has, thankfully, put a stop to the leftist legislative program but Democrat’s can hardly look at it with thanks to their leadership. Would such decimation have happened under a Biden presidency without the “them and us” that the Obama administration has engendered-it’s unlikely given political history of ebb and flow levels​.​
​​Can anyone, if they put aside partisanship, honestly state that race relations would not be better now if Biden were president? Would the heightened expectations from the ridiculous promises of “change you can believe in​”​ from “The One” have been raised​,​ and dashed​,​ along with “my bills will be paid once Obama is elected.”​?​
Would there have been the Harvard professor incident and ensuing need for “a beer summit.”​?​ Would there have been the stirring up of racial tensions after Zimmerman if President Biden wasn’t in a position to say “If I had a son” etc. Would Eric Holder be Attorney ​G​eneral with the ensuing tensions in Ferguson?
Would “the first Black vice-president” have given the Black community pride in the accomplishment​,​
and hope for an eventual Black president​,​ without all the false promises and expectations? Certainly such a situation is imaginable.
With Biden cast more in the traditional Democrat ​m​old of an LBJ and willing to glad-hand the opposition​,​ would there have been so many years of antagonism between the Republican House and the presidency? Obviously not. Would the “Obamacare” legislation, categorized by Biden as a “BFD” have ever seen the light of day-at least in its present form? Probably not, and whatever healthcare reforms were actioned would have been done in the traditional give and take manner.
Would President Biden have seen himself as the savior of the Arab world and initiated the “Arab Spring’ which has turned into a disaster with vast swathes of territory controlled by the most militant anti-Western elements of radical Islam? A doubtful proposition given that Biden, unlike the neophyte Obama had years of foreign policy experience.
Would the national mood be lighter with a genial president, cast in that effect, in the mold of President Reagan? Certainly anything would be better than the current mood which has seen the president averaging under 45% approval for years and with Congress under 30% approval.
Whatever may be said of Biden’s faults as a communicator he is no worse tha​n​, frankly​,​ President Eisenhower was. Obama, Nixon, LBJ were great speakers but in the end were flawed and/or fell far short of the expectations their rhetoric gave rise to. With a government of checks and balances the nation is better served with a president with warmth of personality who is not a great communicator​,​
than with a dogmatic, brooding and flawed one.
Biden is also a gentleman. Seemingly alone amongst the left he has been only polite and warm towards Governor Palin whilst all around him were doing their best to tear her down by any means fair or foul-another indication of how a Biden administration would have governed in a spirit of amiability.
Oddly enough the country, or at least the Democrats​,​ may shortly be be faced with the same sort of choice again. If Hillary Clinton runs​,​ and Vice-President Biden does as well then​,​ the choice will be between a polarizing dogmatic ​ on one hand​ and a personable compromiser on the other​.
It would seem unlikely at this point that the same mistake that was made in 2008 would not be made all over again given Clinton’s ​current (albeit shaky looking​) ascendancy. Hillary might well be the winner​,​ but America would be the loser.
The choice between four more years of antagonistic government under a Clinton or four of a reaching across the aisle  administration​ (if there had to be a Democrat) under Biden is​,​ logically​,​ for the latter. For America’s sake hopefully the choice doesn’t eventuate as a Republican president will be elected but, again, if it has to be a Dem then America could do far worse than Biden​.
Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016.  He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste.  Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

My 'American Journal" Article:America Needs Hate Speech Law’ Writer Accuses Palin Of Inciting Murder


‘America Needs Hate Speech Law’ Writer Accuses Palin Of Inciting Murder

That irony, self-awareness and honesty are facts of life the ' Progressive Left' are unacquainted with is a given..


UPDATED*

One Dinah Silverstein writing  at ‘The Times of Israel’ states the following absurdity;

“More recently, racist hate speech against Muslims inspired Anders Behring Breivik to slaughter 77 people in Norway, while hate speech from the likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh incited right-wing extremist Jared Lee Loughner to go on a shooting spree in Arizona.”
This statement appeared in an article entitled, and yes it is almost beyond belief ;

‘America Desperately Needs a Hate Speech Law’

That irony, self-awareness and honesty are facts of life the”progressive” left seems unacquainted with is a given. But, even so, that a writer could be so blinded by dogma and hate to actually include in an article supposedly against “hate speech’ a statement so full of hate, errors and such a gross calumny is astounding.

*The times Of Israel removed the article after American Journal covered the story.

That there was no connection whatsoever between anything Palin said or did and the clearly insane Loughner is accepted by even those who knee-jerked such a connection at the time of his shooting rampage.
That Loughner, a registered Independent with early views described as “left wing, quite liberal,” “radical.” was not a ‘right-wing extremist’ is clear, that he saw Palin’s ‘cross-hairs” on Gabby Gifford’s congressional seat in a pamphlet is dubious, that he was obsessed with Gifford’s was known, the fact that Democrat’s and the far-left ‘Daily Kos’ had both put out“target” media came out after their idiotic attacks on Palin (which shut them up).
Robert Stacy McCain  wrote a history of the media’s Loughner madness highlighting the liberal haters who attempted to tie Palin to it; ‘Vain in their imaginations’ God haters and the Tuscon massacre.” in  2011.
Nothing  has changed for the left, the Alinskyite tactics of repeating the big lie over and over, shamelessly and without any scruples continues. To include such a preposterous attack in a long column decrying exactly the same thing breaks new grounds however.
To tie in Palin and Limbaugh with mass murderer of 77 young people, the Norwegian psychopath Anders Behring Breivik is near insanity itself. That sort of hate and insanity was pointedly illustrated  by R.S. McCain”
“University of Minnesota biology professor Paul Z. Myers — a self-proclaimed “godless liberal” — who like a lot of other godless liberals was utterly wrong about the Tucson shooting:
Professor Myers went on to call Sarah Palin “a vile creature” and accused her of ” inciting the deranged a–holes who follow her.” When called out for his malicious libel, Professor Myers doubled down:
“This is NOT the time to back down.”
Clearly not then in Myers utterly warped statement and clearly still not in Silverstein’s, the heir of Myers and his ilk. The 2016 presidential election is clearly the choice between the “progressive” world view of the likes of Myers and Silverstein and the traditional values of conservative Americans which will have been under attack for eight years.
If the “progressives’ win then America will have sunk into a moral abyss that countenances murder by psychotics as a valid political tool.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

My American Journal Article:"WSJ: ‘Hillary Announcing In April’ Palin To Do A “2008” Announce Next Day?

The answer most decidedly yes and, of course, it happened once before and under strangely similar circumstances.


WSJ: ‘Hillary Announcing In April’ Palin To Do A “2008” Announce Next Day?



The Wall Street Journal advised that (via the usual “aides/sources/people”) “Hillary Clinton Seen Launching Presidential Bid in April.” The reasons for making the obvious, her candidacy, a fact were set out as “the need to get fundraising underway (as if it hadn’t been for ages) and to “ease uncertainties.”
That front and center transparent fundraising is important at this time is clear giving the mess that “even the liberal media is fed up with’ in respect of foreign money pouring into the Clinton Foundation. That the “uncertainty” matter is a ridiculous joke given there is no real challenge to her means that the “uncertainty’ has different aspects.
It is clear that a splintering Democratic party would be a disaster for Hillary’s 2016 hopes, and that Elizabeth Warren, Sanders is of course a joke, is perceived to be the possible focus of such splintering “Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections.”
Even Establishment figure par excellence Warren Buffet entering the fray against her which is of course a red rag to the progressive bull “Warren Buffett Says Elizabeth Warren Is Too ‘Angry’ And ‘Violent’ With Rich People’
So apparently for reason spurious and hidden in the background real there is a very strong possibility that Hillary Clinton would announce sometime in April. Is there any event, so volcanic, that could possibly take the air out of such an announcement “the first female presidential candidate for a major party”?
The answer most decidedly yes and, of course, it happened once before and under strangely similar circumstances.
After the Senator Barack Obama won his seemingly endless battle for the Democratic nomination against Hillary in 2008 the Democratic convention was set to be a coronation, a healing and the scene for the first step in “the first Black President” to unfold. The convention was a love fest concluding on the 28th of August with Obama accepting his nomination in front of a rapturous 84,000 in person and millions on television in the special stadium the convention moved to.
Nothing on earth, it seemed, could stop this massive, united juggernaut from steamrolling the ancient John McCain. But the something did happen. McCain, out of the deepest left field imaginable and taking the Democrats and the media totally by surprise named the little know Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as his running mate on August 30th. At that point all that Obama and his team had done, all the mass media coverage and speculation vanished, as if literally “gone with the wind’.

My American Journal Article;"Did Obama/Pelosi Just Hand Over the Florida 2016 Election (And Presidency) To GOP​?

From American Journal    LINK

Did Obama/Pelosi Just Hand Over the Florida 2016 Election To GOP​?

President Obama could have played it diplomatically, or even courteously, but, as he is not running for re-election, chose to snub Benyamin Netanyahu


Did Obama/Pelosi Just Hand Over the Florida 2016 Election To GOP​?

M. Joseph Sheppard
President Obama could have played it diplomatically, or even courteously, but, as is his wont and as he is not running for re-election, chose to snub Benyamin Netanyahu. Since President Obama is the lamest of lame ducks
having to live with an opposition controlled Congress there is no point in going into whatever psychological reasons drove him to act as he has.
What is at stake here rather, apart from of course the very existence of Israel, are the 2016 presidential elections (which may also have similar ramifications if Obama’s actions have not fully jeopardized Israel by then).
The reality of Electoral College numbers are such that if the GOP loses Florida they have lost the election. If they win it they still have to win some other key states but are still in the hunt. Obviously demographics are a major factor in how Florida goes on election day. In 2012 President Obama won the state by 50.01 to 49.13 (74,309 votes) which is a landslide compared to Bush versus Gore in 2000. The point clearly is that Florida can be won by a hairsbreadth either way, and spells doom for the GOP if lost.
Every ethnic group in Florida is vital, but for the GOP the substantial Jewish population,+636,000 and at 3.3% more than 50% higher than the national average, is key. It is key because of the historic fluidity and movement to the Republicans (President Obama received 69% of the Jewish vote (down from 74% in 2008).
Nationwide, from an all time high of 90% for Roosevelt in 1944 to 80% for Clinton in 1992 the shift to the GOP is marked, with President Obama having received 69% of the Jewish vote in 2012. The trend from leftist solidarity, Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs received an astonishing 38% of the Jewish vote in 1920, to conservative middle class economic and social voting considerations is gathering apace.
If there is anything that might accelerate this clearly evolving historic process it could well be the threat to the very existence of Israel. Surely Prime Minister Netanyahu would not take the massive step of accepting an invitation to address a joint session of Congress, with all the political ramifications involved, unless he thought there was substantial substance to the perceived threat from a nuclear weapon capable future Iran. It is not a step too far that this perception would also be keenly seen by the Jewish American voting community.
 
President Obama’s clear snub of Netanyahu, the reported 55 democratic lawmakers who chose not to attend his address and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remarkable outburst, point markedly to the Jewish community as to who is the true friend of Israel. If it is a matter of degree it can be put this way. “The GOP is 100% supportive of Israel and can be relied upon completely. The Democrats are publicly committed to Israel but the depth of that commitment and the reliability of its support is open to conjecture.”
If this percentage of commitment scenario was related to e.g. foreign aid or weapon delivery of the Palestinian question then there is room for debate. But if, in the final analysis it pertains to a nuclear weapon capable Iran and the possible destruction of Israel there is no room for debate, not the slightest, not one iota.
If this reality strikes Jewish voters in Florida as something that has to be supported at the ballot box, then just a swing of under 1% will deliver the state to the GOP in 2016. The other state that then needs to fall is Ohio, with a swing of just 2.98 where, reflecting historic trends, the Jewish vote for Obama in 2012 was 69%.
With President Obama’s truculence, the existential threat to Israel, Netanyahu’s plea and the overwhelmingly positive Republican response to it, and statements like this from Pelosi “I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.” The Democrat’s, especially in the persons of the President, House Minority leader and 50 lawmakers may have just handed Florida, and the presidency to the GOP-for Israel’s sake one can only hope so.
The question that follows is “who amongst the potential Republican candidates has shown the greatest commitment to Israel”. Only one had 60,000 people turnout for a speech in Miami and wears the “Star of David” which may be a pointer and the final connection to the winning of Florida.