Obama calls it Al Quds

... or at least his deputy Secretary of State does. That's the Arabic name in common usage for Jerusalem. From the dep SoS's comments, to Obama referring to the "occupied territories" in a UN speech, to his insistence that Netenyahu be brought in through the rear entrance (this is no joke) of our White House in order that reporters not be able to catch his greeting the Israeli PM on camera (I guess he thinks it"ll hurt his street cred in Cairo) it's become painfully obvious that the Administration is no friend of Israel. Hell, I think you can learn all there is to know about Obama's attitudes towards our Jewish ally by listening to one Reverend Wright sermon (and remember, the President admitted in his autobiography to listening to those Wright sermons he missed via recorded cassette tapes in his headphones at night in the dark while at college - how frightening a picture does that paint?).

Ironically it may be this very hostility between DC and Jerusalem that frees Israel to do what it must (Barry polls at just over 6% there, ouch). Having no friend in Washington, Netenyahu has been aligning enough Middle Eastern stars, as Titus pointed out, to light a runway (literally, in some cases). With no chance of a military action from America, Israel is communicating to these various kingdoms and regimes, "look, you need us to deal with Iran, and we can't do that effectively (politically) if we're fighting off rocket attacks North and South or have to enter the PA in force." Obama's blatant snub during peace time leaves little incentive for Israel to heed Washington's objections during war time, should it come to that with Iran. Obama is all stick, no carrot. So Israel is forced to seek Eastern allies and consider it's plight with Iran with much less consideration given to what the US administration "wants."

****

On State vs Fed, I found this a topical/helpful little PDF reference: Virginia. I was set to jump all over the diminished role in international commerce that Jambo assigned to the states in his last, and this tempered my response. I will say this - as global in reach and effect as the large companies are nowadays, and governors having no restrictions on soliciting private enterprise to operate within their state's borders, there is an avenue governors can control when dealing abroad commercially.

At any rate, as you examine the colored chart (found on the first page) I would argue that the wide array of mistakes found within that last entry under Federal Powers versus the anemic assertion of rights under the last entry under State's Powers is the obvious crux of our current predicament.

Look, I believe, and it's plainly provable, that we were set up as a center-right nation (or right of center, as that order proves less offensive to my conservative sensibilities). The problem is that the political class, if you will, has so redefined the "center" that to be genuinely right of center in 2010 makes you a wild eyed, right-wing ideologue. There are certainly essential federal roles, but my guesstimate is that well over 75% of the feds everyday activity is outside of the scope and power afforded it in any plain reading of our Constitution. And what's worse is we have a clear, modern day example of where our national trend will lead us as a country, society and economy - modern day Western Europe. Furthermore, as they elect center right governments (Germany and the UK for example) and attempt to move more and more towards decentralization, our direction is continually that of the central planning statist. Government is not only seen as the first response, but the only one available. Use words like private sector, profit, self sustainment, individualism and to those currently in power you might as well be yelling, "secession, secession, secession!"

The only chance we have in lieu of 2012 are the state's attorney generals, governors, and State Houses. Because even if we retake the People's House in 2010, Obama will veto any repeal of health care or the latest financial regulation, making a fundamental restoration of state's rights our only avenue of redress against grievances already signed into law. And let me just stop there and point out what should be the GOP's message - fundamental restoration versus fundamental transformation. The latter has been the rallying cry of both candidate and President Obama. Yet he continually refers (abstractly, I must point out) to our nation in glowing terms. Curious. Is that not a conflict in outlook? "Look at that Mona Lisa, how wonderful, how beautiful, I love it - now lets fundamentally transform it." Does that make sense to anyone? An interpretation of the 10th Amendment that is as broad in scope and effect as the federal assertion of power within the Interstate Commerce Clause these last 2 generations is the prescribed anti-biotic of Dr. Ryan. Lets just hope that at least 6 out of 10 voting Americans reccomend it over the coming 2 years.