Where does the U.S. currently stand with Israel?

As of right now, it looks like another Middle Eastern crisis is looming out on the horizon. You have Israel on one side fearing the possibility of another Holocaust if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and Iran on the other side continually developing these nuclear weapons with an irrational leader who claimed that he wanted to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth at all costs. Then you have the US: probably Israel's strongest ally, but under the foreign policy agenda of the Obama Administration seem to be timid and confused.

Netanyahu visited the White House the other day to talk to President Obama in what seemed to be an awkward discussion with Netanyahu asking for unconditional support in the event of an atteck and Obama giving vague answers not clearly defining his stance except for saying that he doesn't want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. In the long run, once the first rocket is fired, Israel will need the United States. The IDF is an extremely advanced military and needs to be to defend its borders that are constantly tested by Arab regimes; however, the United States holds the real numbers and firepower needed to finish a war. Iran has been trying to move their nuclear facilities underground in order to protect them from bombing raids. The United States has the technology to combat this, however, Obama's willingness to use them in the event of a crisis is nothing for the Israelis to rely on.

I'm not saying the United States should rush off to war and neither should Israel, but we need a safeguard of reliable alliances in place in case things go south. We should treat our ridiculously strong military power as a weapon of last resort regarding these issues in the Middle East and especially because our economy is just beginning to bud out of a recession and everyone in government is focusing on cuts. The second to last thing we need is another geopolitical shock from the Middle East causing oil prices to skyrocket even higher, but the last thing we need is a nuclear Iran with not only capabilities to wipe out Israel but also willing to hand out some of these nukes to reliable terrorist organizations willing to smuggle them into the US and use them here.

Its definitely a tricky situation, but the way I see it is weighing the possible consequences of certain actions over others. The administration is timid on this issue especially with the campaign beginning and them wanting to gain support by saying they concluded two wars. If another war began, Obama would lose all those supporters. On the flip side, he is alienating the Jewish community who see him as not doing enough to support Israel. Obama "says" he is keeping all options on the table including military action, but the real question is does he mean it? I think the Iranians are calling his bluff by continuing with their nuclear program even with the economic sanctions that have not worked for the past three years.

If Israel sincerely wants to attack, I feel that they will wait until the inauguration in January if an extremely pro-Israel Republican is elected to begin a preemptive strike (if they can wait that long). If Obama is reelected, I have no idea when Israel will act, but it is a priority of survival for them and they will act alone if no one will back them up.

Where do we really stand? Is the president taking the right stance or should his approach be a little different in either a less active or more active fashion? How does the election in the US complicate this situation? What do you think Iran's intentions are and what do you think Israel's intentions are? Should this issue be seen as an issue of national security for the United States so many miles away when they don't even have intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)? If Israel were to use a preemptive strike tomorrow, should America immediately get involved with military support?

For a little background info if you want to read: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/08/israel-united-states-and-iran-in-dance-destiny/

School Threatens to Remove Student from NHS for Church Work

Many of us are in NHS and those who aren't know about the several hours of community service Mrs. Fischer requires us to do each month. For the most part, this just entails 3 or more hours of tutoring or helping our the community in any way (within reasonable limitations). In order to get into NHS we are also required to have a certain amount of community service prior to joining.

In a Virginia High School (I believe it is public), a 17 year old senior submitted 46 hours of community service (only at least 12 hours are required for membership) in her church’s “Kids Quest” Sunday school program. However, the faculty adviser said that her hours would not count because she did her community service in a church.

According to the district policy, "the Fairfax County School Board’s Faith-Based Service Policy states that in order to be considered for credit, faith-based activities “must have a secular purpose…and may not include preparation or participation in the performance of religious services.”

Personally, I believe that if you spend several hours preparing lessons, teaching, leading, and supervising several young children is community service and with out a doubt, demonstrating leadership. Its not an easy job and it benefits the community. It is something she was passionate about and felt the need to take action. What's wrong with helping out at a church or a synagogue? The article stated that if she had done the same thing at the local Boys and Girls Club she would have received the hours.

Since this time she has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that she is a victim of religious discrimination.

So...
Do you think that she deserves the hours?
Should she be removed from NHS if she does not fulfill the hours in a different more secular way?
Is this an act of religious discrimination?
What makes community service acceptable?
How do you feel the courts will rule in her lawsuit?

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-threatens-to-remove-student-from-honors-society-over-church-work.html

Research into bin Laden's last years generates questions

"A retired Pakistani army officer has written an unpublished report based on his own research that offers some new claims into the last years of Osama bin Laden's life, according to a report in The New York Times.

Shaukat Qadir, 62, a former infantry commander, spent thousands of dollars of his own money and eight months of investigation putting together his report because he was suspicious of official explanations of bin Laden's life and death, the Times reports. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan on May 2, 2011, by U.S. forces.

Among Qadir's claims:

• Bin Laden's fifth wife, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah, told Pakistani interrogators that her husband underwent a kidney transplant in 2002, a claim that raises questions about who was helping him.
• Another bin Laden wife told interrogators that her husband shaved his beard and disguised himself as a Pashtun tribal elder as he traveled between safe houses before settling in a house in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2005.
• Al-Qaeda operatives betrayed bin Laden for reward money from the United States. "They wanted bin Laden gone, and they wanted a share of the $25 million," Qadir says.

Qadir's army background has helped in his research. The military granted him permission for two visits to the house in Abbottabad, the Times reports. He also was granted an interview with a military official who interviewed bin Laden's three wives."

I do not think that Shaukat will ever find the truth behind Bin Laden's death and life. I think that at this point, what's done is done and further investigation and questioning of what Laden may have done is like beating a dead man. However, I do think it is important to discover those who worked with Osama bin Laden and punish them if necessary. As of now, all we know is that American forces killed him; as far as I'm concerned, the rest is all a cloud of flustered conspiracies.

Questions to consider: What do you think of the conspiracies above? Will anyone ever know the true story of Osama bin Laden? Should his death continue to be investigated to find those who assisted him in his crimes, or should it be left the way it is?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/03/research-into-bin-ladens-last-days-generates-questions/1?loc=interstitialskip#.T1kXb1KZc-0

Millionaires Still Getting Government Aid?

Every year Americans are required to pay the government a portion of their hard-earned money in the form of federal taxes. These taxes help aid the funding of many programs and projects, one being our nation's welfare program. Welfare is an important and vital resource for some, but it can also be easily taken advantage of.

A report this week from WDIV-TV stated that 24-year-old Amanda Clayton of Lincoln Park acknowledged continuing to get $200 in monthly food aid after her September win. State officials say she has just recently been removed from the food assistance program. This means she has been receiving welfare for six months when clearly she no longer needs financial aid from the government. Her mother told news stations that her daughter did not break any laws.

Legislation in Lansing would require lottery and other gambling winnings to factor into eligibility for government food assistance programs. The legislation comes after a Bay County man last spring said he continued using food stamps despite winning a $2 million lottery prize in 2010.

This event is disturbing and infuriating to me and I'm sure many others. It is ridiculous that these people cannot be charged with any crimes when they are clearly taking money that is not rightfully theirs. I personally feel that legislative action must be taken immediately in order to prevent other instances like this from occurring. And although I believe that Amanda Clayton is the one who is mainly at fault, the government cannot go without blame. They should be keeping closer tabs on welfare recipients' financial changes, and if they cannot do so then I don't think that it's fair for them to be using our tax dollars as handouts for financially stable citizens. I do think welfare is a good thing, when it is regulated. I believe I am not alone in saying that I am more than willing to have parts of our federal taxes go towards those that really need the help, but at the same time if Americans are giving our money away then don't we deserve to know that it's going to the people we are told it is going to?

So here are my questions for you:
1) Who was at fault here? The lottery winners, the government, or both?
2) What can be done to ensure that instances such as this don't happen in the future?
3) Will this change American's views on our welfare program? Will they want stricter regulations and more information on exactly how their money is being used?
4) What do you think of our current welfare system? Should it be reformed, done away with, or stay exactly the way it is?

Article Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/amanda-clayton-michigan-lottery-food-assistance-stamps_n_1330716.html

Super Tuesday Summary

Mitt Romney was successful, for the most part, on Super Tuesday but also suffered several defeats, showing that he is still unable to take the clear victory among republican voters. Romney had a home-state win in Massachusetts to go with victories in Vermont and in Virginia, where neither Santorum nor Gingrich made the ballot. He also led in early Idaho caucus returns and — most important — padded his lead for delegates to the Republican National Convention. However, Santorum made strong progress in the primaries in Oklahoma and Tennessee and in the North Dakota caucuses, while Newt Gingrich won in Georgia. Ron Paul was able to get his first victory in Alaska.

Personally I think this race is over and has been for awhile, as Mitt Romney will take the nomination. Although it's not who I want (I believe Gingrich is the best candidate), it is inevitable that Romney will take the victory. I think Ron Paul needs to drop out, he is only wasting his time and money.

Thoughts about Super Tuesday? Is Romney the clear victor or does Santorum/Gingrich still have a chance? Should Ron Paul drop out? What candidates should drop out vs. staying in?

Offshore Drilling Resumes as BP Disaster Fades

About two years after an explosion on an oil platform killed 11 workers and sent millions of gallons of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, deepwater drilling has bounced back in the gulf and is spreading around the world. After a yearlong break from drilling, BP and other oil companies are intensifying their exploration and production in the gulf, which will soon surpass the levels attained before the accident. Drilling in the area is about to be expanded into Mexican and Cuban waters, beyond most American controls, even though any accident would almost inevitably affect the United States shoreline. Oil companies are also moving into new areas off the coast of East Africa and the eastern Mediterranean.

Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts representative, said the Obama administration had put in place significantly tougher offshore drilling requirements, but they have been resisted by Republicans in the House, who have passed legislation to hasten review of drilling plans and open new areas to development. Yet Republicans are arguing that Obama is not doing nearly enough to expand drilling. The Republican majority in the House has passed legislation to speed lease sales on public lands while pressing to open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — which have been largely politically untouchable since the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 — to extensive oil and gas development.

QUESTIONS:
1) What do you think about Obama's decision to put restrictions on offshore drilling in light of the disaster two years ago?

2) Did the BP disaster reflect loose regulations for offshore drilling companies or was it unrelated and just a disaster?

3)Do the benefits of offshore drilling outweigh the costs of an oil spill?

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/deepwater-oil-drilling-accelerates-as-bp-disaster-fades.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Romney rides high toward Super Tuesday

Mitt Romney picked up two conservative endorsements Sunday to add to victories in three states last week heading into Super Tuesday, the biggest single day of the Republican presidential campaign.
With two days before contests in 10 states will decide how more than 400 delegates get allocated, Romney's three opponents all appeared on Sunday talk shows to outline how they can catch the front-running former Massachusetts governor. Romney's victories Tuesday in Michigan and Arizona, followed by Saturday's triumph in the Washington state caucuses, gave him 207 delegates so far, according to CNN's unofficial estimate. Rick Santorum is next with 86, followed by Ron Paul at 46 and Newt Gingrich trailing with 39. It takes 1,144 delegates to secure the Republican nomination to take on President Barack Obama in November. In Saturday's Washington contest, Romney led with 38% to 25% for Paul, 24% for Santorum and 10% for Gingrich. On Sunday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Republican Sen. Tom Coburn -- both noted conservatives -- endorsed Romney's presidential bid. The backing from Coburn and Cantor, a tea party favorite, could give Romney a boost among right-wing voters who so far have questioned his conservative credentials. "What Romney has done in his 25 years in the private sector is precisely what we need a president to do in Washington," Coburn wrote. "Romney has done hard things. He has turned businesses around, told people hard truths about what needed to be done, inspired confidence and overcome excuses. Romney is not a career politician or a career legislator. As a former governor and business leader, he is an executive who knows how to use executive power." Cantor's Virginia and Coburn's Oklahoma are two of the 10 Super Tuesday states on March 6. They will hold primaries, along with Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, Vermont and Massachusetts. Three other states -- Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska -- are holding caucuses that day. While Romney approached Super Tuesday riding high, Gingrich was in the most precarious position, needing a victory in Georgia to keep his campaign alive. Polls show him with a solid lead in the state he represented in Congress, and Gingrich spoke confidently Sunday about the road ahead. The Gallup daily tracking poll has shown support for Gingrich rising nationally in recent days to approach Santorum's second-place standing behind Romney, with Paul in fourth. However, late polls show Romney and Santorum statistically tied at the top in Tennessee and Ohio, and Gingrich didn't make the ballot in Virginia, another Super Tuesday state, limiting his opportunity to gain ground. Santorum also failed to get on the Virginia ballot, and on "Fox News Sunday," he downplayed his chances of winning Ohio's key primary Tuesday, saying it was "a tough state for us only because of the money disadvantage." Santorum also cited the continuing battle with Gingrich for conservative support in the race against the more moderate Romney.
Questions:
Are the Republican candidates on an even playing field, or does Romney have a significant advantage over the other three candidates? If so what are they?
How do you think the results of Super Tuesday will end up?