One Day Soon, We'll All Be 'Homegrown Terrorists'

Homeland Security Secretary Johnson announces tighter security at federal buildings

October 28, 2014

Yahoo News - Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced on Tuesday that the government is stepping up security at federal buildings in Washington, D.C., and nationwide, citing enhanced risks of “small-scale attacks by a lone offender.”

“The reasons for this action are self-evident: the continued public calls by terrorist organizations for attacks on the homeland and elsewhere, including against law enforcement and other government officials, and the acts of violence targeted at government personnel and installations in Canada and elsewhere recently,” Johnson said in a recent statement.

The secretary appeared to be referring to the fatal shooting at the Canadian Parliament building.

Johnson also urged state and local governments “to be equally vigilant, particularly in guarding against potential small-scale attacks by a lone offender or a small group of individuals.”

The secretary did not spell out what form the increased security would take, and emphasized that it “will vary and shift from location to location.” He did not explicitly cite the rise of the so-called Islamic State. Law enforcement officials have regularly expressed concern that the extremist group could inspire “lone wolf” solo terrorist attacks in the United States, or that Americans who joined the extremist group could travel back to the United States and bring the war home.

The new security measures have no expiration date, a DHS official told Yahoo News. A congressional aide briefed on the measures said it was his understanding that they would last beyond the elections and that the Federal Protective Service would be stepping up its visible presence at key facilities nationwide.

“We are taking this action as a precautionary step, to safeguard U.S. government personnel and facilities, and the visitors to those facilities,” Johnson said in a written statement. “Given world events, prudence dictates a heightened vigilance.”

Read More...

Euthanasia in the U.S. and the Death With Dignity Act

In 1997 Oregon was the first state in the union to pass "death with dignity" legislation. To qualify under the Death With Dignity Act (DWDA), a person has to be a mentally competent adult and a resident of the state of Oregon. According to the most recent data 1,173 people have had DWDA prescriptions written, and 752 patients have died from ingesting medications (Secobarbital and Pentobarbital) prescribed under the DWDA in Oregon. Since 2008, four other states have passed "death with dignity" legislation: Washington, Vermont, Montana, and New Mexico.

Mom's Fight to Let 12-Year-Old Daughter Die in Peace in London, England

October 28, 2014

Yahoo! Parenting - No parent can stand to see his or her child suffer, and Charlotte Fitzmaurice and David Wise of London were no exception. It’s what led the mom and dad to wage a legal battle to allow their severely disabled 12-year-old daughter, Nancy Fitzmaurice, to die. They won their landmark case in August, with a High Court judge granting Nancy’s parents the right to end her short life. And this week, they are speaking out about their heartbreaking experience. 

“My daughter is no longer my daughter, she is now merely just a shell,” Charlotte wrote in her statement when first making the request of the court. “The light from her eyes is now gone and is replaced with fear and a longing to be at peace. Today I am appealing to you for Nancy as I truly believe she has endured enough. For me to say that breaks my heart. But I have to say it.”

Nancy’s quality of life suffered from the start: She was born blind, with hydrocephalus, meningitis, and septicaemia, and was never able to walk, talk, eat, or drink on her own. But things worsened after a routine surgery left the young girl screaming in excruciating pain, as well as requiring 24-hour hospital care that included receiving tube feedings and medications. After the judge’s approval, physicians at Great Ormond Street Hospital were able to remove Nancy’s fluids and feeding tube; she died 14 days later surrounded by family.

The court ruling was reportedly the first time a child breathing on her own, not on life support, and not suffering a terminal illness, has been allowed to die in the U.K. Global precedents regarding euthanasia vary wildly. In the U.S., only five states — Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and New Mexico — have passed “death with dignity” legislation, allowing terminally ill adults (18 and over only) to end their lives through the voluntary consumption of lethal medications. Earlier this month, 29-year-old Brittany Maynard, who suffers from a rare brain tumor, spoke to People magazine about her decision to move from California to Oregon with her husband in order to legally end her own life.

In the U.K., the House of Lords recently debated a controversial bill that would allow assisted dying; opinions were split. In 2002, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia, though it came with a strict set of rules and applied only to adults. Belgium legalized assisted suicide that same year and then, in early 2014, became the first country to allow euthanasia for children, which caused heated, round-the-world discussions.

“Critics of the Belgian law argue that children do not understand what they are asking for in requesting euthanasia — namely, death — and that older children who do understand death may not be able to choose it, authentically, for themselves. Research done by pediatric oncologists, nurses and palliative care specialists undermines this complaint,” wrote Susan Dwyer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland, in an opinion piece in Al Jazeera America.

“More tellingly, perhaps, research also shows that gravely ill children who have lived for years with serious illness, who have undergone painful and invasive procedures and who have spent lots of time in hospitals with other such children have a pretty good understanding of their mortality and of what they want regarding further treatment,” Dwyer continued. “At the very least, then, we ought to recognize that terminally ill children might meaningfully refuse treatment that would only prolong their pain and suffering.”

In this country, pediatric palliative care guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics do not condone physician assisted death. And, according to Raymond Barfield, associate professor of pediatrics and Christian philosophy and director of the Pediatric Quality of Life program at Duke University:

“The pediatric palliative care community seems to have a consensus that generally agrees with this, meaning that physicians cannot have the death of a child as a primary motivating goal for action. That said, there seems to be broad consensus that actions intended to relieve pain and suffering in a child are morally acceptable (and many would say laudable) even if the length of a child’s life is shortened as a consequence.” 

Such pain interventions, Barfield tells Yahoo Parenting, may include high doses of opioids, or the removal of high-technology treatments such as ventilators or feeding tubes, which may shorten life.

“As technology advances, interventions that require enormous technological sophistication can tend to become ‘the new normal,’ and this causes huge problems in situations like this where our technology mostly prolongs agony rather than being directed toward human flourishing,” he says. 

For that reason, Barfield adds, he can see a case like Nancy’s eventually playing out here in the U.S. He also notes that many terminally-ill children are indeed capable of taking part in such wrenching discussions.

“Many children who are at the end of life have developed keen insight into their disease and the experience of pain without hope for cure,” he says. “They have also very often seen friends with similar diseases die (this happens all the time in my field of pediatric oncology). Given this, the child should be listened to if they have an opinion about further interventions at the end of life, or about withdrawal of interventions at that point.”

In the latest case, though, 12-year-old Nancy was not able to weigh in — which left her parents in a state of agonizing decision-making.

“I miss my beautiful girl every day, and although I know it was the right thing to do, I will never forgive myself,” Charlotte said this week. “It shouldn’t have to be a mother’s ­decision to end a child’s life. I believe hospitals and parents should be able to decide without mothers or fathers going to court. I want parents to know it’s OK to want your child to be at peace, it doesn’t mean you love them any less. Watching my daughter suffer for days while they cut off her fluids was unbearable. She went in pain. It will stay with me forever. Although I will live with the guilt forever, I know I have done ­everything I can for her and she is at peace.”

NWO Order Plans Exposed by Insider in 1969: Euthanasia and the Demise Pill (Excerpt)

By Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Pittsburgh pediatrician on his recollections of the lecture (recorded on tape in 1988)

On March 20, 1969, Dr. Richard Day, an insider to the NWO plans, gave a lecture to a gathering of pediatricians at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. In his introductory remarks, he commented that he would not have been able to say what he was about to say, even a few years earlier, but he was free to speak at this time because, 'Everything is in place and nobody can stop us now.'

The new system would be brought in — if not by peaceful co-operation with everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty, then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. Everybody would be so fearful — as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war — that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace; and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the 'New International Political System.' If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two or possibly more nuclear weapons. By the time one or two of those went off then everybody, even the most reluctant, would yield. This negotiated peace would be very convincing, as in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realisation that peace was better than war.

His purpose in telling our group about the changes which were to be brought about [especially regarding medicine and their planned control over it, including eliminating solo practitioners and limiting access to affordable health care] was to make it easier for us to adapt to these changes. Indeed, as he quite accurately said, "There would be changes that would be very surprising, and in some ways difficult for people to accept," and he hoped that we, as sort of his friends, would make the adaptation more easily if we knew somewhat beforehand what to expect.

Change was to be brought about, change was to be anticipated and expected, and accepted, no questions asked. A comment he made from time to time during the presentation was, "People are too trusting; people don't ask the right questions." Sometimes, being too trusting was equated with being too dumb. But sometimes when he would say that "people don't ask the right questions," it was almost with a sense of regret as if he were uneasy with what he was part of, and wished that people would challenge it and maybe not be so trusting.

EUTHANASIA AND THE 'DEMISE PILL'

Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. After you have had enough of them and you're no longer productive, working and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation.

He mentioned several of the things that would help people realise that they had lived long enough. I don't remember them all but here are a few. The use of very pale printing ink on forms that people are necessary to fill out — older people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns — there would be more high-speed traffic lanes that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.

LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL

A big item that was elaborated on at some length was that the cost of medical care would be made burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one's work but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. Unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! — what a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. Then the example was — there could be a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. Then after the party's over they take the 'demise pill'.

PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE

The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation that was made in 1969 that,

"It is now abundantly evident that Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. But it's not necessary — we have other ways to control health care".

These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance.

People pay for it, you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realise the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. Therefore, you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here, this is not something that was developed at that time; I didn't understand it at the time that it was an aside.

Here's the way this works: everybody has made dependent on insurance, and if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 for the use of an operating room, the insurance company does not pay $600; they only pay $300 or $400. That differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent and virtually required to have insurance. The whole billing is fraudulent.

Access to hospitals would be tightly controlled and identification would be needed to get into the building. The security in and around hospitals would be established and gradually increased so that nobody without identification could get in or move around inside the building. Theft of hospital equipment, things like typewriters and microscopes and so forth, would be 'allowed' and reports of it would be exaggerated so that this would be the excuse needed to establish the need for strict security — until people got used to it.

Anybody moving about the hospital would be required to wear an identification badge with a photograph and telling why he was there — employee or lab technician or visitor or whatever. This is to be brought in gradually, getting everybody used to the idea of identifying themselves — until it was just accepted.

This need for ID to move about would start in small ways: hospitals, some businesses, but gradually expand to include everybody in all places!

It was observed that hospitals can be used to confine people and for the treatment of criminals. This did not mean, necessarily, medical treatment. At that time I did not know the term 'Psycho-Prison' ­ — they are in the Soviet Union. But, without trying to recall all the details, basically he was describing the use of hospitals both for treating the sick and for confinement of criminals for reasons other than the medical well-being of the criminal. The definition of criminal was not given.

[...]

SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY

Another angle was that the schools would become more important in peoples' overall life. Kids, in addition to their academics, would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids — the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was sand lot football and sand lot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside.

Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands where kids would feel they had to be part of something — one or another athletic club or some school activity — these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out. He said.

"The smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on to other things."

In this connection, and later on with drug abuse and alcohol abuse, he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help, and still be super achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside and, therefore, were sort of dispensable — 'expendable' I guess is the word I want.

Education would be lifelong and adults would be going to school. There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise pill. If you got too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal — you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside.

Read More...

Related:

• Death with Dignity: the Laws & How to Access Them 
• Bill Gates: Philanthropist or Eugenicist?
• Belgian Lawmakers Considering a Law That Would Extend Euthanasia to Dementia Patients and Children

IRS Seizes Woman's Entire Savings Because She Deposits Less Than $10,000 at a Time

Whether it be fascism, Marxism, Stalinism, statism, the end result is the same: totalitarian police state in which cronyism elitists can extort/steal from the citizens. Until people realize that both sides of the aisle are playing people for fools, nothing will change. Social issues are orchestrated with the purpose to keep people divided - all to prevent the people from looking behind the curtain to the true corruption. At this point, I don't care (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.) who puts an end to civil forfeiture seizure laws and returns the land back to we the people. We are supposed to be a free society garnished with unsaid liberties, not to simply exist to be wage earners for the State.

The best thing to do would be abolish the income tax, then the IRS. Let each state take over their own finances. The lawless, bloated feds with their parasitical, non-productive agencies and departments have proven they are not good stewards of our hard earned money, and state government is more accessible to the citizens who would find it easier to keep their government accountable.

IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits less than $10,000 at a time

October 27, 2014

The Week - An Iowa woman named Carole Hinders saw her bank balance go from $33,000 to zero thanks to IRS confiscation.

Hinders, who owns a small, cash-only Mexican restaurant, has not been charged with any crime and is not suspected of tax fraud. The IRS says they took her money solely because she deposited too little of it at a time, and the agency claims she did so to avoid the required reporting of any bank transaction over $10,000. She says she just thought it was helpful to save the bank paperwork.

Though the $10,000 rule is ostensibly designed to help catch terrorists and drug dealers, it is far more often used on regular citizens who are unlikely to ever see their money returned.

 "I don't think [the IRS is] really interested in anything," said a lawyer representing another seizure case. "They just want the money."

To keep her restaurant afloat following the confiscation of her savings, Hinders has had to take out a second mortgage and max out her credit cards.

"How can this happen?" she asks. "Who takes your money before they prove that you've done anything wrong with it?"

Putin Says Russia Will Not Comply with U.S. Attempts to Enforce Its Will on Other Countries and Says That the World is Becoming an Increasingly Dangerous Place Because of America's Desire for Eternal Domination

Putin accuses US of undermining global stability

October 24, 2014

AP - President Vladimir Putin of Russia said Friday that the world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place because of U.S. attempts to enforce its will on other countries and that his nation will not comply.

In an emotional speech before international political experts, Putin unleashed scathing criticism of the United States for what he called its disregard of international law and unilateral use of force.

If the United State fails to abandon its "desire of eternal domination," then "hopes for peaceful and stable development will be illusory, and today's upheavals will herald the collapse of global world order," Putin said during a meeting that lasted about three hours in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

His voice strained with anger, Putin accused the U.S. and its allies of trying to "tailor the world exclusively to their needs" since the end of the Cold War, using economic pressure and military force and often supporting extremist groups to achieve their goals.

He cited the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria as examples of flawed moves that have led to chaos and left Washington and its allies "fighting against the results of their own policy."

"They are throwing their might to remove the risks they have created themselves, and they are paying an ever increasing price," Putin said.

"Unilateral diktat and attempts to enforce their own cliche on others bring opposite result: escalation of conflicts instead of their settlement, widening area of chaos in place of stable sovereign states, support for dubious elements from open neo-Nazis to Islamic radicals instead of democracy."

He said that Russia has been cold-shouldered by the West, despite its eagerness to cooperate.

The U.S. and the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Russia after it annexed the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea populated mostly by Russian speakers, and allegedly armed rebels fighting for independence in eastern Ukraine.

Putin also has maintained support for President Bashar Assad of Syria in a civil war that has helped destabilize the Middle East. The U.S. has demanded that the Syrian leader step down.

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki reacted to Putin's speech by saying the U.S. "does not seek confrontation with Russia, but we cannot and will not compromise on the principles on which security in Europe and North America rest."

She said there may be disagreements, "but we remain committed to upholding Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Psaki also told reporters that the U.S. has been able to work with Russia on a range of issues and hopes to engage with Moscow again on areas of mutual concern.

In Ukraine, Putin said, the West has ignored Russia's legitimate interests in its neighbor and supported the ouster of Ukraine's former Russian-leaning president.He accused the West of breaking its promises, citing a February phone conversation with President Barack Obama just hours before protesters in Kiev drove Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych out of office.

Putin denied allegations that Russia wants to split Ukraine, but he said the rebel regions should be allowed to hold local elections as they plan on Nov. 2, not in December as the Ukrainian government wants.He said the withdrawal of forces under the cease-fire deal should create conditions for gradually rebuilding ties between the central authorities and the rebel regions.

The Russian leader is well known for having said that the breakup of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.But Putin denied allegations that Russia wants to rebuild the Soviet empire.

Evoking the archetypal image of the Russian bear, Putin warned that his nation will firmly stand its ground to defend its vital interests.

"The bear is the master of the taiga (a subarctic forest). It's not going to move to other climate zones," he said. "But it's not going to give up its taiga to anyone."

"Russia is not demanding some special, exclusive place in the world," he said. "While respecting interests of others, we simply want our interests to be taken into account, too, and our position to be respected."

7 Things the Middle Class Can’t Afford Anymore But the Typical Public Servant Can

"The elitists, statists, and the greens are not attacking the poor or themselves. And Obama is not going after 'the wealthy' to pay their fair share. The object of their hatred is all aimed at the middle class. They can, will, and have controlled the poor. In fact they’ve been doing that for 100 years, since Wilson and FDR. Statists believe they have conquered those in the lower economic tier through welfare programs, unemployment insurance benefits, social services, public education, housing subsidies, and whatever other give-away programs they have used as bribes. And I could not argue their success. The poor, with their hands out, are not in a position to fight back. Having accomplished their goals with the poor, they now are laser focused on the middle class. And it is this middle class who is giving them a fight. The middle class is still the group closest to the Constitution. The middle class is the group who has sacrificed the most lives in wars and defense of the nation. The middle class is the group who produced the goods that made the country self-sufficient. The middle class is the group of citizens who are outraged and appalled at the assault on the nation from within by the elites. So who does Obama perceive as his enemy? Who is the next victim class of the elite and statists? The middle class. How do you kill the middle class? You eliminate their income potential. You kill their jobs. You destroy manufacturing. You make their lives miserable with regulations. You make their energy so expensive they cannot function. You ridicule their cultural and moral codes. You promote things to undermine their family structure. You tax them to death. You take over their communications. You attempt to track all of their activities. You humiliate them in airports, schools, media, and through their health care. You call them names. You inhibit their mobility and use their tax dollars to limit auto traffic, telling them they must walk or bike. You limit their food. You limit all of their independent survival abilities and micro-manage every aspect of their lives. The middle class has become the enemy of the state (statists)." - Cheryl Pass, Obama’s (Middle) Class Warfare, September 30, 2011

7 Things the Middle Class Can’t Afford Anymore

October 22, 2014

Thinkstock - During debates and speeches, politicians often bring up the financial burden that’s placed on the middle class. We talk about the middle class as though they are this singular entity, who used to thrive until they underwent persecution by the evil 1%. But, realistically speaking, the middle class and the 99% are not really synonymous. So, who are the middle class?

In its discussion of historical middle class societies, The Economist reports: “Their members are neither rich nor poor but somewhere in-between… 'Middle-class' describes an income category but also a set of attitudes…An essential characteristic is the possession of a reasonable amount of discretionary income. Middle-class people do not live from hand to mouth, job to job, season to season, as the poor do.”

Some argue that the most sensible income amount to attach to the middle class would be the median household income, of around $54,000. Perhaps, anyone who earns between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is a member of the middle class.

Diana Farrell, once Deputy Director of America’s National Economic Council, told The Economist she thinks a middle class income begins at the point where a person (or family) has one-third of their income left over for discretionary purposes after they’ve provided themselves with food and shelter. In other words, someone who earns $3,000 per month would have $1,000 left after they’ve paid their mortgage or rent, utilities, and grocery bills.

Though there is some debate over the exact income a middle class household brings in, we do have an idea of who the middle class are — most working class people. Today’s bourgeoisie is composed of laborers and skilled workers, white collar and blue collar workers, many of whom face financial challenges. Bill Maher reminded us a few months back that 50 years ago, the largest employer was General Motors, where workers earned an equivalent of $50 per hour (in today’s money). Today, the largest employer — Walmart — pays around $8 per hour.

The middle class has certainly changed. We’ve ranked a list of things the middle class can no longer really afford. We’re not talking about lavish luxuries, like private jets and yachts. The items on this list are a bit more basic, and some of them are even necessities. 

The ranking of this list is based on affordability and necessity. Therefore, items that are necessity ranked higher, as did items that a larger percentage of people have trouble paying for.

Vacations

A vacation is an extra expense that many middle-earners cannot afford without sacrificing something else. A Statista survey found that this year 54% of people gave up purchasing big ticket items like TVs or electronics so they can go on a vacation. Others made sacrifices like reducing or eliminating their trips to the movies (47%), reducing or eliminating trips out to restaurants (43%), or avoiding purchasing small ticket items like new clothing (43%).

New vehicles

Very few people who earn the median income can afford to buy a new car or truck. Interest.com recently analyzed the prices of new cars and trucks, as well as the median incomes across more than two dozen major cities, and found that new cars and trucks were simply not affordable to most middle-earners.
“Median-income families in only one major city [Washington DC] can afford the average price Americans are paying for new cars and trucks nowadays.” As of 2013, new cars are priced at $32,086, according to the study. Mike Sante, Interest.com’s managing editor reminds us, “just because you can manage the monthly payment doesn’t mean you should let a $30,000 or $40,000 ride gobble up all such a huge share of your paycheck.”

To pay off debt

These debt statistics come from Debt.org:

• “More than 160 million Americans have credit cards.”
• “The average credit card holder has at least three cards.”
• “On average, each household with a credit card carries more than $15,000 in credit card debt.”

Not only do we have large amounts of credit card debt, we also have student loans, mortgages, cars, and medical debts. Our debt is growing faster than our income, and many middle class workers have trouble staying afloat. Money-Zine evaluated debt growth and income growth over the past few decades and found that “back in 1980, the consumer credit per person was $1,540, which was 7.3% of the average household income of $21,100. In 2013, consumer debt was $9,800 per person, which was 13.4% of the average household income of $72,600. This means debt increased 70% faster than income from 1980 through 2013.”

Emergency savings

To provide ourselves with a degree of financial security, we are supposed to have emergency savings to protect ourselves in the event of job loss, illness, or some other catastrophe. Most members of the middle class don’t have at least six months of emergency savings, however, and some working people have no such savings.

A Bankrate survey found that only around one out of four households have six months of emergency money saved, and many of them are in the higher income groups. Another one-fourth have no emergency savings at all, and the remaining household have a small to moderate amount of savings, but not enough to cover six months of expenses.

Retirement savings

If you reach the retirement age with little or no money saved, Social Security is probably not going to be enough to cover your basic needs. Even if you want to work for your entire life, you have no way of knowing whether or not you will be physically capable of doing so.

Although having a lack of a retirement savings is a risky move, so many people bet on double zero, just hoping that things will work out in their favor. While some members of the middle class neglect this aspect of financial planning because they are procrastinating, there are also some workers who cannot afford to set this money aside. Nearly half of those who don’t save for retirement say it’s because they simply don’t have the money.

As of late, around 20% of people near 65 have not saved anything for retirement at all, and the majority of people — 59% — worry that they don’t have enough money saved for retirement, according to a Gallup Poll.

Medical care

Medical care is a basic necessity and something we’d think would be affordable for someone earning a middle income. A Forbes article published data indicating that workers in large companies — many of whom are members of the middle class — “face nearly $5,000 in premiums, co-payments, deductibles and other forms of co-insurance.”

During the past few years, these costs have had a large impact on working Americans. A report by Feeding America found that a shocking 66% of households say they’ve had to choose between paying for food and paying for medical care — 31% say they have to make that choice each and every month.

Dental work

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “the U.S. spends about $64 billion each year on oral health care — just 4 percent is paid by Government programs.” About 108 million people in the U.S. have no dental coverage and even those who are covered may have trouble getting the care they need, the department reports.

Oftentimes, people will purchase medical coverage and forgo dental because it’s so expensive. Plus, dental insurance may cover only 50% of the more expensive procedures, like crowns and bridges. This leaves those who have insurance with large co-payments.

In many cases, middle-earners will delay or even forego some of these procedures in efforts to save on costs. According to the CDC, nearly one in four adults between the ages of 20 and 64 have untreated dental caries (like cavities or infections).

American Taxpayers are Helping to Fund Israeli Settlements, Obstructing the Possibility of Any Two-State Solution, Which Includes a Palestinian Capital in East Jerusalem

You, American taxpayer, are helping to fund Israeli settlements

An American nonprofit is making peace even less likely.

October 14, 2014

Jill Jacobs, The Washington Post - At 2 a.m. one day last week, a group of Israeli settlers, protected by riot police, moved into 25 apartments in seven Palestinian-owned buildings in the Silwan neighborhood of East Jerusalem. Some of these apartments were vacant or recently constructed. In other cases, residents were away from home for the night. In one case, a young man had purchased an apartment to move into with his bride following their wedding. Instead, the couple is now enmeshed in a legal struggle with the settlers who have set up residence in their marital home.

The biggest surprise of all? You may have helped fund this takeover.

Elad, the settler group that organized this incursion, raises $6 million a year in the United States through the Friends of Ir David Foundation. As a nonprofit, donations to FIDF are tax deductible; funders can write off their gifts, which means that all of us who pay U.S. taxes helped subsidize the new settlement. That’s in direct opposition to official U.S. policy, which seeks a two-state solution and prohibits American aid to settlements over the Green Line.

Even more directly, if you’ve traveled to Israel (as nearly half of American Jews, and a staggering number of American Christians, have), you may have visited the Ir David archaeological site, which includes Hezekiah’s tunnel and other finds from Biblical Jerusalem. A huge percentage of its 500,000 annual visitors are American, and it’s a hallowed stop on tours organized by synagogues, churches and schools.* That $15 admission fee paid by all those people? Money for settlers. Even the excavation of Ir David has damaged or destroyed Palestinian homes, while infuriating archaeologists who complain that Elad prioritizes politics over responsible archaeology.

Elad has a long history of working to transform Silwan from a Palestinian neighborhood into a Jewish one. The idea is to make “facts on the ground,” in the parlance of the conflict, that will obstruct the possibility of any two-state solution that includes a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Elad evicts Palestinians from their homes by exploiting legal loopholes or incomplete property records, it builds entirely new settler compounds, it uses archaeological sites to establish Jewish claims to certain strategic parcels of land, and it even erected a new visitors’ center on a contested piece of real estate.

 

Some, like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wonder why Israeli Jews and Palestinians can’t live side by side in Silwan. But anyone who has visited the neighborhood recently knows that what is happening there is not about, say, diversifying the neighborhood. It’s a hostile takeover. New fortified buildings topped by Israeli flags tower over the homes of longtime residents. Settlers walk through the neighborhood carrying guns, accompanied by armed guards. Meanwhile, the municipality virtually always denies Palestinians permits to build new homes or to renovate their old ones. Those Palestinians who dare to build anyway have their homes demolished, and—to add insult to injury—receive bills for the demolition and the cleanup of rubble.

In this case, Elad claims to have purchased the apartments legally, via a U.S.-based shadow company. The Palestinians dispute these claims. While it will take some time to sort out the legal issues, we can say this: A person who has legally purchased a new home does not generally move in under cover of night, flanked by riot police.

There is a special category in Jewish law for this kind of action. In the Talmud, the students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai ask why the Torah deals more severely with a burglar than with a mugger. Their teacher’s response: A mugger, who robs face-to-face, fears neither human beings nor God. But a burglar, who sneaks in when no one is looking, is afraid of human beings but shows no fear of God. In its use of subterfuge, shadow companies, and dead-of-night incursions, Elad represents the worst kind of thief.

And Americans, Elad donors and pilgrims to Israel, are, in some indirect but important way, complicit. Jewish law strongly forbids aiding or abetting a thief. In one of the most important guides to Jewish law, Moses Maimonides rules that “It is forbidden to purchase stolen goods from the thief. . . for anyone who does such things or similar ones strengthens the hands of sinners. . . it is [also] forbidden to derive any benefit from a stolen object.” Those of us who donate to Elad, or pay admission to the Ir David archaeological site, aid and abet those who steal homes and land in order to prevent peace. As we ooh and aah over the excavations, we derive pleasure from these thefts.

The good news is that we have the power to prevent these settlers from blocking a lasting peace agreement. This past spring, an Israeli court granted Elad control of Robinson’s Arch—the section of the Western Wall where men and women may pray together—as well as adjoining archaeological sites. T’ruah, the organization I direct, mobilized more than 1,000 rabbis and American Jews to oppose this transfer. The Reform and Conservative Movements of Judaism lodged their own complaints. The Prime Minister’s office responded with a promise to prevent the site from falling into the hands of Elad, and just last month, a judge overturned the earlier decision. Our voices matter.

With its insistence on shoehorning Jewish settlements into longstanding Palestinian neighborhoods, Elad prioritizes its short-sighted political agenda over the long-term security of the State of Israel, alongside a viable State of Palestine. Imagine if instead, U.S. donors invested money in a lasting peace solution that grants both Jews and Palestinians a safe place in Jerusalem; allows Jews, Christians and Muslims to access their holy sites; and ends the decades-old conflict that has already claimed too many lives.

Rabbi Jill Jacobs is the Executive Director of T’ruah, which mobilizes 1,800 rabbis, cantors, and their communities to protect human rights in North America, Israel, and the occupied Palestinian territories. Her most recent book is “Where Justice Dwells.” 

Comments from Washington Post:

Rabbi Jacobs, the term missing from your analysis is "Ethnic Cleansing." An act prohibited under International Law. Be safe in your travels to Jerusalem extremists whether Jewish or Muslim may wish you harm. At the end of the day, it is truly pathetic to see extremism of a few in power, like Netanyahu dissipate the good will of the people of Israel. From war crimes: the wanton destruction of civilians by IDF artillery fire, despite the fact the mighty IAF possesses the most sophisticated precision guided weapons and drones to minimize civilian casualties in an urban setting, now to these pathetic ethnic cleanings in Jerusalem. I say to you good people of Israel, what kind of a country are you becoming? Erasing Palestinians from their homes is precisely the very same crime visited on your ancestors. If anything these collective actions by your extremist leadership tarnish Israel's great legacy of the Holocaust. Best wishes on real political change in Israel.

"Compulsory population transfers, including the implantation of settlers are a serious matter, not only because they affect many people, but also because they violate the whole gamut of civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights. Let us remember, human rights are not exercised in a vacuum, but quite concretely where one lives. Expulsion by its very nature deprives victims of the exercise of many rights and is frequently accompanied by physical abuses and even by the ultimate violation of the right to life." [Source]

Christian Zionists  are offering apologies for the Israeli confiscation of Palestian owned property. Put yourself in their place. It seems Jews were in their place in the 1930s ini Germany where they had their land confiscated in much the same manner. You have decided to treat them the same way the Jews in Germany were treated. That is beyond contempt. Do you really think that they would not attack Israel with whatever they have available to them? In this case, it is with primitive rockets that rarely cause much damage. I know that is something that really concerns the Israeli citizenry, but let's get real. What is inciting the Palestinians to attack Israel? I say it is the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

The references to the Torah and the Talmud refer to comportment within the community; but the State of Israel is the Zionist enterprise -- an interplay between the Jewish community and the rest of the world. For that enterprise, the Torah's principles and prescribed practices are found in Deuteronomy 6 and 7 and in Deuteronomy 20:10 et seq.  

Netanyahu needs to stop the current settlements until a deal is reached. This is where a little faith needs to come into play and I hate to say this but asking Israel to do this is really hard to swallow. They need to give Palestine a land free of any Israeli rule or military intrusion. Now if Palestine decides to get aggressive from their "new" land free from any Israeli intrusion, then Israel has the right to bombard Palestine to pieces. Hopefully that won't be the case but until it is done Israel will be seen as the worse of two evils. Israel has in the past based their attacks on countries based on what they perceived as a threat (Egypt, Iraq, Syria). In this day in age that isn't pre-emptive striking as Israel likes to always call their attacks, its an act of war.  

So Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netaynahu LIED on National TV when he appeared on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer when he claimed that these were"additional" and that no homes were being taken from anyone and that the settlement expansion in Jerusalem also included 700 homes for Palestinians ... apparently he meant Palestinians who were not Christian or Muslim. Pathetic that Schieffer would give Netanyahu a pass on his lies and how Americans just accept all the BS that Israel produces through their lobby and PR Machine.

As a die-hard supporter of Israel and someone who believes Palestinians do not now nor ever cared to make peace with Israel, I totally agree with the rabbi's piece. The settlements are a disaster for Israel and they corrode Israeli honor. As a Jew with many dear and close relatives in Israel and as a child of concentration camp survivors I implore Americans to reform our political system so that all forms of money are not so determinative of all our policies, including our middle-eastern policies. I implore Americans to help Israeli society come to understand that its best interests are in getting out of the West Bank and conceding to the Palestinians their right to statehood. 

As long as the American government is for sale, it will support Israel. The American people, and many American Jews including me, are tired of the Israeli arrogance and aggression, but our politicians love the campaign donations. 

Read Scott Anderson; "Lawrence IN Arabia -- War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making for the Modern Middle East" which details an exactly similar tactic of buying land on the pretext of coexistence with the actual intent of creating an exclusivist state.

Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem was not legal. The blatant attempts to force arabs out of the region by giving building permits only to Jews is pure bullying under a legal pretext. I suppose it was legal for Germany to confiscate Jewish lands because they passed a law?        

Palestinian killed reportedly over selling homes to Jews

October 10, 2014

i24News - Last month, Jewish settlers seized apartments in E. Jerusalem's Silwan, allegedly sold to them by an Arab man.

An East Jerusalem Palestinian man in his 50s was stabbed to death Thursday night presumably following an argument that broke out between family members over the selling of Arab-owned houses to Jewish families in the Arab neighborhood of Silwan, Israeli daily Haaretz reported Friday morning. Jerusalem police opened an investigation.

On September 30, Jewish settlers forcefully took over 25 apartments in Silwan, with the new occupants claiming they had legitimately bought the properties.

The incident led to clashes between Arab residents and Jewish settlers in the neighborhood, located outside Jerusalem's Old City near the flashpoint Al-Aqsa mosque compound.

Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat blasted the move, saying: “Illegal Israeli settlers protected by occupation forces entered seven buildings in the neighborhood of Silwan.”

He claimed that “a total of seven Palestinian families were left homeless” as a result.

Erekat accused the Israeli government of being run “by the settlers and for settlers. It serves the objective of altering the character of Jerusalem through isolating, containing and confining Palestinian existence, allowing for more Israeli land grabs and attempts at changing the identity and demography of Palestine and particularly of occupied East Jerusalem.”

According to Haaretz, several Palestinian families, who in the past owned the contested property, claimed they had sold the buildings to a man named Farid Haj Yahya.

Yahya reportedly bought the real estate for the rightist Elad organization, which aspires to settle Jews in East Jerusalem.

Haj Yahya, a resident of the Arab city of Taibeh, denied any involvement in selling the properties to the settlers.

“I’ve been in the Islamic Movement for 20 years, do charity work and help people and none of this ever happened. I bought a house in Silwan but nothing beyond that. I didn’t sell it to settlers. If anyone has a document [showing] that I sold one centimeter to settlers, I’m willing to go to Ramallah and face a firing squad.

“I’m surprised my name came up. I’ve built my reputation for 20 years. I bought from an Arab and sold to an Arab, and he didn’t sell to settlers. I wouldn’t endanger my family and children and reputation for real estate or money,” Yahya told Haaretz.

Yahya was at one time one of the leaders of the Islamic Movement’s southern branch. He also once headed the Al Aqsa organization, which is associated with the Islamic Movement.

The Islamic movement’s southern branch also denied any connection with Haj Yahya.

“Yahya worked with us for four years but the ties with him were cut off in 2010 and we’ve had nothing to do with him since,” the movement's secretary Dr. Mansur Abbas, said.

The White House had charged that Israeli actions over the Green Line in Jerusalem had "poisoned" the atmosphere and distanced Israel even from its closest allies.

Speaking to US cable network MSNBC, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the White House statement was "baffling" to him.

"It criticized individual Jews who bought apartments in an Arab neighborhood," Netanyahu said. "Jews buy apartments, private property, in Arab neighborhoods. Arabs buy apartments in Jewish neighborhoods."

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat told Israeli Channel 2 that, "Jews can buy apartments wherever they want in Jerusalem, and especially in the City of David, which is the place of ancient Jerusalem 3,000 years ago."

Israeli Police Lock Palestinians Inside Al Aksa Mosque to "Thwart a Riot" as Several Hundred Jews and non-Muslim Tourists Visited for the Holiday of Sukkot

As Israeli Police Lock Al Aksa Mosque, U.N. Chief Denounces ‘Provocations’

An officer prevented Palestinians from entering the site of Al Aksa Mosque on Monday.
Ahmad Gharabli / Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

October 13, 2014

New York Times - The secretary general of the United Nations on Monday condemned what he called “provocations” at Jerusalem’s holy sites, hours after the Israeli police said officers had locked Palestinians inside Al Aksa Mosque to thwart a riot as Jews visited for the holiday of Sukkot.

Scores of officers entered the mosque compound in the Old City of Jerusalem at 7 a.m. on Monday and found “petrol bombs, stones, bottle rockets and fireworks” as well as “masked Palestinians,” according to the police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld. The officers shuttered the mosque with an unknown number of Palestinians inside, Mr. Rosenfeld said, as several hundred Jews and non-Muslim tourists ascended to Al Aksa compound during regular visiting hours, starting at 8 a.m.

Mr. Rosenfeld said no one was hurt or arrested. Among the visitors was Moshe Feiglin, a right-wing Israeli lawmaker, whose prior pilgrimages to the site have been a focal point for clashes.

The 37-acre compound is the holiest site in Judaism, and the third holiest in Islam. Jews call it the Temple Mount, Muslims the Noble Sanctuary. It has been a focus of increasing tension and violence in recent months. On Wednesday, before the weeklong Sukkot festival, three officers were hurt, and nine Palestinians were arrested in a confrontation where, Mr. Rosenfeld said, the police used stun grenades to disperse a crowd throwing stones, firebombs and other projectiles.

Video | Conflict Grows Over Temple Mount More mainstream Jews are seeking to enter and pray at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most contested religious sites in the world, which Muslims call the Noble Sanctuary.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said Monday that he was “deeply concerned by repeated provocations at the holy sites in Jerusalem.” 

First in a joint news conference with the Palestinian prime minister in the West Bank city of Ramallah, and later in an appearance here in Jerusalem with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Ban said, 

“These only inflame tensions and must stop.”

The United Nations chief also condemned Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem, and said, during the appearance with Mr. Netanyahu,

“After this difficult summer for Palestinians and Israelis, both sides need to take steps to build trust and confidence.”

Mr. Netanyahu said that “Israel is committed to maintaining the status quo” on the Temple Mount “exactly as it has been for many decades.” Israel seized the site along with the rest of the Old City in 1967 but immediately handed it over to the Muslim authorities. The Israeli police handle security and generally prohibit Jews from praying on the Mount, the subject of growing protest from some Israelis, including Mr. Feiglin.

Mr. Netanyahu on Monday blamed “Palestinian extremists” for spreading “false and baseless rumors that we are threatening the Muslim holy places,” adding, “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

“Israel scrupulously maintains the protection of the holy sites, the right of all religions to worship in their holy places,” he said, “and will continue to do so, maintaining order, maintaining freedom of worship.”

The radio station Voice of Palestine reported Monday that Israeli forces used rubber bullets and tear gas inside the mosque, a description that Mr. Rosenfeld rejected, and that 38 people were hurt. The Palestine Liberation Organization denounced the police action.

“Allowing extremist Israeli settlers to raid Al Aksa compound protected by the Israeli police is a further proof of the belligerent agenda of the extremist Israeli government,” the P.L.O. said in a statement, referring to Mr. Feiglin, who lives in a West Bank settlement. “Such actions are part of the Israeli goal to turn Jerusalem into an exclusive Jewish city.”

Mr. Feiglin, an ultranationalist who has denied the existence of the Palestinian nationality and advocated an Israeli withdrawal from the United Nations, said he visited the Mount with a group of six people before 9 a.m. without incident. He criticized the police for blocking Jewish visitors for the past several days, and for allowing what he called “Muslim terrorists” to remain at the site, albeit locked inside the mosque.

“I don’t understand why they did not arrest them all,” he said in a telephone interview. “It went very smooth, that’s true, but it is not the way it should be. To go up on the holy day, it’s supposed to be happy. It’s supposed to be singing and dancing and praying. Instead of that, you hear all the time the noise of the equipment the police use against demonstrations and so on.”

Mr. Rosenfeld said that the police acted to prevent “a second round” of the violence that erupted at the site last week, and that the items officers found indicated a major action was planned.

“It was positive; it was necessary,” he said. “The police units moved in ahead of time to prevent disturbances from taking place.”

Israeli PM Appears Eager to Strengthen Regional Ties While Postponing Discussions on Palestinian Statehood

Israel vague about new 'diplomatic horizon'

October 12, 2014

Al Jazeera - When representatives of more than 30 countries gathered in Cairo on Sunday to discuss rebuilding in Gaza, there was one notable omission: Israel.

The government here normally bristles at being left out of international gatherings, and there will be no reconstruction without Israeli assent, since it is one of two countries enforcing a blockade of the strip.

Yet the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, asked Israel to stay away from the conference. Some of the largest donations are expected to come from Gulf countries, which do not have formal relations with Israel; Sisi feared they might be unwilling to sit next to Israeli delegates.

In recent weeks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, often jokingly dismissed as "Mr Status Quo," has been talking excitedly about changes, initiatives, even "new diplomatic horizons."

Seven years after he dismissed the Arab Peace Initiative, which offered Israel normal relations with Arab states in exchange for withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders, he is suddenly eager to embrace it - to a point, at least. His address to the United Nations last month was full of hopeful talk about strengthening Israel's regional ties.

"To achieve that peace, we must look not only to Jerusalem and Ramallah, but also to Cairo, to Amman, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and elsewhere," he said. "I believe peace can be realised with the active involvement of Arab countries, those that are willing to provide political, material and other indispensable support."

Netanyahu repeated himself two days later, in a White House meeting with US President Barack Obama: "Something is changing in the Middle East," he said.

In essence, he wants to detach the two halves of the Arab Peace Initiative, establishing better relations now while postponing Palestinian statehood - a piecemeal approach to peace.

The hope, according to aides and analysts, is that growing chaos in the region makes Israel an attractive strategic ally. But Israel's forced absence highlights the limits of his plan: Closer ties to Arab states are likely to be kept quiet, below the horizon, while there is no promise of progress on the Palestinian issue.

Netanyahu is thrilled, because he's always said, 'there are a lot of bad guys in this region'. And now everyone is saying the same thing … the Palestinian state just isn't a priority any more.- Orit Perlov, analyst and former Israeli diplomat based in the Gulf

"It's a vicious circle: In order to get something, you need to give something," said Elie Podeh, a professor of Middle East studies at Hebrew University. "The view from the region is, 'We started the Arab Peace Initiative. Now you have to do something original.' And Netanyahu isn't offering anything."

The countries in question, Israel's potential new "allies", are Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states - minus Qatar, seen as a pariah in Jerusalem because of its support for Hamas.

All of them share a few key concerns with Israel. They are frightened by the rise of political Islam across the region, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to rebel groups in Syria. They are also keen to weaken Iran: Saudi Arabia, in particular, has fought a series of proxy wars against Tehran, hoping to position itself as the regional hegemon.

Israel does not have overt diplomatic relations with the Gulf, though it did operate a trade office in Doha until 2009, when the Qatari government shuttered it during the first Israeli war with Hamas.

But its long-standing and discreet contacts with the Gulf are among the worst kept secrets in diplomacy here. The Bahraini king told the US ambassador to Manama in 2005 that his country "already has contacts with Israel at the intelligence/security level", according to a secret cable published by WikiLeaks. Another cable described the "good personal relations" between then Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nayhan, her Emirati counterpart.

Indeed, there may be another undeclared Israeli mission somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula: Last year's state budget accidentally revealed that the foreign ministry opened a diplomatic office in an unnamed Gulf country sometime between 2010 and 2012.

Egypt and Jordan, of course, both have peace treaties and full diplomatic relations with Israel. Both are "cold peaces", though, and Egyptian officials are keen to downplay the relationship.

"Chances for a better relationship with Israel are almost nonexistent," said Sameh Saif al-Yazal, a retired general with close ties to the security establishment.

Behind the scenes, though, Israeli and Egyptian officials both acknowledge that security ties are flourishing. The army-backed government is almost as hostile to Hamas as Israel; both sides talked regularly during this summer's war in Gaza, and the Wall Street Journal reported in August that Israeli officials even "took Sisi's temperature" each day to make sure he was comfortable with the level of casualties.

Yet for all of these common interests, Netanyahu has been purposely vague about what exactly lies over his new "diplomatic horizon". It is hard to imagine the Israeli flag flying at an embassy in Riyadh, or an Emirati leader visiting the prime minister's residence in Jerusalem.

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni reportedly had dinner last month in New York with envoys from several Gulf nations. All of them rushed to deny the event ever took place.

Instead, Netanyahu's proposal is reminiscent of the old "peripheral alliance", when the nascent state of Israel quietly aligned itself with Iran and Turkey to fight Nasserism.

This time the enemies are political Islam - Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood - and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Israeli intelligence officials have already met in Jordan with their Gulf counterparts to discuss the latter. There will be more intelligence sharing and military cooperation, but no overt relations, and nothing to revive the moribund peace process.

"Netanyahu is thrilled, because he's always said: 'There are a lot of bad guys in this region,'" said Orit Perlov, an analyst and former Israeli diplomatic adviser. "And now everyone is saying the same thing … the Palestinian state just isn't a priority any more."

Indeed, unnamed military and government sources explicitly told veteran journalist Ron Ben-Yishai that they have no interest in reaching a deal right now, according to a long analysis in this weekend's Yediot Aharonot.

"It is doubtful whether the moderate Arab states need a 'Palestinian incentive' to fight the jihadist Islam that endangers their regimes," he wrote. "So instead of trying to pursue a two-state solution … Israel needs to strive for 'conflict management'."

Part of "managing" the conflict is obstructing the Palestine Liberation Organisation's plan to press Israel at the United Nations. Channel 10 reported last week that US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to revive talks under the auspices of several Arab states. His plan calls for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to postpone a planned Security Council resolution that would set a deadline for ending the conflict.

"Netanyahu will go on insisting that the timing is bad, because of the changes in the Middle East and the rise of [ISIL]," Podeh said. "In his view, the Arab Peace Initiative has never been relevant … he's always looking for excuses not to accept it."

Netanyahu Criticizes Obama for Condemning Israel's Settlement Expansion into Arab East Jerusalem, Where the Capital of the Potential Future State of Palestine Would be Located

Israel has a population of approximately 7.8 million, or a million fewer than the state of New Jersey. It is among the world's most affluent nations, with a per capita income similar to that of the European Union. Israel's unemployment rate of 5.8% is better than America's 7.3%, and Israel's net trade, earnings, and payments is ranked 30th in the world while the US sits in last place at a dismal 193rd. Yet, Israel receives more of America’s foreign aid budget than any other nation. The US has, in fact, given more aid to Israel than it has to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined—which have a total population of over a billion people.

And foreign aid is just one component of the staggering cost of our alliance with Israel. Given the tremendous costs, it is critical to examine why we lavish so much aid on Israel, and whether it is worth Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. But first, let's take a look at what our alliance with Israel truly costs. Before the Iraq War in 2003 Direct Foreign Aid According to the Congressional Research Service , the amount of official US aid to Israel since its founding in 1948 tops $121 billion (adjusting for inflation, $233.7 billion as of March 2013), and in the past few decades it has been on the order of $3.1 billion per year. (In 2014, for example, this amounted to $8.5 million every single day.)

But this money is only part of the story. For one thing, Israel gets all of its aid money at the start of each year, rather than in quarterly installments like other countries.This is significant: It means that Israel can start earning interest on the money right away – interest paid by the US since Israel invests these funds in US Treasury notes. In addition, because the US government operates at a deficit, it must borrow money in order to give it to Israel and then pay interest on it all year. Together these cost US taxpayers more than $100 million every year.

Israel is also the only recipient of US military aid that is allowed to use a significant portion annually to purchase products made by Israeli companies instead of US companies. (The costs to Americans caused by this unique perk are discussed below.) In addition, the US gives roughly $1.6 billion per year to Egypt and Jordan in aid packages arranged largely in exchange for peace treaties with Israel. The treaties don’t include justice for Palestinians, and are therefore deeply unpopular with the local populations.

- IfAmericansKnew.org, April 12, 2013

White House jabs Netanyahu over 'American values' critique

White House Rejects Netanyahu's Criticism With Withering Response

1. [$$] U.S., Israel Spar Over Iran, Peace With Palestinians The Wall Street Journal
2. Differences over Iran, settlements mar Netanyahu-Obama talks AFP

October 6, 2014

AFP - It was another turn for the worse in the tense relationship between President Barack Obama's administration and Netanyahu, amid deepening fallout from a meeting between the two leaders last week.

After those talks at the White House, Washington strongly condemned reported Israeli plans to give the go-ahead for thousands more settler homes in East Jerusalem, prompting Netanyahu to return fire in an interview broadcast on US television Sunday.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said it seemed "odd for (Netanyahu) to try to defend the actions of his government by saying that our response did not reflect American values."

"It's American values that lend this country’s unwavering support to Israel," Earnest said.

"It's American values that have led us to fight for and secure funding to strengthen Israel's security in tangible ways.

A truck drives in a construction site in the Jewish settlement of Beitar…

"It's American values that have led us to fund and build an Iron Dome system that have protected the lives of countless innocent Israeli citizens.

"It's American values that have led the United States to fully support Israel's right to defend itself. And it's American values that have led us to defend Israel in a variety of international forums, including a variety of United States forums."

In a portion of an interview with CBS Show "Face the Nation" that was carried online, Netanyahu said he found US criticism of settlement policy "baffling."

"It's against the American values. And it doesn't bode well for peace," he said.

Last week, Israeli Public radio quoted Netanyahu as telling Obama in talks in Washington on Wednesday to "study the facts and details before making statements" about the settlement plan.

In this Monday, Sept. 9, 2013 file photo, the Dome of the Rock Mosque in the Al Aqsa Mosque compound …

The approval of 2,610 new housing units in Israeli-annexed Arab east Jerusalem angered Washington. Earnest said at the time it would "distance Israel from even its closest allies."

Netanyahu told Israeli journalists after the meeting that the plans had been in the pipeline for two years.

Housing Minister Uri Ariel told Israeli army radio that 1,000 of the units would "go to Arabs," but did not elaborate.

Israel's settlement building in the occupied West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem, which is illegal under international law, has caused the breakdown of several rounds of peace talks.

The settlements are built on land the Palestinians want for their potential future state, whose capital would be in east Jerusalem.