FOXNews.com: Why the GOP's future could depend on Romney's ability to connect with young people

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Why the GOP's future could depend on Romney's ability to connect with young people Apr 27th 2012, 08:30 In most of the 2012 primaries and caucuses, youth turnout – defined as eligible voters from 18 to 29 years of age – has been in the single digits. In Nevada, one percent of under-30s voted, and in Virginia, two percent turned out. In the bellwether state of Ohio, youth turnout was somewhat better at 7%, but the number dropped significantly from the 25% rate in 2008. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney – who is just shy of securing his party's nomination after yesterday's five primary wins and Wednesday's announcement from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that he intends to suspend his campaign next week – has improved his showing with young Republicans compared to 2008, but he has hardly closed the deal with them.  Earlier this month, Romney won Maryland's primary easily but lost the state's youth vote to Rick Santorum and barely edged the former senator in Wisconsin. Throughout the 2012 Republican primary season Rep. Ron Paul has attracted a dedicated group of young supporters who kept him competitive in some of the early states, but he has drawn fewer than 200,000 total youth votes in all the states with exit polls up to this point. In a comparable set of states from the 2008 primaries, Barack Obama attracted more than twice as many young votes. Sen. John McCain's youth support was remarkably low in 2008: he took just one third of the under-30 vote, the lowest in history.  Romney has an opportunity to do better, but the primary turnout numbers and his share of the youth vote offer no signs that he has energized young people yet.  If the Republicans lose the youth vote by a landslide margin in two consecutive presidential elections, they should worry that the party is losing a whole generation for the long term. Meanwhile, the president's popularity has slipped among youth, but he remains more popular than not within the demographic group. Last month, three different national polls (conducted for CNN, McClatchy and Reason Magazine) put his youth popularity rating between 61% and 63%. As the president worked this week to court young voters, and Romney answered the president's call with his own campaigning to young people, the question is whether either can draw significant numbers in November. Romney has nowhere to go but up compared to McCain's 2008 effort. Polls show young people tilting liberal on some environmental and social questions, such as gay rights, yet they are highly skeptical of the federal government as a tool for economic reform.  Earlier this week, the Public Religion Research Institute and the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University released a survey of 18- to 24-year-olds that asked them to rate various groups on a scale from 1-100. The Christian Right scored in positive territory at 54.1, Occupy Wall Street was below the midpoint at 44.5, the Tea Party was a little lower at 41, and the federal government in Washington scored worst of all at 40.9. There is clearly room for a Republican campaign to make inroads with young people. Youth remain a strong constituency for the president's reelection, given his personal favorability and also the liberal tilt of young people on social issues.  But turnout will be key.  The presidential reelection campaign cannot be satisfied with energizing the same people who voted for Obama in 2008, because approximately 12,500 young people turn 18 every day, and most citizens under the age of 25 were too young to register or vote in 2008. Registering new voters will be a special challenge since many states have made the process more difficult. New voter registration laws that require government-issued photo IDs or impose rigid regulations on the volunteers who register voters add another hurdle to getting young people on the rolls and to the polls. Most states prevent eligible voters from registering during the very period when interest in a campaign reaches its height, the last month before an election. What business would require you to sign up for its service months in advance and then appear in person at a particular location during limited hours to obtain it?  That is no way to encourage political participation in a great democracy, and it's one reason that U.S. turnout is usually the lowest among all the developed democratic countries in the world. In 2008, for the first time in decades, more than half of young adults turned out, which seemed to show the political world that the Millennial Generation was engaged, but since then their participation in the democratic process has been rocky.  In the Massachusetts Senate election, just 14 months after the '08 election, only 15% of eligible young adults voted (compared to 57% of older citizens).  In the national midterm elections of 2010, youth turnout was weak at 24%. This doesn't necessarily mean that young voters have lost their enthusiasm for political engagement. Instead, it reminds us that turnout rates vary dramatically, depending on how each election is fought, the investment of the major campaigns in youth outreach, the ease or difficulty of registering in various states, and the issues that receive the most attention. For the likely Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, however, the lesson ought to be clear. Take the election to young people, talk about their issues and concerns, and give them significant roles in the campaign. The future of the Republican Party could depend on it. Peter Levine is Director of Research and Director of CIRCLE (Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement) at Tufts University's Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme Apr 26th 2012, 18:00 When Texas Gov. Rick Perry, then in the early stages of his short-lived quest for the Republican presidential nomination, referred to Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme," he was excoriated by the press, left and right, and by his fellow Republicans, as well. Earlier this week, government actuaries revealed that Perry was correct. That revelation, which was greeted with a ho-hum by the media, basically announced that by 2033, 21 years from now, the so-called "Social Security trust fund" will be empty.  The only reason this was even announced is because we are approaching a presidential election campaign, and in response to Perry's much-derided claim, the government's actuaries, who originally told the Obama administration and the public that the fund would be solvent until 2036, re-examined their numbers and concluded that it will be in the red three years earlier than they thought. This revelation should come as no surprise to those who monitor the government and its deceptive ways. When he first introduced Social Security, President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that under Social Security the federal government would be holding your money for you. He deceptively fostered the idea that Social Security would be a savings account, into which employees and employers would make contributions and out of which guaranteed monies would be paid to those who reached the age of 65. Essentially, he claimed that you'd get your money back. Eventually, the government would acknowledge that what it first called a savings account and then called old-age insurance and then said would be fortified by a trust fund did not even establish a contractual obligation to those who have paid the Social Security tax -- which would be all of us. - The politicians believed him, but the actuaries and the judiciary understood that the government would never hold anyone's money for him — as if it were the custodian of a bank account. In the first of several challenges to the constitutionality of Social Security, the Supreme Court found that the Social Security fund did not consist of your money. It was merely tax revenue. Did you know that? It also held that since Congress' law-making authority is limited to the 16 discrete delegated powers granted to it in the Constitution (a truism few in Congress accept as binding) but its spending authority is open-ended (a conclusion that must torment James Madison's ghost), Congress could collect funds, claim it was holding the funds in a savings account and then spend those funds as it saw fit — for those in need after age 65 or for any other purpose. Did you know that? And, in a curious yet revealing one-liner in the Supreme Court opinion upholding the constitutionality of Social Security, even the court recognized that there would be no trust fund in the traditional sense when it found that the tax dollars collected and supposedly designated for Social Security were "not earmarked in any way." Did you know that? Eventually, the government would acknowledge that what it first called a savings account and then called old-age insurance and then said would be fortified by a trust fund did not even establish a contractual obligation to those who have paid the Social Security tax — which would be all of us.  Thus, the Feds have conceded and the courts have agreed that the money you have involuntarily contributed to the so-called trust fund is not yours and can be spent by the government as it pleases, just like any other revenue that the Feds collect. Did you know that? The trust fund is not money that the government "holds" for you, as FDR promised.  It is not money to which you have a lawful claim, as he claimed.  It is not a guarantee for you, as he led the public to believe.  The so-called "trust fund" is merely the difference between what is collected and what is paid out. And the Feds just acknowledged that in 21 years, they are likely to pay out more than they will collect. Perry did not succeed this time in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. But he did succeed in articulating a hard truth: The same federal government that prosecutes people like Bernie Madoff for paying out more than they collect does the very same thing under the color of law. Is a Ponzi scheme — which is basically theft by deception — lawful just because the government runs it? The Supreme Court has said yes. Perry has said no. Governor Perry is correct. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2012 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Reason to celebrate gains in treating testicular cancer

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Reason to celebrate gains in treating testicular cancer Apr 26th 2012, 16:22 The debate over health care has been divisive and rancorous, with legitimate issues of access, cost and quality sometimes overshadowed by agendas on both sides of the political aisle. Unfortunately, this divide has spilled over into medical arena, with battles over turf breaking out among different interest groups over market share.  Amid this discussion is an appropriate time to reflect on one of the most unheralded accomplishments in medicine, the interdisciplinary efforts that have revolutionized the treatment of testicular cancer. April is Testicular Cancer Awareness Month. Testicular cancer is the most common solid tumor in men under 40; nearly 1 in 250 men will be diagnosed with testicular cancer during their lifetime.  Historically, the treatment of testicular cancer was largely based on luck: if the tumor was detected when still organ confined, there was a high chance of cure, if not, the prognosis was very grim.  In fact, in the not too distant past, the discovery of a suspicious testicular mass was a virtual surgical emergency; urologists would often operate the same day as seeing the patient the first time to not allow any time for even a single cell to escape.  The heart-breaking course this disease all too often took was depicted in the movie "Brian's Song," memorializing the friendship between Gale Sayers and testicular cancer victim Brian Piccolo (who succumbed to his illness in 1970 at the age of 26). Today, more than 95 percent of those diagnosed with testicular cancer will not only survive, but go on to live full, healthy and productive lives. - Although urologists are the typical physicians of first contact, and generally "quarterback" the treatment of the disease, the advances made in testicular cancer therapy cannot be credited to a single specialty.  From the pathologists who worked to improve and standardize classification of the disease, to radiation oncologists who developed improved methods to target and treat tumors while simultaneously substantially reducing radiation dose and side effects, to medical oncologists who refined chemotherapeutic protocols that substantially improved survival and minimized toxicity, and finally to urological surgeons who integrated these approaches with state-of-the-art minimally invasive surgical techniques, research in this field was truly multi-disciplinary.  Critically, these efforts could not have happened without funding from both government agencies and pharmaceutical companies as well. Although not every cancer survivor can enjoy the success of Lance Armstrong, who won an astonishing seven Tour de France races after his 1996 battle with his disease, today, more than 95 percent of those diagnosed with testicular cancer will not only survive, but go on to live full, healthy and productive lives. Although we have made great strides, no physician who has ever witnessed the untimely death of a victim of this disease can be satisfied until all those stricken can be cured.  Early detection still is critical, and young men and boys should be encouraged to perform testicular self-examination in the same way women are taught breast self-exams. Any change in the character of the testicle, any nodules or masses within the scrotum (whether painful or not), or even a feeling of achiness or fullness in the genital area may be important warning signs, and indicate that an evaluation by a physician is necessary.  While most of the time these issues are completely benign, only a trained health care professional, after performing a careful history and physical examination, can determine if further lab or diagnostic tests are necessary. The cooperative effort to improve treatment of testicular cancer is but one example of how committed professionals who put aside issues irrelevant to the care of patients can produce near miraculous results. Collaboration between physicians, industry, the government and patient groups were all essential to this success. While we celebrate our accomplishments with testicular cancer this month, and work to further improve education on early diagnosis and treatment, it would be wise for all of us to remember these lessons as we seek to shape how health care is to be delivered in the future. Deepak A. Kapoor, M.D. is president of the Large Urology Group Practice Association, representing more than 1,800 urologists nationwide, as well as Chairman and CEO of Integrated Medical Professionals, PLLC, the largest independent urology group practice in the United States.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: What Chuck Colson taught me about using the word 'hate'

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

What Chuck Colson taught me about using the word 'hate' Apr 26th 2012, 16:32 Sometime in 1973, I first heard the name Charles Colson from my father at the dinner table. My dad, who always told me he "hated" President Nixon, told me that night that he also "hated" a man named Charles Colson, who had the title "special counsel to the president."  He told me about a sign on Colson's wall in the White House: "When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." About a year later, I think in early 1974, I was astonished to receive a phone call, which began: "Hello, this is Bob Woodward from The Washington Post. Do you have any comment on the fact that you were on one of Nixon's 'Enemies Lists'?" "You've got to be kidding. Me? Why was I on Nixon's Enemies List?" "We are not sure," Woodward said. "You were Muskie's youth coordinator and made a lot of anti-Nixon speeches. Maybe that's how you got there." (He was referring to Maine Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, who had been an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 and for whom I had worked during his campaign.) I asked Woodward whether he had any idea who in the Nixon White House had put me on the Enemies List. "Yeah, we think it was Colson." "Do you mean Charles Colson — the guy with the 'hearts and minds' sign on the wall?" "Yeah, that Colson. Would you like to comment?" "Sure — I am complimented and want to thank Colson for the honor." The next day, I read a short article in the Post mentioning that I had been listed on one of the Enemies Lists. It wasn't long until my phone rang. It was my mom and dad, both yelling, "Mazel tov," with even more pride and joy, it seemed, than the day of my bar mitzvah. "We're so proud of you, son," my dad said. "You made The List!" Fast-forward — about 30 years later, I am guessing, probably about 2004.  I was at the dinner traditionally hosted by conservative columnist Cal Thomas, on the evening before the National Prayer Breakfast. Each year, Cal invites friends to join him to hear a born-again Christian give testimony about his or her experience. It's a moving experience and an honor to be invited. I knew I would never forget this moment and what Charles Colson had taught me. - "There is someone I want you to meet," Cal told me. "You must come." When I arrived, Cal steered me over to a vaguely familiar face. "Hi, I'm Chuck Colson," he said, as he stuck his hand out to shake hands. I shook his hand, amazed, and became even more amazed when he said: "I admired your work for President Clinton — and I had the same title as you, 'special counsel.' I've wanted for a very long time to say something to you: I am sorry, may God forgive me." I looked at him, stunned. "You know, I'm the guy who put you on the Enemies List — that was wrong, please forgive me." I looked into his eyes and I felt a strange and deep peace. It was eerie. I also saw a profound goodness and spirituality. I thought of my dad, who had passed away in 1996, and who had used the words "hate" and "evil" about this man. My eyes teared up. I wished my dad was alive to hear me say, "Of course I forgive you, Mr. Colson" — and then adding: "And please forgive me and my late dad, for we used to use the word 'hate' about you." Chuck Colson immediately hugged me, whispering in my ear, "I know your dad is in heaven, and he is smiling right now at the both of us loving God and forgiving each other." I learned an important lesson that night: I vowed that I would never use the word "hate" about people in politics with whom I disagreed. And I knew I would never forget this moment and what Charles Colson had taught me. Thank you, Chuck. May your soul rest in peace.  I know it will. Lanny Davis is a Washington D.C. attorney specializing in legal crisis management, who served as Special Counsel to President Bill Clinton in 1996-98 and served as a member of President Bush's Privacy and Civil Liberties Board in 2006-07. He currently serves as Special Counsel to Dilworth Paxson. He is the author of the forthcoming book, "Crisis Tales – Five Rules for Handling Scandal in Business, Politics and Life," to be published by Simon & Schuster.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: President Obama and Democrats must reconsider Dodd-Frank

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

President Obama and Democrats must reconsider Dodd-Frank Apr 26th 2012, 17:07 President Obama and Congressional Democrats have shifted into full campaign mode, using every taxpayer funded campaign stop to raise money and continue their efforts to incite class warfare around the country. While these intentionally divisive methods seem at odds with the president's 2008 message of "hope and change," it makes sense when you consider that the full  effect of their legislative performance is only now becoming clear. The shortfalls of the Affordable Care Act, dubbed by politicos and the media as "ObamaCare", have already been well documented; the legislation could be struck down by the Supreme Court later this year.   However, almost simultaneously, came the "shock and awe" from members of Congress who muscled through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Thi is a piece of legislation that reconfigured the financial industry with the same broad strokes they used on ObamaCare.  Playing off lingering resentment toward Wall Street in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown, Democrats developed legislation that read like a progressive's wish list of how to fundamentally change Wall Street.  Despite repeated warnings from Republicans -- in both chambers -- the legislation sailed through and passed along party lines. Dodd-Frank is a vastly transformative effort that did everything from regulate credit cards to create a new government agency (the deeply controversial Consumer Finance Protection Bureau).   In fact, even before new regulations were unveiled, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Dodd-Frank would slap $27 billion in new fees on American businesses. Unfortunately, increased fees were only the beginning of the surprises Dodd-Frank had in store for job creators.   Nancy Pelosi's famous quote attributed to ObamaCare, that "it will have to pass before we know what's in it" turned out to be the case for Dodd-Frank, too. Dodd-Frank calls for some 400 new regulations on job creators; to date only 185 have been written, however small business owners and their employees have spent over 24 million man-hours just trying to comply, with no relief in sight.   According to the Heritage Foundation, federal regulations cost taxpayers some $1.75 trillion dollars each year; more importantly, increased red tape kills jobs and productivity better used to put our friends and neighbors back to work. The chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Congressman Randy Neugebauer, estimates that it will take more time for employees to comply with these regulations than it did to build the Panama Canal.  While the Canal stood as a monument to American's triumph over nature, Dodd-Frank seems to be a monument to Washington bureaucrats' triumph over small business.  Moreover, despite 3,000 new government jobs and nearly $1.25 billion in new spending for implementation of the plan, regulators admit nothing in the 2,300 page bill could have prevented the failure of MF Global – a glaring omission to say the least.   To be clear, the economic meltdown of 2008 indicated that reforms to the financial systems were needed.  Several Republicans such as Congressmen Jeb Hensarling, Scott Garrett and Tom Price developed plans to fix the problem without choking the economic recovery with undue government regulation.  However, in their rush to capitalize on the populist sentiment they foment even today, Congressional Democrats ignored any suggestions from the minority party and passed a deeply flawed bill that is already manifesting real problem for working families. Instead of forcing Americans to navigate a tidal wave of government regulation, the president and Senate Democrats should re-evaluate Dodd-Frank. They should try to work hand in hand with House Republicans and economic leaders to develop common sense reforms that provide businesses with the chance to create jobs, while providing the kind of oversight that creates opportunity, not more new regulations.  Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee have built a tracker to monitor the burden created by each new Dodd-Frank regulation, each one a drain on capitol and ingenuity that hold the key to ending the economic slowdown.  The lesson of the last four years is apparent: no amount of government intervention can replace the job creating ability of small business.   We must end the tsunami of red tape that is drowning American ingenuity and capital if we ever hope to have our economy emerge intact. Joe Brettell is a former Capitol Hill Press Secretary who currently serves as a GOP consultant.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Let's get real about the Secret Service 'scandal' and what went on in Colombia

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Let's get real about the Secret Service 'scandal' and what went on in Colombia Apr 26th 2012, 17:02 Finally. I'm finally over the shock of learning that men, when away from home and faced with opportunity, might find themselves in the company of booze and hookers. Usually in that order. Much has been made of the Secret Service and US military personnel availing themselves of local culture during the recent Colombian expedition. I'm not here to pass moral judgment on their actions… that job belongs to their wives and girlfriends. I'm here to point out the odd faux-naivete currently being displayed by everyone from members of Congress to the media in trying to determine if this was simply a one time lapse in judgment or perhaps a regular running of the bulls that just happened to go public. Anyone who actually believes that this may have been the first time for a little mess around needs to get beaten with a reality stick. - Seriously? Politicians and journalists trying to pretend that they're not sure if servicemen and Secret Service dudes who are regularly deployed overseas might have done this before? Anyone who actually believes that this may have been the first time for a little mess around needs to get beaten with a reality stick. Congress, that well known arbiter of upstanding behavior and transparency, is now doing what they love to do more than anything else; hold hearings during which they chastise others and express concern. Concern tinged with palpable outrage. There's talk of moral decay…of a culture in decline that has created an environment where fellas consort with gals of the night.  There's Republican outrage…demanding to know how the Obama administration could allow such a thing.  I haven't done the research yet, but I'll bet once my crack research staff (admittedly mostly unpaid interns) launches into this, we might find shocking examples of Republicans cavorting with paid ladies, too.  Soon we'll be hearing from Congress that it's outrageous that federal employees go overseas to spend their dollars when we have prostitutes looking for work right here at home.  Now that's a jobs program we can believe in.  Just kidding. Enough with the self-righteous yammering about how could this happen.  It happens.  That's why it's the oldest profession. The focus needs to be squarely on the security and counter-intelligence implications in order to ensure a serious response is made. The Secret Service is conducting an internal investigation, as is the Defense Department. The White House completed their own enquiry into the conduct of the White House advance team over this past weekend. All members of the White House team have been absolved of any interest in hookers. I'm not sure what to make of that. The Secret Service has already started firing or otherwise letting go personnel, including supervisors. Frankly, the only employees who should lose their jobs over this are the supervisors. Anyone in a management position who was aware of the events of the evening and didn't take solid steps to prevent it should be let go. Full stop. Employees not in management positions should be suspended and then sent for mandatory overseas security and counterintelligence training. And then they should be given another chance. I don't know, but friends have told me that when you pick up ladies of the night overseas, you often don't know anything about their backgrounds, their associations, possible involvement with criminal or government organizations or anything else. Yes, most have a heart of gold and are just looking for Richard Gere, but a drunk john doesn't tend to carry out much due diligence other than occasional price research before plunging into the market. If you're with the Secret Service, the US military or any other government organization and are overseas in support of a mission, sleeping with a foreign national is a serious counterintelligence problem.  You have no idea who this person is and no idea whether you're being monitored by the host government intel service or nefarious organizations. Here's a hint, if you're on an official detail for a State visit, even to an allied nation, you should assume your actions are being monitored. Aside from the embarrassment that your actions can bring to the US government, you are putting yourself in a position of weakness and possible exploitation by that host government or criminal organization that may be connected to your temporary new best friend. Again, casting aside moral concerns and how our culture is going to hell in a hand basket, this sort of behavior can't be condoned or tolerated by field supervisors or headquarters management.  It is a very clear and definite breach of security. Let's allow the Secret Service and military to complete their investigations, report their findings to Congress and do some internal housekeeping. Supervisors should be let go, security training needs to be reviewed and improved and internal management oversight needs to be shored up. Revamping our culture, instilling universal moral values and ending prostitution may have to wait for the day Hell freezes over. Mike Baker is a former CIA covert operations officer and President of Diligence LLC, a global intelligence and security firm. Follow Mike on Twitter @MBCompanyMan.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »

FOXNews.com: Israel at 64

FOXNews.com FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Israel at 64 Apr 26th 2012, 11:30 Today, the modern State of Israel celebrates her 64th birthday. A nation rich in history beyond its young age – the birthplace of the three modern monotheistic religions and the center of the Jewish people – the small country is a prime example of what can be accomplished with through will. As Israel is celebrating 64th year of independence it looks back with tears for what has been lost, with pride for what has been accomplished, and with hope for what is yet to come. - When the first Zionist Conference took place in 1987, Israel was a marshland. Land could not be sowed and malaria was rampant.  Today, Israel is known as the "Start-up Nation" with R&D facilities of many of the world's largest technology companies. Scientists in Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, has been awarded with 10 Nobel Prizes in less than 64 years.  Throughout times of conflict, Israel has stayed strong and firm. The Tel Aviv Stock Market stayed strong and stable during the Second Lebanon War. It is because Israelis have confidence in itself. This confidence comes from always looking forward to the future but always remembering its past. As the State of Israel marks its 64th birthday, it remembers the 6 million lives lost during the Holocaust. The day before fireworks fill the sky of Israel in celebration of its birth, the entire nation of Israel stands in silence in remembrance of the 20,703 men and women that fell in the line of duty, protecting the State of Israel. Every Israeli wonders what might have been should Israel had been established 70 years ago, rather than only 64. How many lives would have been saved? How would the lives of Israelis be different today. The modern state of Israel was a land established by a small group of "Sabras" (people born in Israel), Jews who came to the area before WWII, and Holocaust survivors.  The first test of this small, newly established country: a carefully planned attack from all its borders. Israel rose to the challenge and survived. Unfortunately, this wasn't the only challenge the nation faced. As the people of Israel were building a nation – from causing the dessert to bloom to establishing skyscrapers and businesses – it was also absorbing Jews that came to its border seeking refuge and safety from 70 different countries, speaking 50 different languages. While initially difficult in absorbing such a diverse group of people in such a short period of time, it was this diversity and compassion and our strategic relationship with the United States -- a relationship that has given, and continues to give, Israel political, security, and economic back winds -- that has built Israel to the country that it is today. For many years I served as an Israeli spokesperson. I stood beside Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. I stood up for the people of Israel and its army as a Brigadier General serving as the Spokesperson for the IDF. As both a citizen of the State of Israel and a spokesperson devoting my days defending the country, I can say without hesitation: I am proud to call myself Israeli. I am proud that Israel brought irrigation systems to remote villages in Africa and introduced tomatoes of all colors to the world.  I am proud that Israel helped pull men, women, and children from the rubble following the earthquakes that hit Haiti and Turkey.  I am proud that Israel has created devices that help the world; whether it is the medical tools that make surgery and procedures less invasive to technology that keeps countries safe from incoming attacks.  And I am proud that I live a country that both protects its citizens with all means possible while, at the same time, its citizens (as well as other members of the government) question the action of the government for this is the exact definition of a democracy. As the young age of 64, I am proud to say that Israel is on the forefront of knowledge, security, science, communication and technology. All these accomplishments were fulfilled while having to deal with wars, immigrant absorptions and thousands of terror attacks. Strangers who don't really know Israel are astounded and wonder – how could it be? Where does this country get its emotional strength from? They are right in the sense that life in Israel is not simple. Israel does not yet have fully defined borders. Most of the countries around us have not yet accepted our existence. In this sense Israel's independence war has not yet ended, but I am sure we will soon reach peace. When I look at my son Ori, who is an officer in the Israeli Navy, and I look at a boy same his age in Cairo's Tahrir square -- I know there is still hope. They both wear the same jeans, the same T-shirt with a silly logo. They both hold the same can of Coca-Cola and listen to the same music using the same headset. Remember what I write here on this Independence Day: The promises the leaders of the world were unable to fulfill will be accomplished by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social networking sites.  In the coming years, the Nobel Price for Peace will be given to the efforts and cooperation that will take hold due to these sites. There is just not other way. Israel, for that I'm sure, will keep pursuing peace. Peace is a clear destination for the people of Israel. I have no doubt that one day soon the road to peace will be filled with the steps of the next generation, both sides running freely and without worry. The Middle East as a whole needs time to rearrange, rebalance and stabilize itself. It must be given the time to do this. And once stabilized, I am confident that a new dawn will arise. As Israel is celebrates 64 years of independence, it looks back with tears for what has been lost, with pride for what has been accomplished, and with hope for what is yet to come. Will you join us for a toast of independence, of hatikvah (the hope), and of the unknown? A toast for Israel. May you continue to prosper and be a light unto the nations as we continue on the road for peace. Avi Bnayahu was the Spokesperson for the IDF and the Communications Advisor to Prime Ministers Shimon Peres and the late Yitzhak Rabin.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Read more »