Calling a spade a spade: More people killed in the name of religion than any other reason. The Holocaust, and Islamic Jihad, two leading offenders!

This blog is intended to dispel notions that religions are peaceful, and that in order to be “political-correct,” one must not offend believers.

Attention will be given United States politics versus that of others, and a discussion of how the present Administration is dealing with friends, and with foes. With critical eye a discussion of the Administration political correctness, and its blind-eye to violent Islam, and that of others, will be pursued.

Particular attention will be given to the fact that the major source of today international terror is done in the name of Islam, and the largest single event that destroyed [innocent] people, and did so because of their religious beliefs, or ethnicity, was the Holocaust. The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to “wipe Israel off the map,” an act that he may well be able to carry out after enough nuclear devices are produced by his regime, will be carefully monitored, especially in light of that fact that such an event would be approaching the magnitude of the Holocaust, if it occurs.

Close scrutiny will be given the Middle East, including, but not limited to the fact that the State of Israel is the major obstacle to Islamic encroachment on the Western world. Will Israel with its formidable nuclear arsenal, “take-out” Ahamadinejad’s nuclear capability, which could be deployed against Europe, as well as Israel? The apparent deterioration in United States relations with Israel will also be reviewed, especially with an eye on President Obama’s apparent Islamic sympathies, which do not seem to be always reciprocal.

In the Twenty-first Century armed conflict seems to be concentrated among Muslims. War between brethren (i.e. Yeman and Saudi; Somalia; the Sudan, etc.), or conflict in the name of Islam, a Jihad, if you will, the means for forcing Islam on the world. Another item of interest has to do with the fact that the Muslims are divided, Shiites, Sunnis, and others, they are continuously at each other’s throat. Islam is using Israel, or what they call Zionism, as a uniting element, a “temporary glue” that hold them together for their present common cause, if they did not have Zionism to exploit, and their own one can expect a set of catastrophic conflicts (i.e. the recent Iran/Iraq war, etc.).

Not being Islamophobic, I have read the Koran and realize that those who believe, those who accept its words, must rid the word od infidels, not a peaceful suitable for civilized societies. That notwithstanding, it is clear that modern Muslims can, and do, accept the Koran in a manner compatible with Twenty-first Century society; and, like religious Jews who do not put to death those who do keep the Sabbath, or stone adulterers, adhere to the religion yet let others (infidels) believe as they wish.

Strict adherence to the Koran requires all Muslims to destroy infidels, but in reality, most Muslims accept a compromise, just like Christians, and Jews do, and adjust to be compatible with the world in which they live.

Palin a female reincarnation of Quayle?

When George Walker Bush announced that Dan Quayle would be his running mate, I quickly changed my voter registration and became an Independent.

On April 1993 Time magazine had Dan Quayle on its cover. There was a caption with Quayle’s photograph: “No Joke this man could be our next President.” On top of the page on which the actual article is printed is a quote from one of Quayle’s professors: “I looked into those blue eyes, and I might as well have been looking out the window.”

I don’t profess to know Dan Quayle, but I did meet him at a Republican Senatorial Inner Circle event. The then Vice President smiled, and was very pleasant; yet I too felt as if I was looking out the window when looking into his eyes.

I never met Sarah Palin, and from what I have heard, and from images I have seen on television, I have no desire to meet Sarah Palin. From everything I see and from everything I hear, John McCain did America irreparable damage by appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008. It is not only the lady’s intelligence one must question, but her poor judgement in resigning as Alaska’s Governor in order to pursue a more lucrative future. When she was elected Governor, MS Palin accepted the responsibility for at least full term on the job, leaving without living up to her commitment demonstrates, if nothing else, a major flaw in her character.

The GOP gave the nation Spiro Agnew, who resigned in disgrace; Dan Quayle, who was simply inept; and, of course, the infamous Dick Cheney, who may have well been guilty of illegal acts while in office; I sincerely hope that cool heads within that party will prevail, and that Sarah Palin will disappear from the scene, as quickly as she entered.

“Political-media,” altruisticly called: “[Cable] News-media;” an obstacle to Democracy, and free speach.

Since audible media in the United States, be it radio, or television, has a tremendous influence on public opinion, politically biased media is a dangerous thing.

The FCC (Federal Communication Commission) regulates a number of items that are associated with information that is transmitted through the airwaves. The FCC, however, does not regulate political content.

The best known political voice on audible media is, of course, Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh is a man who, next to the President, is likely to possess the single most prominent political voice in the United States. Rush Limbaugh has millions of devout listeners who accept his words as constituting the “fundamental” truth. Limbaugh proclaims that his facts are 95.5% correct, a very impressive, yet very suspect, statistic.

Unlike other political voices, one must respect the fact that Rush Limbaugh does not claim to be unbiased, to the contrary, Limbaugh admits being a died-in-the-wool conservative.

The so-called: “Cable news media,” that includes, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, represent an attempt at swaying public opinion, in one way, or another. Unlike Limbaugh, these “news” outlets all claim to be unbiased conveyors of the “unbiased” truth. All three channels are a disgrace to journalism because they are generally attempts to navigate the public thinking in order to enhance a political agendas. Not only that, the majority of the “pundits” on these channel are neither legitimate journalists, nor newscasters; they are, in most cases, entertainers, with sensationalistic tendencies.

All three cable news networks claim to be unbiased leaders in presenting the news, and an uncontested understanding of politics. With Blitzer of CNN claiming to present the “best political team on television,” followed by CNBC claiming to be the source of your political knowledge, and then Fox News that claims to be “fair and balanced;” all three channels are misleading their listeners.

CNN, and MSNBC are clear voices from the political left, while, the very successful Fox News, is a clear voice of the political right. There are two major problems with claims of these channels:

1. Not admitting their bias and loudly proclaiming that the information they present does not represent a political agenda;
2. In many cases using either unqualified persons to anchor their information, or in reality entertainers who lean towards the sensational.

Starting with Rush Limbaugh who jumps up and down, shouts and screams, and generally makes a fool out of himself, one can move on Glenn Beck, the actor who can, and does, cry on cue, and who is clearly a Limbaugh wannabe. Next there are two MSNBC stars: Keith Oberman, a man who tosses things around, never fails to complain about his mensis, Bill O’Reilly, and who attempts to be humorous without much success, and Rachel Maddow who sticks her tongue out and laughs in a very insecure manner even at somber occasions.

There are other cable news “pundits,” such as Sean Hannity of Fox News, Anderson Cooper of CNN, and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who make one wonder if the American public is gullible, or if the cable news outlets, and some radio, are only listened to because they are means cheap entertainment, means of getting tension relief with humor?

Regardless of the reason for large audiences, the facts that most cable news, and political radio, news-casters are entertainers disguised as serious journalists, is a serious obstacles in the way of Americans getting unbiased political information, the kind of information that they can use when making their voting, and other political support, decisions.

Obama: The arrogance of power! His self grade of B+ in reality D to D+ moving towars F.

The arrogance of power!

Barak Hussein Obama graded himself; he snuck in a grade of B+, when in reality it is hovering around D and D+, in some area, perhaps C-. However, his arrogance at declaring his performance B+, will likely cause it to decline to D-, or even F because his inability to assess his work objectively.

With an economy based on a service industry, and “virtual” commodities, an economy that has no significant manufacturing base, Obama’s grade should be about D-. This is especially so, since unemployment is at 10% (reported,) and about 17.5% (actual.) The President’s grade on the economy is, as it should be, bad; the economy is not his worst area of performance.

Unprecedented growth in the national debt, and with the economic future of the United State mortgaged to China, President Obama is navigating the United States away from its stature of the only Super-Power in today’s world. Under Obama’s leadership, the economy is rapidly moving towards becoming “also run,” a much lesser global force than it has been in past years. If President Obama is elected to a second term, one can look forward to having the United States reduced to being the second strongest economy in the world, lagging behind the fast-moving China. The Japanese and EU economies will also be challenging the United States position of leadership.

Giving Obama any grade above D for his performance on the economy would be generous, his accomplishment to date are marginal, if not outright failures. Those experts who claim that Obama’s policies averted a depression in the United States have no way of justifying their projections, they are simply being benevolent.

With his inept Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who is, and who acts as a politician rather than a statesperson, United States international relations has been suffering in many areas. The removal plans for the original missile defense initiative from Europe, did not make the United States friends in that part of the world. Iran and Ahmadinejad are making mockery of the American President showing him for what he is, a “toothless-tiger.”

Obama’s relations with Israel is abysmal, only 4% of Israeli Jews consider Obama an ally at this juncture; and the Islamic World, in spite of Obama’s apologetic speech in Cairo, treats the young American President, and his Secretary of State, as immature children attempting to play adults’ games.

A sound D- is what Barak Obama earned in his conduct of international relations, and except for his speech in Norway regarding his acceptance of the Nobel Prize, his performance does not suggest any forthcoming improvements.

In the area of military and the war, Barak Hussein Obama barely earned a D-; second-guessing his commanders in the field by reducing the number of troops committed to Afghanistan by a whopping 25%, is but another clear demonstration of arrogance based on ego rather than on knowledge and ability. In the nearly a year in office, the situation on the ground, in Afghanistan, has not improved, if anything it had deteriorated in a significant way. The situation in Iraq is a long way from being stable, and Iran is about to enter the last technical stage required towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Additionally, Iran has already demonstrated that is has missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, that can reach the whole Middle East, and nearly all countries in Europe allied with the United States.

Summing up Obama’s military accomplishment even a D- is perhaps above what the man deserves.

There are many other areas in which the young American President failed. Obama’s promise to take care of the gays in the military issue, the messy situation he created in the closure of Guantanamo (with the ensuing trials of some of its inhabitants in New York,) and suggesting that Muslims are peaceful people even in the face of the Fort Hood massacre, and the list goes on.

One other item of interest. Due to “political-correctness,” the media, and the pubic in general, seem to shy away from Obama’s effect on deteriorating race relations in the Unites States. It started during the primaries when Oprah Winfrey endorsed Obama (she never endorsed a political candidate before the Obama endorsement,) which contributed to 90% of blacks voting for the President; a statistic that translated to a terrible, and growing, resentment by many white people (especially white people on the right of the political spectrum.) Since the race-relations issue is not due to what Barak Obama actually did, but rather because of who he is, he probably earned a C+ by trying to minimize this issue.

With performance in his first year in office hovering around D, D+, or at best C-; President of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama, is on a fast track to joining Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, as the Co-worst Presidents in United States history…

Being anti-Jewish does not necessarily mean being anti-Semitic; all Jews [except for some coverts] are Semites, not all Semites are Jews!

Most Jews, except some coverts to the religion, are Semites, but not all Semites are Jews. As a matter of fact, most Semites are not Jewish!

Both Arabs and Jews are descendants of Shem, and there are many more Arabs than are Jews in the world; additionally, and generally speaking, Arabs multiply faster than do Jews.

Furthermore, many of those who exhibit anti-Jewish tendencies, such as President Obama, seem particularly sympathetic to Semite Arabs, and other Muslims.

Obama’s Hanukkah, a blatant anti-Jewish display!

Coming back from a triumphant trip to Oslo, President Barak Hussein Obama is going to have a highly reduced Hanukkah dinner at the White House. The President cutting back on the traditional Jewish Holiday is consistent with his dealing with the Jewish people, and their state, Israel.

Notwithstanding the fact that Obama placed Jews in high places within his Administration, the man appears to have a problem in dealing with the Jewish people as equals. This may be the result od his Muslim-birth and early associations with Muslims, his days working the Chicago ghetto, or another reason, but it is clear that Barak Hussein Obama is anti-Jewish.

During the early Civil Rights movement people used to say that in the South blacks were not accepted as a group, but individual whites had black friends. It was further stated that in the North blacks were accepted as a group, but that you seldom witnessed white individuals befriending blacks. A similar situation seem to describe President Obama’ dealings with Jewish people. Obama has Axlerod, Emanuel, and other Jews on his staff, but as can be attested by poles of Jews in Israel, only 3% consider Barak Hussein Obama to be a friend of Israel and of the Jewish people.

In some way, President Obama’s behavior may be a situation of the “chicken and the egg,” did he become anti-Jewish before Israel stopped to jump whenever he demanded that it jumped, or did his anti-Jewish behavior caused Israel to stop jumping?

Whatever the reason, Obama anti-Jewish behavior should cause the Democrats to not do well in areas with heavy Jewish votes during the upcoming 2010 mid-term election. Perhaps such results will improve performance of Congress by getting rid of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

It is interesting to note that even though one generally associates the Jewish people with the Democrats, while out of the last three Democrats in the office of United States President, two, Jimmy Carter, and Barak Obama, are not friends of Israel, and of the Jewish people!

Ode to Obama: Kudos, from [just] a great political orator to a statesman! Obama’s Oslo speech, a masterpiece.

_______________________________________________________________
Ode to Obama: You seized the moment!

You went to Oslo to receive a prize that you didn’t yet earn
Your foes, and many others, were hoping that you’ll simply “burn”
But you took the stage with dignity, compassion, and determination
You humbly accepted the prize with grace, not for yourself, but on behalf of the Nation
_______________________________________________________________

Since the beginning of this blog, President Hussein Barak Obama was repeatedly credited with being a great, perhaps the greatest, orator of all times. In the past, however, Obama’s public-speaking prowess was based more on form than content; that was changed in Oslo!

In the past Obama pleased, even mesmerized, audiences. The President did so with fantastic delivery, well written speeches, and enthusiasm. The young American President was also blessed by a masterful voice that oozed authority, and the orator extraordinaire of the Twenty-first Century, likely of all times!

In the past, Barak Obama gave some inspiring speeches. Seldom did Obama, however, put forth as powerful a speech as he did in Oslo. Most of Obama’s previous speeches had strong political overtones, they were speeches by a politician trying to please, and to sell his agenda. That all ended (perhaps temporarily,) but for now, it indeed end. The Oslo speech was that of a statesman, something that until now neither Obama, nor anyone in his Administration was able to do.

Past speeches, such as the one in Cairo, were political, conciliatory, and showed little vision. In Cairo, for example, Obama apologized for the past behavior of the United States towards the Islamic World. The speech was designed to please Muslims, and to earn Obama a spot as an “internationalist;” it completely failed to accomplish its objectives. Muslim leaders (especially Ahmadinejad) mocked the speech, and the [Islamic] oil producers did not loosen their grip on the global economy.

In Oslo Obama made himself proud! Obama praised past United States efforts in keeping the world safe. Barak Hussein Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize as Commander-in-Chief, and as President of the Unites States, not as the person, Barak Obama.

In Oslo President Obama explained that in an unsafe world, a powerful country as the United States is essential to keep some semblance of peace, as it has been doing for sixty, or more, years. If there wa as flaw in his speech, it was his suggestion that El Qaeda is the entity that presently represents the major threat to society; he was wrong. El Qaeda is a short-lived phenomena, it is in reality Islam that represent instability in today’s world. But that choice by President Obama is understandable, he used, knowingly, or otherwise, El Qaeda, as a group representing [radical] Islam* in order not to get the Islamic World up-in-arms by stating the case differently.

Congratulation, President Obama, for a job well done; keep up the good work.

* Islam is not a peaceful religion as Western leaders refer to it. Islam is a violent religion as can be attested to by the Armenians, and many others who suffered under the Ottoman Empire. It has grown by leap and bounds in the Twentieth Century by forcing conversion whenever it could. No, Islam is not a peaceful religion.
But there is hope, if Islamic leadership, the wealth hungry power behind Islam, decides that it wants to benefit from the global economy, it can bring its people to the Twenty-first Century, and become an integral part of the generally peaceful global community.

Arafat and Obama; Nobel and other commonalities:

Yasar Arafat, and Barak Hussein Obama, have much in common. Both man are of Muslim birth, both are undeserving winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, and both man have a dislike for the State of Israel.

It is hard to comprehend how the tall, elegant, articulate, and intelligent American President can have so much in common with the scrubby, short, and unattractive Palestinian leader, but “facts on the ground” point to a number visible characteristics that they share.

May time prove me wrong and make President Obama earn the Nobel Prize that he was awarded; and may time prove me wrong and let Obama commit to supprting the State of Israel, one of the very few loyal friends the United States has, the only true ally it has in the Middle East.

Jerusalem: Israel’s eternal Capital!

Jerusalem is not a man-made city; it is a divine phenomenon of enormous magnitude.

In its form of a city with human inhabitants, Jerusalem is a vibrant home for members of many religions, nations, creeds, and races; but it is primarily the Capital of the State of Israel, and the hub of Judaism.

Other religions than Judaism consider Jerusalem an important part of their being. To the Muslims, Jerusalem is the third most holy city in the world. To many Christians, Jerusalem, with its ever-present footsteps and other items associated with Jesus Christ, is of significant religious importance.

Even though Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel, its future is not controlled by Israel; it is rather under divine authority that no man can change. Mortals may manage the day-to-day activities of the city of Jerusalem, but its ultimate destiny has been determined by providence, through the direct power of the Creator, if you will.

Numerous attempts by various people to re-write the future of Jerusalem in the Twentieth, and Twenty-first Centuries caused a number of short-term changes in the status of Jerusalem, but they ultimately all failed. Present attempts to cause Jerusalem to become something other than the Capital of Israel, the perpetual center of Judaism, are destined to fail, they must fail since they are contrary to Divine Providence, contrary to the will of the Creator, regardless of what he is called.

For the United States, and other nations, to support a notion that Jerusalem can be divided, or shared, is ludicrous. Benyamin Netanyahu may be able to speak for the State of Israel, but he lacks the divine authority to accept changes to the state of Jerusalem. Any attempt by Israeli leadership to forfeit control, or share Jerusalem, will not only blocked be by the people, it would fail through divine intervention.

When Yassar Arafat rejected an offer by Ehud Barak, when Barak was Prime Minister of Israel, to make some sharing accommodation for Jerusalem; Arafat unknowingly acted on Divine directive and rejected Barak’s offers to compromise. Should have Arafat accepted Barak’s offer, a major turmoil would have ensued, Barak’s career as a politician would have ended, and the whole region would have fallen into a state of immediate chaos. Arafat was simply doing the “work of the Lord,” for which he was universally condemned since worldview was that Barak’s offer the best offer the Palestinians can ever expect.

Through the years events continue point to Divine Intervention in the Middle East, that region of the world that seems to be of particular interest to Jehovah (the name of God that is used by the Jewish people,) the first name given to God by any of the three principal monotheist religions.

When Menachem Begin, as Prime Minister of Israel, made an of-the-cuff invitation to Anwar Sadat to visit Israel, much like Arafat, Begin did not realize that his action, the invitation to Sadat, was not just a part of a speech to the Knesset, but rather a world-changing message. Begin’s message to Sadat was likely a message he was delivering on behalf of the Creator. Sadat, also unaware of his divine role, and contrary to the desire of most Arab people, accepted Begin’s invitation. The ensuing events brought about the Israel/Egypt peace accord, an event that changed the world.

Jerusalem’s situation is outside of mortal control, it is a condition that requires unique approaches. Keeping in mind the fact the Jerusalem is now, and will remain in perpetuity, the Capital of Israel, all future accommodations must be made within that framework. Israel must, of course, honor the interests of other religions in that city, and establish formal structures to take care of religious needs of those others who revere the city.

In summary: Jerusalem is Israel’s Capital in perpetuity, it is the hub of Judaism, and will always be managed and controlled (under Divine authority,) by the State of Israel, the state of the Jewish people. Israel, on its part, will be compelled to make sure that those other religions with interest in the city will have unabated and secure access to their holy places within the City of Jerusalem.

Obama’s Afghan war: Overuling McChrystal, it is now the C.i.C. war! Is the 30,000 commitment a “down-payment” towards 150,000 total allies troops in Afghanistan?

Was it naivety, stupidity, or the need to have a final word, that prompted President Obama to overrule General McChrystal request fo 40,000 troops, and commit “only “30,000?”

It was not stupidity, since Barak Hussein Obama is not a stupid person. His action in reducing the Afghan commitment must have been in part due to naivety, and in part an ego driven move to have the last word. Whatever the reason, the Commander-in-Chief took upon himself the ownership of the war in Afghanistan. By making the final call, the military decision, if you will, especially one that is not in line with what was recommended by the commander(s) in the field, the C. i. C., for all practical purposes, relieved General McChrystal from the ultimate day-to-day responsibility for the war, and assumed all accountability for the war.

Since most military experts agree hat the 40,000 request by McChrystal was on the light side, and because history, the terrain, and the local culture(s) in Afghanistan, suggest that a United States win will require an overwhelming force, one should count the days when events in the field start to suggest that the McChrystal number of 40,000+. was not quite large enough. Events in the field will likely demonstrate that the Obama 30,000 was clearly inadequate, and that at least 20,000 additional troops will be needed, for a troop level of about 150,000, similar to what the US had to commit to Iraq.

Obama’s eighteen months may be OK for an evaluation, but from all that appear relevant, no withdrawal can be expected in eighteen months, to the contrary, at least another build-up, an escalation, if you will, should be expected before any withdrawal can start.

There is little, or nothing that suggests that the US role in Afghanistan is a short-term mission; all indications are that US presence in Afghanistan will be protracted, it is likely not to end before both Obama’s daughters are old enough to vote!

Obama’s monumental blunder: 25% less troops to Afghanistan than military request! Or, second-guessing the military, Afghanistan is entirely Obama’s to win, or lose!

General Stanley McChrystal is President Obama’s choice to lead United States, and allies in Afghanistan; not complying with the General recommendation on required troop level to complete the mission was a major lapse in good judgement by President Obama.

In the unlikely event that as soon as new troops start to arrive in Afghanistan, events in the field will start to go the way planned by the United States, President Obama, and General McChrystal will become instant heroes. But, as can be expected, glitches occur, President Obama will immediately be the villan since he did not listen to his military experts and reduced the number of troops required in that theater by 25%.

Cutting the number of troops requested by the military by a man with no military knowledge, and add a deadline, be it only a tentative one, the President of the United States assumed the responsibility for any failures that may be forthcoming in Afghanistan.

Should events on the ground in Afghanistan do not go as the Allied command projected, the cut-back of 25% in the number of troops the military required would surely become the assigned cause for any failure, and President Obama who determined the final level of troop commitment would become an instant failure as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama in his naivety gave the military an escape valve should they not be able to succeed on the ground. Obama simply set himself up to be scapegoat, and political casualty, if the United States does not prevail in Afghanistan.