In a fair world, one with no inequities, Gays would have the same rights as do straights; in the real world, however, primarily due to religions, this is not yet the case.

However, my advice to gays:

When you first wake up in the morning and look at the mirror what do you see? If you see a gay person; you need change your perspective! You are not a gay person, you are first a human being, a person, if you will, an American (or a member of another nation) who happens to be gay. This is not an affliction, but a natural state that is much like numerous others.

The main reason gays in America do not have the right to same-sex marriage has to do with religion, not with the nation civil laws. And, inasmuch as the founders tried to separate church from state, full separation is far from a reality.

One hears a great deal of talk about “radical Islam,” a religion that seeks world domination and does not allow for any civil flexibilities. Let me make one correction: It is not radical that counts, it is RIGID! By its nature Islam, as are Judaism, and Christianity, are radical religions, but through the ages the two older “brothers” of Islam learned that rigdity in a dynamic world does not work, and there became pragmatic, and flexible. 

As  flexible as Judaism and Christianity have become, both are in general against same-sex marriage and have tremendous influence on US law and culture. With religion loosing its grip on the American nation, so will be restrictions to accepting same-sex relationships, but it will still take some time.

It is obvious that gay people do not wish to wait, why should they? After all, we are speaking of rights! They should for the sake of reality, for the sake of being pragmatic. Forcing the issue now ill only muddy the waters and cause additional delays; waiting its turn, and playing the [political] system, will pay dividends.

Since same-sex marriage is one of many pressing issues that the country faces, it would behoove gays to vote for whoever can solve the majority of issues and not let the issue of same-sex marriage clutter their good judgement.

The day for legal same-sex marriage in the United States is on the nation’s agenda, it will soon become the law of the land, even though a few more years may have to pass.

When a country like the United States has a relatively satisfactory form of government, it does not require an ideologue at its helm. The US democracy has proven itself, the founding fathers demonstrated uncanny foresight and gave the nation an outstanding constitution with which to guide the country.

Barak Hussein Obama is an ideologue, but worse than that, President Obama does not even stick with his ideologue making it an obstacle to progress.

Obama, the countries Capitulator in Chief (C.i.C.) gave up on the key element (public option) of his likely unconstitutional healthcare legislation, he capitulated on the Bush tax cut to the rich, the debt ceiling, and the list goes on.

When an ideologue, or a person who represent himself as being one sacrifices key beliefs in favor of expediency, such as President Obama seems to do when political gain appears to be gained, said person’s credibility suffers, and image gets tarnished. Obama’s failures to live up to promises of change and his poor conduct of foreign policy renders the young American President a failure. The Obama/Clinton doctrine in the Middle East, for example proved a total disaster. Participating in the removal of political/military-autocrats from office to only see said regimes replaced by religious-autocracies under Sharia law such as are the cases of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, was the unintended, but actual consequence of the doctrine.

In the domestic arena the Obama Administration boasts a failed economic policy with high unemployment and a national debt larger than was accumulated by all previous US Presidents combined. Obama three years in office qualifies him with Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, as one of the three worst Presidents in US history.

What the country needs in order to live up to its potential is a good Administrator, and young people are quick to understand that point. The way things go, President Obama may be lucky if he gets a majority of young people votes, or win the 2012 election.

Since a democracy, in many of its forms, is a system where the majority of the people hold the final authority, and because all [monotheist] religions accept a G-d as the supreme authority, the two cannot Co-exist unless one, likely religion, is subservient to the other.

The 2012 United States Republican primaries brought to the forefront the issue of religion and a democratic state Co-existing as equals. One of the leading potential GOP nominees, Rick Santorum, a highly religious Catholic demonstrated the conflict when religion and democracy are vying for authority.

Nick Santorum, the ex-Senator from Pennsylvania, said, among many other things, that when he listened to President Kennedy, the first Catholic President of the United States, say that he, President Kennedy, would not allow religion to interfere with governing, that he, Senator Santorum, “nearly pukes!” Santorum, the young Pennsylvanian ex-Senator made the point of this post clear, religion and a democratic government cannot exist a Co-equals, one must be subservient to the other. Pragmatically, as a number of religious “Republics” demonstrate, when religion is the dominant authority, democracy is simply ridiculed. A case in point is the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country in which elections are simply a display of autocracy, the leader is always elected, always elected by plurality that is completely inconsistent with free-will.

Samples from around the world demonstrate conclusively that for religion to survive, and even prosper, in a democracy, it must be subservient to civil law. Many religious zealots, such as Senator Santorum, would likely argue the point, yet examples abound, in support of this contention. In a democracy, the relations between religion and state authority cannot be abused without repercussions. For example, when the Obama Administration of the United States attempted to force religious institutions, such as Catholic schools, to provide contraceptives to its members, the democratic process came into play, and the Administration had to back down from its stance.

Even in the State of Israel, a sample of an effective democratic system, but a system that is greatly influenced by religion, civil law prevails. Israel, unlike the United States, has many political parties with widely varying views. Because of the plurality of opinions, the Israeli Government, since the establishment of the State, always included an orthodox religious party in the ruling coalition. As the result of the greater than common religious influence on state governance, Israeli law includes many provisions which the secular part of the population dislikes, but that originates in religious law. Even in Israel, however, in all critical issues civil law is the law of the land.

United States religious leaders must realize, as most do, that their desires must comply the law of the land, or perish.

Finally: Religion can play a major role in the governance of a democratic country, but it must not interfere with civil law, or be destroyed!

The Christian Obama, who, as the name [Hussein] implies, is a man with Islamic roots and instincts:

There is little or no doubt that Barak Hussein Obama is a practicing Christian. That fact notwithstanding, President’s Obama words and action are quite consistent with a person of Islamic background with Islamic instincts, and influences.

Even though Barak Hussein Obama is a practicing, and apparently a devout, Christian, the young American President often displays Muslim traits. President Obama started to openly demonstrate his sympathies with his infamous Cairo speech, a speech during which time he apologized to the Islamic world for America’s historical treatment of Muslims. Many people, generally with good reason, feel that Obama crossed the line by suggesting that the United States was in the habit of taking advantage of Muslims in previous times.

From a pragmatic point of view, those who insist that Barak Hussein Obama is a Muslim are wrong! Technically, however, by strict interpretation of Islamic law, Barak Hussein Obama is Muslin, and shall be so in perpetuity. Even though most claim that his father was only a secular Muslim, or perhaps an atheist, the fact that he came from a Muslim family, and that he named his son, Hussein, one of the most important names in Islam, is quite a clear indication that, at least technically, Barak Obama is a Muslim by virtue of his birthrights.

There is no question that Western nations derived [economic] benefits from dealing with oil producing Muslim nations, but in return, the same nations, particularly the United Kingdom, created sovereign Arab nations with richness beyond compare. Not only did the United Kingdom (UK), mostly under League of Nations auspices, and often without legal authority, create wealthy nations; the UK took uncivilized nomads and made them rich sovereign international powerhouses.

As an ally of the UK, the United States (US) was also responsible of the alignment of Middle East power, and can be held partially responsible for the instability in the region, but inconsistent with President Obama’s apology, the US did exploit the Muslim word, to the contrary, the US helped make the Muslim word into a recognized and influential member of the international community.

Beyond the apology to the Islamic world, Obama’s instincts drove him into helping to create a number of Sharia ruled nations out of old autocracies such as Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Additionally, President Obama, in spite of tough talk, is allowing Iran to mock his efforts at diplomacy, and to act in a manner “disputable” with numerous United Nations resolutions.

Obama’s dealings with Israel are cordial, the young US President does not treat Israel badly since he understands the potential political ramifications if he does not support Israel’s defense needs. On the surface Obama is cool, he went as far as to give Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, the cold shoulder, action that gain him numerous “points” from his oil-producing Muslim friends. Behind the scenes, President Obama did make sure that Israel military supplies were met, he did not only match previous Presidents, he out did all his predecessors.

President Obama probably is even aware of the fact that Islamic associations formed a great deal of his being, and that his instincts are rooted more in Islam than they are in Christianity.

How important is that? One may ask. In most situations the President’s Islamic behavior may not be very consequential in performing his job. In cases, however, when issues are associated with Islam emerge, the American President is more often than not incapable of dealing with then in a disassociated manner, often creating chaotic situations that are not conducive to well managed affairs of state.

The US, under the Obama Administration does not seem to think in pragmatic terms about strategy. The Keystone pipeline project is a very good example. Should the Canadian oil be [physically] in the US, and should “imported” oil be restricted (closure of Hormuz, or whatever,) the US would be in a position to “confiscate” that oil for its own [domestic] use!

Without energy no modern economy can function, having in your territory oil, regardless of who technically owns said oil is an important security consideration; it is not an environmental issue! Such oil going through the United States, even though it may represent some environmental challenges, should not be primarily viewed as an issue of added profit to the oil companies, even though it may be so in the short-term.

Energy is the fuel that drives modern economies; you can NEVER have too much oil. Oil is to an economy, to health of a country as Oxygen is to life; it is a necessary, not a luxury. A functioning Keystone with proper safeguards would be a true [strategic] boon to the United States, while an economic shot in the arm to both Canada and the United States.

Rick Santorum continues to tell all that he is more conservative than either Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich comes back and claims that he is much more conservative than Rick Santorum, and, of course, much more conservative than is Mitt Romney. Finally, the front-runner, Mitt Romney tells all that he is just as conservative as anybody! Enough said

No one of the GOP contenders defined what it means to be a conservative; all they said to date is that in their vocabulary conservative is someone who does not accept President Obama’s philosophy, whatever it maybe.

What is a conservative? In the most basic, and simple terms: Conservatism maintaining the Status Quo, or, resisting change!

As a conservative one must define what precise spot in history one wishes to freeze and consider the place in time to conserve. Since all the GOP candidates want to repeal the Obamacare system, it is clear that the spot in time they all want must be before President Obama took office. Of the four leading candidates, Newt Gingrich implies that he would like to return to the days of Reagan. A minor participant in the Reagan Administration, the ex-Speaker put President Reagan on a high pedestal that he, the ex-Speaker wishes to reach. The other three candidates have not really define was the spot to conserve may be.

Rick Santorum seems to wish for a place where religion is an important part of America’s life; he clearly rejects the time of America’s first Catholic President, since John F. Kennedy believed in strong separation of Church and State. Ron Paul may wish to return to the days of Joe McCarthy, have the United States segregated from the rest of the world, but the difference, that Paul would like to do so while leaving very little military capability, and maintaining a very small Government.

Mitt Romney appears to be the most pragmatic of the bunch. The ex-Massachusetts Governor may be conservative regarding some fiscal policies, but much more moderate regarding social issues.

With the mixed bag offered by the GOP, would the country be pushed back in time to a spot before Obama’s Presidency, and where would that spot be?

Not being clairvoyant, let me suggest that the GOP should choose Mitt Romney since he not an ideologue, and is the only candidate who may deal with the country problems in a way to fit conditions of the time, not some by-gone days like his competitors are trying to do.

Could it be that the monotheist Creator, call it God, Jehovah, or Allah, by sending devastating tornadoes to the United States while Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister is in the United States to discuss the potential of Iran’s nuclear power, is sending a message, a demonstration, if you will; that not dealing with the Iran issue in a decisive manner would be disastrous to the United States?

Is G-d telling President Obama that he MUST act now, or G-d wrath be upon him, and the country he presides over, the United States?

President Obama, in spite of the fact that you are intimidated by Islam, you do not have the luxury of not acting, and acting decisively, regarding the fate of Israel versus a nuclear Iran. The message is clear, Mr. President, act now, or the wrath of G-d will be upon you!

Shared with: www.zyonism.org

In the 2012 election it’s Ability not Personality, Stupid!

Even though President George W. Bush was one of the three worst US Presidents in recent history, he was the kind of person who almost everybody would like to join for a beer. Being personable is not qualification for being effective President.

The three worst Presidents, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama, were all more personable than is Mitt Romney, but Romney has a proven record of a plotter who understand how to conduct a successful business. Mitt Romney is not as fast on his feet as are Gingrich, Santorum, or even Dr. Paul, but Romney brings management experience to the party that none of the others do. Barak Obama, much like Newt Gingrich is Charismatic, fast on his feet, and smart, but like Gingrich, and Santorum he does not know how to stay on message, or how to manage a business (the country IS a large business.)

Mitt Romney is not the epitome of intelligence, he is not quick on his feet, and perhaps stumbles from time-to-time when he speaks, but he has a good track of a business manager who understand how effectively deal with profit and loss.

This is not to say that Mitt Romney would be the best President that could be produced in the United States, but it is to say that of all five potential candidates: Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, and Romney, Mitt Romney is likely to make the most effective President.

Let me the first to admit that there might others in the United States who could be better candidates than is Mitt Romney. Michael Bloomberg is an example of someone who could probably make as, or more effective President than Mitt Romney. There are, of course, many others potential candidates, but since of the five vying for the position of President Mitt Romney, in spite of not oozing charisma, is by for the most qualified person to become US President.

President Obama seems to fear conflict with Muslims. Yes, he did get bin Laden killed, but that was the result of an effort that started many years ago. “Taking out” bin Laden was a matter of necessity, not choice; the same hold true with other al Qaeda operatives that President Obama eliminated. Nore power for the Commander-in-Chief.

But: When it comes to real Islamic challenges, the young American President seems to be timid. Most alarming is his dealing with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Ayatollah Khomeini as they are preparing to become a nuclear power, and perhaps destroy the State of Israel. President Barak Hussein Obama, and his Secretary of State Clinton, keep insisting that sanctions and diplomacy can work, they are doing so in spite of clear statements from Ahmadinejad that as long as the United States is [even] friendly with Israel, Iran will not engage in dialogue with it.

The Iranians are serious! Actions by Iran, starting with reverse sanctions against the West will start to have significant effect on the world economy, an unhealthy economy, as it is! Cutting oil to Europe would sooner, or later add to price of Gasoline in the United States, and would get Americans to either to recognize the problem as one directly associated with Islam’s desire for world domination, and insist that the United States take action against Iran, or feel that if the United States forsakes Israel, matters “will return to normal,” a myth, but a potential fall out of US inaction. Would Obama inaction cause the return in the United States of bumper stickers stating: “Less Jews, more oil?” Or, would the United States live-up to it singular “superpower?”

In spite of all Unites States support of Israel, including important supply of bunker-busting bombs, Israel is in no position to take on Iran without help. Israel may win a short-term conflict, but should it be forced to do so, the toll on its economy would be enormous, the fragility of its existence become even more alarming than it is now.

If the Unites States relinquish its role as the super-power and essentially force Israel to do its dirty work with Iran, what credibility would the United States have remaining?

Is Obama reluctant to hold a hard-line with Islamic regimes the result of his formative years among Muslims, or is it because he doe not have the intestinal fortitude to do the job for which he was elected? There not seem to be an answer to these questions, but the results are alarming! The United States must have a chief executive who can stand for its interests regardless what phobias he, or she, may have.

Shared with: www.zyonism.com

Choosing, as President Obama did, the term “no silver bullet,” as a reference to no easy solution, was not only “dated,” but coming from a long defunct television show, the Lone Ranger, ill-advised. The Lone Ranger, was a fine old Western, however, it depicted the hero’s Indian sidekick, Tonto, as an inferior stereotype of American Indians. The choice of silver-bullet, which the President repeated several times during his speech about gasoline, and energy, can not only view as racist, it is so outdated, that many, many young people would not know the source of the term.

The Lone Ranger used silver bullets in his six-shooter to perform all kind of heroic deeds, it is sad that President Obama has no such bullets in his arsenal.

Another issue from the energy speech has to do with the fact that no mention was made of Keystone, a major energy issue, if there ever was one! When discussing issues President Obama needs to learn that he must always deal with those items with which he is uncomfortable.

The President’s gasoline speech was at best weak, at worst inappropriate after just rejecting, or postponing the Keystone project. The President offered no short-term solutions, spoke of future work, and was generally disappointing.