Archive | January, 2010

George W. Bush legacy: As defined by the Supreme Court; it is worse than 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan!

23 Jan

For the families of those Americans killed in Iraq, there may never have been anything in history as devastating as “Bush’s war!” In the short-term, the war in Iraq is indeed one of the low points in United States existence. The pain each death of an American soldier in Iraq, or Afghanistan (coupled with the events of 9/11,) brings with it a realization of how catastrophic was the George W. Bush Administration.

In spite of 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan, all events that will remain in the memories of the American people forever, the “Bush appointed” Supreme Court decision of January 22, 2010, allowing “non-natural” [human] entities to make unlimited political contributions, is, and will likely remain forever, the worst part of George W. Bush legacy!

The United States Constitution was designed to protect the freedom of, and to protect, the American people. The Constitution is an instrument of law that protects people, it does not give equal rights to “artificial” entities created by man.

The January 22, 2010 Supreme Court decision about untethered political contributions by other than individuals, effectively destroyed the notion that the United States is a country of the people, a country governed, by the people.

Not only will corporation, trade unions, and other well endowed legitimate entities be in a position to affect politics in the United States, many unsavory organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK,) the Jewish Defense League (JDL), numerous militias, charitable fronts for radical [Muslim] causes, and other biased, and often dangerous, groups, will be in a position to sway elections and make mockery of United States democracy.

Unless the United States Congress find means to establish rules for “non-natural” entities (such as corporations,) curbing their ability to make unlimited political contributions, and to buy elections, the future of the United States as a democratic country is very bleak, indeed!

The other hope may lie in the fact that Supreme Court make-up changes in time, and the future may bring with it a new Court that will reverse the decision made on January 22, 2010.

Haiti’s earthquake: The Limbaugh, and Coulter blight on Conservatism!

18 Jan

Conservatism is generally a positive way of thinking, conservatives are often well- meaning patriots who, more often than not, are god fearing, and compassionate.

Enters Rush Limbaugh, perhaps the most listened voice of United States conservatives, and Ann Coulter, the shameless, but never-the-less prominent voice of United States conservatism, and their attempt to politicize the Haitian earthquake in order to simply draw more attention to themselves.

Limbaugh complaint that Obama is using Haiti for political gains, and that his (Obama’s)swift action was in large part because Haitians are blacks; while Coulter takes the opportunity to criticize President Clinton humanitarians efforts and suggest that she is sorry for President George W. Bush for having to work with the “horny hillbilly,” her reference to Bill Clinton; are glaring examples of the Coulter/Limbaugh lack of regard to humanity, and to human suffering.

These two conservatives “pundits” accomplished their desired purpose for getting attention! These two, however, showed themselves for what they are: Shameless opportunists who will go to any length to get the spot-light tuned on them.

US “Political Media:” A detriment to democracy! Example, Limbaugh and Maddows.

16 Jan

Media in the United States, at least cable-television “news”, and a great deal of radio, allies itself with political ideologies; more often than not, the media sacrifices facts in favor of making political statements!

Generally speaking, US media occupies two fundamental schools of thought: Conservatism, and Liberalism; each one of these terms serves as a rallying cry for the two major political parties, the Republicans, and the Democrats.

The most prominent spokesperson for Conservatism, is Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is a shameful voice who will stop at nothing in order to make political points, he even exploits such events as the earthquake in Haiti with its terrible humanitarian consequences. Limbaugh is backed-up by the likes of Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, and a cast of many others who view Liberalism as a plague with no redeeming values. These conservative “pundits” attempt to convenience their audiences that their view is the only right view!

The left does not seem to have as strong a voice as that of Limbaugh, but the number of those who speak for Liberalism, is not-trivial. It may be in order to start with Rachel Maddow who supposed to be a uniquely well-educated intellectual. One may expect from one with Maddow’s academic credentials to display some level of objectivity, but none is visible. Much like Limbaugh dealing with Liberalism, Maddow cannot find it in her heart to admit that Conservatives can do anything right! For example, in areas where President Obama continues with George W. Bush policies, to Maddow the policy while under Bush was bad, under Obama, the same policy, is positive. Some other in the same left-wing camp include the likes Oberman, a clown with minimal audience, Matthews, who much like Bill O’Reilly, on the other side of the political spectrum, means well, but who also cannot admit to any positive from the opposing side, Franken (now in Congress,) and many others.

The “Political Media,” the institution that should offer unbiased information to help the American public make educated political decisions, is so completely ideology driven, so much so, that it is detrimental to democracy, rather than to be a voice that should enhance the system

Limbaugh on Haiti: The sick opportunist!

14 Jan

Rush Limbaugh is upset because President Obama took three days to respond to the Christmas underwear bomber, and only one day to respond to the earthquake in Haiti; what a silly opportunist!

Haiti required immediate action ro save lives, the Christmas action did not! Limbaugh, in his usual manner, is comparing apples and oranges.

Limbaugh had no problem when “his” President, George W. Bush, took some six days to respond to the “shoe bomber,” but three days for Obama is too long. Limbaugh, and the rest of the conservative pundits, are up at arms because the Obama Administration wants to bring to trial, the Christmas bomber, and others “enemy combatants,” in civil United States courts, but did not object to the Bush Administration doing the same with the “shoe bomber,” and other “enemy combatants,” what a double standard! What opportunism!

For the main voice of the political right in the United States, to use the Haiti humanitarian crises with thousands, perhaps hundred of thousands, lives are at stake, for to make political statement, is shameful! To compare Haiti’s earthquake crises to the Christmas event, when time to response was of no real consequence, is a travesty. The political right, made up in large part of religious people, should be the compassionate element of US society, how can their spokes person be so callous? How can he be such an opportunist when so many people are suffering and dying just a few miles from United States shores?

Sarah Palin @ Fox: “The Kiss of Death!” Or, is Palin aiming for Tea-Party nomination?

12 Jan

Based on over a year of demonstrating her cerebral prowess, and meager knowledge-base, all over the United States, coupled with her betrayal of Alaska’s voters by resigning from a position of trust that they voted her into, before her time was up; it is likely that a display of her abilities, or lack of such, to the nation on Fox will destroy any chance the lady ever had for a National elective office.

Palin’s Fox assignment will likely be profitable for the young lady, it may boost her personal ego, but based on her performance to date, one can rest assured that she will destroy her credibility with the American people and will simply remain a wealthy Fox political hack!

Or, since the ex-Governor of Alaska could not qualify as a candidate of the GOP, she may join the other Fox light-weight, Glenn Beck, and be nominated as the candidate of the Tea-Party, with Glenn Beck her Vice Presidential running-mate.

Obama: Is he a fit Commander-in-Chief? Obama’s attitude, know-how, and judgement should be questioned!

11 Jan

The bright, articulate, and charismatic Commander-in-Chief (C.i.C) of the United States, Barak Obama, is an outstanding young man who nevertheless lacks military experience, and the ability to make sound decisions about military matters.
Notwithstanding Obama’s brilliance, unless he undergoes a change in attitude, and until he stops arrogance from overshadowing good judgement, his ability to be C.i.C. of the most powerful nation on earth must come into question.
Two significant and glaring errors perpetrated by the young C.i.C. have to do with Europe, and with Afghanistan. Changing previous United States commitment to Europe regarding an anti-missile initiative was not based on sound defense and security considerations, but rather on political reasons. The switch in missile defense strategy was made to appease the Russians who did not reciprocate in any way. The missile defense decision was wrong, especially with Iranian demonstrations of missiles that can easily reach Eastern Europe.

The error in Iraq was clear demonstration of arrogance, poor judgement and was in poor form. President Obama overruled his commander in the field, a man he appointed, and reduced the number of troops requested by General McChrystal by 25%; a decision that may prove to have dire circumstances.

President Obama made other errors, too many to dwell on in this short write-up. Instead of continuing to discuss errors in military judgement, an attitude issue is more alarming than just the lack of military prowess. President Obama, when realizing the costs of caring for military health stated that:

“Look, it’s an all volunteer force,” Obama complained. “Nobody
made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It
doesn’t compute…” “I thought these were people who were proud to
sacrifice for their country, “Obama continued “I wasn’t asking for
blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I’d have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation’s deficit. I guess I underestimated the
selfishness of some of my fellow Americans.”

This approach by the C.i.C. which was expresses regarding his desire to have members of the military contribute exuberant amounts towards their own health care, is not only shameful, it is demoralizing to the military, to those people who he, the C.i.C. is sending daily to be in harm’s-way! What a disgraceful display.

We can only hope that President Obama re-think his views regarding the military, and that he comes to realize the sacrifices he, and the United States, are asking from members of the military. It is also hoped the young C.i.C. learns to trust the judgement of his experienced professional military experts and not make decision based on political considerations.

Mitchell’s and Obama’s Islamic sympathies: Will Israel be sacrificed?

9 Jan

George Mitchell a man of Lebanese ancestry is now suggesting that the United States, consistent with the obvious Islāmic sympathies of President Barak Hussein Obama, should consider holding off aid to Israel, the only dependable ally that the United States in the Middle East. Obama’s Islāmic sympathies and instincts that were clearly developed during his formative year in Muslim environment(s), are continuing to show, and to enlarge the chasm between Israel and the United States, the large gap in trust that was created by the his Administration.

Mitchell’s suggesting that the US put pressure on Israel in a week during which mortars from Gaza were lobbed at Israel, and in the face of the fact that Israel unlike the Palestinians, is willing to re-enter negotiations with the Palestinians, and to do so without pre-conditions, will not only continue to hurt the US/Israel relations, but it will also continue to weaken the United States place in the Middle East.

These actions also strengthen Ahmadinejad, and other leader who are unfriendly towards the United States. Ahmadinejad, for example, a man who insist that the United States must stop “holding Israel’s hand,” before he will consider holding talks with the US, as Obama’s Administration desires, must gloat whenever the Obama Administration weakens its ties with Israel. The US continues to capitulate to Ahmadinejad, and to other Islāmic pressures, and act as if it is ready to throw Israel, and other allies, under the bus.

Obama continues to prove that loyalties to friend and allies are easily sacrificed for political expediency; a significant character flaw!

Obama and his Administration “turning on” Israel will not enhance the United States position with Islāmic nations since most Muslim leaders consider Obama a weak international leader who they can manipulate without needing to reciprocate when he yields to their pressure; a dangerous condition that is rapidly reducing the influence that the United States once had on the international community. For example, one does not see, and are unlikely to see any time soon, any actions by the Muslim oil producers to ease the energy problems that contribute to the economic troubles of the United States.

America’s image; the Obama effect: Positive, but not all positive!

5 Jan

Most media in the United States, as well as media in general around the world, keeps suggesting that United States image improved under President Obama; these views are only partially correct.

There is little, or no doubt, that people, in most cases, like President Obama better than they liked President George W. Bush. But, liking a president may not be the most important feeling that determine how one nation feels about another.

President George W. Bush was feared, disliked, but respected by leaderships of most allied nations. Notwithstanding the feeling of leaders, George W. Bush was not either liked or respected by the people, by the man in the street, if you will.

President Obama is generally loved by the people, but is neither liked nor respected, by most leaders. Even in the case of the people, those in countries which feel that the American President let them down, such as those in European countries that lost the original missile defense initiative, and in Israel, whose people do not consider President Obama to be an ally, and where only 3% of Israeli consider Obama as a friend.

Additionally, President Obama, the bright, charismatic orator that he is, does not seem to feel beholden to historical alliances, in both his personal and public life; a character trait that other leaders seem to resent. Sarkozy mocks Obama, Merkel seems to barely tolerate him, while Gordon Brown gives him the cold shoulder, and Benyamin Netanyahu is clearly belligerent towards the young American President.

Non allied, and adversarial leaders such as Ahmadinejad, simply despise Obama and challenge him at every opportunity that they get. Putin and Medlev of Russia seem to manipulate President Obama by getting him to make concession (such as the missile in Europe) without reciprocating (such as the stance regarding Iran.) Most Muslim leaders seem to have a wait and see attitude, not doing anything to support the American President. And, the most rapidly growing international power, China, is ignoring Obama’s rhetoric regarding human rights, while loaning him enormous amounts of money and developing economic leverage against the United States should any conflict develop.

Back to George W. Bush: The second Bush President was not nearly as well liked, or respected, as was his father. Sacrificing civil rights for security within the United States, and torturing while treating “enemy combatants” as if they have no human rights (not even rights normally reserved for animals who are protected from harsh treatment, clearly from deliberate mistreatment such acts as torture.) George W. Bush was more respected and accepted by allied leaders who respected his toughness when dealing with adversaries. He was also respected for his loyalties to friends and allies, not a trait possessed by President Obama. The people, the man in the street, however, did not like President Bush nearly as much as they do President Obama; feelings that clearly improve the visible image of the United States.

To sum up: People around the world do seem to feel better about the United States under President Obama, than they did under President George W. Bush, but not all changes in image are positive.

Adversaries of the United States do not feel as intimidated by the country as they did when President George W. Bush held office. Friends, at the same time, do not feel that they can trust the United States under Obama, as much as they did when President George W. Bush was President.

In simple words, Obama is populist, he is liked by the people, but lacks the skills required to be an international leader. George W. Bush, on the other hand, was not liked by the people, and because of his persona, caused the image of the United States to decline around the world.

Nuke Iran’s missiles and Nukes by air and sea…

3 Jan

Israel already demonstrated its ability to reach the “Gulf” by sea; it did so with Mubarak’s tacit permission to have its submarines go through the Suez canal. And, unless President Obama decided to have Israeli planes shout down over Iraq (an airspace controlled by the United States,) it is clear that Israel can fly its Nuke over Iraq to Iranian targets all over that country. A combined air/sea approach to the elimination of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, appears to be the prudent means for eliminating Iran’s threat to the world.

With an imminent threat to [Eastern] Europe, the oil fields in the Gulf, Egypt, Israel, and many other unsuspecting nations, the United States would be ill-advised to stop the elimination of Iran’s rapidly developing Nuclear capability. Not only is such action needed to protect United States interests (oil, if nothing else,) the United States is bound by mutual defense treaties with NATO, and other allies; Nukes on Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities, would eliminate a major foreign policy headache the United States is unable to resolve on its own.

Israel’s Nuclear arsenal should be large enough to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, while leaving the Jewish state enough residue to defend itself from any other threat to its existence.

As Iran is on the last stage required in their Uranium enrichment activity; 2010, the dawn of a new decade, may be the right time to rid the world from the boisterous Irani regime and its nuclear threat.

Iran nukes imminent, unless…

2 Jan

Iran is on the last stage required to enrich Uranium so that it becomes suitable for producing nuclear weapons. Iran is running out of Uranium, but some parts of the “old USSR” are in the process of selling Iran the Uranium it needs.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made it very clear in a recent Islamic conference that took place in Turkey, that Iran will not negotiate with the United States as long as the United States has ongoing and friendly relations with Israel. Notwithstanding the chasm that the Obama Administration built-in its relations with Israel, its desire to “unconditionally” negotiate with Iran, cannot materialize because the United States is in no position to entirely drop Israel just so that it can “qualify” to deal with Ahmadinejad.

The United States inability to negotiate with Iran while Iran is nearing its goal of producing nuclear weapons, may force Israel to take military action against that rogue country. Israel will have to adhere to a time-table which is bounded by the United States control of the Iraqi air-space, and also by Mubarak remaining in power so that Israel can go through the Suez canal with its submarines.

Time constraints in the face of Iran’s rapid nuclear development may force Israel to start the new decade, and in 2010 “take-out” Iran’s nuclear facilities. One other possible scenario is internal turmoil in Iran that may topple Ahmadinejad and his bosses. But, even if that happens, a new regime may not be one that is more favorable to the West, or that would accept the right of Israel to exist.

Another issue has to do with the question of Obama’s “allowing” Israel to fly over Iraq to attack Iran’s Nukes. The American President who has proven not to be a friend of Israel, may be painted into the proverbial [political] corner: Supporting Israel’s military action against Iran, or having American forces shoot down Israeli plane over Iraq; what will the young President do if he was faced with these option?

It is important to realize that nukes in the hands of Iran do not only represent a danger to Israel; with Iran’s demonstrated missile capability, all Gulf states will be held hostage, as will Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and most European countries!