Archive | February, 2012

Re. Iran: Would Israel need to relieve an Islamophobic Obama?

24 Feb

Re. Iran: Would Israel need to relieve an Islamophobic Obama?

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

Advertisements

Obama’s new crutch, “no silver bullet,” is it racist? A weak energy speech!

24 Feb

Obama’s new crutch, “no silver bullet,” is it racist?

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.

Cable television political advocates, not news channels!

22 Feb

Call a spade a spade: Fox News & MSNBC are Political not news operations!

Since most personalities on MSNBC are supporters of Barak Hussein Obama for President of the United States, it would be appropriate to consider the channel a Political Action Committee outlet, not a news channel. This is particularly true because three key “pundits” on MSNBC are blind and unwavering backer of the President!

Rachel Maddow, Larry O’Donnell, and Ed Shultz devote nearly all their air times to discrediting all potential GOP Presidential candidates, while trying to boost Barak Obama’s record, and promote his re-election.

These three, millionaires on their own, claim that unlike Republican politicians and media pundits who are pro the wealthy, they, the MSNBC bunch, understand and speak for the middle class. The MSNBC trio is so dedicated to get Barak Obama re-elected that they would say anything, regardless of how true or false it maybe, in support of the President.

It is true that FOX News is also a political channel and should not be referred to as a news channel, but in the case of Fox they are in process of determining who the GOP candidate is likely to be, before giving total support to that person. Until that happens, Fox is simply knocking down President Obama.

As things stand it is clearly a misnomer to call either MSNBC, or Fox, news channel, both are, and should be identified as political action operations.

Santorum would combine State and Church! A “neuvo Empror?”

20 Feb

There are four GOP persons still officially attempting to capture the position of the 2012 Republican Presidenti­al candidate; only one of the four men, Rick Santorum, is actually running for Emperor. Santorum, should he be elected President, will head the Church, as well as the State; as head of Church, Santorum would be responsibl­e for determinin­g the morality of all individual Americans.
The fact that the founding fathers desired separation between State and Church, notwithsta­nding, a Santorum Presidency would combine the two under the ex Pennsylvan­ia Congressma­n; is that what the people of the United States want?

“Syria is Burning!” Al-Zawahri (al-Queda) trumps Obama; another win for Ahmadinejad?

12 Feb

“Syria is Burning,” it is burning with flames that could mean freedom, but that may turn the country into another Sharia ruled piece of the Middle East puzzle.

Syria, a country with impressive history, and with advanced culture could have become a small democratic island in the Arab world, should its rebels received support from the West, or rather from some US led coalition, but the United States chose to stand by while Syria is burning…

Up to a point the US stood behind Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, all primitive nations that will be adopting Sharia law, and turning against the United States and its allies. Syria, the cultural entity in the region, a country that could have become a stepping-stone for democracy in the Middle East, is being neglected by the United States as part of its totally inept foreign policy.

Al-Queda’s chief al-Zawahri is now calling for his people to support the Syrian revolt so that he and his organization can gain influence in the region. Since under Assad Syria was the pipeline between Iran, Hizbollah, and Hamas, a Syria under al-Queda’s influence will strengthen these organizations, and weaken Israel’s defensive position, and the Arab Gulf states.

As things stand, Iran would be pleased to have Assad, on of its more reliable clients, remain in power. But, if the removal of Assad were inevitable, then an Islamic country under Sharia law, and with al-Queda presence, would be a welcomed option.

United States inaction in Syria created an opening for al-Queda, and is serving as another demonstration of a frightfully inept American foreign policy in the region. It may not be too late for the United States Administration to follow Senator McCain’s advice and find means to help the Syrian rebels while gaining some much-needed influence in the region.

Shared with: www.zyonism.org

Stake in ground for 2012 US/Israel Iran action! Only Iran capitulation can stop it.

11 Feb

US/Israel, inevitable 2012 Iran action; preparing the “bunker-busters!” The stake is in the ground, and only Iran can stop it now.

Military’s request for funds to ready twenty of its “bunker-busting,” bombs, some for its own supply, some to upgrade those in the hands of the Israelis is an early signal of inevitable action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Since the critical Iranian facilities are deep underground, the bunker-busters will be a weapon of choice, perhaps accompanied by a number of tactical nukes from both the US and Israeli arsenals.

US and Israeli strategies are likely to include missiles from the Persian Gulf, air from US bases in Gulf States, and likely flight from Israel over Jordanian and Saudi air space. Even if the United States may play a support role because of political issues in an election year, its initial request for $91,000,000.00 for bunker-buster preparation, is but a first step in inclusion of the Congress in action that will likely take place before the 2012 election. The inevitable action is at a stage now that only action by Iran can stop its inevitability, and Iran will have to open up all its facilities, stop its enrichment program, and allow for permanent inspectors in all its facilities.

Since the US left Iraq, and Israel will not have that airspace available as a route to Iran, and as Egypt’s new rulers will not likely let Israel use the Suez, as did Mubarak, the US role in a mission to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities has been expended, including the use of UA resources now in the Gulf.

Count on the 2012 US election to shift emphasis from the economy and social issues, and to energy from the Gulf States, and the inevitable action against Iran.

Voting Santorum encourages a Religion-based [United] State!

7 Feb

Voting Santorum encourages a Religion-based [United] State!

Ex-Senator Santorum who was rejected by the people of his own state, lost his last election by a resounding 18% is a man who being evolves around his religion, a man who can in no way separate his religion from state business if he was in a position to conduct such business.

The young ex-Senator from Pennsylvania believes strongly in his Catholic religion, and should he be in a position to dictate to the country what rule it should follow, he could not separate his religious beliefs from the civil needs of the state.

Electing Santorum, a well-meaning Catholic, would be tantamount to creating a religion-based country, not something the United States can tolerate.