Archive | March, 2012

Obama’s formative years, the Islamic influences:

30 Mar

Obama’s formative years, the Islamic influences:

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.

Keystone: A Strategic, not [primarily] an economic move.

10 Mar

Think strategy:

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.

“Conservatism,” GOP’s 2012 slogan: A Misnomer. Pragmatism will rule!

10 Mar

“Conservatism,” GOP’s 2012 slogan: A Misnomer. Pragmatism will rule!

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.

Tornadoes while Netanyahu in US: A Divine message to Obama?

4 Mar

Tornadoes while Netanyahu in US: A Divine Message to President Obama?

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:

Why Romney should prevail! In 2012 elections it’s Ability not Personality, Stupid!

3 Mar

Why Romney should prevail:

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.