Archive | April, 2012

US President: Manager to Trump Ideologue!

25 Apr

US President: Manager to Trump Ideologue!

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.


Democracy cannot Co-Exist with [orthodox] Religion:

23 Apr

Neither man, nor a nation, “can serve two masters.”

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!