Archive | October, 2012

Obama is Iran’s (Khomeini) “enemy of choice!” Or, are Muslims preparing an “October Surprise?”

20 Oct

 Obama is Iran’s (Khomeini) “enemy of choice

Most of the Islamic World view President Obama as a sympathizer of Islam, after all the young American President is of Islamic birth, and spent most his formative under Islamic influences, in Muslim environments. In addition to sensing Islamic sympathies, most Muslims observe Obama’s interaction with Benyamin Netanyahu, and read it as being cool, a pleasing situation for nearly all Muslims.

Another action by the Obama Administration that gives impetuous to the rising Islamic feeling that as long as Barak Obama is President of the United States it would be possible to expand Sharia law around the world was the US reaction to Arab Springs. The Obama Administration decided to “lead [the Arab Springs action] from behind.” Arab Springs was a signal of a move to expand Sharia law; the United States Administration mistook it for a move towards Sharia law.

The Iranian and most other Islamic regimes mocked the Barak Obama’s Cairo speech to the Islamic World, an appeasing and conciliatory dissertation. Most Islamic regimes, as was stated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were very pleased to have a sympathizer of Islam at the helm in the United States.

On several occasions after the Cairo speech, President Obama suggested, either directly, or though Secretary of State Clinton, that the United States would like to use diplomacy with Iran. Every time a US proposal for diplomacy came up, the Iranians in the person of Ahmadinejad mocked the United States stating unequivocally, that Iran has no desire to negotiate with the United States as long as the United States maintain friendly relations with the Jewish State of Israel. Never since President Obama took office did Iran suggest that US pressures would cause it to change course, or comply with resolutions to slow down its nuclear efforts.

Iran’s Supreme Commander, the Ayatollah Khomeini, through his mouthpiece Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, kept insisting that as long as President Obama is in office, the Iranian’s do not intend to take United Stated demands seriously. Iran would love to have Barak Obama remain in office after the United States election of 2012.

Please examine closely the international political arena between now and the United States election, there is little or no doubt that you will see activities from Iran that are designed to sway the United States election in favor of Barak Obama, their: “Enemy of choice!”

Obama: Callous, or what? Diplomats deaths “less than optimal”

19 Oct


The lying by Obama’s Administration regarding events in the American consulate in Benghazi, were despicable, attacking those who criticized the incompetence of the Administration as unpatriotic political That on and of its own would be enough to remove an Administration without delay, but adding the continuing denials and excuses, event suggest that an imminent change of Administration should not be delayed.

There are many reasons to blame the Obama Administration for botching the situation in Libya! All that notwithstanding, President Obama yesterday, October 18, 2012, on national television in an answer for a question about the dead diplomats in Libya, the President responded by saying that the situation was: “Less than optimal!”

This unprecedented and highly insensitive response to the death of American diplomats showed a callous side of the President that clearly disqualifies him as America’s President.

Indignation a debating tactic Obama deployed, but failed! Obama loses debates due to anger and failing record.

17 Oct

Indignation a debating tactic Obama deployed, but failed!

When a participant in a debate loses control, and appears angry, or overly upset; said debater essentially loses the debate. There are those who object vehemently to those who question their integrity, if there is veracity to their complaint, it may not hurt their position, but if it is a designed to cover-up something, anything, and the cover-up is exposed; they lose!

The Obama Administration botched up the Libya situation beyond one’s wildest imagination, it then tried to cover-up. There is little, or no doubt that enough people within the Administration realized that the situation in Libya was dire, and that it was not something spontaneous dug to an obscure movie, yet spokes persons for the Administration kept insisting that that was the case.

Days after the event Susan Rice a direct conduit to the President stated on national TV that the situation was not an act of terror, but reaction to the movie.

During the debate Obama, cleverly too the lead and blamed Governor Romney for politicizing the situation. When Romney tried to explain that the Administration lying should be exposed, the President went into a tirade, he expressed righteous indignation because Romney criticized the integrity of his (Obama’s) underlings.

Since President Obama was well aware of the fact that the mission in Libya warned the Administration of a looming disaster, and requested more security, but was turned down by the State Department, and since the President realized that added security might have saved four American lives, his anger and indignation were due to guilt not the objection to politicizing.

As Obama said, when asked about Hillary Clinton offering to shoulder the blame, the “buck stops with the President,” that include the failing to secure the American missions in Libya, and the extensive lying about the subject.

Since President Obama is guilty of lying to his employer (“we the people,) shouldn’t the man be subject to severe punishment? Perhaps to termination.


Shared with:

Syria, Turkey: Russia’s influence and the US election! Or: Would re-electing Obama force US military action?

14 Oct

Re-electing Barak Obama would send signals to Muslim nations that US appeasement policy would remain, and both Islamic nations, and their handlers, the Russians would push the US to the brink. Unless Barak Obama, goes on record before the election and establish a new formal policy that would inform all about new US resolve to stop aggressions by the likes of Syria (against Turkey, as well as internally,) and Iran with its nuclear programs, one can rest assured that shortly after being sworn to a second term, military conflicts WILL erupt.

Since assuming a new harder line by the Administration would conflict with Obama’s core [political] support from the left; making the necessary changes to keep new military action for starting in early 2013 are not on the agenda. A new Obama Administration, should one be put in place, would be a precursor to unplanned new military conflicts.

The situation in the Middle Eastern and North Africa, under the Obama doctrine had deteriorated to the point that endangers the stability of the world.
For obvious political reasons the US left Iraq without fully preparing the al-Maliki government to govern and keep the country secure. The departure from Iraq allowed Iran to include the Baghdad regime in its list of clients, but it goes deeper.
The subject is so important that an in-depth review with a great deal of supporting evidence is in order, this is not the form for such review, so let me over my broad-brush overview of the region.
It starts with Russia. Papa Bear has a sphere of influence, a number of clients, all with their own surrogates in the Muddle East. Russia’s principal client is Iran.
Syria, both directly, and with Iran as a conduit, is one of Russia’s major clients; it does not want Assad to fall. Through Syria, Russia, again both directly, and through Iran, takes care and more or less directs Hamas, and Hezbollah; both with large footprints in Syria.
Moving right along to the North Africa connection. When the Arab Springs event took place, the United States misread the action, the Clinton Administration thought that it was a move towards democracy, when in reality it was a more towards expanding Sharia rule. The US in it zeal “led from behind” an effort to support the North Africa revolt, and then, on September 11, 2012 was given a clear message that it created a monster.
North Africa, the Arab Middle East, and Iran, make up an area were Islam intends to prosper, an area where Russia, in its wisdom and political instinct, is essentially manipulating, if not outright controlling.
The move towards stronger Islamic rule in the region got a push when President Barak Obama gave his Cairo speech to the Islamic world. The likes of Ahmadinejad, and his Ayatollahs read it to mean that the United States under Barak Obama would allow Islam a degree of freedom that it did not have for many years under previous Administrations, including that of Bill Clinton. It was not a Democratic “license,” but rather one directly associated with President Obama.
Moving on to Turkey, a relatively democratic country under the US, and NATO sphere of influence. Since Turkey does not fall under the Russian umbrella, a Syrian Turkish confrontation in the midst of the Syrian revolt may just is what Mr. Putin desires.
The Russians do not want Assad removed since he is their main conduit to the control of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the eventual Palestinian State, if ever ones materialize.
Many laughed at Mitt Romney when he said that Russia is the United States main foe in the world, after all, foreign policy is not the man’s forte, and the Russian front seems quite. Either Romney had information other did not, had an instinct, or made a lucky call, Russia is in the process of rising from the ashes and revealing its true self.
Not being clairvoyant, and because the situation is extremely dynamic and could be changed dramatically with the US elections, let me simply state that Russia does indeed want to remain the principal controlling in the Islamic World. Iran’s nuclear program, for example, is actually manipulated by the Russians, both through technical, and economic resources. Should Iran decide to indeed use its nuclear capability for peaceful purposes it would be the Russians who would supply Iran with its nuclear fuel. Assad’s actions, especially in drawing Turkey into the conflict, could not have taken place without Russia’s blessing, as did the events in North Africa. Let me also add that al-Zawahri success is in large part due to Russian resources, and the death of bin Laden represented only one life of the nine lives of al Qaeda.

Dan Goor Let me suggest that regardless who is installed in the Oval Office in 2013, the person would be facing tremendous problems in the international arena, problems that would require tremendous internal fortitude, diplomatic skill, but most of all RESOLVE! Whoever is elected is going to have to step into the Islamic/Russian arena ready to make hard decisions, decisions that would be unpopular with the American public since they are likely to involve the use of military assets. The trigger to United States action may lie with the situation in Turkey. Should that arena be opened up beyond its present uneasy state, would the US with its mutual defense agreement openly come to the aid of that ally?
“Syria is burning,” Assad already slaughtered about 25,000 civilians, rapidly approaching his father’s 30,000, is the Western World standing by because it is in the best interests of Russia to keep Assad in power? Would the re-election of President Obama send a signal to Russia, Iran and Syria, that they can continue with their evil deeds unabated, or should President Obama use the very little time remaining until the election to go on record and tell the world that the US will get involved to stop the slaughter?
America’s young President is facing an enormous moral dilemma. Should Barak Obama go on record before the election and make it clear that the United States would use whatever is necessary to stop the conflict in Syria, stop Iran’s nuclear program, and generally put a stop to inhumane behavior around the world. Should Barak Obama make such declaration he is likely to lose a great of [political] support from the left, his principal source of power; or should he remain on the sideline and leave an untenable situation for whoever takes office in 2013?

Is Bill Clinton a liability, not an asset, to Obama?

14 Oct

Is Bill Clinton a liability, not asset, to Obama?

The fantastic politician that Bill Clinton is, instincts that he brings with him, and on the surface, an enviable tenure as President, is in his entirety an ego driven individual. The former President still has aspirations to occupy the White House in 2017, perhaps not as President, but as “first spouse.” To that end President Clinton is going to do all he can in order to have enough [Democratic] political credits that should Hillary Clinton decide to run for President in 2016, she would have the inside track.

Bill Clinton “on the stump” for President Obama is some of the early “dues” the ex-President is paying his Party.

Should one ask Bill Clinton in confidence his views about how the Obama Presidency compares to what one by him would have done, one can rest assured that the ex-President would not be overly flattering of President Obama’s accomplishments. No doubt that Clinton’s view is that he could do a much better job than President Obama is doing. But, Bill Clinton will not say that, Bill Clinton will work hard at keeping the tracks clear for his wife’s future ambitions.

All that notwithstanding, Bill Clinton’s present in Obama’s campaign events would ignite memories of better economic times, and a President who was able to manage in a hostile bipartisan environment. People memories are short, the impeachment is viewed as a personal issue, Enron, the e-commerce disaster, and his other failures are forgotten, a booming economy is remembered, and people are hoping to be able to return to the “good old days,” when Bill Clinton was President.

The fear Obama’s people must have must be in the fact that their candidate has a failing tenure behind him, and the public is reminded that with proper leadership good time can be had. Based on statistics, except perhaps for African-American voters, many voters may well be swayed away from President Obama when memories of the Clinton good time are re-kindled.

Not even the most avid Democrat would deny that Obama’s first four years were not marked by a stellar performance, or that can be defended as a successful Administration. Those who blame it on Congress would be reminded by the mere presence of President Clinton that an obstructive Congress can be managed, and that it is perhaps time to replace the present Administration that may function more like the one did under President Bill Clinton.

Food for thought!

Why import tech talent? Or, Obama and Romney desire foreign ralent; why?

13 Oct

Explain the math?

America has 300,000,000+ people, of the 300,000,000+ about 23,000,000 are either under, or unemployed, why is it that we need to bring in foreign talent to train? Are American genes inferior to those of foreign birth?

In a year when immigration plays a major role in the election, and 51,000,000 Latinos “carry a big stick,” it is understandable why both Party candidates are talking about building on foreign talent. Politically this may be the thing to do, but from the best interests of the United States, it is not!

I personally am foreign-born, studied, trained, and married in the United States. I have done well, however, there are tens of thousands, perhaps millions, who were born in the US who are not any less talented than I am.

It escapes me why the powers-to-be in the United States have such an inferiority complex that they think foreign-born people could do better for the economy than can native-born people.

The old adage: “Take care of your own,” may not be politically correct, but in my book, it sure applies to the United States of the 21st Century!

Obama versus Romney: Ideologue v. Pragmatist!

11 Oct

Obama versus Romney: Ideologue v. Pragmatist!

Governor Romney is a centrist with right leaning fiscal policies, mixed with some religious beliefs. If you listen to the man with care, it is not difficult to ascertain what he really is, no masquerading to be found! President Obama, on the other hand, is an ideologue with clear leanings to the left; I see little, if any, centrist imitation, or tendencies.

It is disturbing to me how those committed to one candidate, or the other, justify their candidate’s actions, regardless what they may be.

Those, for example, who  jump to the President’s defense when he lost his first debate with Romney, by switching the discussion to the Romney lies issue, when in reality his candidate simply lost this particular debate on the merit a good debater versus a poor one, not on lies. Those on the left keep suggesting that Romney lies, and/or flip-flops, which he may, or may not do, at times, but that is what politicians do.

Adapting to changing circumstances, for example, is not a flip-flop; it is simply the right thing to do. Last word on lies. The 9/11/2012 events in Libya were followed by lies to the public, as well as to the media by: Barak Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice. These outright lied, they all knew they were lying; they never apologized, or explained why they lied.

Lying to one’s employer, the American public in this case, is a clear violation of trust, and a cause for dismissal.

Governor Romney is not an ideologue, President Obama, is. Romney is a good leader and manager who can effectively work in a hostile environment, President Obama proved that he couldn’t.

Barak Hussein Obama, a bright, charismatic, orator extraordinaire, a good athlete, and a community organizer, BUT: Barak Obama is a poor communicator, a marginal leader, and a man who is stumped by hostility. Obama is brilliant when with supporters, terrible in the face of adversity.

Finally, Obama and his foreign policy team have shown a total lack of understanding of how the world works. The way they read the Arab Springs event, for example, was a terrible error in judgment for the Administration. The US effort of: “Leading from behind” was a big mistake, as was the thinking that Arab Springs was a move towards democracy. Arab Springs in reality it was a move towards expanding Sharia rule; the recent 9/11 events in North Africa, offered a clear proof that the expanding Sharia notion was indeed behind Arab Springs.

Back to Governor Romney. The man is a pragmatist, not one guided by strong ideology. Romney is a good manager, understands how to function in the face of hostility, and is fiscally conservative. Romney is the total contrast to Obama who is an impractical ideologue guided by beliefs, not facts.

Let me end by saying that I would probably rather have a beer with Obama than with Romney, but that when it comes to governing the USA, I would much rather see Mitt Romney, than Barak Obama, at the helm of state!

Romney’s “Big Bird;” a great example!

10 Oct

When during the Presidential debate Mitt Romney suggested that PBS could be an item for which expenditures could be cut, the Obama people, and most Democrats, started to make fun of the fact that suggestion. Democrats implied that Romney was after Big Bird, which is a very small, and meaningless expenditure in the total scheme of things.

What Obama and the Democrats missed is the wisdom in Romney’s suggestion. What Romney actually said was: “No item that Government spends money on is too small to consider for cuts when trimming expenses!” A very intelligent way to look at the job of President!

Time for: “Tax-Equitablizm!”

9 Oct

Time for: “Tax-Equitablizm!”

Barak Hussein Obama, the 44th President of these United States, is not a Socialist. The young Chicago lawyer has a social conscience, he is concerned about income disparity between the rich and the poor, but he is not a Socialist.

President Obama openly suggests that taxes could, in his opinion should, be used to affect a level of tax equalization. Such an approach, in the United States may be welcome by the poor, perhaps by some of the Middle Class, also by rich “liberals.” I also maintained that it is easiest for the rich to be liberal since sharing in their wealth would unlikely reduce their affluence by very much. The Kennedy family always seemed to be the epitome model if the rich-liberal, it its very positive sense.

Equalization is an approach that would reward people not based on their contribution, but rather because they happen to exist, not a very rational thing to do. For those who due to some G-d given handicap, be it physical, mental, or both, cannot contribute; society owes consideration, and a sustainable means to live in a respectable manner. Those who are able to contribute, should be compensated in a manner of their contribution, and or more importantly, by the level of effort they put forth to optimize their contribution.

Disparity, under equitable money distribution would still exist, after all the Creator did not make all people equal, but people doing the same job would then be compensated by how ell they do the job, and for any discriminatory reasons such as gender, race, or some other natural part of what they are.

When Congress decides that it is time to “fix” the cumbersome and antiquated US tax code, an equitablizmation guideline should be used. America is now over 2000 years old; it is time it shows some added maturity by trying to have its citizens earn a level of quality of life commensurate with their contribution to society.

Post Mortum to Netanyahu’s UN Speech!

9 Oct

Netanyahu’s UN speech was not much of a bombshell; it was just a reminder that the world is facing a serious threat that is not likely to go away unless somebody does something.

History does not really repeat itself, but there are lessons one must learn from history. Netanyahu mentioned that should the world acted to Italy’s taking over of Ethiopia, World War II might have been avoided, but the League of Nations was weak, as, unfortunately is the United Nations today.

Netanyahu pointed out, as he did in the past, that a “red line,” let me rename that and call it: “An event certain,” by Iran should trigger MILITARY action.

Going largely unnoticed, by choice, or by desire, is the fact that Iran’s actions essentially a message to Obama saying: “In your face!” Obama’s sympathies and weakness when dealing with the Islamic World makes the likes of Ahmadinejad view America as a “toothless tiger, which he enjoys taunting at every turn. Additionally in spite of Barak Hussein Obama’s spending his formative years in Islamic environment, the young American President seems to be clueless when dealing with Muslims.

For example, when the Obama Administration “lead from behind” following the Arab Spring event, it thought that it was supporting a move towards democracy, when in reality it was a beginning of expanding Sharia rule. Recent events in the Islamic World were not the result of some meaningless movie; they are a beginning of a move towards Islamic domination.

As long as America has a President that Muslims feel capitulates to pressure, and is too weak to take firm action when it deals with Islam, one should not expect improved relations between the Islamic World and the West.

If Barak Obama is re-elected he would have to demonstrate the he is a changes man, one who will do whatever is necessary to protect the interests of America and its allies. If he is returned to office and maintains his present posture, the United States will be faced with unprecedented turmoil that would make previous economic and geo-political problems appear like a caked-walk.

As far as Iran goes, Israel is not likely to do anything until after the election is over. The time between the election, and change of Administration would be critical. Should Romney be elected, Israel would wait for the new President to take office, and then decode what to do. But, should President Obama get re-elected, and Iran approaches the “red line,” I will let the readers make their own speculations!

To conclude, it is Israel’s desire not to be wiped off the map, and Israel’s leaders, be it Benyamin Netanyahu, or anyone else, will make sure that its vital interests are protected, and, as they should, do so at any cost!