Archive | January, 2013

“Never-Again,” and the Quran, an Oxymoron.

28 Jan

“Never-Again,” and the Quran, an Oxymoron.
Lest we forget, perpetual anti-Semitism: The Quran and…
Today is the United Nations declared Holocaust Remembrance Day!
“Never-again,” is the motto, but is never-again a reality?
Never-again should not only apply to Jews, in spite of the fact that, throughout history Jews have been the most persecuted people.
Ethnic cleansing is a human phenomenon that should be avoided, but will it be?
What is happening in Syria today when a dictator is slaughtering civilians is not something that civil society= should tolerate, but the world is standing by. In his Joint interview with Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama simply stated that the US has too many commitments to bother about Syria. The Nobel Peace Prize winner can sit on the sidelines while over 60,000 have already been killed in Syria, while millions fled their home. The rest of the world is standing by because it has too much else on its plate.
Never-again?
There are civilians being slaughtered in Egypt, the Sudan, and Libya; the world is standing by. Never-again?
Syrians and Turks alike, the world is standing by are slaughtering Kurds. Never-again?
History seemed to have selected ethnic groups to label victims:
Armenians
Jews
Kurds
Romas (Gypsies)
Will there ever be an end of persecution of members of these groups? Or, are they destined to perpetual discrimination, hurt, and misery?
Let me return to today’s day of Holocaust remembrance and its most critical element: Anti-Semitism; can one expect that: “Never-again,” will apply here?
Egypt’s new democratically elected President Muhammad Morsi, just re-enforced the creed by which his regime would conduct itself, it would by Quranic law, and from Sura 5.60, it would not deal with, nor accept that the “descendents of apes and swines” can have any right. Said descendents are The JEWS!
There are between one, a quarter, one, and four tenth Muslims in the world. Muslims accept their Quran as basis for their beliefs, but also as an instruction of how to live your life (din,) and consequently, Muslims MUST be anti-Semites in compliance with the Gospel as given by Allah through Muhammad, the prophet.
The Quran, according the Quran, and Islam, is Allah’s last word to the human race, Muhammad his last emissary; its word is final and must be adhered to in order to remain a Muslim.
The Quran is an anti-Semitic guide to Islamic life. One and a quarter billion people live by its teachings. Islamic Arab nations and other entities are on record as intending to destroy Israel, and the Jewish people in order to comply with Quranic teaching.
Can Israel with its five million people survive the onslaught of nearly a billion Muslims?
Could Islam be the follow-up to Hitler’s effort?
Are Allah’s demand for Islamic world domination feasible? Would his word be the literal demise of the Jewish people; or, would: Never-again apply?

Shared with: zyonism’s blog

“The Vocal Minority;” GOP’s VPs & candidates obstruction!

27 Jan

“The Vocal Minority;” GOP’s VPs & candidates obstruction!

Memory serves me right, it was Spiro Agnew who coined the term: “The Silent Majority;” it is the Tea Party that represents the “Vocal minority!”
Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, even most Republicans shutter when they hear these names. Every time Sarah Palin’s name is mentioned, a national debate results, nearly never in favor of the Republicans.
Paul Ryan is another unpopular man who as Bobby Jidal says, seems to have a Washington attitude that puts economics interests ahead of people, not a prudent thing in a Democracy.
Democracy, even a Representative (or Jeffersonian) Democracy is a system designed of and for the people, not for the rich and privileged.
The list of Vice Presidents, and VP candidates whose name invokes immediate anger in most American, even the very rich who in general do not mind, or rather encourage social responsibility by their Government.
The Tea Party, a vocal minority seemed to have a stranglehold on the GOP that whenever one of its standard=bearers appears in the media it creates controversy. The list of five VP’s is a particularly harmful for the GOP; they could destroy the GOP if not silenced.

Could Syria’s WMDs be the source of GWB “lies?”

23 Jan

Nearly everyone in the United States, and elsewhere, seems to accept the fact that George W. Bush who was likely pushed by Dick Cheney, and aided by Collin Powell’s speech, lied about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), or at least working on such devices.
The prevailing idea is that GWB use Hussein’s WMD as an excuse to attack Iraq, in order to avenge an attempt by Hussein to assassinate his father when he was visiting the region. GWB also desired to make up for his failing to (or rahter what the nation, and the world thought was failing to,) remove of Saddam Hussein from office during the first Gulf war.
It is a well documented and proven fact that Saddam Hussein, on several occasions before the Gulf wars, used chemical weapons on some of his people (including Kurds.) What happened to those weapons?
It is also a well known fact that in the fifties, Saddam Hussein, with help from the French, was building nuclear capabilities. Even though such work was destroyed by Israel, one must wonder what happened to some of the nuclear materia (presumably, Uranium) that must have been stored elsewhere in Iraq?
Information that the West had, and was confirmed by the revolt that started in Syria in 2012, points to the fact that Syria has the largest chemical arsenal in the world. It also confirmed the fact that well over fifty metric tons of uranium is in Syria’s possession. Could it be, as many speculate, that Saddam Hussein was able to send his WMDs and potential for development of nukes to Syria?
If WMDs did indeed exist in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein moved them to Syria, George W. Bush may be exanorated fron lies, but not from being a failed President.

“Green” not a solution to energy independent; pragmatism, is! Obama’s “Green” is politics, not economics.

19 Jan

“Green” not a solution to energy independent; pragmatism, is! Obama’s “Green” is politics, not economics.

No one can dispute that protecting the environment is an important role of Government, as well as of the people. Native Americans, for example, believe that man is charged with taking care of the earth, man was put on this earth just a guardian of the environment.
Protecting the environment in one thing, but sacrificing pragmatic considerations in favor of ideology, is a big mistake!
Assuming all “green” technology were implemented, America’s energy need would not be solved without fossil fuel supplement.

If one was to take every square inch of un-built land in the United States and install wind generators on that land, and the put a solar panel on the roof of every building in the country, the US energy need will not be met. If the United States were willing to take all the corn grown in the country and use it to make fuel rather than food, or animal feed, and add that to the wind and solar energy maximum capacity, it would come way short of meeting United States projected energy needs.
Getting microorganisms to produce fuel from water may be possible, it will take twenty or more years, and at this stage, no one can actually predict how much energy generation such efforts may yield.
The bad news is that America will require fossil fuel for as far out in the future as one can see. Adding to that bad news is than fact that the United States Administration is spending, or rather wasting a great deal of money on what it calls green energy. This is a waste of taxpayer’s money, even though it is a smart political move to please environmentalists.
The good news is that Americas has, within its shore, more than enough fossil fuel to meet the country’s need for from one hundred to one hundred and fifty years! That amount of energy exists in shale oil reserves alone. Adding the still available “traditional” oil in the US proper and in Alaska, there is no doubt that the US can become energy independent within a decade PROVIDING you become pragmatic and:

1) Push the completion of Keystone without any further delay
2) Allow fraking without unreasonable environmental constraints
3) Allow oil drilling in all known available US oil reserves, including Alaska
4) Stop wasting resources on green energy and redirect them towards improving the extracting of oil from shale
5) Build more refineries in the United States
6) Impose tariffs on imported oil, and use that money for additional efforts to accelerate shale production

With such effort, there is little doubt that the United States can become energy independent within a decade. In support of this claim is the fact that Israel has a process that allows for shale oil extraction that is very near to what one requires to have an economically viable product. There is enough evidence that concentrating on the available fossil fuel resources until the country is energy independent is the thing to do.
Until the country reaches energy independence, green energy efforts should be reduced, to be accelerated after energy independence is accomplished.

Time to legalize performance-drugs, the Armstrong case::

18 Jan

The culmination of years when “professional” athletes having been abusing drug-enhancement, came with Lance Armstrong’s confessions. Since a very large percentage of [professional] athletes resort to the use of drugs, and because new undetectable drugs keep emerging, why not simply make it legal?
As things stand, when any given athlete does significantly better than other, said athlete would immediately come under suspicion of using performance-enhancing drugs; why not remove that cloud and allow “free’ competition take over?
Professional athletes are entertainers, performance enhancing drugs will improve their performance, and that is what the public wants to see.
Allowing performance-enhancing drugs to be used in sports would make sports more entertaining and level the playing field since all athletes will be able to use the same drugs.
Legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would also increase competition among those who make and administer the drugs and will likely bring about health benefits to non-athletes, much like fall-out products from NASA, and other non-related fields.
Time to “get out of the [performance enhancing drugs] closet” improve competition and speculations about athletes’ performances.
Such action may have to require asterisk after names of record holders, Hall of Fame members, and other affected by the change, in order to distinguish them from those pre-drug enhancing performers, but that is not such a great price to pay, is it?
One may also need consider health risks and perhaps maker sure such drugs, when used, are done so under supervision of a physician.

Lance Armstrong was not disgraced, America was!

14 Jan

“Lance Armstrong was not disgraced, America was!
For several years, Lance Armstrong “proved” to the world that the United States is so formidable, almost invincible. He proved that the United States can win on others’ turf, at others’, game.
Millions were made and lost, betting on the “champion,” and against him; millions were given to charity because it boasted the Lance Armstrong name, and then!
America used to be a winner, and then came Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the fall out of America’s leadership from behind at Arab Strings, culminating with LANCE ARMSTRING.
The world used to think that America is wonderful. America helped defeat Hitler, it helped rebuild those nations it defeated, what a fine generous people are these Americans, and now.
Armstrong! Lance Armstrong will now be the cause for questioning America’s integrity; can America only win by cheating?
What a disgrace to the United States of America, what a disgrace to America’s sports, let us all hope that Lance Armstrong disappears from the public eye, no more interviews, media attention, or celebrity. The damage was done, and what enormous damage that was!”

Hagel: Obama’s imprudent choice!

8 Jan

Appointing Chuck Hagel to be America’s next Secretary of Defense, is more an act of defiant, a challenge to the Republican Congress. President Obama realizes that a United States President is a servant of “we the people,” he recommends actions that the people, through their Representatives in Congress must approve. President Obama’s recommendation of Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense was a calculated act to annoy Congress.
If Chuck Hagel was the best available choice, Obama’s selection would have been OK, but Hagel is not the best choice.
From a military point of view, Hagel’s tactical skills are lacking. Voting against the surge in Iraq was a vote against the move that saved the United States butt in that arena, Hagel was not astute enough in these matters to realize what he was voting against.
In the foreign policy area, Hagel is a proponent of dealing with Iran. Iran made ir quite clear, on many occasions that it would not deal with the United States until the US pushed Israel “under the bus.” In other words Iran would insist on pre-conditions before holding any kind of dialogue with America.
Chuch Hagel posture regarding Iran is a clear indication that the man has no insight into the Islamic psyche. Since radical Islam is America’s main adversary in the 21st Century, not understanding one’s principle foe is a fatal flaw, especially when one is to lead the nation’s defense efforts.
Lacking the right skills is a major issue, but not less important is the distractions that a Hagel nomination would create. A long protracted nomination hearing is not a “good thing” when the nation is having many severe problems to tackle.
G-d knows we have urgent problems such as the fastest growing national debt in history, upcoming sequester, terrible unemployment, immigration, as well as horrible international problems in Syria, Egypt, North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, (and the list goes on,) that require urgent attention, why not pick the likes of Hagel’s state mate, Bob Kerrey, who is better qualified, and less controversial?
You may come back and say that it is the President’s choice, the answer is, “yes and no!” The President only recommends, it is “we the people,” through our Representative who must approve. The US is not like Iran with a Supreme Leader; in the US is a “servant” of the people, not their supreme commander!