Archive | March, 2013

North Korea: Hillary not Ready for “Red-phone!”

29 Mar

For sake of political correctness we hastily elected Barak Obama to be America’s first African-American President. President Obama was not ready for the job, President Obama made a mess out of the situation. Let us not make the same mistake of hasty moves and consider Hillary Clinton for the first woman Presidential candidate, Mrs Clinton does not have the skills required to do the job; she proves that with her performance as Secretary of State.
How many more nails are required to seal the coffin of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential ambition? The mess Secretary Clinton left the world in, a horrible condition that President Obama’s Administration will be remembered for, must not be ignored when Presidential candidates are selected.
As the United States chief foreign policy official, Hillary Clinton was responsible for international relations; during the 2008 Presidential election she claim that this was one of her strong suits; but now, what do we have now?
Secretary Clinton left office after her Benghazi fiasco, responsible for deterioration relations with, China, Russia, Poland, Israel, Egypt, and many other nations. Hillary Clinton left the world much less safe a place than it was when she took office.
North Korea with its real nuclear threat, a terribly unstable Syria with its chemical weapons and delivery systems that can reach 260,000 US troops in the Gulf, as well as many others in the region, Iran which is very near to acquiring nuclear weapons, Egypt ready to explode, and the list goes on.
To those many who wish for Hillary Clinton to be America’s first woman Presidential candidate, just look at her record at State and ask yourself, “is she the person I want by the red-phone at 3:00AM? The obvious answer is NO!”

Arab Character, not Zionistat root of Mideast conflict!

27 Mar

Zionism a ploy, not cause of Middle East trouble. Arabs and Muslims in general, are violent people. The Quran instructs its followers to be so on many occasions!
One tends to counter with the fact that the Bible, both Testaments are also full of violence; the differences are quite clear:
The Quran, as are the other Bibles is a unique document. The Quran, unlike all other Gospels clearly insists that it cannot be modified, that it cannot be changed in any way. Devout Muslims even suggest that translations are not valid because of the [poetic] structure of the Arabic language. The Quran teaches that Muhammad was the last and only valid Messager Allah was to give followers of the religion.
Unlike Christianity, in its various forms, Islam does not allow for interpretations, the clergy is made up of enforcers, at various levels, not as interpreters. Christianity underwent significant modernization when Martin Luther translated the Bible so lay people could read it, not having priests as go between the Book and the people.
In the case of Judaism, Rabbis are teachers, and many of the studies and extensive writing from the Diaspora are “modernization” of the Bible. Jews are not held up to some of the violent teaching of the original Bible.
Much because of Quranic teaching, much because the nomad nature of most Arabs, taking a politically incorrect view, and “stereotyping,” Arabs are violent people, and have been so throughout history.
Examples of Islamic violence and brutality are the Ottoman Empire, merciless to Armenians, Kurds, Jews and Arabs. Assad’s Syria, both father and son are another demonstration. Assad the father was responsible for the slaughtering about 60,000 of his people; the son already surpassed his father in approaching 100,000; many more Arab casualties than throughout the ninety-year Arab/Israeli conflict, and in two years.
Assad already caused over a million refugees to leave Syria, about twice as many as are Palestinian refugees in the region.
In 1948, through the largess of the United Nations with its creation of the Jewish State of Israel, the Arabs were given a common enemy. The Arab nations, in a very infrequent move of solidarity named Israel and its supporters as “Zionists,” and deployed the adage: “My enemy’s enemy is my friend,” Zionism being the common enemy.
Declaring Israel a common enemy allowed the Arabs a hiatus from Arab against Arab fighting; they attacked Israel. After several losing attacks on Israel, the Arabs discovered that the Jewish nation was not going to lie down and play dead, they returned to their traditional internal fighting. Since losing in 1967, Arabs nations have not attacked Israel, but returned killing one another.
One must understand, that had there not been an Israel, the Middle East would have been as volatile as it is with Israel, Arabs would be killing Arabs, as they are doing now!
Inter-Islam, or inter-Arab fighting is a way of life and likely to remain so for many years to come. At present, you have strife in Egypt, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Iraq, and elsewhere, where civilian deaths occur daily. And, of course, there is Syria, which will eventually be followed by Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.
Those who think that solving the Palestinians Israeli conflict, and taking care of the Palestinian refugee problem would create regional stability, are wrong. The Palestinian refugee problem, for example is already dwarfed by the ever-growing Syrian refugee problem. When the Syrian conflict ends, the region is likely to have three or four times as many Syrian refugees as Palestinians, and you know what? The new Syria will not welcome them back.
It is time the West, led by the United States comes to realize that the Middle East problem has nothing to do with Israel, Zionism, or “Western Imperialism,” it is an inter-Arab, Inter-Islam problem that the Western World cannot, and should not try to “fix,” except perhaps help democratizing when clearly called upon, and offering humanitarian help when needed.

Shared with:

Obama Supporting Palestinian state akin to Arab Springs

24 Mar

Obama supporting Palestinian state akin to Arab Springs
It is time to “call a spade a spade,” Mideast problems are inter-Islam issues, “Zionism,” was a short-lived diversion allowing Muslims a hiatus from fighting each other.
Face it, Muslims fight and kill Muslims, Zionism was an attempt at “my enemy’s enemy is my friend,” but to Islam’s chagrin, the Zionist did not just lie down and play dead.
Secretary Kerry visit to Iraq where Iraqis are killing Iraqis, was a first hand view that Iraq is a conduit between Iran and Syria, and an active part of the inter-Islam fight with no concern for US interests. Egypt is in a mess, the Islamic Brotherhood is taking control.
Assad in Syria slaughtered more Syrians than all the Muslims killed during the total Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Syria already dumped on the region about twice as many refugees as are the total Palestinian refugees, with growing numbers.
Palestinians don’t want peace with Israel, the Quran does not encourage dealing with Jews, it says that Jews are of “swine and monkeys,” that is what Palestinians kids are taught in school. Palestinians want the whole area to themselves so that the traditional Muslim against Muslim fight can continue unabated.
President Obama suggestion to the Palestinians that he is supportive of a Palestinian State, is an error of a larger magnitude than was his mistake of “leading [Arab Springs] from behind.” In both cases the American President thought that he is helping democratic movements, while in both cases, he simply shoring up Islamic radicalism.

Shared with:;

Inter-Islam conflict to diminish future for Palestinian State:

24 Mar

Inter-Muslim issues to overshadow and eliminate considerations for a Palestinian state:
After the hiatus of using “Zionism,” as a common enemy, the one in “our enemies enemy is our friend,” Muslims are returning to the state of Muslims fight Muslims, and Arabs kill Arabs.
When looking at the bigger picture one can see that in the last two years over 1,000,000 new refugees, nearly twice as many as the Palestinians, entered rhea region, and the number from Syria, is growing. More Muslims were killed by Muslims in Syria than in all the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The Middle East is changing, Muslims kill Muslims, after a short hiatus to use “Zionism: as a common enemy, but returned to killing one another (Egypt, Somalia. Mali, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and on and on…)
Muslim issues are going to dwarf the Palestinian issue, so much that the likelihood of a Palestinian state is essentially diminished, Palestinians will simply be absorbed by Jordan and Egypt; too many “larger fish to fry…”

Shared with:

It is Muslims who are killing Muslims, not the Zionists!

23 Mar

There were always conflicts within Islam, within Arab entities. For a few years the Islamic world was able to create a common enemy so that it could say, “your enemy’s enemy is my friend,” that enemy was essentially virtual; it was lumped under the term Zionism. The manifestation of that enemy, Israel became a target of Islamic range, and diverted attention away from its internal conflict.
Israel the “common enemy,” the child of the hated Zionism was handed the Islamic world in 1948 with the creation of the State of Israel, the Jewish State of Israel.
In 1948 five Islamic nations in the region attacked Israel vowing to push the Jewish state into the sea, and let the Arab inhabitant of the region benefit from the spoils, but the large, rich and powerful lost the 1948 war, as well as future wars ending in 1967. After that was the Arabs attempted several internal uprisings, terrorist acts, if you will, never with overwhelming success.
Failing to maintain Israel as anything but a virtual foe, the Muslims starting to kill one another as has been their nature throughout their inception as a single religion.
The Muslim against Muslim phenomena is both religious and cultural, it recognizes few national boundaries and it is bloody and brutal.
This subject deserve a long and extensive review, let me just scratch the surface, enough to demonstrate the severity of the conflict.
Arab Springs was a trigger that started internal wars in North Africa. Egyptians are killing Egyptians, Libyans are killing Libyans, it is so in Somalia, Yemen, Mali, and the list goes on.
Muslims are killing scores of Muslims in Iraq since the Americans left and there is Syria.
Assad in Syria has been slaughtering civilians, and causing thousands of other to leave the country. Since the beginning of the uprising in Syria Assad caused the death of more civilians than all the Muslims killed from 1920 to present time in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Assad’s action has already brought into the region nearly twice as many refugees than there are Palestinian refugees, and the number is growing.
Muslims, mostly Arab Muslims are killing Muslims by the thousand, they are not likely to stop, not even if they are able to manufacture another was in Israel. The Islamic internal conflict is so deep rooted that there is no end in sight that it is not truly subject to change due to some manufactured external diversion.
Finally, with growing Muslim population in Europe and elsewhere, one can anticipate Islamic bloodshed in streets of those countries in which large number of Muslims live!

Shared with:

America; the greatest in history!

22 Mar

Unlike other super-powers, America is here to stay as the leader, and contributor, that it is.
America is a melting pot, more so with its first African-American President than ever before. In other leading nations leaders were limited to those with the right ethnic credentials, not so in the United States, less now than ever before.
Unlike powerhouses of old, the United States does not depend on an Empire for resources, and help, it is virtually self-sufficient. Energy the engine that drives modern society is abound in the United States, more than enough, even without “alternative” source for a hundred years or more. America needs little in the line of imports, perhaps Titanium, or some other exotic materials, but with its wealth, that does not represent a problem.
America is great, but this is not to say that it has no rivals, no challengers. There are one billion and about two million Muslims who would like to see American go down because their Quran tells them that they should dominate the world. There are the Chinese who through its autocratic control can effectively develop directed technologies, such as their unique submarine propulsion systems, amazing aircraft carrier technology, ands effective manufacturing, beyond just cheap labor.
With all the external challenges, and there are many, the United States is strong enough to overcome both external threats, and mismanagement from within.
A number of American Presidents who were not in step with global developments, who did not understand how to deal with other cultures, in the last few years, put in glitches in America’s standing in the world. However, even those situations were not enough to derail, or even significantly slow down America’s progress and world leadership.
There was Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and our President, Barak Obama who seem inept at leading in today’s global environment, but even their performance did not cause irreparable damage, the United States is stronger than ever.
Adding to America’s success is the fact that it encourages, and is able to benefit from innovation. For example, years ago Malthus predicted that the human race will run out of food, perhaps natural resources to sustain itself. New agricultural technology, mostly developed in the United States muted that argument. There was a concern about running out of energy, due to innovations such as fracing, and other techniques, we now know that even without harnessing the sun and the wind, without nuclear energy, and without utilizing water pressure in oceans, the United States has enough energy to carry it into the twenty second century.
There are challenges ahead, these are more likely to be cultural rather than technological, but America’s future is bright, and glitches on the road will not stop this greatest nation in the annals of man.

Israel and Obama’s hypocracy!

22 Mar

After flirting, and kibitzing with Netanyahu, and after calling Israel America’s “best friend,” President Obama went to visit the Palestinian Authority. While visiting Netanyahu, rockets aimed at Israeli civilians came from Gaza, a part of “Palestine.”
While in Jerusalem befriending the Israelis, and demonstrating a de-facto recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, President Obama did not mention that the United States has a public law requiring that its embassy be moved to Jerusalem. Was that an oversight, or was that one of Obama’s means for circumventing hard issues that must be addressed?
To Mahmud Abbas President Obama offered his full support for the creation of a Palestinian state. No mention was made of the fact, that as things stand, a state would be one that is on record as planning to destroy Israel, America’s “best friend.”
The rockets from Gaza, while President was on a State visit to Israel, was a clear display that Abbas does not control all the “Palestine,” that the United Nations voted as an observer state. At best, Abbas may control the West Bank, a barren landlocked territory that cannot be a viable economic entity without Gaza, and without cooperation from Israel.
All that notwithstanding, both Palestinian fractions, Hamas and Fatah, are on record as vowing to destroy Israel Neither fraction formally recognizes Israel’s right to exist; how can President Obama support statehood for someone who is on record as ready to eliminate a sovereign state, an American ally, and member in good standing of the UN?

There are no Palestinians, just “West Bankians,” anf “Gazaians:”

21 Mar

The United Nations accepted “Palestine” as an observer state, a combined entity of Gaza and the West Bank (WB.) Gaza is ruled by the democratically elected Hamas, rockets we lobbed at Israeli civilians from that territory while President Obama was on a State visit to Israel. Since Gaza according to the “Palestinians,” and the United Nations, is a part of “Palestine,” should President Obama reprimand Mahmud Abbas for the rocket attack?
Since Abbas does not control Gaza, which means that there is no single entity called “Palestine,” one must realize that President Obama is not visiting the “Palestinians,” but that in reality he is visiting the “West-Bankians…”
Abbas and his people claim that Israeli settlements are holding back peace talks, that is a “red herring!” What is holding up peace talks is the fact that major “Palestinian” fractions, Fatah (in the Arabic language,) and Hamas have clauses in their carter calling for the destruction of Israel. Until those clauses are removed, Israel should not negotiate with any “Palestinians,” and President Obama should make that point, in public.

Shared with:

The Palestine Charade must end!

21 Mar

The Palestine Charade must end!
There may be some Arab Palestinians who want peace, the couple of million who are represented by Hamas in Gaza, do not seem to fit that mold. A Palestine without Gaza, one made entirely of the West Bank, could not survive as a viable sovereign state. Unless the Hamas ruled Gaza agree to accept Israel sovereignty, and to remove all calls for Israel’s destruction from its documents (be they in the original Arabic versions, and/or translations,) there should not be an {Arab] Palestine!
In view of the rocket attack from Gaza during President Obama’s visit to Israel, should President ask Abbas if this not a good time to call off the charade called Palestine?
It is clear that the Palestinian Authority does not control Gaza. More important is the fact that Gaza is governed by the democratically elected Hamas which vows to destroy Israel. Without Gaza, the West Bank, a barren piece of landlocked territory, with little if any natural resources, is “Palestine.”.
When the United Nations to allow “Palestine” it to be called a state, it did so including Gaza. Hamas controls Gaza but doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. This silly “catch 22” situation must end, Israel must refuse to negotiate with the Palestinians until all factions recognize its sovereignty, and remove any items from their charters calling for its destruction.
The latest rocket attack, an “in your face” President Obama message, should be enough to get President Obama to have a frank discussion with Abbas and insist the Charade called Palestine must end. Either get all fraction of the Palestinians to formally recognize Israel and remove all belligerency clauses from their documents, or forget a “two state solution,” consider the West bank a part of Jordan, and Gaza a part of Egypt.
Until the recognition of Israel by all Palestinians, and the removal of all belligerency clauses are accomplished, America should terminate all aid to the Palestinians, and stop attempting to help push a peace process forward.

“Flexible Conservatism,” the key to GOP future: Neither conservative, nor liberal is always right!

19 Mar

Neither conservative, nor liberal is bad, they are not in as much of a conflict as many politicians would make us believe that they are!
By allowing blindly conservtive voices represent it, the Republican Party is danger of becoming even more irrelevant than it is. “Flexible conservatism,” may be the route for the GOP to follow in the future.
If being a conservative means wishing to conserve a given way of life, and the associated cultural elements, one could not find much fault in the concept, however, if one stretches it to mean that it is anti change, anti progress, then one may be wise to question the notion. The same thing is true about liberal, even progressive; making changes for the sake of changing is something of concern.
Rush Limbaugh, and some of the vocal anger and hatred merchants of the conservative movement are not trying to maintain the country’s value’s, they are scaring people by trying to suggesting, and to impose the view that being progressive, or being liberal is contrary to the American-way. Having that, as a broad “blanket” view is simply wrong, some change is fine, some change is even necessary!
When the conservative part of the Republican Party allows the likes of, Limbaugh, Palin, Coulter, Ryan, Beck, and Ingham speak on its behalf, they energize a number of blind followers of the “no-change” mentality, but they alienate well over half of the American public, and I mean alienate, not just upset.
If the GOP wishes to remain relevant, it must show that it understands that some change is good, as is exclusivity; the “Limbaugh-type” voices should be muted.