Tag Archives: middle east

I suppose you can call it, one man’s rage.

I have always believed in civil discourse.  There is that old saying that we can disagree without being disagreeable.  Sometimes, however, I just get … well … pissed off.  In this case, it is not sudden.  It has be growing in my heart and mind for some months.

It has to do with the situation in the Middle East.  Yes, I am not happy with President Obama for sure, but that is already known to anyone who reads my stuff.

Let me get to the specific point.

What hit my hot button was the President of the United States making a stupid and degrading “selfie” commercial – and romping around like the village idiot on the very day he learned of the death of yet another American by the hand of ISIS.  This was a double down of his laughing his way around the golf course hours after another American citizen was beheaded.

To me, it reflects a heartlessness that has permeated his entire foreign policy.

Throughout the world today, we are witnessing the worst genocide, holocaust and savagery since the defeat of the Nazi regime.  And yet, we do nothing.

My frustration is not based on national interest, although that is an issue.  It is not based on geo-political issues.  It is not based on oil.  I cannot accept an America that has so abandoned its moral and humanitarian obligations.  These are not obligations given to us by treaty or political reality, but by, as Lincoln called it, “the angels of our better nature.”

How, as decent human beings, can we stand by as innocent people — men, women and children — are subjected to the most horrifying terror, unimaginable brutality and torturous deaths?  In “leading from behind” and engaging in “patient diplomacy,” the President of the United States is turning a blind eye on the suffering of millions of people around the globe.  He has squandered American leadership on the altar of his own political agenda, and in so doing damned millions to the bloody sword of Islamic terrorists.

The men, women and children being slaughtered with less dignity than farm animals, and those sold into slavery or pimped for sexual gratification, represent humanity.  Their ethnic background, their religion and their political viewpoints should be of no matter to us.

We are the most powerful nation on earth, and whether we like it or now, our conduct in world affairs is the most significant.  When America fails the lead, there are no nations to follow.  When America abandons our moral high ground, there is no one to take it up.

It literally brings tear to my eyes to see the faces and hear the voices of so many good people, young men and women, who are exposed to the human madness of ISIS and other terrorist groups – and we act as if it is just another policy issue to be debated between two legitimate viewpoints.

We know that evil spreads when good people do nothing.  Evil is spreading because we Americans are doing nothing.  We go through our daily lives inoculating our conscious with entertaining diversions rather than face the horror of our own indifference.  Even the wrenching images on television, sanitized as they are, do not motivate us to a demand for moral action.  We use the terribly flawed policies of a terribly flawed President to rationalize our lack of concern.

If the American feminist movement ever had any credibility, it has lost it by its silence, as women … no, young girls … in the Middle East and Central Africa are being kidnapped, enslaved, repeatedly raped and murdered.   I have seen one feminist leader after another, on various talk shows, complaining about equal pay, maternity leave and glass ceiling of one sort or another without one mention of the deadly abuse of women by Islamic terrorists.  How can they complain about prejudicial policies in the United States, or even in such nations as Saudi Arabia, and now hide behind the President’s policy of disregard for the most heinous assaults on womanhood in the world today?

I am disgusted with a Pope whose condemnation of terrorism is only tangential to his moral opinions about capitalism — and his failure to endorse action looks like a theological version of the Obama do nothing policy.  Pope Francis abandons his moral obligation to represent and defend Christianity, the followers of which are a primary target of Islamic terrorists.

I am equally disgusted with the United Nations.  They seem to have no policy to address world terrorism, and certainly no zeal to fight it.  Rather, it engages in diplomatic masturbation from its highly secured tower in New York City.

I am disgusted with a President who focuses more on Neville Chamberlain-style negotiations with the rogue state of Iran, as that very nation funds, trains and spreads Islamic terrorism throughout the globe – including direct assaults on Americans, our overseas facilities and on our very domestic soil.

If America is to be the exceptional nation it has historically been, we need to reclaim our soul.  We need to exert positive leadership in recruiting the civilized nations to take whatever action is necessary to defeat Islamic terrorism.  This means boots on the ground, including American boots.  We must stop assuring the enemies of humanity of what we will not do, and rather leave them in fear of what we might and will do.

Having lost a Marine grandson in Afghanistan, I do not say that lightly.  But, I cannot help but feel that he will have died in vain if America abandons so much of the world to egomaniacal blood-thirsty serial killers.  Our service men and women fight and die to defend the great humanitarian principles and freedoms of America.  We spent our human and financial treasure to defeat the pernicious virus of evil in World War II.  That challenge has been foisted upon us again.  If we fail to defend humanitarian principles and our personal freedoms, they cease to exist.

President Obama ran on a “can do” slogan, but governs as a “can’t do” president.  I am tired of pessimistic apologists who say that we must engage in decades of limited fighting, or that we must fight piecemeal, or that we cannot win a war against terrorist.  To them I say: “The Hell we can’t!”

Sitting around arguing who started the war, and for what reason, is dangerous political diversion.  The situation is what it is.  Our roll must be to resolve, not merely blame, as this President is so obsessed to do.  It is time for America to get to the front of the leadership line and to express diplomatic impatience with those nations who are part of the problem by virtue of not being part of the solution.

It is time to set aside the politics, and give the world the American moral leadership it needs and deserves.

Understanding President Obama.

I have lived under the Chicago Machine for most of my life.  I personally know many of the key players who brought Barack Obama out of obscurity to the presidency.  Perhaps this analysis should have been made several years ago.  But, better late than never.

I am way not the conspiratorial theorist type.  I never bought into the Obama birther theory.  I never thought of him as some sort of Manchurian candidate.  I do not believe Obama is member of the Muslim faith – not after attending a Christian church, such as it is, for 20 years.  Is it possible that the President is really a nice guy who believes he is doing good for the United States and the world?  I think it is possible.  BUT, just because he might believe that does not mean it is true.

There has to be some explanation for his six years of seemingly inexplicable presidential behavior – at least as measured against his 42 predecessors.  Why has Obama become arguably the least trusted President in American History?  Why has his patriotism been questioned by so many?  And, don’t give me the “because he’s black” excuse.  One of his greatest benefits in becoming President was his skin color.  God knows, it was not due to his record and experience.  Being black has insulated Obama from scrutiny and proper vetting – and given his sycophants and a fawning news corps a racist mantra to deflect justified criticism.

I have come to the conclusion that the problem with Obama is that he is the first un-American president.

By that, I mean he has a completely different core of knowledge and value structure than the vast majority of Americans. He was not raised in an American culture.  He never learned American history in depth.  He does not understand the American culture – and what he thinks he understands, he does not like.

As a child, he was raised in Muslim traditions by his father, then an uncle and a family mentor who, more importantly, all harbored negative viewpoints about America.  He attended a Muslim school in a nation highly critical of America. His mother, though not Muslim, was a lifelong critic of America, its culture, its politics and its economic system.   He attended American colleges where criticism of America reigns supreme among students and faculty.

He spent most of his life subjected and devoted to a politicized anti-American version of Christianity in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  As a community activist in Chicago’s University of Chicago neighborhood, he worked in a pseudo-intellectual cultural enclave that exaggerates American racism and demonizes free market capitalism.  It is a tightly knit community best personified by its local iconic leaders, such Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.

His formative political experience comes from his association with the Chicago Democrat “Machine.”  It can explain his contempt for Republicans – and even contempt for any opposition and accommodation.  It may also explain his belief in authoritarian “boss” governance, where the executive is the primary source of public policy.  His Chicago experience would lead him to believe that role of a legislative body is to endorse — rubber stamp, if you will — but not to challenge.

In many ways, Obama is the product of his two closest advisors, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett.  Axelrod represents the thuggish Chicago Machine’s strident partisanship, with its allegiance to an autocratic boss figure.  He personifies what could be called the Daley wing of the Democratic Party, operating more like a “banana republic” than what the Founders had in mind.

Jarrett represents the far left ideological wing of the Democratic Party – also autocratic.  Under the first Mayor Daley, these were warring factions.  Under the second Mayor Daley, the factions united in the person of Barack Obama.

Since both factions are autocratic, Obama represents the worst of them in terms of the American republic.  Both factions place government rule by an elite over the historic American concept of governance by the people.  With a belief in and tendency toward autocratic power, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the intoxicating power of the presidency has introduced a sense of megalomania.

Obama came to office believing America is an imperial power guilty of shameful acts.  That is why his first overseas junket as President was widely described as “an apology tour.”  That is why he is so quick to draw moral equivalencies between us and every other nation – and more recently, between the maniacal brutality of today’s Islamic extremists and the Christian Crusades of 1000 years ago.

That is why he relegated American Exceptionalism to nothing more than nationalistic pride. Obama sees America as no better than any other nation, and to think otherwise is arrogance.  He does not believe in the need or importance of America’s economic, military and moral leadership, so, at every turn, he withdraws us from it.  Since he cannot make other nations as strong as America, he seems determined to make America as weak as them.  He seems to think that world leadership, itself, is arrogance.

His disdain for the traditional American culture extends to allies who share that culture.  It is why his foreign policy realigns America away from historic allies in favor of relationships with even current enemies, such as Cuba and Iran.  His preference for third world countries is evident in his refusal to not only secure the American border, but to encourage illegal migration and acceptance on an every growing level.

He has created a deceptive language to explain his governing philosophy, with such oxymoron’s as “leading from behind” as an excuse for not leading, or “patient diplomacy,” as a euphemism for doing nothing.  As with all autocrats, he is capable of the most audacious lies.  He talks of our victory over al Qaeda and ISIS as relatively harmless “junior varsity.”  He takes pride in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even as they accelerate. He claims Gitmo promotes terrorism, but claims the release of terrorists is in our national interest.

He takes victory laps for ending our economic crisis even as millions of Americans continue to suffer from unemployment and under employment.  His infamous “you can keep your doctor” promise now rates with President George H. Bush’s “read my lips” as an iconic presidential betrayal.

The President is a left wing globalist, who not only surrenders American leadership, but American sovereignty.  He promotes agreements and treaties that give international bodies authority of our lands, our international policies, our guns and even our elections.

He has no frame of reference to understand the nature of the American republic, in which the people govern.  Rather, he subscribes to the authoritarian philosophy that a government run by self determined enlightened people must rule over the masses for their own good.  He sees the federal government as the necessary regulatory authority over every aspect of our personal lives.  He relegates America’s several states to mere Chinese-style provinces, and redistributes wealth according to his political agenda.

We have seen this in his preference for personal power over the shared power of three branches.  His go-it-alone policy is not born out of strong leadership, but is the result of an all too obvious contempt for the people’s Congress as an equal branch of government.

He came into office promising change.  His meaning was not the change Americans had every reason to assume.  It was to change the very nature of the American government from a republic based on the autonomy of the people to an authoritarian regime where dependency replaces opportunity as the dominant characteristic.  He would change our successful free enterprise system to a controlled central economy where the market forces are replaced by government manipulation, regulation and redistribution of wealth.

The Founders risked life and property “in order to form a more perfect union.”  It was ours to preserve through “eternal vigilance.”  In recent generations, we have failed in both regards, and may now be reaching a point of no return.

When you look at the critical education and emotional development of past presidents, Democrat and Republican, none has been so devoid of traditional American education and understanding.  Obama operates the way he does because he knows no other way.  He is not anti-American, but I think he is un-American in his intellectual foundation.  And that is the problem.

The General Election of 2016 may well determine whether our historic culture has truly changed as we the people decide either to continue down the path of subjugation to Washington, or will we rise up to re-establish the great American Dream based on American Exceptionalism that made this nation the most successful democracy in history?  We will determine whether to leave a nation and a world to our children that is greater and safer than we found it, or we will condemn them to lesser status with fewer opportunities under an oppressive regime in Washington.

Obama’s State of the Union. File under “Fiction.”

I would have offered my analysis of President Obama’s State of the Union speech, but it took me time to get over the shock.  His tendency to take victory laps following defeats reached its zenith in the State of the Union speech.  This even surpasses his response to the shellacking he got on Election Day.  You know … when he said he still has the support of all those who did not vote.  What he described was not the state of our union, but a spin on reality that is usually reserved for hyperbolic campaign speeches, where repudiating facts are not so obvious and available.

Most notably, the President engaged in political hypocrisy by proposing programs that have zero chance of passing Congress, something he was very critical of when the GOP was pushing Obamacare repeal.

His assessment of the economy was surreal. Yes, there is some long delayed improvement – a longer recovery than any recession in American history.  The stock market is booming, but it is due to the higher profits achieved by shedding the cost of all those unemployed Americans and not hiring them back.  The government unemployment figure is a sham because it does not include all those folks who are unemployed, but are no longer counted as such.  The rate of unemployment is less important than the average income, and that is down yet.

The real hardship is seen in the surge in food stamps – from 17 million when he took office to 48 million today, and still increasing.

All his policies reflect his bias – shifting jobs and wealth from the free market of the private sector, where you and I make the consumer decisions, to more public sector jobs and government wealth redistribution where Washington makes the spending decisions.

His Capital Gains tax will kill private sector job creation, as it always does.  He makes no mention of the avalanche of costly regulations his administration has imposed on the private sector job producers.

Those students who cheer another couple thousand dollars for education, need to check out the tens of thousands his programs will be costing them in the future as they start paying for them.  Also, this subsidized money for college will increase tuitions, just as students loans did.

While he brags about reductions in the annual deficit, he makes no mention of the continued run-away growth in the far more dangerous national debt.  At a time when federal spending is at or past the sustainability point, he offers up trillions more to be placed on the back of future generations – now exceeding $18 trillion.  Obama is running the economic train at full throttle heading into a future derailment.

His new tax burdens on banks will be passed on to consumers – rich and poor.  Liberals never understand that you cannot tax businesses because it only becomes a cost that is passed on to the consumer.  The only thing that is taxable is the productivity of a human being.  Everything else is a device to conceal that fact.  If you believe that a property tax is a tax on property, next time you get the bill, give the government your garage.

If the President’s rose colored view of the economy was surreal, his victory claims in foreign policy were delusional.  The war is not over in Afghanistan, and we are not sure which side will win.  Our withdrawal from Iraq paved the way for ISIS.  Obama’s empty words on Syria has left us in a no win position.  Russia now controls the Crimea and still pressing to takeover of the Ukraine.  Iran is relieved of sanctions as the charade of negotiations goes on.  Central Africa is characterized the unimaginable brutal Muslim genocide at the hands of Boka Haram.  They are making Nazis look like boy scouts.  Yemen, which only months ago he cited as one of his policy accomplishments, has now fallen to the Anti-American Iran-supported rebels.  As we play patty cake with the Iran regime, they continue to export terrorism against the West.

There have been terrorist attacks on France, Canada, Australia, the United States and scores of other nations.  The Terrorists are gain significant control of the Middle East and Central Africa.  Beyond Yemen, there is Somalia and Nigeria.  He takes not notice of Venezuela as a base for South American Muslim Terrorism – exporting terrorist cells to nations throughout the continent, as well as the United States.  Nation after nation is moving from U.S. ally to U.S. enemy.

It is noteworthy that Obama said nothing about Israel, preferring to brag about our new found camaraderie with Iran.  His omission signals to the world that the Obama White House does not see Israel as our strongest, most consistent and most important ally in the Middle East, maybe in the world.  Such an omission cannot be an oversight.  His consistently soft approach on Muslim terrorism cannot be seen as anything less than a pro-Arab bias.

These are not just my opinions.  Most Internet fact checkers are giving the President any number of “Pinocchios” for his State of the Union address.

I am not sure if any American president has given a State of the Union speech so removed from reality.  The world is in the grips of a new holocaust, and Obama would like us to believe that he has created an international Garden of Eden.

I am not into conspiratorial theories.  I have always believed Obama is American born.  I do not think he is some sort of Manchurian Candidate Muslim.   But, I cannot find a rational explanation for policies so detrimental to American interests, here and abroad.

Based on his back ground, I am confident that he came to office as a lifelong hard left hater of traditional American values of limited government, personal freedom, free enterprise and world leadership.  He believes we are a racist nation, when the vast majority of evidence proves the opposite.

I know we elected a president with no exposed record and little qualifying experience. Perhaps, it is this toxic combination that has produced arguable the worst and most dangerous president in American history.

WE NEED A TOUGHER LAW DEALING WITH TERRORISTS. HERE IS ONE IDEA.

In Oklahoma City, a person recently converted to Muslim cut off the head of a former female co-worker and seriously injured another. It was likely that the murder spree would have continued had not an armed officer of the company shot and wounded the perpetrator.

Was this an act of terrorism or workplace violence?

This is a gray area in our law. The Obama administration has already determined that terrorists, domestic or foreign, should be tried in American criminal courts – with all the rights of citizens.  So far, the Obama administration has determined that the deadly attack on the Ft. Hood  military base was work place violence even though the perpetrator, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, admitted his reason was related to his radical Muslim beliefs.  Five terrorists leaders were summarily, and illegally, released by President Obama, in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an  army deserter.

All this suggests the need for clarity in our law, and I offer this humble example. I will contact members of Congress to see if a law like this can be enacted.

Any individual, American citizen or foreign national, arrested of a crime in the United States, in lands under the protection or authority of the United States, against United States diplomatic facilities in any and all nations, or facilities owned, leased or operated by the United States government in foreign lands, or  against any individual United States citizen anywhere in the world that is directly or indirectly related to international terrorism or international terrorist groups, shall be considered  an international terrorist combatant. 

Any United States citizen charged with a terrorist crime, under this provision, shall be considered to have revoked his or her American citizenship. Such persons, United States citizen or foreign national, shall then be tried and sentenced by military tribunal.

 Any person found guilty, by military tribunal, in the death of an American citizen at the command or terrorists, or as a result of sympathy with terrorist movements, or inspired by terrorism shall be sentenced to death. 

Any person or groups of persons, which commands, encourages, or aids and abets in encouraging, planning, executing, or any person who fails to report to law enforcement the knowledge and plans for acts of terrorism, shall also be determined to have revoked their United States citizenship and be subject to trial by military tribunal.

Why do we need such a law?

We must make sure that the tough talk of politicians has a foundation of certainty. It makes not sense to give foreign terrorists all the rights of American citizens.  It also makes no sense to allow American citizens who engage in acts of violence and terror against the United States to retain their citizenship and their rights.

You will recall the controversy when President Obama properly ordered the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who became a leader in the terrorist war on America.  This issue would have not been controversial at all had we had the legal procedure to strip al-Awlak of his citizenship as an enemy terrorist combatant.

The law would prevent future American presidents from these arbitrary, inexplicable, inconsistent and illogical policy decisions that has made a mockery of swiftness and certainty of American justice.

This would also clarify the situation with Americans joining the fight in the Middle East with terrorist organizations, such as ISIS or Hamas. Once they are discovered to have joined the enemies of American, they no long had citizenship writes.  Their passports would be immediately revoked, and they would no longer have legal ability to return to America.

The implementation of this kind of law would make the long incarcerations impossible. Those currently held there would have been tried and incarcerated, released or dead.  It is unlikely that the five released by presidential edict would have been around to be released.

This law would also thwart terrorist recruitment plans on American soil. It would serve as a discouragement to young Americans to go off for the adventure of war in foreign lands.

It would discourage the leaders of radical mosques in the United States from promoting Jihad.

If you think this law makes sense, I hope you will send it along to your local Senator and Representative in Washington. You can also ask your local newspaper to write editorial in support of such a law.

Here is my view on OBAMA’S WAR SPEECH (as published in the Florida Sun Sentinel on September 18,2014)

Some say that President Obama’s war (or not war) speech was the best speech of his career. It depends if you are judging on rhetoric, substance or credibility.  I grade him a B for rhetoric, D for substance and F for credibility.

The post mortem talking heads on Fox, CNN and MSNBC all agreed on one thing. This was a speech Obama did not wish to ever give.  No president wants to send American service men and women into harms way, but they rise to that necessity with full commitment when circumstances require.  They tend to lead public opinion by laying out the reasons for war.  In the case of Obama, the rationale came from the people, not from the Oval Office.  His decision seemed more motivated by his sense of political necessity than moral obligation. Obama was again leading from behind.

The President’s highest mark is for “rhetoric.” He lived up to his reputation for being an effective orator.  He sounded strong and sincere, even as he uttered nonsense.  As many pundits pointed out, portions of his speech might have been given by George Bush or Ronald Reagan.

His grade average drops a bit with regard to substance.  It again reflected Obama’s talent for style over substance.  He talked a lot about what America is going to do, but very little about how.  He identified the problem, but was short on solution.  What he said he would not do, “boots on the ground,” was more definitive than what he would do – other than the continuation of an airstrike strategy over more geography.

His greatest problem and lowest grade involves his credibility.  He came to the podium as one of the least admired and least trusted presidents in American history.  Six years of popular campaign-style language unsupported by implementation and consistency has put his general credibility in the negative zone.  He did not improve his score with this speech.

He said he wants congress involved, although he did not say in what role – to give constitutional authority, to give only advice, or to merely be rubber stamp audience to his rhetoric.  His call for congressional partnership is provably disingenuous since he has not called on them for action.  For the first time, Congress may authorize military action without an official request from the President.  Again, he is leading from behind.

His limited strategy, based on the use of non-American military on the all essential ground war, was greeted with skepticism by knowledgeable military and political leaders – and by a majority of Americans.

His assistance that there will be no U.S. “boots on the ground” failed to pass the veracity test since he, in the same breath, announced increased troop deployment.  The fact that our fliers will be dropping bombs on enemies who have the weaponry to shoot them down seems to be war by definition.

More than 1600 armed soldiers are “in harm’s way,” regardless of their alleged non-combat duties.  Despite the parsed words of the President, there will be “boot on the ground.”  Our military will be positioned next to local military personal and subject to attack.  The “no boots on the ground” policy will be revoked the minute American soldier are killed on in the air or on the ground.

Obama’s credibility takes is deepest dip in his proposed reliance on regional forces to cover the ground game.  It is absurd in view of what we already know about their fervor, loyalty and capability.  Only months ago, Obama demeaned them as “former farmers, teachers and pharmacists.”

The war on ISIS, and terrorism in general, cannot be won with airstrikes alone.  Even the president knows that.  To date, Obama has not put together a credible allied force on the ground – it seems more and more likely, he never will.  What then.

Obama is obsessed not to make his efforts seem like a redo of Bush’s war.  He ignores the fact that the Bush’s Iraq war started with a much larger and more involved “coalition of the willing,” the support of the United Nations and an affirmative vote from Congress.  All this runs contrary to Obama’s narrative and his belief that he is a far superior and more successful president than Bush.

Using the surgical targeting in Somalia and Yemen as an example of his ISIS policy was inexplicable in view of the fact that terrorism is rampant and growing to both nations.  Obama’s  selective bombing policy is failing Yemen, and marginally successful because the Somali government has been vigorously fighting terrorists before we got involved.

The President further damaged his own credibility by offering two juxtaposed assessments.  At one point, he argued that ISIS and other terrorist groups pose a national security to the nation.  Later he said they did not pose “an immediate threat.”  This flies in the face of all intelligence reports. He claimed to already have the legal authority but would go to Congress.  That promise has already been reversed.

Obama claimed his actions were nothing like Iraq and Afghanistan when it seems to have all the same characteristics.  He anticipates a multiyear military engagement.  Yet, there is a sense that he wishes to fight this war with one hand restrained.  Virtually every military expert and leader has concurred that we cannot defeat and destroy international terrorism without entering Syria and without adequate “boots on the ground.”  If the local security forces are not adequate, will Obama break his pledge or will he conduct a long lingering stalemate until he leaves office?

Obama sadly revealed that his words are always in campaign mode when he shifted from the crisis at hand to a political commercial for his stewardship on domestic issues.  By his words alone, he would like the American public to believe that we are safer today.  He talked about the economy and employment as if we were in the middle of an “Obama boom.”  This shift from the crisis to exaggerated campaign rhetoric diminished the meaning and impact of the entire speech.  It again revealed a President who can only think in partisan and personal political terms.  It was shameless.

As is often the case, Obama’s words suffered a disconnect from both known facts and likely future prospects.  His strong rhetoric may carry the day as we give the President the momentary benefit of doubt, but events and outcomes will provide the longer historic review.  If we can draw from his six-year history, the Obama administration will be doing a lot of shifting and parsing in the coming months as reality challenges his rhetoric.