And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Archive for the ‘President Obama, Congress, Democrats, Republicans, Islam, Muslim, terrorists,’ Category

In case you haven’t been watching the news this past week  this Heritage article will bring you up to date.    Obama got off the teleprompter last year and  we all know what happens when our amateur president fails to follow the written script:  he goofs!  but this time he goofed and will probably get our buns in the middle of a Middle East war.  Of course this is exactly what I believe he has been trying to do because  a war is the fastest way to totally bankrupt a country, raise the ire of the citizens to bring about riots in the streets so that (like the dictator’s script calls for)  he as President can for martial law and  call out the troops to put the riots down  and then he will have the country totally under his control.

Ours is a war weary country with a depleted and  exhausted  military.  If the Congress dares to go along and give Obama the power to go to war he will have the scapegoats he needs to blame the war that he gets us into.  He has already begun pointing the finger of blame in his speech in Sweden yesterday by blaming the rest of the world for “drawing the red line”.  No, it wasn’t his red line!  Then as is always the case the rest of his gang had their stories ready and both Kerry and Hagel echo Obamas words exactly during the hearings in the House.

Read the following article and bring yourself up to date then sit back and watch your country be dragged into a war in an area of the world that has been at war since the dawn of time!  BB

 

Obama’s Goals in Syria Remain Unclear

September 4, 2013 at 4:35 pm

Pat Benic/UPI/Newscom

Pat Benic/UPI/Newscom

Red lines work only when they are red. This is one of the foreign policy lessons President Obama has not learned.

The President has had to redefine what his “red line” on chemical weapons use constituted in Syria and has not explained a clear plan for America’s involvement in the conflict. Consulting with Congress before making such a statement would have been a better course of action. America is now faced with losing credibility if the President doesn’t follow through on his irresponsible ultimatum.    ( I BB personally do not give a damned what the rest of the world thinks of the US>  since we were stupid enough to elected this fool not once but twice we have no standing in the world anyhow.  We are laughing stocks!  Suck it up and elected  a President who will give us back our pride next time!  )

After the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted narrowly to authorize the use of force in Syria, Obama may think the red line he wavered on in recent months is vindicated. Nevertheless, neither the President nor his top officials have indicated what they intend to accomplish by attacking Syria.

While seeking congressional approval for any involvement is a step in the right direction, many strategic and security questions remain unanswered. James Carafano, Heritage’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, examines a number of lessons Obama has not learned leading up to this decision.

One comes from the George W. Bush Administration: “Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan.” The decision to take military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was broadly approved by Congress, the U.N., and the public. When the U.S. began to struggle in these conflicts and casualties rose, that support meant something.

The final lesson Carafano lists is “Think before you act.” Jim Phillips, Heritage senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs, argues that “military force is a blunt and bloody instrument for sending signals. Those signals may not have the desired consequences. If Assad brushes them off and continues his serial mass murders, then the Administration will look ineffective and irresolute.” If Obama directs the use of force in Syria, does he have an end goal? How will he achieve the defined objectives? Without answers to these questions, he likely cannot justify military engagement.

In discussing the use of chemical weapons in Syria on Saturday, President Obama declared, “This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security.” While few would argue that the use of chemical weapons is morally egregious, the President has not articulated what the attack directly means for U.S. security.  (chemical weapons have been around a long time and certainly can be used on the united States and in the future no doubt in my mind they will be as soon as a Muslim terrorist groups gets their hands on them!   But short of qan all out war with so-called boot on the ground to find and do away with these WMD’s they will still be around.  these are the same WMD’s that Saddam hussein had in Iraq and was able to get over to Syria before President Bush could get a coalition of the world to go along with his attack of Iraq.  The WMD’s were then of course not found because they had been shipped across the border.  So unless it is a sneak and swift attack and the targets are the WMD’s then count on them being used on us sooner or later. With big mouth Obama giving the enemy a written script of our intentions this surely will never happen  so the probability is that we will only  mess around and piss the Muslims off  so they will attack us with the dreaded chemicals  sooner!  BB)

In yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the use of force in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry did not illustrate the specific threats to U.S. national security interests. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel did not clarify what the strategic objectives are in executing a strike. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey did not adequately answer how things had changed since his previous warnings on military force in Syria. Perhaps the President should reflect on the fact that his top defense and foreign affairs officials cannot articulate what we will be accomplishing by using military force in Syria.

In concluding his remarks, the President said, “I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.” Yet congressional authorization alone does not justify the use of force in Syria or anywhere else. U.S. military force should not be used without first understanding and articulating the benefits of such actions to U.S. security interests.

 

(understand this: NOT ONE Country in the world is with the United States in this.  NOT ONE!  Even the arab countries which might be affected by this breach by the Syrian government do not want the United States to attack!  BB)

 

 

 

It is my belief that Israel is now taking out Hamas in the Gaza Strip first before they take out Iran.  Sort of a clean up operation on their borders and a warning to the rest of the Arab world to stand down while  they go after Iran.   All of the Middle Eastern countries want Iran taken out and they also want Israel to be the one to do it so they can then raise Holy Hell about it and the inhumanity of killing all the innocent Iranians so brutally.  The bombs to take out Iran’s nuclear program will of necessity have to kill many thousands of Iran’s population because the Iranian government made sure to place the nuclear facilities directly under or in population centers!!   this is very common practice among the Muslims who care nothing for human beings.

The Israelis  will of course have to make a ground advance in order to get the missile sites in Gaza without killing off a lot of civilians.  Israel is concerned for killing children whereas the terrorist use the children (schools and hospitals) as  shields from which to launch their weapons.  To use missiles to take out these missile sites would kill so many, so Israel must send in its soldiers to get the weapons.

As usual the world is against Israel and it’s right to exist.  Obama did his level best to support Hamas  with his  officious statement that “Israel has a right to defend itself” then going on to warn against a ground offensive warning that that would destroy any peace negotiations.  Like these so-called “peace negotiations” have been going on since the 1880′s !!    Yes, I know Israel was not even formed until 1948,   but the talking about a homeland for the dispersed Jews started a century before that.  The homeland that was given to them by God Himself !  If you believe the Bible you must then believe that the Jews were given the land of Canaan by God Himself.  They are the only people whom God Himself gave a homeland of their own and after 5000 years of living on that land except for short periods when they were driven out, they were finally dispersed all over the Earth.    It is long past time for the Jew to return and no man or group on Earth has the right to take away what God has given.  Oddly enough the very people who are denying the Jews claim to believe in the Bible; both the Christians and the Muslims believe in the Old Testament and claim it as the oldest portion of their holy book.  How ironic is that?

Anyhow, the following article is a good summation of what is happening and just by chance happens to back up my own thoughts on the matter  :).  BB

The Escalating Conflict Between Hamas and Israel

By James Phillips

Over the last four days, militants in Gaza have fired more than 840 rockets at Israel. Hamas rockets have reached the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv for the first time, thanks to the smuggling of Iranian rockets into Gaza. The increasing range and sophistication of Palestinian rockets has expanded the reach of terrorists, who now can threaten up to half of Israel’s population.

Israel has intercepted 302 of those rockets with its Iron Dome missile defense system, according to the Israel Defense Forces. Iron Dome, on which the U.S. has collaborated, has proven its worth and underscored the importance of missile defense in future U.S. military budgets.

Meanwhile, Iran is seeking—successfully—to keep the pot boiling at Israel’s expense to distract international attention from its nuclear program. A leaked International Atomic Energy Agency report indicates that Iran could soon double the number of centrifuges at its Fordo facility from 700 to 1,400.

President Obama spoke out on the fighting yesterday, saying Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas’s missile attacks from Gaza. But he urged Israel not to launch a ground assault in Gaza, saying it would put Israeli soldiers, as well as Palestinian citizens, at greater risk and hamper an already vexing peace process.

“If we see a further escalation of the situation in Gaza, the likelihood of us getting back on any kind of peace track that leads to a two-state solution is going to be pushed off way into the future,” Obama said.

This public statement will only strengthen Hamas’s determination to continue its rocket terrorismand reap the propaganda benefits from Israeli retaliatory air strikes, because the President’s statement lowers the perceived risks of an Israeli ground intervention. Moreover, it is continued Palestinian terrorism that is the chief barrier to peace, not Israel’s legitimate efforts to protect its own citizens from indiscriminate Palestinian terrorist attacks.

Egypt, Turkey, and the Arab League have heavily criticized Israel and called for a halt of air strikes. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and hopes to pull in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime to tilt the balance against Israel. Egypt’s government will seek to have its cake and eat it, too, in the sense that it will use the crisis to denounce Israel, support Hamas, and play to anti-Israeli sentiments at home while trying to mediate a ceasefire behind the scenes that enhances its influence and justifies continued U.S. and Western aid.

If they genuinely wanted to stop the bloodshed, then these leaders should pressure Hamas to stop the bombardment, which triggered the crisis.

Obama, too, should aim primarily at restraining Hamas, not Israel.

Hamas, as usual, is bent on advancing its radical Islamist agenda at the expense of Palestinian national interests. It is a revolutionary movement more interested in destroying Israel than in building a Palestinian state or protecting Palestinians from another humanitarian tragedy that it has engineered.

Israel has called up 75,000 reservists and massed armor and at least 30,000 troops along the border, underscoring that it is serious about launching a ground intervention if Hamas continues its indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli civilians.

The U.S. needs to stand with Israel against terrorism and support its right to defend itself against a ruthless enemy that hides among Palestinian civilians to launch rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians. Hamas routinely uses children as shields. There can be no Israeli–Palestinian peace until Hamas and other Islamists are defeated and discredited.

James Phillips is the Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He has written extensively on Middle Eastern issues and international terrorism since 1978.

 

CLICK HERE to download a PDF of this document

 

Articles: Republican Delusion is Obama’s All-Too-Secret Weapon.

Republicans are known RIGHTLY! for being adept at snatching defeat from victory.  Why this is so often baffles many of us, but this article in American Thinker has some serious answers and perhaps can serve as a warning to those of us who react in the ways outlined in the article.  It seems the most important and potentially devastating Republican characteristic in self-defeat is overly optimistic and willing to believe verbal please of innocence even against all evidence of past negative actions.  In other words: STOP BEING MR. NICE GUYS!  BB

If you have limited time for the Internet I suggest American Thinker be at the top of your list of sites to go to first.  Just run thru the titles of articles and choose those that appear to offer you the information you need and I promise you will remain or become well informed on national and international affairs.  BB

Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden) | The Blaze.

I have blogged in the past on this United Nations plan to strip the United States of it’s wealth and  give it to poorer countries.  It’s Obama’s plan!  His “spreading the wealth around” world wide agenda.  I don’t think there are many Americans who have not gotten the idea finally that  Obama cares more for almost any nation except the United States.  He was clear about his agenda and his interests long before he was elected but no enough of us were listening.  One question?  If you planned to rob the riches family in the neighborhood what is the best way of going about it?  GETTING INSIDE THE HOUSE AS A TRUSTED GUEST OR EMPLOYEE OF COURSE!  And that is what Obama was able to do.  And we are seeing this being played out right now as he and his cohorts use the unions to accomplish his plans.  The  National Labor Relations  Board-union vs.Boeing building a plant  in South Carolina is a blatant step in this direction.  I will bet anyone that no such action would have taken place if Boeing had chosen to move out of the United States!  The EPA Environmental Protection Agency is another of Obama’s instruments; the United States can not drill in our waters but our tax dollars are being given to Mexico and Brazil to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.  BB

Read this article carefully because We the People have to know the plan in order to save ourselves.  Also be sure and listen to the videos and go to the sites suggested.  Spread the word so that others know how to turn the tide on these thieves.  BB

Is the Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only it Is Not Hidden)

What is Agenda 21?  If you do not know about it, you should.

Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.

‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right?  It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.

At risk from Agenda 21;

  • Private Property ownership
  • Single-Family homes
  • Private car ownership and individual travel choices
  • Privately owned farms

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property.  For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;

Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

Click here to find out more!

Source: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I),Vancouver, BC, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Preamble to Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report.

There are two more, very good reasons to be wary of Agenda 21 and the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) that supports it: George Soros and the United Nations. Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI ;

In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project

As regards the UN, that organization‘s problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination is one that needs no explanation.

Currently in California, Agenda 21 is working to implement plans to create plans for sustainable management of ‘open spaces.‘ The definition of what is to be considered an ’open space’ has sparked some heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who want private property rights to be respected and protected. (The East Bay Tea Party video featuring a Liberal Democrat arguing against ICLEI can be seen at the end of this article.)

This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). And ICLEI is deeply entrenched in America;

ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.

Over six hundred cities,towns and counties in America are members of ICLEI? Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a UN-based organization that wants private property transferred to government control? If you would like to see if your community is a member of ICLEI, you can visit their website.

Austin, Texas is one city that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI/Agenda 21 and was heavily consuming the ‘Communitariasm’ Kool-aid. A local group called Texans For Accountable Government saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. One of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored. Watch his short argument against the proposed local law immediately followed by the lopsided vote adopting the plan.

In the world of business Agenda 21 is not a free market friend, preferring PPPs or Private Public Partnerships where the government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE (a company that paid no tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. And the WH efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America.

The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of Gro Harlem Brundtland (a woman who at the time was Vice President of the World Socialist Party) caught the eye of the UN.  Dr. Brundtland wrote a report for the UN called, ‘Our Common Future’ eventually got into the business of environmentalism as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a global government. The growth of ICLEI and the framework being put in place by supporters of Agenda 21 appear to be bringing Dr. Brundtland’s ideas closer to reality

In recent months, citizen groups across the country have organized and become involved in the removal of towns and cities from membership in ICLEI. The Roanoke, VA Tea Party is holding a rally this week in an effort to have ICLEI removed from their local government.

For a better understanding of Agenda 21 and ICLEI we suggest: The American Policy Center offers a one-page primer on Agenda 21.

From the Bay Area Tea Party we offer a long-form video covering Agenda 21;

The featured speaker at the Tea Party meeting, Rosa Koire, is a liberal Democrat who understands that Agenda 21 will destroy America as we know it. Rosa’s website, DemocratsAgainstAgenda21.com is also worth a visit.

AP‘s ’Fact Check‘ Hammers Obama’s Speech | The Blaze.

I am borrowing a name for our President from a blogging friend when I call Obama our Liar in Chief.    Well our Liar in chief is doing his very best to get the United States involved in the blazing explosions in the Middle East by starting this whole thing and now he is lying to justify his actions. This is of course normal behavior for Obama.  If ever a President should be impeached it is this monster!  and those who are his cronies.  Everyone involved from Secretary of Defense Gates to Hillary  are stumbling all over themselves trying to explain and justify this thing and all with conflicting tales to tell.  BB

AP‘s ’Fact Check‘ Hammers Obama’s Speech

    WASHINGTON (AP) — There may be less than meets the eye to President Barack Obama’s statements Monday night that NATO is taking over from the U.S. in Libya and that U.S. action is limited to defending people under attack there by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

    In transferring command and control to NATO, the U.S. is turning the reins over to an organization dominated by the U.S., both militarily and politically. In essence, the U.S. runs the show that is taking over running the show.

    And the rapid advance of rebels in recent days strongly suggests they are not merely benefiting from military aid in a defensive crouch, but rather using the multinational force in some fashion — coordinated or not — to advance an offensive.

    Here is a look at some of Obama’s assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:Thumbnail1:50Added to queue Fact Check: How Obama’s Libya Claims Fit Factsby AssociatedPress1,730 views

    ___

    OBAMA: “Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. … Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gadhafi’s remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role.”

    THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

    Click here to find out more!

    NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same “unique capabilities” that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

    The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO’s budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral’s boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

    ___

    OBAMA: “Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives.”

    THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

    Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gadhafi’s forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. “Clearly they‘re achieving a benefit from the actions that we’re taking,” Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said Monday.

    The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

    Obama said “we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people,” but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

    ___

    OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has “an important strategic interest in preventing Gadhafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful – yet fragile – transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.” He added: “I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”

    THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

    “The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. “History has shown us time and again … that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”

    Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya “was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest.”

    ___

    OBAMA: “And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi’s deadly advance.”

    THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya’s air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gadhafi’s ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

    Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that “the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened.”

    Only small numbers of Gadhafi’s troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

    At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs, said the rebels are not well organized. “It is not a very robust organization,” he said. “So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.”

    ___

    OBAMA: “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

    THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

    More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

    The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

    Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

    In his pre-presidential book “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily “without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands.”

    He questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”

    Now, such questions are coming at him.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Jim Drinkard and Robert Burns contributed to this report.

    » Egypt Reminds Us We Are Running Out Of Time – Not Oil – Big Government.

    This is a great article on Egypt, the world and the United States as things stand now.  These are my thoughts exactly but the author expresses them much better than I can.   If you will recall my first comment blog on this Egypt thing was that perhaps now our government would seriously decide that we the United States should at long last use our own resources and make ourselves oil, and all sources of energy,   independent of the entire world.  We have the  enough oil to last at least two hundred years and enough coal and natural gas for that long and more before we find ourselves needing another energy source.  In two hundred years surely we will have learned enough to harness the suns energy or some other as yet unknown source so I don’t think we need to hesitate to tap our own supplies.  This has been my opinion since I became aware of our countries energy needs way back when in history—-remember I am an old broad :).

    Of more importance even than the United States oil supply is the relationships  that will be the outcome of this seismic shift in the Middle East.  How far will it spread and what or whom will rise to the top of the heap.   The entire world, at least the entire Western world has “dependent” ties to the Middle East.  What will happen if the revolution spreads?  What will happen if extreme Muslims rise to the top?  What will happen to the European nations who are already having difficulty with their multi-cultural societies that shut Muslims out and have now created a Muslim nation within their nations?  So many questions and no real answers; we just have to wait for developments.

    And while we are waiting we have in the White House a fool who enjoys hearing himself make unfortunately asinine statements and speeches.  BB

    Egypt Reminds Us We Are Running Out Of Time – Not Oil

    by Thomas Del Beccaro

    What is going to happen next in Egypt?  According to Mubarak, “the result will be extremism and radical Islam.”  Others aren’t so sure.  What is certain is that the risk factor in the Middle East has risen again.  That means the world’s oil supply is at risk as well.  A wise country would do what it could to insulate its people from that risk.  It is beyond a serious question as to whether the United States will.

    Revolutions are not things of certainty. For instance, once underway, the ideals and prospects for the French Revolution once were touted by the likes of our own Jefferson and Madison. Washington, the soldier among the three, was far more circumspect.  The freedom won by the likes of the Marquis Lafayette in the early days of the French Revolution was lost not long after in the ensuing chaos.  Lafayette, the same man who helped win our Revolution, would eventually be jailed for years while many thousands died in The Terror before Napoleon dashed any hope for democracy.  So much for the foresight of our 3rd and 4th Presidents – they fanned the early embers only to see those embers engulf a nation.  (Perhaps a lesson for nations today: keep your mouths shut!  No hope that Obama will  listen or leanr. BB)

    Our current President encouraged those taking part in the first Act of Egypt’s current drama.  Given that it was the military of Egypt that removed an intransigent Mubarak and now run its streets, it can hardly be said that freedom has been assured.  The difficult part lies ahead.  The only certainty in front of us now is uncertainty.  (I will say here that the Egyptians Army at least at the top is heavy with people who have studied and trained in the United States with several top generals being graduates of our military academies. As a result the Army has always had a rapport with our Army if not our government.  Don’t know how this will help but it certainly can’t hurt.  BB)

    Returning to the French Revolution, its effects were hardly restricted to the French.   International trade was affected and the rise of Napoleon brought serious concerns of war in the United States and actual wars to Europe.  Egypt may play a similar role today.

    Will Mubarak be right about the future of Egypt?

    He points out that ‘We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that’s the fate of the Middle East.’”  If Mubarak is right then Israel will be surrounded by sworn enemies on virtually every side.  The risk to international trade in oil and beyond would be significant.  Even if he is wrong, the trajectory of Israel’s enemies threatens our economic security.

    Of course, the threat to the United States is self-imposed. Never has history recorded that a super power has elevated commerce to a level of dependence on those doing it harm. We indeed are the first such power that directly funds, in staggering amounts, those countries that harbor or fund our most principal enemies – and we have done so not for a moment in time but for years on end. History will hardly forgive such an error.  (Even if the people of the Middle East generally like Americans and envy our way of life and freedoms they hate our government for what Washington has done to keep them under the yoke of dictators for decades.   we the People allowed this to happen!  While we were wallowing in our  affluence we turned either a blind eye or no eye at on on Washington.  It is just now that we are seeing how this neglect has almost lost us our liberties. Soon we will take notice of what our government has done to make America hated all over the world.  Will We the People pay the price for this neglect? BB)

    By failing to tap our own plentiful resources, that one policy decision has meant:

    (1) that the price of oil is therefore artificially high,

    (2) that we pay an inflated price for oil with dollars that fund terrorists,

    (3) that we pay excessive foreign aid to buy “stability” among the troubled nations of the region,

    (4) that we have higher defense budgets and more wars,

    (5) that we have less jobs here at home,

    (6) that we subsidize Americans who cannot afford the artificially high oil prices we helped create, and

    (7) that we generally endure a self-imposed, lower standard of living.  (This one may surprise some of you, but just give it some thought.  All the jobs we would have for Americans if we tapped  our own resources.  How much money we would have in taxes with a booming economy and thus much in taxes as well as saved by not funding the tyrants and buying friendships.  And, far fewer wars and “interests” to protect.  Better lives for all including those who protect uour country!    Our potential is to be the riches and most advanced country in the world just for changing our governments negative involvement in the world! BB)

    It has been our national policy to do so much damage to ourselves as no civilizations before us has.

    Now with the potential explosion of the Middle East staring us in the face, we face the potential of $5, $6 and $7 a gallon gasoline prices if not worse.

    A wise country would plan ahead to avoid such danger.  We would hire American workers, to tap American resources, to lower the price of oil, to reduce government subsidies to our citizens, to reduce the amount of money going to terrorists and the states that fund them, to lessen the need for foreign aid and to lower our defense budgets if not the need for war – all in the name of security and preserving our standard of living.  So many benefits could flow from the reversal of one bad policy decision.

    We would do all of that because if Jefferson and Madison could be wrong on France – I have no doubt that this Administration – which can hardly run this government – will be wrong in its estimates on how Egypt will fare.

    American Thinker: Egypt, the United States, and the Ghost of Khomeini.

    Another view of what happened in the past and what is happening now that again is fairly accurate.  Carter did handle the Iraq rebellion all wrong.  He should have backed the Shah even tho he was a dictator.  He was moving his people towards democracy and closer to the West.  But like Obama Carter was not about to ask for any advise except from his inter circle of yes men.   Unlike Obama however Carter did not want the country to be governed by hostile fanatic Islamists, which Obama does.

    This auther has I believe the only sensible mode of transition.  Let us hope someone in our government  sees it and take the suggestion.

    While you’re  at it please do read the comments as they are telling.  The one especially interesting is:  “Posted by: Pegasus66

    Feb 02, 09:07 AM

    As we watch events in Egypt, do not ignore our own government. While Obama demands Mubarak reactivate the internet and phone service there, Sen. Lieberman has introduced an Internet Killswitch bill saying it is needed to safeguard against cyber attacks here. Let’s not go there! Like the dreaded “fairness doctrine” it is one more attempt by Progressives to silence conservative voices, even if they don’t specifically say so. It would all depend upon who’s finger was on the switch. There is a good description of the history of this bill at: [thehill.com] Freedom of communication is part of being a really free people.”
    My thanks go to Georgy Gounev for this article.  BB

    February 02, 2011

    Egypt, the United States, and the Ghost of Khomeini

    By Georgy Gounev

    Are there any similarities between Iran of 1978 and Egypt of 2011?  Sadly, yes.
    To start with, autocratic leaders who gradually managed to alienate the majority of their populations ruled both countries for thirty years.  Both statesmen suppressed the activities of the democratically inclined and secular political forces — a huge mistake that brought about the fatal narrowing of the social base of their regimes.  Undoubtedly, Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was a dependable American ally, who for the duration of his domination over Iran was able to bring stability into a volatile, very important, and permanently explosive region.  The same characteristic is valid for President Mubarak of Egypt.  Last but not least, both secular leaders and the regimes created by them faced the opposition of the Islamic fundamentalists.
    It is obvious that there are also important differences between the situations in Iran and Egypt.  The most important one is the status of both leaders with regard to the army.  Given the military credentials of President Mubarak, his relationship with the officer corps of the Egyptian army, and the degree of his control over it, he continues to exercise at least a certain degree of influence even in the midst of the crisis.  An important fact that should not be ignored is the far more important role played by the Egyptian army, which since July 1952 has the status of a guarantor of the political system of the country — a fact that provides Mubarak with leverage the shah didn’t have.  (It seems to me we saw tonight that Mubarak hasn’t the influence over the Army that he would want.  the tanks did not shoot at the people when they finally took action.  they shot over the heads and really did more to disperse the Mubarak police than the up to today peaceful protesters.  BB
    Looking at both situations from different angles, there was a similarity between the reactions of the American leaders to both challenges.  President Jimmy Carter back in 1978 and President Barack Obama now have a primarily negative view of the dictatorial leaders from the Middle East.  The first reaction of President Obama to the Egyptian crisis was remarkably similar to President Carter’s attitude to the first outbreak of the mass demonstrations against the shah three decades ago.  In both cases, the essence of the high-level warnings issued by Washington to the dictators was not to use force against peaceful demonstrations expressing the will of the people.
    In both cases, the presidents of the United States were wrong, (IMO the advice was not wrong.  BB)  because the demonstrations shaking Tehran at the time and Cairo now have a clearly visible violent and Islamic component. (This is true.) As far as the current crisis ravaging Egypt is concerned, there are three extremely important dimensions that remain hidden to President Obama (or did he deliberately ignore them?).  The first one involves the mysterious release of hundreds of criminals, including a large number of hardcore jihadists, from Cairo jails.  The second dimension involves the abandonment of the Egyptian control over the border with the Gaza Strip — a situation that enabled the appearance on the Egyptian political scene of some Hamas related “activists” who undoubtedly will extend support to their ideological “brothers” from the Muslim Brotherhood.  The third and an extremely important dimension of the Egyptian crisis is the immense role an American strategy will play in its solution.
    Before discussing such a positive approach, however, what should be underlined is the fact that the absence of such a strategy will bring a real calamity to the long-term strategic interests of the United States.  At the same time, instead of living in dreams about democratic society, the people of Egypt will be seized by the tentacles of a new dictatorship immeasurably worse than the autocratic regime of Hosni Mubarak.
    In order to prevent such a disaster, American policymakers should act immediately.  Their first step should express itself by sending a message to the commandant of the Egyptian army that in Washington’s eyes, the army should play the role of a temporary custodian of the country until the outcome of the elections already scheduled for September. During the period preceding the elections, the American diplomats and special envoys should establish contacts with the representatives of the new secular and democratic organizations that will make their appearance on the political scene of the country.
    This situation will provide at least a certain amount of hope that a national debate preceding the elections will expose the intentions of the Islamic fundamentalists to make use of a democratic rhetoric while pursuing dictatorial goals.  Luckily, at least occasionally, the jihadists are very open in discussing their ideas.  Research conducted by the University of Maryland between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007 with 1,000 respondents who sympathized with the Muslim Brotherhood showed that 675 of them expressed their preference for the unification of all Islamic countries “into a single Islamic State or Caliphate.”
    The danger looming over Egypt is a serious one.  There is still hope, however, that the country won’t display the naïveté of the leaders of the Iranian democratic forces, who paid with their lives for the tragic mistake of trusting the sweet talk of Khomeini.  All those who have forgotten the lessons of the Iranian tragedy should be reminded that what the ayatollah was offering was the creation of “a unified front against the dictatorship of the shah.”
    Georgy Gounev teaches Contemporary Mid-East History and International Relations at two California colleges.  He and authored the book The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon. The Islamization of Europe and its Impact on American-Russian Relations, scheduled for publication in March or April.
    9 Comments on “Egypt, the United States, and the Ghost of Khomeini

    Obama seems not to have been able to keep his mouth shut again and naturally what came out was totally devoid of any understanding of history let alone current events and relationships.  In the first place the United States should have followed the lead of the only country that has EVERYTHING to lose in this situation: Israel!  Israel is saying nothing, nothing at all.  This is what the rest of the world is doing also.  But our demented government has to speak up and make things much much worse.  With Obama’s first speech he gave Mubarak the out of staying in control  until September by telling him that he Mubarak must see that there are free and honest elections in September.   The people want the dictator out now, not in September eight months from now. There was the possibility the Army, which is trusted by the people, could have taken over and  supervised a fair election AFTER Mubarak left the country with all his corrupt cronies with him.  The military was just staying in place vowing they would not fire on their own people while trying to get the government to lift all the bans and allow the country to get back to  operating with some stability.  They wanted Mubarak to open up the Internet, phone service, water, power, banking, garbage pick up and everything else the government had shut down to  force the people back.

    Now Obama speaks again and we see more violent fighting among those who want the government to change and those who want the government to stay.  It is my belief there are no forces who want the Mubarak dictatorship with the corruption and attendant poverty of the people  to stay in power.  There is however the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and any number of groups hostile to the United States and Israel who want, and in fact,  thrive on chaos.  Chaos will allow the killers to come in and dominate!

    The second speech was taken as a sign for more  violence and an invitation for the Muslims terrorists to come in as he seemed to be throwing Mubarak over and take the place of the people.  But what I heard was Obama calling for violence and chaos with that speech.  Listen closely to it once more and watch the body language and listen to the words that he emphasizes.  Remember  his government “never let’s a good crisis go to waste” and Obama is all for the Muslim world ruling the world.  We have all seen over and over again how Obama bows before the Muslim world.

    In the meantime there seems to be a more peaceful turn over of government in Tunisia.  I hope this remains the case.

    I just sw3itched on the TV and I  am seeing what I prayed I would not see.  Dear Lord this is bad.  As I am watching TV now at 3:39 pm Eastern time here and 10 pm or there abouts  in Egypt there is much violence and gun fire and the Army has had to move in.  They are firing over the heads of the people in hopes they will disperse to their homes.

    Oh well, you’re watching to.  I am afraid that if Egypt goes to the Muslims then the entire Mediterranean and Middle East will be  gone to Islam.  We will be standing alone to watch Israel, Great Britain, Germany  disappear under the power and numbers of the hordes.  Unlike WWII the United States is no longer in a position to help to save the world.   The Roman Empire was swallowed by the hordes also.  Isn’t that the way we have always known our civilization would disappear?

    I have been listening to Glenn Beck this week and hoping he was wrong in his prediction that the world would divide in three parts:  The Mediterranean and Middle East as a Muslim caliphate,  Asia and Japan and even perhaps Australia  under China and then the United States standing alone with Canada and the hodgepodge of poverty and corruption and dictatorships that is Central and south America.  BB

     

    Egypt about 11pm,  4:16 pm Eastern.  The Army has been busy pushing people out of the square.  It appears the groups who were being violent, the Pro-government people have been pushed out and the Anti-government people are staying.   The Internet and television came on shortly before all the Pro-government hordes attached those in the square.  How convenient for Mubarak!   The Army has appeared to be with the Anti-government people up to this point and they still seem to be, but it is a tough call.  BB


    See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

    Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 93 other followers

    BB’s file cabinet

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 93 other followers