Wednesday, November 30, 2011


It looks like Pakistan is acting up again. This is no surprise as Pakistan has been fighting Islamic nationalists for decades. I believe that Pakistan is losing and the moves to block supply of NATO forces in Afghanistan are just the latest moves.

Pakistan was behind the Taliban obtaining power in Afghanistan back in the late 1990’s. I believe that the Pakistani government began to work with the U.S., as President Musharraf was a good ally. Now that he is gone, I believe that Pakistan is beginning to swing back to its old ways. Not that it was fully in our camp, but the while the decision maker was Musharraf, the Pakistan military was helping the U.S. more than it was working against us. I believe this to be a different case today.

Remember how Turkey pulled its authorization for the U.S. to base our troops out of Turkey just 48 hours before our assault on Iraq? Even though Turkey is a different situation, Pakistan can easily turn out to be worse. It will not be known for certain for many years, but this can be a situation where our divisive President has made an uncertain ally into a definitive enemy.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

President Obama is a divider. Part II

I have never seen my country so badly divided. I am counting Vietnam. At least during that time, the political division was basically within the Democrat party. We are seeing division along numerous lines today. Political in Democrat and Republican (Worse than I have seen) Race seems to be an issue. (Herman Cain was particularly obvious) We have rich and poor with the ‘Rich’ not ‘paying their fair share’. Now I am a ‘rich’ bastard who needs to have my money ‘invested’ by our President and the ‘ruling’ party into whatever THEY feel is a good place to put national resources. The fact that what I have saved and invested and built for MY family is one of the core of my beliefs. I gave up many things growing up so that I could provide better for a family that I have wanted since high school. I remember not going skiing (In the 1970’s it cost about $50.00 to go for a day) so that I could save and invest for my future family. I feel that this makes me American more than most other things. I have had my share of luck, but I gave up a great deal in order to obtain what I have. And now this means that I am not ‘paying my fair share’? So now I am the bad guy because I want to save and hold on to what I have for my family and myself? I am now part of the problem, in more than one way.

Instead of wanting to ‘reach across the aisle’ like I desperately wanted to with President Carter and President Clinton, I want NO DEALS with President Obama. I am digging in. During the last 3 years, it is calculated that the United States government has obtained control of close to 50% of the private sector of our economy. (This is counting the effects of Health Care, the bailouts of the banks and auto industry by obtaining controlling interests in those companies.) This is decidedly NOT American in concept. Our country was founded upon principals the OPPOSITE of this. That individuals (Myself and others) and private organizations will allocate the resources of our country better and more effectively than our government. And our government is doing this so that WE can find out how well it works. President Obama is now right. I AM now a problem.

Remember what President Obama said about the police after his friend at Harvard had been hassled? “I don’t know all the facts, but the police acted stupidly.” If he did not know the facts, how could he possibly know if ANYONE acted wisely or not? This incident is unimportant when taken in the context of political events that are driving our country. However, this incident tells me about the man who was supposed to ‘work with the other side’ WITHOUT preconditions. And this is what was showing as bright as day on Monday when President Obama complained that the Republicans in Congress were not doing their jobs. This was his view as to why the “super committee” was failing to reach any kind of a deal. President Obama is once again right. I am now a problem because I don’t want ANY law with his signature that does ANYTHING except what I want it to. I want no compromise at all. I don’t care if he likes it or not. He can find out what it does AFTER it becomes law. Now we see eye to eye.

President Obama has made me into a real enemy. As an American, I have been and was still willing to suffer under Democrat Presidents and make deals so that OUR country can move forward. No longer do I feel this way. Now I am insisting that no deals be made so that MY country does not have to undo ANYTHING that he does. We can move forward AFTER he is GONE. If this is not divided, I do not know what is. Once again, President Obama is correct. I am NOW a part of why nothing can be done. In the past, I have been opposed to Democrat policy. I considered myself a Republican version of President Clinton. I would not like it, but I would work with Democrats to move forward. Today, I refuse to cooperate at all. This is real CHANGE. We are getting exactly what we voted for. Now all we can do is HOPE that his administration becomes history and we can undo the damage that has been done. This is division, not ‘reaching across the aisle’ and working together.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

President Obama is a divider

Hope and CHANGE was a driving force behind President Obama’s election. He was going to ‘reach across the aisle’ and get us working together. This concept was going to make the entire world better as he was going to ‘reach out’ to our enemies and talk with them without any pre-conditions.

I am a political conservative. So, naturally I am going to disagree with a Democrat who is President. I have a history of doing so. I barely remember President Johnston, so I won’t go into him. I do remember having serious disagreements with President Carter. (I voted for the other guy) However, he made it clear right from the beginning that he was driven by compassion. His motive was to help and I could see this whenever he made a public appearance. I may have disagreed with him on how he was going to do what he wanted to, but I could not doubt his sincerity.

President Clinton was of a different cloth. I also disagreed with him, but I could see him ‘reaching across the aisle’ on domestic issues. He made deals that I did not like, but I could see where my views were being taken into account. I did not like his foreign policy, nor did I like him. However, I had to respect that he became moderate after the elections in 1994. He moved toward the center even though I know that he did not want to.

President Obama is nothing like those two. He may be driven by compassion like President Carter, but I can’t see it. During the campaigning, he came across as if he was going to be a moderate. He spoke like one, and he kept talking about how he was going to ‘work with everyone’. He is not only not doing this, but he is blaming me for my not ‘reaching out’ to him.

It began with President Obama sending back the bust of Winston Churchill. No better example of two countries cooperation exists than between England and the U.S. in all of recorded history. Then President Obama is ticked off when he is not invited to the royal wedding some time later. OK, this is not a real important issue, although it does tell me about how England is not held as a strong ally in President Obama’s mind.

“We need to pass this bill so that you can find out what is in it.” This one really gets me. The Health Care debate was raging with all the fever that Social Security had brought out the two times major reform had been attempted. And with at least the same intensity that Health Care reform had brought out under President Clinton. And it was passed anyway. So that WE can find out what is in it. So much for consideration of OTHER points of view. At this point, I began to look for excuses to conflict with President Obama and the Democrats.

A number of other things came along, but the most recent was the talk that President Obama gave the other night. He was blaming the Republicans for not working with him on the ‘super committee’. With his track record, I had been surprised that they had even raised the debt limit with this deal. I had already decided to dig in, but our leadership decided to cut a deal. Naturally, it did not work. President Obama said the other night how Democrats were being flexible and the Republicans were not. It was Congress who was not giving in at all. Yet only a sentence or two later, he said that any bill passed by them that does not take into account raising revenue (Taxes) he was going to say ‘NO’. Where is the no preconditions President that we elected? Where is their room to make a deal? Does not negotiation begin with a statement of your position and then working it out? OK, President Obama was staking out his position. BEFORE ‘reaching across the aisle’. Not exactly what he claimed that he would be doing. And this has been his pattern since taking office. This is not making allies, nor is it working together. This makes enemies.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Iran is NOT going to stop waging war against us.

With Iran on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, we can expect more overt attacks upon Israel and the United States. I believe this for many reasons, but one big reason is that the government of Iran is based upon Islamic ideology.

I ran into the following comment on a site connected to Atlas Shrugs. This comment is a good indication of only one of the problems that we face when dealing with our Islamic enemy today:

"You Americans are childish, silly and histrionic. A lot like women, actually.
When my woman gets out of line, I beat her down.
Serves her right."

I replied:

I must admit, we can be childish and VERY silly.
We do love life. Unlike Islam, who an Islamic leader says: “We love death.”
I must quote an old saying: Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The put down of women is traditional Islam. Not enough of our population appears to understand this, YET. As the rise in anti-Islamic attitudes in this country indicates, we are learning. (Too slowly for my comfort)

The attitude quoted above appears to forget that we Americans can wage war with the BEST. And this war has yet to really begin. It is not generally known that the repeated suicide attackers of today are only the 2nd occurrence in all of recorded history.

The first time was Japan in the 1940's. And the US killed 'innocent' civilians intentionally. By the millions. (By the way, my wife is Japanese.)


Maybe we are not like this today. Are you certain that you want to find out?

Iran is NOT going to stop waging warfare against us. They have not even begun.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Mossad behind death of key member of Iranian missile program?

I pulled this from rt-com/news on 11/14/11

“A key figure in Iran’s missile program has been killed in an explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in the country. Some reports suggest that the blast which killed Brigade General Hassan Moghaddam and 16 others may have been an act of sabotage.
General Moghaddam was a senior officer involved in developing new long-range ballistic missile designs, and Tehran says many of its missile program’s successes were due to his special skill and expertise.
He and 16 others were killed on Saturday when a shipment of artillery shells detonated at a military site some 25 kilometers west of Tehran. The blast also left 16 people wounded.
US-based radical left-wing commentator Richard Silverstein, who is reputed to have contacts in the Israeli military, said in his blog that he was told the explosion was the work of Mossad. His source said Israeli intelligence had been working with an exile group, the People's Mojaheddin of Iran.”

This is possible. After all, Israel has the most to lose if Iran obtains nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. Mossad has performed this type of operation before, and this type of move would not be beyond Israeli capability. I would like to point out that this is not as if Iran does not have it coming to them.

The recent plot to assassinate the ambassador of Saudi Arabia was an act of war and although it was not directed at Israel, the implications of a successful assassination would have been detrimental to Israel. Not to mention that Iran has been and still is behind plenty of attacks upon Israeli interests. You know what they say about payback.

Saturday, November 12, 2011


I have been reading all sorts of stuff about the threat that Iran poses to the United States and Israel today. On the other hand, I am also reading all sorts of stuff about how Iran is NOT a threat to world peace today, and will be even less so if they obtain nuclear weapons. This point of view of Iran not being a threat misses the point of Iran’s history of exporting violence since the current government obtained power in 1979.

Iran began by committing an act of war against the U.S. by seizing our embassy in Tehran in the fall of that first year. Iran has been meddling in neighboring countries internal affairs since then. For decades now, Iran has been supporting armed Islamic groups throughout the region. Iran has been working closely with Syria in this same effort. Iran was and still is involved heavily in Iraq and was directly aiding our enemies there. Iran basically has been waging covert warfare against the U.S. and Israel since 1979. To believe that Iran is not a threat in anyway to United States interests in the Middle East is ridiculous. On the other hand, to believe that Iran will attack the United States with nuclear weapons after they were able to obtain them is to ignore Iran’s history of covert warfare. And Iran is no pushover.

Iraq was a piece of cake compared with a potential conventional war against Iran. Iraq is predominately desert. Desert is the most ideal terrain on earth (Except the oceans) for mechanized warfare. This is the type of war that the U.S. military excels at. The terrain of Iran is vastly different from Iraq: A rugged, mountainous rim; A high, central basin with desert and mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts. Mountain terrain is the worst environment in the world for a conventional force to engage in battle. The population of Iran is more than 3 times that of Iraq. These factors would demand a great deal more troops to be used in subduing Iran than Iraq. Today, the U.S. just does not have the armed troops that would be required to do the job well. We DO have the manpower. The problem is that they are in civilian clothes.

Without massive outside assistance, the U.S. would have to begin the draft in order to obtain the troop levels required to subdue Iran. Even then, this would require time. In order to expand the army this much, we would have to withdraw many experienced officers from active units to serve as cadres for the new units being formed. A large expansion would hurt many existing units’ abilities. The experienced men would help teach the new personnel their jobs in the newly forming units. These new units would take months to form and even longer to reach the level where they are ready to be committed to combat. It can take up to a full year to form a new combat ready division from scratch. In other words, Iran is already somewhat safe from a direct invasion from the U.S. military. It can be done, but it would take far more political will than any war in recent memory. If this is the case, why does Iran need nuclear weapons?

Iran would not need to deploy any nuclear weapons once they obtain them. What Iran will be enabled to do is step up it’s overt activities against us. The recent plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States is a good example. Assassination of an ambassador on U.S. soil IS an overt act of war. Even if Iran had pulled it off, would it have been worth waging war over? What if Iran has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them? If war would be a very expensive price to pay for the assassination of an ambassador, just think about how much more expensive NUCLEAR warfare would be. In other words, Iran can become much more aggressive with any action they take with the knowledge that it is not worth waging nuclear warfare as a result of any serious reaction. Of course, Iran will have limits. For example, Iran would be foolish to launch a bunch of nuclear weapons from it’s own territory at Israel or U.S. allies. But Iran would be enabled to be much more overt about it’s activities in this war that it is already engaged in. This is where the threat index is much higher than if Iran is unable to develop or obtain nuclear weapons.

* Note: I have left out the possibility that Iran could supply some Islamic group with nuclear capability that could be deployed where Iran could deny it’s own involvement. This possibility alone raises the threat simply because it is more likely than a direct nuclear attack from Iranian territory. This is to say nothing about the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Part II: The internal threat to the United States

Part II Internal threat to the United States: Financial

With a rise in debt comes a corresponding rise in the interest that becomes due on that same debt. Once you reach a certain level, just paying the interest becomes a real problem. At that point attempting to reduce the level of debt to lower the interest becomes almost impossible without draconian measures. This has happened to countries in the past and is happening in Greece today.

One serious problem we in the United States face today is the skyrocketing costs of government programs and pensions. This problem is fixable and IF dealt with properly, would go a long way toward reducing the pressure on the need for borrowed money.

Another problem we face is the takeover of the productive areas of the economy (Private ownership) by government. The Health Care system (Including private health care insurance) is a classic example. As a larger percentage of the economy becomes government run, we can expect a less efficient allocation of national resources with a corresponding drop in standard of living for the average American. What is more important, as government takes over more of the economy, the ability to pay for government programs and pensions become weaker. This can only make the debt that much larger with a corresponding rise in interest payments. So why is this a threat to the United States?

Just look at Greece. How stable is the government of Greece today? Look at the violence and unrest that is occurring in Greece today that is a result of attempts to get the debt and spending under control. Please try
to tell me that this cannot happen here. What is far more troubling is that Greece is a relatively small economy. The economy of all of Europe is also in a similar situation, although Greece is the most vulnerable. The United States is one of the largest economies in the world. We are not as far along in debt as Greece. We do have the advantage of the fact that the U.S. economy is much, much larger. Americans are human just as much as everyone else. Given a similar situation, we would see similar reactions in this country as we are witnessing in Greece today. If we allow what is happening to Greece happen to us, we would also impact the entire world in a very negative way.

This threat is not just to the United States. I am a firm believer that many conflicts and wars are caused by conflict over scarce resources. I believe that it was no coincidence that the greatest war in mankind’s history (World War II) was immediately preceded by the greatest economic downturn in mankind’s history. (The Great Depression) If we do not get the debt and spending under control, we can become (either directly or indirectly) the cause of the next Great War. By we, I am speaking of the United States AND Europe’s economic (debt) problems.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Two major threats to the United States today

One is an external threat and the other an internal threat.

Part I External: Islamic sovereignty and nationalism.

Islamic sovereignty and nationalism is not just a threat to the United States, but to the entire world. I will deal mainly with the United States, but this applies to ALL nation states of the world.

Islam represents a real danger to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. legal system and culture. The term “radical” or “extremist” Muslim is misleading. To our eyes, a “radical” or “extremist” is a very small percentage of our population. It is implied that this is true within Muslim countries. The problem is that what we consider to be “Radical or extremist” views are prevalent throughout the Muslim world. I am not referring to violence although violence is frequently a byproduct. I refer to Islamic rule and governance. Islam is not just a religion, nor can Islam be considered a ‘moderate’ legal system. The majority of Muslims from Islamic countries believe in the legal system and culture they come from. (As do most people) One basic problem that I have is that these common beliefs are not moderate by our standards.

Please note how in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia the new legal systems that are being set up will be based upon Sharia law. Sharia law is one of the most if not, THE most totalitarian system on earth. Just look at how well it works: ALL of the Middle Eastern governments (Exception: Israel) have legal systems based upon Islamic law to some degree. And just look at how much friction is resulting from contact with Israel and the countries outside the Middle East. At the same time, this Islamic ‘legal’ system is being implemented in various degrees in England, the rest of Europe and the United States. (As well as other countries) What is generally not understood about Sharia is that in addition to being a legal system, Sharia is designed to be integrated with its own foreign policy and economic policy. In other words, it is a national government in and of itself. Sharia law can be implemented in parts. However, the system is designed to expand and eventually take control of all aspects of life in a way that is more dominate and authoritarian than just about any other government the world has ever seen. And this system is hostile to all other national governments, including those who host Islamic laws in a partial state. I have written an eight part series on how Islam is the cause of open warfare. Just to sum this up I have listed the issues below:

Islam and Blasphemy
The penalty for leaving Islam is death
Islamic electoral policy of “One man (men only) one vote, once”
Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land
Tribute or ‘poll tax’ is the payments that non-Muslims make to Islamic authorities. Payment of this ‘tax’ exempts the payer from military service.
Stoning people to death
The house of war
Separation of church and state
‘Honor’ killing

And this culture is spreading through the implementation of Islamic law. Just look at Europe. England is of particular concern as Islamic courts have been set up with the idea that where Islamic law conflicts with English law, the English law is supposed to be priority. What is happening is that enclaves of Islamic areas are beginning to develop and grow. Don’t think so? Just look at parts of Minnesota. Just look at Judge Charles in New Jersey. Even though he was overruled, it took a higher court to end the B.S. Our legal system has already been penetrated to the lower level. All that needs to happen is to have this ‘legal system’ go further up to the next higher level. It can only be a mater of time before a higher court ruling will allow you to take your wife against her wishes. And this is only a beginning. If this is not a threat to our legal system, I do not know what is.