Saturday, March 31, 2012

President Obama gets no respect

I read in the Chicago Tribune today (3/28/12) that President Obama was talking about how he is getting little to no cooperation with Congress. And he does not understand why this is the case? I, Joe Six-Pack, average American, can tell him. This is a copy of a letter than I sent to the RNC last week. Dear RNC, “We need to pass this bill so that YOU can find out what is in it”. This is NOT representative government!!! I am 53 years old and have NEVER been politically active. I have NEVER sent any money to ANY political campaign or organization. I called Senator Durbin’s office and my representative’s office (Bean) and told them that if that bill passed, I WOULD become active. Since then, I have sent money to Joe Walsh’s campaign and others, as I am now. I want this made clear: NO MORE DEALS with these people!! I do not care what the consequences are. If you raise the debt limit or make any other deals, I will attempt to throw you out of office and find those who will do what I ask. I have an idea: Why don’t we pass a law that says that women’s votes do not count anymore. After it passes, YOU can figure out what it does. NO MORE DEALS with these people!! Please feel free to pass this on to our Democrat enemies, as that is now what I think of them. Thank you, As you can see, this is pretty much where the Tea Party came from. President Obama does not listen. He has his view and agenda, that this is it. Well, I really hate to break this to him. He still needs to be re-elected. AND he will need a Congress and Senate that has strong enough control to prevent any conservative move to stop him. And I will do my best to make certain that he gets NOTHING. NO DEALS. And he does not understand why he is getting so much resistance in Congress? Like I said, he does not listen.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Islam causes war: Reason number 2

Tribute or ‘poll tax’ is the payments that non-Muslims make to Islamic authorities. Payment of this ‘tax’ exempts the payer from military service. Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. This issue is another where Islam is in conflict with the modern nation-state. Islam was designed as a system of governance long before the modern nation-state had evolved. Even if the laws of the ‘host’ government allow for this, it is a fact that the origin of this ‘law’ is the Koran. This is another example of nationalism taking a back seat to the ‘Nation of Islam’. I place this issue at #2 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars because this issue HAS triggered a war between the United States and Islam in the past. In 1804, a number of U.S. ships (Including a warship) were seized in the Mediterranean because the U.S. government refused to continue to pay ‘Tribute’. The battle cry in the US was “Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!” What was this all about? For us, the issue was freedom of the seas. For the Muslim pirates, the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were ‘Muslim lands’. Most, if not all of the land that touched the Mediterranean were either controlled by Islamic authorities or else had been in the past. This made the Mediterranean an Inland Sea controlled by Islam, or Muslim ‘waters’. It was a stretch to charge Tribute for ships passing through these waters because the Koran speaks of land, not waters. Nor does the Koran speak of ‘passing through’. However, the nationalistic nature of Islam encourages this belief. After all, Tribute is a combination of two functions of government. This is one of the places where Islamic governance authority is in conflict with the authority of the nation-state. As a result, this issue has been a basic cause of wars in the past and will continue to be so in the future.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Islam causes wars: Reason number 1

Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land. This will cause a war EVERY time. An example: The Catholic Church owns the land that a church in Chicago has been built on. If any group of armed people took it over; Catholics from Illinois, Mississippi, Brazil or Canada do NOT go in, form combat groups, negotiate with foreign governments for arms and supplies and then move in to take them out. The U.S. government sends in the army, or National Guard or SWAT team or whatever. Islam has a long history of this type of action. This was how armies were fielded prior to the rise of the nation-state and the professional army. As has been seen so often today, Islam still retains a sizable number of followers who believe that Islam overrides the modern national government. If the means for open warfare is not available, irregular warfare is the natural result. It is only the next step to become what we consider to be a ‘terrorist’. A religion like Islam does not have ‘land’ or ‘waters’ to defend. The following statement was declared by Imams that met in Istanbul in March 2008 is a classic example: “The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.”) Please note the use of the terms “Islamic Nation” and “Muslim waters” and “Sovereignty of the nation”. Governments declare war against other governments. The concept of Islam as a national entity is common throughout the Islamic world and contribute greatly to the warfare that is common where Islam is in contact with the nation-states of the world. Islam is fielding an army. As can be seen, this concept is one of the basic causes of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. All of Israel is sitting on ‘occupied’ land. Two additional parts of this issue I would like to point out. 1) Once land becomes Islamic controlled, it can never revert back to anything else because it is considered to be ‘occupied’. 2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population of the United States because all of the land that the United States sits on is considered to be ‘occupied’. This is only the first of the major issues present with Islam that causes open warfare.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

The re-election of President Obama could trigger a Middle Eastern conflict

This is just a guess. As with all projections of human actions, it is fraught with the danger that people do the most unpredictable things. I believe that Israeli leadership finds itself in a real exposed position. Right now, with President Obama at the helm in the U.S., Israel is virtually without any support in its effort to restrict Iranian influence. In addition, Israel is on its own if a war breaks out. While this is not new, what is new is the potential for Iran to make the conflict go nuclear. Israel just cannot afford for this to happen. It would only take one nuclear weapon to cripple the country beyond repair. So Israel has a great deal riding on the outcome of the U.S. elections this fall. If President Obama wins re-election, Israeli leadership may likely judge that they are out of time. The possibility of getting through another four years without Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and then deploying it becomes much more remote. (This is a possible Israeli view, which I tend to agree with) And if the bullets begin to fly, how would their position have changed as a result of the election? It would not, which would lead me to believe that it would be far more likely for Israel to take the risk and attempt a far more aggressive policy to prevent Iran from attaining that position which could easily destroy them.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Islamic law and governance at work

In Morocco last week, the case of a 16-year-old girl has caused uproar. Last year, when the girl was 15, she was raped. In order to retrieve the family honor, the girl was forced to marry the rapist. This is not all that uncommon in the Islamic world, as this is the only way for the man to avoid punishment and in order to save the honor of the woman’s family. What is causing the uproar is that her husband was beating the girl and she committed suicide. So now a call to change the Islamic law that allows for such things. A debate is going on within Islam about the ability of a man to beat his wife. In the Koran, the phrase that allows for this practice has several interpretations. Modern thought is beginning to bear down upon the part that allows men to physically punish their wives. So the debate also centers on the issue where the girl is forced to marry her rapist in order to save the family honor. I must admit, this is progress. The problem here is that there is an argument at all. And the argument is worldwide. Islamic law and government has numerous problems like this. Many of these issues trigger organized violence and warfare. Like this issue with women being forced to marry their rapist and the beating of wives, these issues SHOULD trigger war.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq

It makes sense that we are seeing such an anti-American attitude in Afghanistan. The United States has completed withdrawing from Iraq. The intention of withdrawal from Afghanistan has been made clear. President Obama did not want to go into either Afghanistan or Iraq. It is evident from what President Obama has said and the actions that he has taken that he believes that the United States is the problem in both countries. He believes that if the U.S. were to withdraw, both countries would leave us alone. You know, like Vietnam did after we left. Many in the U.S. and indeed, the entire West believe this to be the case. We are going to find out if this is correct. The United States is committed to withdrawal from Afghanistan. I am surprised that it has not already happened. I am guessing that President Obama has found it not so easy, like he has found that closing Gitmo has not been practical. (YET) President Obama does not believe that the ‘surge’ really worked in Iraq, but he went along with this ‘strategy’ in order to say that he is making an effort to win the war in Afghanistan. With all of the restrictions on combat, the numerous changeover in commanders, and all of the talk about withdrawal, President Obama is making it clear to Afghanistan that the days of our full and direct support are coming to an end. He never really wanted to be there in the first place and after seeing him work for the past 3 years, I find it no surprise that he will take the first real political opportunity to get out. The problem is, this is NOT in United States best interest. The Afghans are ready for us to leave. The history of the region suggests that our influence there is minimal at best. In fact, now that we HAVE been there with our military, it is likely that a new Afghan government will be at least covertly hostile to the U.S. The culture of the entire region is resistant to assimilation. Immigrants are NOT assimilating with other cultures. It makes sense that on their ‘home turf’ that this resistance to assimilation would be much stronger, if not openly hostile. Throughout history, nation building has generally been difficult, but not unsuccessful. In most cases, a transfer of culture takes place. The longer the time of ‘occupation’ the greater the changes. In many cases, the changes are for the better. Some examples are newer or different technology, new additions to the food supply or simply other ways of doing things. Most cultures adapt and absorb at least part of the new culture and tend to pick what they believe to be improvements over the way that things were done in the past. The problem with this culture is that the resistance to this impact is much greater than normal. So our withdrawal after just a decade (Not even one half of a generation) is just a goad to help push us out and punish those who cooperated with us. Remember what happened after the fall of South Vietnam? Or how about after France was liberated from the Germans? Now Afghans have Iraq to look at. I expect that we are going to find out that a great deal of our former allies and friends are now dead and were killed shortly after we left Iraq. On top of this, 9/11 was basically launched from Afghanistan. And we don’t expect that Afghanistan will come after us after we leave? How naive can we be? The likelihood of a major regional war is going up. With Iran on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons, it is much more possible that Israel will launch some type of military venture. While the U.S. was still in Iraq, Iraqi airspace was far less hostile to Israel than it is today. In other words, the very fact that the U.S. bases in Iraq (And Afghanistan) have been lost is a major influence in enabling Iran to pursue a more aggressive posture. Toss in nuclear weapons and you can easily see why I am saying that the possibility of a regional war is much higher today. What is really scary is that the potential of this war ‘going nuclear’ is likewise much higher. We are getting CHANGE, just like President Obama promised. A problem here is that change in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Responsible government

The Health Care mandate was passed in February 2010. It was passed so that “YOU can find out what is in it”. This concept is not very representative of our people’s wishes by passing a major law without a full discussion of what is being made mandatory. The resistance to the passing of this ‘law’ had been building for something like 8 or 9 months. A previous attempt made during the early 1990’s had triggered a similar political response and had been soundly defeated. This time, it was passed anyway, so that WE can find out what it does. What is just as bad is the fact that by far, most of the law does not even come into effect until 2013. Talk about avoidance of responsibility. Just so that we understand this, the law will not really take effect until well after the following 2 elections after it was passed, so that ‘YOU can find out what is in it”. So the political fallout will land on many that were not around when it became law. In particular, President Obama will have either been re-elected or removed from office before we find out ‘What is in it’. I have to admit, if I was going to attempt to remove responsibility from anything that I have done, this method is about as good as any. It does not matter if we find out the law is a good one or a bad one, President Obama’s career will have already been determined before we really find out. And this was a signature accomplishment during his first term. This is NOT responsible government. This is avoidance of the potential negative consequences of the greatest policy initiative since Social Security. And we all know how Social Security is working out. This guy should be fired. If he had been a Chief Executive Officer of a corporation, I find it almost impossible to believe that he would NOT have been fired. And he would have been gone a long time ago. Another reason why I believe that our representative government is in jeopardy like we have never seen before.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Threat to our republic

“Once a population realizes that it can vote itself entitlement, fiscal responsibility becomes impossible.” Makes sense. After all, if you can vote to take money from someone else and give it to yourself, who the hell would NOT do this? And this is just where we find ourselves today. Our population is quickly becoming a society where on one side; we have a group of people who have an incentive to seize what the others have. On the other side, we have a group of people who have an incentive to make things better and keep what they have worked for. (Earned) Once more than 50% of the population is permanently on the side of those who want to take from the rest, you have a situation that can only result in the destruction of the economic system through bankruptcy. This has happened before. And this is what is happening in Greece and other parts of Europe today. And let’s just watch what the response is and what the ultimate outcome is. The only way to rectify this situation is by changing the rules of the game. You know the old saying: “He who does not play the game, should not be making the rules”. So if I have no “skin in the game” why is it that I can be making the rules about taking money from someone and giving it to me? The only solution that I know of would be to remove the ability for those who do NOT have any property to requisition property that is not theirs. In other words, if you don’t own property or financial assets like stocks or bonds, then you should not have say in how taxation upon such property is spent. In other words, your vote should not count. This is a major threat to the republic, although it would save the representative form of government to a more limited degree. Although I really don’t want this to happen, the only alternative that I can think of is a complete dictatorship. .

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Planning for war

It is always good to have a plan for emergencies. A plan in case of fire in your home may save your own life, or the life of a family member. A plan is a good idea in case of a natural disaster. Insurance is a part of planning, the attempt to spread financial risk. Planning for war is no different. War is the ultimate emergency. The deliberate taking of life is the most violent and destructive action we can engage in. To NOT plan for this emergency is to be irresponsible. I find it interesting that many so called ‘progressives’ who are anti-war (As most people are) call planning for a potential war ‘warmongering’ or ‘the drumbeat of war’. Yet the economic heart of ‘progressive’ ideology is central economic planning. The idea of planning is recognized as valuable in economic terms by the government, yet the planning for potential warfare by this same government is seen as dangerous and undesirable. I guess the difference between my views and the ‘progressive’ view is that government cannot plan ANY economy well. Government cannot plan for war well either, as one of the basic rules of war is that “No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy”. But, as in the case of personal emergency, planning CAN be of great value in case of war. Planning for war begins with an estimate of your capabilities and your potential enemy’s capabilities. The first rule of war is to ‘Know thy enemy’. The second rule is to ‘know thy self’. Planning helps address these issues. Many times, your estimates are not accurate. However, to have a starting point helps you think about many things that you would not have. This starting point also gives you the ability to make adjustments more readily than if starting from ‘scratch’. This is NOT ‘warmongering’ nor is it “Marching to the drumbeat of war”. It is wise.