Wednesday, December 28, 2011


Iran Conflict Warms Up

Threatens to close the Straits of Hormuz for oil shipments

We inch ever closer to a final resolution of the Iranian question, fueled by their own threats to close the Strait of Hormuz.  At least the US and Israel are talking about where the so-called "Red Line" should be.  The Red Line is that technical line Iran may cross in their quest for nuclear weapons, which would precipitate action from either or both Israel and the US. So far, it is reported that while Israel has a well-defined line, the US, especially the Obama administration, is waffling about just where it is and when it could be crossed. The issue is defined by some as: when to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

This is foolhardy nonsense.  In order to attack these facilities, the attacker must cross most of Iran, with their rings of anti-aircraft missiles, AAA, and fighter aircraft waiting for them. Further, since such an attack would be an implicit declaration of war, it is obvious that Iran would jump into a war mode and begin retaliations with a considerable armed force, and with allies in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine to execute bombings and shootings. Around the world, cells would activate to terrorize and destroy US and Israeli facilities. Iran would indeed try to close the Strait. Thus, it would be imperative for the attackers on Iran to neutralize or wipe out the Iranian armed forces as far as possible immediately.

It is my prediction that Israel would employ an EMP nuclear weapon or weapons over Iran to knock out virtually all electrical, electronic and vehicular systems wherever found. This would freeze the military almost completely.  No missiles, tanks, planes, trucks, radios, radar, or any engine-driven vehicle would be operable for some time, until repaired.  This window of paralysis, which would be renewable for perhaps days or a week, would be the entree for Israel's air force and missiles to rain down on every military installation and nuclear facility in Iran with impunity, virtually destroying their capability to fight and to produce nuclear weapons. Special attention would be paid to the missile sites that threaten the Strait, the navy vessels and shore facilities, and any oil vessels belonging to Iran. Their route to Iran from Israel is no longer any difficulty for the US in Iraq since we have largely departed that nation, and the Iraqis are virtually defenseless against air overflights.

It is also my prediction of long standing that Iran would then attack US facilities worldwide using sleeper cells, thus forcing the US to join in the attacks against Iran, and including their allied organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. In fact, I believe that common sense dictates that, instead of waiting for the retaliations to begin, we join Israel in the first instance to ensure that Iran is totally disabled militarily, and that the other allied nations and groups on the Iranian side are neutralized quickly too.

Yet another idea I have promoted is for the US, perhaps with allies, and only after we have declared war, to move large tank and troop formations with air cover into the Western and Southern sectors of Iran, daring them to come out and fight us on our terms in a pitched battle. This would accomplish several objectives: 1) It would ensure that we find all of the missile sites threatening the Strait; 2) It would occupy the most prolific oil production sites and sea accesses in Iran, cutting off their sea sources of revenue and supplies; and 3) It would ensure the destruction of the remainder of their army should they dare to come out and fight.  With proper handling, the Mullahs would be overturned at this juncture.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 25, 2011


Media Bias and Obama's Election

On media bias

Basically, I charge the press, especially the NYT, WAPO, and LAT, and their followers with solid bias against the right, Republicans, conservatives and such. (Yes, I have been a subscriber for many years to both the NYT and the WAPO.) Same with most of the TV news media. So, yes, my men get elected despite the best the media can throw at them, subtly or otherwise. In this instance, blowing negative thoughts all over McCain was the strategy, while also being neutral to positive for Obama, and it worked well. Even Clinton complained about the unfair press, which is a switch!

The other tactic of suppressing Democratic failings while highlighting Republican blunders has a long history.

So the media did a very good job in their own estimation, and mine, in 2008 to see Obama into the White House, and to fool all too many as to their sleezy tactics.

One part that is hard to measure is the non-coverage of favorable events for a Republican candidate, yet detailed coverage of Democratic events ad nauseam. Virtually impossible to challenge, too, unless you have inside information. They even tried to keep the number of mentions fairly close so that simple counts would not show the bias. Then, too, any minor gaffe, any small slip of the tongue by a Republican is sure to be covered thoroughly, while Democratic goofs are hardly mentioned, unless the rightist outlets get a whiff of it.

One never forgets the improper slams against Bush II throughout his terms of office either. To me, those many proven to be false slams over 8 years define the Democratic Party, and the press was very willing and eager to repeat them, too, thereby fostering a negative mindset regarding Republicans that most certainly helped their eventual candidate–Obama. Does Dan Rather ring a bell? There are many others…

Update:  Two good reference sites:


Saturday, December 24, 2011


Anti-Americanism of Progressives

Let us remain free from excessive government!

This progressive liberal idea that we should tax the rich and let others go free is just about as un-American as I could think of today. 

America was founded on a number of key principles, including: 1) individual freedoms to make one's way; 2) equality of opportunity to get ahead; 3) upward mobility to reach as high as your talent and energy can take you; 4) a free market within which to work; and 5) a voice and vote to participate in our government. 

We do not need the voices of fear, of envy, of intimidation, or of resentment to hinder our way of life, our desires for a better life, or our freedoms to get there without government interference, without excessive taxation, and without government handouts.

Labels: , ,

Friday, December 23, 2011


The Sufferings of Non-Christians

I wonder.

It must be terrible for non-Christians to labor under the massive load of Christian symbolism that surrounds one in the cities and suburbs, and piques one in the rural areas of America, especially on Sundays when they all trek to church.

Just who would feel that way? Off the cuff, I’d say it would be atheists, secular humanists, agnostics, Muslims, a-religious, neo-Nazis, and perhaps some of the vanishingly small sects of perhaps 15 other religions, such as listed in the census and make up the odd 20% or so of non-Christians.

I suppose they feel affronted and depressed that they do not have the majority power that Christians have and practice all the time, but they do have their own places of worship unhindered for the most part and their very own symbols marking the spot. But they are not satisfied with that. No, they must attack the Christians and their symbolism as if the very existence of Christian symbols threatens to stifle all of the odd religions and cause dissention in their ranks, especially in their children. No more prayer in schools, they demand, and succeed.

Wasn’t this Christian dominance in the US well known from way back, such that if they didn’t like it, there was ample opportunity to select another nation where their particular religion was coddled? No, they chose to stay here, because of our freedoms, security and our scale of living. Now they want to change things around to suit themselves, and tear down anything Christian they can get leverage on.

By doing so, they are creating a growing and potentially severe backlash that puts them in a very unfavorable light in our Christian culture and way of life. Can an employer that sees the damage done to his religion honestly trust, hire and promote such destructive people if he knows their deeds? I don’t know, but it surely could be an unwritten factor. Open bias of that sort is against the law, of course, of course.

One cannot attack a religion without such a backlash, however, and many, if not most, Christians, even divided into many sects as they are, see it as a concerted attack on their religion, and they see the levers being used as mistakes of interpretation that need to be corrected somehow, but not very clearly just yet. They marvel at the Supreme Court decisions that favor the odd religions, and grudgingly obey for the nonce, storing each affront to their sensibilities up for future use. We should appoint better justices to the court they say, and more conservatives to the legislatures and to the highet posts in the land.

Why, they ask, isn’t the status quo satisfactory to all? Are we not sufficiently secular now? Why create such challenges to our society when they are really not needed at all? What do they gain by such attacks? What do they lose? Have any of these people felt the bias against them? Have they felt the ceiling to their ambitions looming up because of their positions? Did they have to seek out positions that favored their rather stark differing thoughts and actions, such as self employment? Why are they being so divisive? Isn't it so that the Perfect is the enemy of the Good?

I wonder.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, December 22, 2011


Displays of the Nativity Scene

Nativity Scenes on Public Property

Both churches and private citizens erect nativity displays on their own property at Christmas time. Some are even enactments with live people in the traditional roles. There is one of these two blocks from my home, facing a public park and on a public street. Does anyone object to this display of religious belief?

What, then, to a viewer is the difference whether the display is on public property, exactly next to public property and quite viewable by all, and its residing on public property itself? Merely the suggestion that the religion is accepted by the owner of the property, namely the government.

It says nothing about other religions, of course, and from the viewer’s point of view, there is no knowledge imparted whatsoever regarding the government’s acceptance or non-acceptance of other religions, unless there are other displays from other religions there also. For that you must read the Constitution, where other religions are clearly given acceptance.

I find it quite silly indeed for some overly-reacting people to rise up to deny such displays on public property in a nation that is 80+% Christian. The same silliness has been openly expressed about crosses being prominently displayed on church steeples throughout a city. Just how far will they go with this idea that viewing something from public property is the same as advocating something? We might as well be influenced to worship Ford or Toyota, or Colgate Toothpaste, or the Crystal Palace, or the Democratic Party, they are certainly displayed prominently, if distastefully, on TV stations (public airways licensed by the government) and in public advertising, but just not on public property per se! There is a great distance between accepting something which is good passively (out of a set of those somethings also formally accepted) and advocating something actively.

Labels: ,


Religious Tolerance in the USA

How far does religious tolerance go?

My tolerance for religions and non-religious religions turns out to be selective. If a specific religion or non-religious religion shows utter intolerance of my religion or any other religion, and threatens to dominate the people of my nation by force or intrigue, then I oppose it with all my strength. If that religion expects to subjugate and rule me and my fellow citizens by its own set of laws, they will be opposed–by force if necessary.

So long as they are law-abiding and unthreatening, however, they are welcome, but they must be watched very carefully indeed lest their religious mandate for conquest surfaces to our detrement.

Our Constitution, and specifically its guarantees of personal and religious freedoms, are not at the same time a suicide pact.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 14, 2011


Obama Administration Sins and Lies

Obama Administration Sins and Lies: A Phrase Outline (to be expanded)

For some three years I have been appalled at the state of the nation and the direction our President has been taking in practically every endeavor of his administration. In a pique of frustration, I have decided to identify here for myself some of the major aspects of my charges against both Obama and his fellow liberals. This will keep me in focus for the arguments that will be rampant during the next election cycle, and provide me with more complete ammunition against this defective administration. Some of these items run into each other and overlap, others are a part of long-standing leftwing ideologies that have finally had their chance to be legislated.

I did not realize the enormous extent of both lies and sins of the Obama Administration. Once I began researching the subject, however, I discovered numerous websites where the authors have addressed the same subject matter.  I intend to reference these sources and their URLs here as I develop the text to go with each item.

The outline:

1. Obama’s Lies to the people

2. The generalizing from particulars regarding Republicans and Conservatives

3. Demonizing the Opposition

4. Sloganeering their messages

5. Using the worst case approach

6. Ignoring or suppressing real problems in the nation that do not fit the ideology

7. Lack of transparency; closed door legislation

8. Spending, not cutting, and then trying to tax the people

9. Political Correctness/Multicultural Diversity

10. Anti-Christian campaign throughout the nation, led by the ACLU

11. Media bias is rampant and now well-documented

12. Upwards of 50 dominantly leftwing Czars run the nation

13. Obama’s excessive travel/vacation/campaigning costs in this era of financial straits

14. The Liberal Mindset

15. Legislation passed without it being read. “We will have to pass it in order to find out what is in it!”

16. Government by fiat: regulation explosion, Executive Order explosion

17. EPA excesses

18. Repeat the Line, true or false, in every possible channel

19. Government expansion through Obamacare and otherwise

20. The economy has tanked much further under this administration

21. Broken promises, both from the campaign and afterwards

22. Cronyism

23. Socialism or socialistic policies

24. Bailouts directed towards friends of the party

25. Corruption unchecked

26. Inexperience of the President

27. Incompetence of the President and staff

28. Chicago style of politics

29. Management/organization/leadership lacking

30. Obama’s innate flaws

31. Foreign Policy that antagonizes friends and supports enemies

32. Anti-Constitution efforts of the Administration, Congress, and the leftist courts

33. SCOTUS appointments

34. Allowing jobs to be lost by policies that could have been avoided

35. GWOT de-emphasis putting the nation in jeopardy

36. Leaning towards Islamic nations and peoples

37. National Debt of $15 Trillion speaks for itself

38. Redistribution of wealth as an objective

39. Incestuous relations with unions, especially the SEIU

40. Immigration Policies

41. Israeli Policies

42. Iraqi Policies

43. Afghanistan Policies

44. Iranian Policies

45. Stimulus for favorites

46. The Reverend J. Wright connection for 20 years and counting

47. The Bill Myers connection

48. The Eric Hoffer fiasco

49. The false idea that Republicans and Conservatives are anti-science

50. Health Care problems headed the wrong way

51. Anti-gun tactics and direction

52. Abortion tactics, RvW

53. The Acorn Connection

54. Add?

Monday, December 05, 2011


It is Obama Bashing Time Again

Obama's mean distance from the White House is about 500 miles.

He luxuriates on AF-1 more than any previous president.

The cost to the taxpayer for his travels is enormous because of the huge logistics cost of three or four support planes, extra security and communications, among the more expensive items.

It seems that he needs dozens and dozens of leftwing czars to run the government on top of his cabinet, all of whom have signed up to his Hope and Change plans.

His principal proposals for new legislation have the characteristic of increasing the national debt by trillions, without any rational means to pay for them except to hit the taxpayers again and again, in an orgy of spend and tax and tax and spend.

He wants to redistribute your wealth to those who make less, so that we reach a levelling of incomes across the board, regardless of the state of employability and reliability of the more unfortunate.

Obama is the SEIU union's best advocate and supporter, and he is well-compensated for his support.

He hates Israel and Israelis, and would probably let Israel go down the tubes to a Muslim attack.

Just a few of my pet peaves about Obama gotten off my chest!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?