Barak Obama is not a socialist; but is anybody? Neither pure socialism, nor pure capitalism exist; all economic systems are “hybrids!”

There is a debate within Fox News, and the conservative media, about Obama’s socialism. Rush Limbaugh and his two stooges, Hannity and Beck, insist that Obama is a socialist; the more respected, Bill O’Reilly, says that Obama is not a socialist, and he is right.

For a start, pure socialism does not exist! There are hybrid system, combining elements of socialism with other systems, but there is no pure socialism. The Israeli Kibbutz is perhaps the closest thing to pragmatic socialism, but it too is now an umbrella for various businesses that are jointly owned by the employees.

What is being tried by conservatives is to use labels for political advantage. The American public, especially Republicans of the old school, consider socialism to be evil. Associating a name of a politician such as President Obama, with socialism, favors his opposition. Most Americans, however, are becoming to savvy to fall for demeaning people by simply using labels; most Americans are sophisticated enough to realize that labeling Obama a socialist does not simply make him one!

It is true that under the guise of socialism many negative government actions were perpetrated by leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, but it is also true that a great deal of good was done in the name of that system.

To quote Bill O’Reilly until President Obama advocated the government seizure of all property, and until Obama advocates the end to free enterprise and individual ownership, President Barak Hussein Obama cannot be considered a socialist!

Is Israel the key to dealing with Iran? Why is the US “dog,” being wagged by Israel, the “tail?” Or, do Obama’s Islamic roots present an obstacle for dealing with Islamic nations?

The ball started rolling in Cairo when President Barak Hussein Obama asked the Islamic world to forgive the United States for its historical misdeeds! President Obama was reconciling, appeasing, and dealing from a position of weakness, not the strength one learned to accept from the United States.

In spite of clear statement by Ahmadinejad that Iran will not communicate with the United States as long as it [the United States] holds Israel’s hands, the young American President insist that he wants to use diplomacy with Iran. President Obama displays what most observers now consider a cowardice attitude. In his dealing with Iran, Barak Hussein Obama, and his designees, have been making fools out the United States. The Administration continued to do so  until Secretary Clinton, while on a trip to the Middle East, was finally willing to call Iran out, and to clearly state that Iran is a dictatorship, not the democracy that it claims to be.

The Obama Administration is too timid to even suggest that it will consider military actions against Iran should the rogue Islamic Republic actually develop nuclear weapons. In spite of shaky relations with Israel, the United States is tacitly counting on the tiny Jewish state to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The United States is aware that Israel has a number of submarines that can reach Iran through the Suez Canal, a route Mubarak recently allowed Israel to test. Israel have planes that with refueling could easily reach any target in Iran and deliver tactical nuclear payloads. And, the Israeli fleet of long distant drones can be equipped with either bunker-busting bombs, tactical nuclear war-heads, or other yet to be exposed munitions.

With Iran’s boasting of its membership in the “nuclear family,” it missile demonstrations, and other action in the face of President Obama and his Western allies, how long can Israel who will likely be the first target of any long-rage Iranian missile, with, or without, nuclear capability, wait? Israel made it clear to President Obama, through a number of channels, that when it comes to national security it will follow what is best for Israel, not necessarily any route that the United States may approve.

The questions are: Is Israel, a legitimate nuclear power, capable of taking out Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities before the reach fruition? If the answer to that question is, yes; which most those in the know think that it is, then comes the second question: When, and under what circumstances, will Israel rid the world of advanced missiles, and nuclear equipped Iran?

If Iran does not either capitulate to free world pressures to cease its nuclear development, nor has its regime remove by Iranian revolutionaries, the likelihood that Israel will use it awesome military capacity to remove the presently structured Iran blight from the map.

Are US politics simply labels? If “tea-party” is all inclusive; why so few minorities?

From the right, Limbaugh and his crowd speak of “Liberals” as if they are poison; Hennety is after socialism, and Glenn Beck uses the term “progressive” as a catch-all for what is bad with Democrats, or anyone, anything, on the left. All three “gurus” now adopted Global Warning as a rallying cry against Democrats.

Those media spokespersons from the left are a little less creative, they pick on broad general items, and on “right-wing” personnel. Keith Oberman is after Bill O’Reilley, and more recently after Glenn Back. Rachel Maddow does not like Glenn Beck and devotes a great deal of time attacking the “conservative” talk show host/actor. Maddow also goes after that is remotely anti-gay. And there is Chris Matthews who simply like to hear himself talk, and beat up on guests to demonstrate his brilliance.

And then there is the “tea-party”. There is no leader to this movement, anyone who can draw a crown, even Sarah Palin, can be a leader and spokesperson for the moment. Even though the “movement” is intended to be all-inclusive, very few “non-white” people seem to be present at tea- party gatherings, Bishop Jackson, a person of color who seems to have a personal dislike for Barak Obama, is a rare exception.

And so it goes; American early twenty-first Century politics are more devoted to labels and to issues; what a waste of the country’s enormous capacity for disseminating information!

Humiliation: United States continuing to force Muslim leaders to [officially] deal with women (i. e. Albright, Rice, Clinton); a large contributor to Islamic rage!

Most recently Secretary Clinton suggested that Iran is ruled by a military dictatorship; in reality Iran is a religious autocracy! Mrs. Clinton continues to confuse the Middle East with the more conventional world; Secretary Clinton mere existence, a woman dealing with men in the “officialdom” of the Muslim world, is an insult, her lack of insight into that world, just adds insult to injury. 

When Secretary Clinton, in front of a large crowd, commended Benyamin Netanyahu for his “concessions,” and suggested that the United States wanted the Israeli/Palestinian peace talks to continue without preconditions, the lady incensed the Islamic world without accomplishing anything positive. Secretary Clinton followed her speech in Israel with unplanned trips to various Arab Capitals in order to defuse the anger her words in Israel caused; she did not succeed in correcting her error.

One of the foreign policy mistakes that the United States has been making for many years has to do with having a woman as its chief spokesperson to the world, and especially to Muslim nations. It is quite in order for the United States to believe in, and to practice, equal rights for women, it is another to force members of cultures where men do not openly associate with women, to deal with women in official settings. Forcing men to deal with women while being the most powerful power or earth, is not only in bad taste, it is a humiliating, it is an ”in your face” action by the United States against Islam.

President Barak Hussein Obama [in]famous and reconciliatory speech in Cairo to the Arab world, notwithstanding, the Administration continues to demonstrate insensitivity and lack of understanding of the Islamic world. Even though the US Administration allowed relations with the State of Israel to erode, inroads into the Muslim World seem to elude the US.

One of the most insensitive action of the United States, the trend of forcing women on [Muslim] men in official settings, goes back to President Clinton whose Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was not only a women dealing with Muslim men whose religion forbids them from doing so, Secretary Albright was also a person  with Jewish roots, another “in your face” to Arabs, and to all Muslims.

It is all right for a nation to believe, advocate, and practice equal rights for all people; it is not right, however, to insult others’ culture by forcing them to either deal with [forbidden] woman who represent the United States, or, if they don’t, they must forego the ability to communicate with the only super-power left in today’s world. Humiliating Muslims and their culture is not an uncommon behavior of Western powers, but continuing to do so at the highest official levels of Government is insensitive, and, in large part, the source of Islamic rage against the West.

For more on the role of “humiliation,” please check January 2010 archives, this blog.

A day after Khamenei challange, Obama is still on a losing track; while allowing China to make inroads towards world leadership!

Iran’s supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei yesterday announced that on February 11, 2010, the anniversary of Iran’s revolution,  Iran will perform an act that “will stun the world!” At the same time, Iran also announced that it is speeding up its Uranium enrichment process; notwithstanding United States, the United Nations, and many members of the  international community, objections.

In spite of these announcements “in the face” of Obama and United States allies, President Obama is still speaking of adding sanction that he agree may, or may not, be imposed through the United Nations. The Security Council, because of a likely China veto, will not authorize any additional sanctions against Iran, regardless how hard the inept Obama Administration tries to bring them about. If the United States move on its own, with such allies as Italy, and perhaps the United Kingdom, it will simply allow the likes of China, Brazil, Venezuela, a number of the ex-Soviet Union republics, and other mavericks, to expand their trade with Iran and for all practical purposes destroy the impact of US led sanctions.

Obama’s reaction to Khamenei’s announcements is just another demonstration of how the Iranians are able to outmaneuver the United States at every turn, and how the Chinese are continuing to challenge the United States for world leadership…

Expanding its control over third-world and other oil producing countries, coupled with the enormous debt that the United States owes China, the most populated nation is rapidly moving towards political and economic world leadership.

Iran to “stun” the world…Khamenei: “In your face, Obama!”

Iran’s supreme leader just informed the world that it will stun the world during the anniversary of the revolution toppling the Shah. Not only that, Ayatollah Khamenei stated that Iran is about to start producing enriched Uranium in face of US and international objections.

When will the United States Administration wake up and realize that Iran is an enemy who will stop at nothing in order to advance its goals of destroying Israel and dominating the Middle East, and eventually the entire Islamic World?

Should the State of Israel wait until Iran either demonstrate its ability to attack the Jewish state, or actually attack it?

US ineptitude contributes to Middle East instability. Will Israel receive [tacit] approval from Arab Muslim states to neutralize Iran?

In spite of President Obama’s now infamous Cairo speech, the Islamic World neither embrace the young American President, nor adopt a more sympathetic posture towards the United States. Obama’s attempt to appease the Muslim World, to essentially beg forgiveness for America’s past behavior towards the Arabs in the Middle East, was scorned by the Islamic World, and mocked by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the most influential leader of an Islamic state.

There is little or no doubt that George W. Bush was viewed by much of the world as a bully and exploiter of the weak.  Obama’s personal image helped improve the image of the United States President, if not that of the United States as a whole. The “friendly” Islamic nations, for example  are not pumping enough more oil to ease the world economic crunch, while Ahmadinejad is increasing the rate of nuclear development because he considers Barak Obama a naïve and inexperienced “toothless tiger.” The Islamic World ceased to view the United States as a “super-power,” since the Obama Administration allows Iran to proceed with its military developments, unabated.

Iran’s demonstration of ever-advancing missile technology, and their progress in the nuclear material enrichment arena, represent severe danger not just to United States allies, but to other Islamic nations in the Middle East.  The fact that President Mubarak of Egypt allowed Israeli submarines to go through the Suez Canal and sail towards the Arabian Gulf, is a clear demonstration that this senior Arab leaders is concerned about Iran’s military advances, and would welcome Israeli intervention.

Since Iranian missiles can reach Turkey, all the Gulf and North African nations, as well as many Eastern European countries, the threat of Iranian hostility is quite alarming, a threat that appears imminent. The Obama’s Administration removal of what was to be an advanced missile defense initiative for Eastern Europe, causes Iran’s military potential threat to appear more  serious with every day that goes by.

The concerns about Iran in the Middle East are so serious that in an unprecedented way, Arab nations do not seem averse to allow the “dreaded” State of Israel be the “tool” required to neutralize Iran, and remove its ever threatening presence from the region.

The regional nations that once used to count on the United States for their defense needs. All of a sudden, under the Obama Administration, they discover that Israel, their long-term nemesis, is the most likely tool to protect them from an Iranian attempt to control their world. The Shii Iran would like to become the mostly Sunni Islamic world while destroying Israel, and the United States seem to be powerless under the present Administration, to do anything.

Iran’s threats makes many Arab nations in the Middle East and Israel to become “strange bed fellows.” Egypt, for example is likely to allow Israeli submarines to go through the Suez Canal with their nuclear armed Cruise Missiles and attack Iran from the sea. Jordan is very unlikely to try to deter any fly over by Israeli aircrafts over its territory; and in spite of Obama’s posture of appeasement, it is not likely that United States forces that control Iraq’s air space, will attempt to stop and Israeli fly overs towards Iran.

When one consider military action by Israel against Iran, one must realize that it is not a suicide mission, it is a mission that clandestine will likely have the blessing of Western alliances, as well as a number of Arab nations.  In spite of its small size, the States of Israel may well turn out to be the key to stabilizing the Middle East, and perhaps the world.

Iran’s rapid progress in military technology, coupled with US ineptitude, may force Israel to remove Iran’s ever growing threat to the global community.

Iran’s advancements in missile technology, and the fact that it is coming close to a stage in its nuclear technology development that should make it possible to  produce bomb grade nuclear material within two years.

Though Muslims, the Iranians are not Arabs. Not only that, the majority of Iranian Muslims are Shiite, a situation that is of a major concern to most of its Arab neighbors. Most of Iran’s Middle East neighbore are Arabs Sunnis, the sect that include about 80% of all Muslims. A nuclear Iran represents a very scary scenario to Middle East countries, as well as for many Eastern European countries. Even though those threatened are generally United States allies, the Americans seem to be inept when using with the like of Iran.

Examining the situation, Iran military progress versus the United States inability to deal with the rogue Islamic Republic of Iran, especially not with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who whenever an opportunity presents itself, mock America’s young President Obama. The Iranian leader seemed to have learned that whatever he does to offend the United States, the Administration of Barak Hussein Obama, may complain, but will not, perhaps cannot take meaningful action.

After all is said and done, it appears that one of the very smallest countries on earth holds the key to ridding the global community from the Iranian threat. Israel possesses the required [nuclear] explosive technology, the means for delivering the required munition to all Iranian locations of interest, and, of course, the will and desire to neutralize Iran and the threat to its (Israels’) own existence.

As long as President Obama, and his Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, continue to be mesmerized by the Islamic World, it appears that either Israel, or political forces within Iran, may likely be the only two potentially viable solution to harnessing Iran’s growing military threat.

While Iran’s missile technology advances; US intercept-test of Iranian mock missile fails — Is Israel the only viable deterrent to Iran?

While the United States acknowledges that Iran’s ballistic Missile technology is advancing, its own missile defense test against a mock Iranian missile fails; that in the face of unilateral down grading (by the United States) of the [Eastern] European defense initiative.

European allies of the United States, Arab Middle East nations, and, of course, Israel, are becoming more and more vulnerable to possible Iranian [military] action. The Arab nations fears were demonstrated when President Mubarak of Egypt allowed Israeli submarines through the Suez Canal towards the Arabian Gulf. Iran in an ongrowing threat to world peace while the United States is not taking any meaningful action; is the world defense against the Islamic Iranian Republic, namely that from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is entirely in the hands of the tiny, but powerful State of Israel?

Israel can take out Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities by air, and by sea, but could Arab [Muslim] nations put their fate in the hands od the Israeli nation; the hated nation of their old enemy, the Jewish people. Is being nuked by the Aryan Ahmadinejad better than being saved by the Jews?

(more to come.)

Obama’s State of the Union: Can an orator be transformed to a leader, executive, and statesman?

President Obama’s State of the Union served as another demonstration of the greatest orator since Winston Churchill (and perhaps even going further back in history.) Being a great orator, however, does not make a good executive, nor an effective statesman. 

Unlike  Churchill, an often drunk Englishman, Obama does not seem to posses leadership skills. In support of the young American President, unlike Winston Churchill, Obama’s nation is not subjected to actual military threat to its homeland.

The threats do explain why Churchill was such an effective leader, the 9/11 threat within the United States, for example, even transformed the generally inept George W. Bush, to a leader, even though only for the moment. Threats rallying effect on a nation notwithstanding, “leaders are born, not made,” that adage seem to apply to Barak Obama, in much the same way that it applied to George W. Bush, and to Jimmy Carter.

In adition of not being an effective leader, Barak Hussein Obama is not a good and experienced executive. Not only that, Obama did not feel it necessary to staff his Administration with people with management experience, but rather than with politicians. Capable politicians, perhaps, but politicians, nevertheless. From the brilliant Rham Emanuel, to the clever David Axelrod, Obama is not supported by executives who are capable of managing the business of the nation.

President Obama’s State of the Union was full of platitudes, he again tried to please everyone, but pleased only a few. No concrete proposal, but rather many generalities; and learning from President Clinton, Obama cited specific examples of, for example, how the stimulus is working. The different between Obama and Clinton had to do with the relevance of the examples they cited. With millions of jobs lost since he took office, Obama’s examples of jobs gains were in two rather than seven digits.

The State of the Union could have served to boost Obama’s standing as a leader, instead it was another demonstration of oratory skills, but it was a presentation that generally lacked content; one may ask: Where is the meat, Mr. President? Where is the meat?