Obama foreign policy—fail

SYRIA

Leader of said country now knows the limits as set by “O”: the death toll from the civil war he has waged has a number that has 6 digits, and this perfectly OK as long as he does not use NBC weapons.

EGYPT

The Egyptian military has always been the enforcers of peace tranquility when the “civilan” government has gone rogue, just as it has now. “O” has decided to cut off same because it has usurped power. “O” has decided to side with the Shiites.

IRAN

Everyone is shouting: don't ease up on sanctions or believe that liar Rohani, they are only bidding for time to finish their U235 enrichment project. They now have 1,000 of the good P2 centrifuges that can take 3.5% uranium, which is civilian grade reactor fuel, directly to 90% given enough time. They also have a new enrichment facility at Shiraz, which can enrich plutonium.

“O” is fully cognizant of these facts. He has decided that it OK for Iran to have nuclear weapons, because he is confident that he can “contain” the effects (the so-called “containment” policy). Notate bene: his goal is not the prevention of Iran getting the “bomb”.

IRAQ

“O” has skedaddled every last American soldier. Some are cheering, but this has created a power vacuum, and Al-Qaeda has happily filled the void. They are now serving as the willing conduit for supplies from Iran to the Shiites (Assad) in Syria.

SAUDI ARABIA

She is backing the Sunni rebel factions in the Syrian civil war, and counting on a US strike on the Assad forces. In the end, “O” chickened out, and she was left twisting in the wind. This country has been a key strategic ally in the Middle East, but the monarchy is Hashemite, a minority member in Saudi society. She is not happy with the actions of “O”.

TURKEY

Same comment as Saudi Arabia. Turkey is a member of NATO. Erdogan is converting this country from a secular one to a Muslim one, and “O” is perfectly OK with this.

CHINA

South-East Asia is a complicated place: many countries scrunched up together. She has elbowed her way into the cocktail party by claiming naval and ADIZ that clearly violated the sovereignty of her neighbors: Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, and South Korea. She has also been quite aggressive in various territorial claims with her land neighbors. “O” has supposedly “pivoted” away from the Middle East and towards China. To date, however. “O” has done little to push back on Red China.

RUSSIA

She has had zero influence in the Middle East since the her participation in the disastrous 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Thanks to the reticence of the “O” administration, she is now a major player in the Middle East as guarantors of peace, despite the fact that she supports Iran and Assad.

Edward Snowden – hero or zero?

I was watching This Week with HR Pufnstuf, and realized I have not opined on the good NSA employee, so here you go.

• He has clearly committed treason as defined in the US Constitution
• I agree with Ambassador Bolton: He should hang from the nearest oak tree
• In the traditional Samurai sense, he has acted with honor (according to the old Bakufu rules, I am full fledged Samurai). To great personal risk, he has revealed the truth
• John 8:32 “and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (RSV)
• using bullet points is a cheap and dirty way to organize thoughts that are poorly thought out

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy New Year.

Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, A&E: what Corinthians really says

The complete reference is:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

The problem is that the New Testament is not written in English or Latin or Hebrew or even Aramaic (Jesus' native tongue), but Koine Greek. Therefore, translations vary.

Here is a brief sampling.

New English Bible

Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, not thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God

King James Version

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

New American Standard

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [by perversion], nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Williams—New Testament in the Language of the People

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not have a share in the kingdom of God? Stop being misled; people who are sexually immoral or idolaters or adulterers or sensual or guilty of unnatural sexual vice or thieves or greedy graspers for more or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers will not have a share in the kingdom of God.

Beck—New Testament in the Language of Today

Or don't you know wicked people will have no share God's kingdom? Don't be mistaken about this: Nobody who lives in sexual sin or worships idols, no adulterers or men who sin sexually with other men, who steal, are greedy, get drunk, slander, rob will have a share in God's kingdom.

Revised Standard Version

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

What It Does Not Say

Note carefully: not a single one of these translations states that homosexuality is a sin, or that the soul of gays will burn forever in pain and torment in Hades. They simply say that they will not gain the kingdom of God, which is not the same thing.

It is also important to keep in mind that this an excerpt of a pastoral letter written by Saul/Paul to the church of Corinth. These are not the words of Jesus or one of his disciples. Paul is interpreting, and not all of his contemporaries agreed with him.

If you have a Bible in your home, now would be a good to take it out and read what it really says, not what you wish it to say or what others claim it says. 

Barack Hussein Obama = Karl Heinrich Marx

Rhetorical hyperbole? Perhaps. Yet, when I view the historic sweep of political philosophy, it is not difficult to come up with this transitive equation.

Why People Hate the French Revolution

When I first ran across this, I could not understand. Did they not throw off the yoke of bondage and become a free people? Then I knew: the French people exchanged one type of tyranny (monarchy, which was relatively benign) for another one (tyranny of the mob, which was much more deadly, to the tune of 40,000 lives). Worse, their principle was:

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

The problem was the middle word: “equality”, which was meant literally. So, if one gentleman had 2 suits of good clothing and his neighbor had none, it was his duty to give him one.

And Then Came Marx

It was his idea to take this one step further: take the economic continuity of society, chop it up into small pieces, and set them against each other in political (class) struggle. All these are examples: bourgeoisie and the proletariat; rich and poor; factory owners and workers; haves and haves not; petty bourgeoisie; middle class. It still influences contemporary politics: economic quintiles; the 1% and the people.

Jonathan Gruber, MIT

Being one of the architects of Obamacare, we find his interesting justification of same on the Real Clear Politics website:

The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return.

In isolation, this is an astonishing viewpoint, but not when viewed in light of the previous 2 paragraphs.

Transitive Property (Google it)

So, here you go:

Robespierre = Marx = Obama.

OK, deep breath.

Barkeep, another Lite Beer if you please.

The War On Poverty Is Over, Poverty Has Won

I was watching Speaker Gingrich on ABC's This Week. The segment was actually about Pope Francis (Jesuit, and also believer of “Liberation Theology”-Google it-the same political philosophy that Reverend Wright, Obama's preacher, espoused-Google him). He made a point about the failure of the war on poverty, and was immediately shouted down by the other 3 panelists, including the “objective” reporter Cokie Roberts.

Then it occurred to me that you young 'uns (born after, say, 1970) have no idea who LBJ was or the role he played in the “War Against Poverty”. It is important that, before you start drawing conclusions, that you hear the entire story. So, please forgive the history lesson.

FDR and Social Security

FDR invented this in the 30's, in depths of the depression when there genuine poverty and hunger and need. In fact, the correct name is “Supplemental Security Income” or SSI. Why “supplemental”? Because FDR envisioned that this would be one leg of a three-legged stool: SSI, your company pension, and your savings. It was never envisioned to be the sole source of income when you retired. That is why, to this day, it is difficult to live in retirement just from your SSI checks. The important focal point is that before the 30's, old retired folks never received retirement checks from the federal government.

LBJ and Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps

During the Johnson Presidency, the Democrats had an effort they called the “War on Poverty”. In 1967, LBJ signed into law, in one swell foop: Medicaid (free medical care for the poor), Food Stamps (free food for the poor), and Medicare (almost free medical care for all old people). The focal point here is that before the Johnson Presidency, Medicare and Medicaid and Food Stamps simply did not exist.

You young people need to understand that these “things” are not a centuries-old tradition. They were invented contemporaneously with, say, the Beatles. Since that time, the Federal Government has spent $10s trillions. Question: has hunger or lack of medical among the poor and old been defeated? If you do not know the answer, then this is your homework assignment.

In Conclusion

In a way, we cannot blame the liberals and Liberation Theologists like the Pope. Surly it is logical for the rich to give up some black-market Havana cigars or that Christmas diamond tennis bracelet, and give the $$$ to the poor instead. In the end, our actions must be based on accomplishing the goal rather than on what makes us feel good emotionally. By that standard, the “War on Poverty” has been a miserable failure.

the Paul Ryan surrender brigade

Many in the financial press are on their feet, cheering, throwing streamers. Paul Ryan has come to a budget agreement with the (D), to the rescue of the Republican Party. Yes, there is an adult in the Republican party; Paul Ryan has saved the Republicans from themselves. There will be no government shutdown. Surely Presidential material, no?

No...

What nonsense.

The Republican Party has simply surrendered to the legions of Caesar Obama.

I find nothing to cheer or be happy about. Sequester was working: government spending was going down, and would have continued to be so if just left alone. This was the first step towards the healing of the American economy. This was a good thing. Then, Mr. Ryan tossed the box of chocolate chip cookies overboard, and now everyone is feting him.

I fail to see how (R) have benefited.

Huckabee for President? Hahahahah...

Having the day off, I tuned into the Huckabee show while preparing breakfast. Imagine my surprise when I heard our old friend JD subbing. No big deal, except for the reason why: H is contemplating another run for the White House.

After I stopped laughing and was able to sit upright again in my chair, I shuddered. Is he serious? Yes, he is gentle, a protestant minister, trustworthy, a man of integrity, and all around good guy. He will also get his butt kicked even worse than I was.

The Republican party, not to mention our country, needs someone with power and courage. Someone who will upend the money-changers' table in the temple. Someone who will shout at the top of his/her lungs and shake the very rafters of Valhalla.

H is not such a man. Yes, I genuinely wish him luck. I also remind you that we (R) have twice elected nice guys, McCain and Romney, and have had our heads handed back to us on a silver platter. May god have mercy upon our unworthy souls.

Redskins? Oh, puleeze...

Here we go again: yet another movement is afoot to impose political correctness on our language. Today's lucky winners: American Indians. See, some are incensed that there is football team that uses a so-called racial epithet: the Washington Redskins. They have given numerous interviews, and are proud that their moniker is on an NFL team, an icon of American culture. These do-gooders are further angry at the so-called hypocrisy that said NFL team honored the Code Talkers (Google it; it is a great story).

I am also a racial minority, and there certainly are racial epithets for my race. Truthfully, I do not mind their use: from my viewpoint, these are not hurtful or mean or derogatory. At worst, it represents a lazy use of language.

So, what on earth is the white man up to (how is that for yet another racial epithet?)? Those who have African ancestry do have epithets (the infamous “N” word) that are meant to be critical and degrading, and the recipients are justifiable resentful at its use. Hence, their use have been expunged, more or less, from polite conversation. He is taking this situation and grafting it into a situation where the same principle does not apply.

So, put that into your peace pipe and smoke it.