THE NATIONAL ELECTION IN IRAQ  

      Anyone, who is even remotely experienced with the politics of Iran, should not be surprised at the results of the recent presidential election there.     In spite of the obvious over-whelming support of the opposition candidate that the present president and Jew hater, managed to control the outcome and guarantee his re-election.

      It is a sad state of affairs there, that the power of the incumbent can trump the will of the people.   Even after the disgruntled voters stage their protest in the streets of Tehran, it seems futile to expect any just end of this debacle, short of a revolution against the state.

      Unless the Iranian army and local police refuse to keep order and suppress the people’s opposition and demand to have their vote count, it seems that the government will be in control of the situation and may easily put the uprising down.

      It is inconceivable that any modern informed country can publicly and verbally attack the Jewish people and nation, while denying the holocaust and the death of millions of Jews at the hands of Hitler and the German people.    This attitude is as stupid as it is wrong and hateful.   It is one thing for a crazed individual to make such a statement and act individually, but, for a leader of a rather progressive and well informed country to espouse these beliefs and intentions to destroy Israel, demonstrates such a twisted mind and bias attitude, that it is no surprise the country’s sensible people would reject his beliefs and intentions.

      It may be understandable for the people of Palestine to have resentment for the state of Israel, since it was carved out of the Palestinian territory, to give Israel the country it did not have for two thousand years.   Of course, this was arranged by the British occupants of Palestine since World War I with the cooperation and help of the United States.    This is the very reason why most Muslims hate us today.    You may also expect many Muslim states to sympathize with the Palestinians, who, for many years have also been deprived of a country of their own.   The Jews and Muslims have been at odds politically and religiously for two thousand years, and their offensive attitude toward the Jews has been steadfast.   The founding of the Jewish state of Israel in 1948, only rekindled the hate and animosity between them that has continued unabated for those thousands of years.   It goes that far back, not as many believe, not only since 1948.  Since then, this hate erupted almost immediately by Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and others into a series of wars against this tiny but tough Jewish nation bent on their survivor in the promised land of their ancestors.  Each time, the Muslim nations were beaten back and soundly defeated and also each time they lost more of their land to this new nation bent on expansion due to its popularity with all Jews around the world.

     We also know that Israel has developed atomic weapons and nuclear capabilities,   probably, more for defensive reasons, many years ago.   It is also plausible that a country like Iran, in an attempt to flex its muscles and be a leader in the Muslim area, may feel the need to have nuclear capabilities.  To counteract or overcome the strategic advantage any country with such powerful weapons would have.

      However, even if Iran were to attain such capabilities, it is obvious that Israel, the target of Iran’s wrath, would be expected to attempt to frustrate these efforts at any cost, as a vital and justified defensive measure.   Therefore these efforts by both these countries do nothing to foster peace in this region but, to the contrary, it spells a future confrontation and conflagration.

     No nation or people want a repeat like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan and its resulting horrible consequences, even if it ended an equally horrible war.    That is the prime reason these weapons have not been used since then, for nearly 65 years.   Of course during this period, countries with these capabilities were wise enough to realize and use the proper restraints necessary, by using diplomacy and agreements rather than bomb tossing techniques.

      However, today, since Iran and North Korea, two rogue nations led by obvious despots are working feverously to attain these atomic capabilities as a threat of its use on its neighbors and even the United States, in the case of North Korea, also.    We have been in a stalemate with Korea since the Korean War during 1950 to 1955, when a truce, but no peace was had.   We have had fifty five years of attempts at negotiations with Korea, all of which have ended in failure after failure.    As someone so aptly said, “…you cannot deal with the devil!...” by the same token Iran’s leaders have steadfastly refused to negotiate any type of settlement regarding its attempt to obtain nuclear capabilities, it is more than obvious that Iran hopes to have the bombs, then negotiate from a superior position of continued threats and strength.

     The time has come for countries like England, the United States and Israel, the obvious targets of these threats to act in defense of their country and people, before we are forced to experience a doomsday of destruction, born out of this festering hate and resentment of Israel and our countries.

      President Obama is right to attempt to secure a negotiated settlement of this emerging emergency.   However, there is a time to negotiate and a time to act and that latter time are fast approaching.    Timing is important now and always. 

      Based on the wishes of the Iranian people, they may not have long to wait to rid themselves of the embarrassment of such a dangerous and crazed leader who can only lead Iran to ruin.  

 

THE SENSELESS KILLING OF

PRO-ABORTION DOCTOR, GEORGE TELLER

JUNE 9, 2009

      I believe it was Patrick Henry, one of our early founders who said, "I may not agree with what you say, but, I will defend unto death your right to say it."   

      This country was founded on the principle that "All men are created equal, and endowed by their greater to be free."   This statement should have equal meaning as to, "I may not agree with what you do...(legally).

      Unfortunately, some of the constitutional rights we cherish, as Americans, have been challenged by the teachings of Christian churches.    For example the Catholic Church insists on preaching, here in America, that women are subordinate to men, and do not have the same rights.   That abortions, divorces and homosexuality are sinful and grounds for excommunication from membership in the church.

      The southern Baptist churches, likewise, teach the same principles, generally, while also, secretly, and are anti black, anti catholic and anti-Jewish.   

      When president Lincoln, issued the emancipation proclamation in 1861, freeing the blacks from slavery, in protest, the southern states seceded from the union and started the civil war between the states that lasted four long years, the death of millions and the tearing apart of our  union.   Even after defeat and surrender, the south resented the north and has retaliated in most every conceivable way for more than one hundred years.   First they turned democratic in protest to Lincoln as a republican, and remained so until the civil rights act of 1964, passed by a democratic president, Lyndon Johnson and a democratic congress.   This time the south switched again and became republicans in protestant retaliation.    The traditional and convenient "separate but equal" stubborn traditions, clung to by the south, finally came to an end, not by choice but by the law's enforcement.   Finally, thanks to the peaceful actions of blacks, like Martin Luther King and others, blacks began to be treated like humans and were free from subjugation, at last after more than one hundred years of supposed freedom.

     It has been these Christian churches that have continually preached and encouraged these illegal principals in the USA, thusly inflaming the action of their parishioners, to act illegally and openly and tacitly encouraged the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder or maiming of innocent people.    These Christian churches and the United States military and each president since William Clinton, have sanctioned a "don't tell, don't ask" attitude and policy toward homosexuals while the churches preach it as sinful and damned.   Civil unions are banned by many states intent on depriving fellow Americans of their constitutional rights.   While anti-abortion activists have actively proceeded through the American court system to misinterpret the US constitution to ban late term abortions, based on the viability of the fetus.   All this while, on the other hand they complain about activist judge, who interpret the laws contrary to their beliefs.

    It seems incongruous that churches that enjoy their tax free status, protection and privileges granted them, under our constitution and laws, should be allowed to actively preach against this same constitution and laws of the land.  

     This is especially true when such preaching's having incited illegal action by their members against other Americans, acting under the protection of the constitution and laws.   These repeated and constant preaching's have had the same results as principals, co-conspirators and agents to encourage this illegal activity, such as the murder of Doctor George Teller only because he performed late term abortions.   These preachers should be held accountable for said activities while the churches should lose their tax free status.   

      It seems very strange that these same churches, have failed to come forward and publicly condemn these murderous acts of violence, while only the Lutheran church of the United States have done so publicly.

       Politics and the government have no right to interfere with the legal activities of churches, while churches have no right to actively encourage the illegal activity of their parishioners, by actively condemning what is legal and lawful under our U.S. constitution.    That, my friends, is a politically active stance, which is prohibited under our constitution. 

June 1, 2009     
     President Obama has selected, as his first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, a woman of Spanish descent who has spent her entire life, dedicated to the law profession.   She attended Princeton University and Yale law school, two of the most prestigious universities in the United States.   Her humble beginnings, the dedication of her working mother and family, gave her the necessary encouragement to lift herself up and succeed.   She has trial experience in the court room, having prosecuted cases as an assistant district attorney in New York.   Later, she worked for a private law firm, representing corporate interests from all over the world.       At 54 years of age, she is young for a Supreme Court jurist.  Yet she has spent 20 years on the Federal benches, the U.S. District court and the second circuit Federal court of New York.   She was first appointed to the U.S. District court by a republican president and later, to the Federal Circuit court of appeals by a democratic president.      If any president from either party was looking for an extremely dedicated, level headed person, with the most experience and temperament at the law in a court room, they would be obliged to put Justice Sotomayor, at the top of their list of potential nominees for the appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.   The fact is that she is a woman, which only enhances her qualifications, since women, have, in the past, been denied the acceptance and equality men have enjoyed since the founding of our country.   When our founders said, “We the People…”, they meant only men and free blacks, and certainly, not women.    It is time women are treated equally by representation in our Supreme Court.   Eight white and black men and one woman is not equal representation, by any measure.     Of course due to our two party systems in the U.S. Senate, you can expect the usual complaints and insults cast upon a nominee of the opposite party.    This is exactly the wrong reason for politicians to oppose any candidate to the Supreme Court, and the very reason many qualified persons have shied away from this high honor by lawyers and jurists.   It is a cruel and unwarranted experience for any candidate to be subjected to, except, for justifiable reasons.   It is wrong and should be stopped for all candidates, whether chosen by one party or another.    This posturing on party differences or moral grounds, such as one’s abortion stand, party affiliation or liberal or conservative attitude or beliefs, is wrong and a waste of time.    The person’s qualifications and character are the only tests that should be considered of a candidate.       It is quite obvious, that in this instance and as to this nominee, the republican senators do not have the votes to block her nomination as they would like to do, strictly as obstructionists.    Even a last ditch filibuster, throughout the summer, would be futile because it would only deprive themselves of the summer break of congress for July and August.   Then again president Obama has the power to call them back into session during the entire summer and may use it as a counter measure, if the need arises.   The only tactic left would be a stalling tactics to prolong the confirmation hearings, but this will fail because the democrats have the majority and the necessary votes to block that also.   Therefore, it is obvious that the weakened Republican Party will only succeed in damaging their own reputations than the target they have selected in this instance.   This may result in making the re-election of these complaining senators less likely, simply because of the possible backlash they may cause, especially with the Latino voters who are increasing by day in this country.                  Therefore, it is foolhardy for any politician to vote against a nominee basically only because they may be of a different political persuasion than the congressman.    This country is made up of a mix of people of varied nationalities, races, religions and political beliefs.   This is the mix that has made up the qualities so successful for this country.   Therefore, there is nothing wrong with this mix being represented equally in the Supreme Court, jurist by jurist, and any person who opposes such a mix is either anti gender, a racist, bigot, or political party fanatic.   Take your pick, but each and all reasons are the wrong reasons to oppose Judge Sotomayor.     It is her experience and other qualifications that count.   She meets these and even surpasses them in every instance.    The fact that she has been overturned in a few cases only means her judgment has been overruled by a group of other jurists whose collective judgment outnumbered hers.  Everyone is human and no one is perfect.   The fact that she made an offhand statement that may sound racist, even if true does not make her racists, since her actions should speak louder than the uttered word.   Her printed decisions reflect the opposite.

      I do not envy the cruel tests, insults and personal vilification she is about to experience in the Senate during this nominating process, but I know she is made of that tough stuff she has managed to handle, readily, over the years and will be able to endure, survive and be victorious.   We, as Americans wish her well, because we are already convinced she will be confirmed for this final honor as a member of the ultimate, for jurists as a valued addition and member of the Supreme Court of the United States.                            

CONGRESS’ WRONG CREDIT CARD BILL OF RIGHTS
May 5^th, 2009
     Congress has recently taken up the increasing problem of credit cards for the U.S. consumers.  Over the years, banks and credit card companies have increased the rates of interest to over 30% while adding late fees up to $35.00 and other charges, such as going over the authorized limit set by the companies.         

     In addition, some companies have raised interest rates on balances at will and some retroactively to balance previously incurred.         
     Recently, Congress has been having hearings and arguments on proposed changes in the credit card rules, which are aptly called, the consumer’s Bill of Rights.  All the changes proposed deal the adequate timely notices required before interest rates can be increased, such as are up to 60 days notice, so that consumers have time to pay off these balances, before the increased interest rates take effect.         
     Of course, none of the proposed changes by our concerned members of congress deal with any limits to the interest amount charged on these credit card balances and yet, this, by far, is the biggest problem with the credit cards.         
     Over the last 20 years, credit card companies have been on a campaign to provide credit cards to just about everyone whether they ask for them or not.  It is routine for said company to mail credit cards to every American in the U.S. regardless of credit standings.  As a result, especially over the last few years, many consumers have defaulted on their loans while maximizing the limits of their credit cards.  This practice led to the increase in the interest rates charged to make up for the losses by defaulting holders.  In addition, in an attempt to hold those risky card holders more responsible for their charges, credit card companies have convinced congress to limit the consumer rights to wipe these balances away in any bankruptcy action.  This action sounds good in the first instance, but in reality these consumers should not have received the credit offered by the credit card company in the first place.  All this, in the end adds cost to the responsible card users with interest rate that are considered usuries rates, just because of the abuse of credit cards by others.         
     Now is the time for congress to correct all these abuses, especially the rate of interest charged on credit cards.  This is a must do thing, simply because these same credit card companies have by their liberal actions created the problem they claim the high interest rates are thereby justified.         
     Congress is reluctant to correct and adjust these high interest rates, simply because they are the recipients of liberal political contribution by the flood of lobbyists and influence peddlers who more or less control their votes and prevent them from passing real legislation to help their hurting constituents.         
     This action by congress is cruel, deceptive and a charade!  Responsible credit card holders should instead use debit cards whereby the purchase charged on their card is deducted from their bank checking account.  That is the statement consumers should make to credit card companies rather than the relief as we consumers can expect from their congressmen.            
     Therefore, the so-called “Bill of Rights for Credit Card Holders” and you can reward your Congressman at the next election by NOT voting for his/her re-election.