February 25, 2009

Ears Burning
At the recent World Economic Forum, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned of our government’s flirtations with socialism, that is, a state-run economy.

Trying not to “gloat,” Putin told the U.S. that “Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence” is a “mistake.” He reminded listeners that state control of the old Soviet economy made the nation “totally uncompetitive.”

Putin then lectured us not to “turn a blind eye to the spirit of free enterprise.”

But why isn’t Putin lecturing Venezuela? That Latin American state’s president, Hugo Chavez, is a classic strong-arm socialist, marshaling the power of the state, as well as gangs of supporters, to threaten and intimidate his political opponents.

As with any wannabe dictator, Chavez has sought to dismantle term limits. Just 14 months ago, voters rejected his first attempt. But Chavez, having consolidated his hold on the media and other institutions, came right back with another vote to end the limits. This time he won. He can now serve for life.

Only in South America? No. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently voided his own term limits. And he didn’t even bother to allow a public vote on the issue. So, who’s the more anti-democratic, Chavez or Bloomberg?

When foreign tin-horn dictators start making as much or more sense than our own politicians, well . . . it’s long past time for us citizens to make serious changes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Islam. The thing with Islam is, you cannot get a realistic or accurate picture of it from the media. From any media. Just as you cannot get an accurate image of any religion from the outside.
Granted – there are fractions in Islam that not only condone but actively encourage killing non-muslims. That those fractions or sects are evil and must be stopped, goes without saying. The same is true for Christian fanatics and all other violent sects.
I have read the Quran and spoke with a number of Muslims about things I did not understand (and things I could not accept) about Islam. Most of the Muslims I spoke to were moderate Muslims. The fanatics, I guess, wouldn’t talk to me unless I’d been one of them. And as much as I would like to know what makes a person become so insanely fanatical, that they legitimize the killing of followers of other religions or other fractions of their own religion. I have not sought those people out.
But as moderate as those moderate Muslims are, Islam is not a religion I could see myself “join”. Not merely because of the fact that they don’t accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah (I do – I am Christian) – that goes without saying. But also because of certain elements of that religion that don’t sit right with me.

What one must understand about Islam though, is this. Unlike Christianity, this religion was “born” not only in the midst of oppression. It was never “taken up” and “promoted” the way Christianity was picked up and spread throughout the world by the Roman empire. It has always staid in this “underdog” mode that it was created in. Both Christianity and Judaism have surpassed that stage – even though they too were created or were “current” in times of great oppression.
Islam was born and the people who practiced it were being oppressed by the Jews and Christians. It was immediately a case of: defend yourself, or die out.
So these elements of “jihad” – the defending of your religion with violence if necessary – are woven so deeply into Islam, that it is not my kind of religion or philosophy.

The problem I see with the Taliban and Hammas is, that they are not Muslims. Not really. Just like Hitler was not really Christian even though he claimed to be and (mis)used the teachings of the founder of the Protestant movement Martin Luther (the German theologian, not the American human rights leader) to preach hate against Jews.
Both the Taliban/Al Qaida and Hammas – I think – act with the same basic motivation.
Al Qaida attacked the USA, not because they don’t like freedom of speech and spirit or what have you, but for one reason alone. To bring America to the Arab world. In the hope that all Arab and Muslim countries would join forces with Al Qaida and defeat America and its alies, thus taking the first step to a new Ottoman Empire. Naturally, with Al Qaida at its head. Sadly for them, lucky for us, it didn’t work out.
The Saudis didn’t play ball, neither did Pakistan – the latter’s (at least official) refusal to take the side of Al Qaida dealing a big blow to “the cause”. And even as the US and their allies are failing in parts of Afghanistan, the global conflict that Al Qaida sought to create, failed to materialize.

I believe the same motivation is behind the stratigy that Hammas has been driving.
It is obvious (I believe), that Hammas has sabotaged any possibilty of peace between Palestina and Israel. Any time reports surfaced that a possible agreement was at hand: BOOM.
Then the constant rocket fire against Israel. What’s the point? Don’t they know Israel is going to go in and kick their asses? Of course they know. That’s why they’re doing it.
Because if Israel is killing Palestinians, it’s a great distraction from the fact that Hammas is failing big time in all things – apart from creating conflict and war with Israel.
After 9/11 Bush’s popularity was incredible! It’s a very old principle – it always happens in war time. So that is what Hammas used – I believe.
They now have stronger support in Gaza than ever.
And how anyone can take their claim of a ceasefire seriously, I have no idea. It is their open and clear aim that Israel should vanish off the face of the earth. The only reason they agreed to a ceasefire is because they are out of ammo and/or out of young people to send to the front lines to die.

What I’m trying to say is that both Hammas and Al Qaida are not in it for Allah or for Islam. They are in it for the power.

Now for Israel.
The one thing many who are pro-Israel magically “forget” (and those who are anti-Israel concentrate solely on) is:
When Israel was “recreated” in the 40ies, Palestinians had their land taken away from them. And that is neither right, nor legitimate.
You don’t see a bunch of Vikings invade Denmark and say: hey we used to live here. Now we don’t have our own country, so you better make way!
It’s just not right. The day Israel was created, Palestine ceased being a sovereign country. It just disappeared. In my opinion that is a crime against the people of Palestine.
And yes, I agree that every people have a right to their own state. But my rights end when they infringe on other people’s rights.
Where is the land of the Gypsies? Where is the land of the Cossovo-Albanians? Where is the land of the Catalan people?

So that is the dilema. Israel has the right to defend itself and its borders. And Palestine had a right to its sovereignty. In this unique situation the one right prevents the other.

So standing up solely for one side’s right, one would have to nullify the other side’s right. But who among men has the authority to do so, truly and justly? None. And that is why I cannot take sides in this and I believe that nobody can justly take sides in this. With the exceptions I described in the first paragraph of this text. And then those exceptions are not just either, just biased.

That’s my 2 cents. Don’t kill me if you disagree or I’ll call you Ossama. *g*

Black isn’t the issue for many who oppose obama. The issue is his lack of specificity in his agenda. In hindsight quite possably our worst fears have come about. He is a marxist. I can’t speak for the UK having never been there but marxcism is directly opposed to the core values of our founding fathers.

Why were you being subjected to our election? Thats an easy one – One World Government. You can have a feeling for (an influence in) what directs world events. As ugly as this may sound, in John Lennons themere, America is today’s Rome…aka the center of the world. This is just a priming of the pump.