Friday, August 28, 2009

Oil is the God of the New Millenia - Just ask Gordon Brown

Most thinking folk have always realized that oil is one of the main barganing chips in almost all international negotiations, especially when dealing with the Middle East. Wars have been fought over its possession and countries have gone broke because of it while others have attained great financial wealth due to it; while all the time the entire world's population has been killing themselves and its own environment by using it. But -- Oil remains today's king-maker and back-room decision-dealer.

This fact became crystal clear this week after it was acknowledged that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision to let Lockerbi bombing terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi leave the Scottish prison system and return home to a Lybian hero's welcome from Libia's people and leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, was not based on humanitarian reasons as was first released to the press, but for some kind of special deal from Lybia pertaining to some very lucrative oil contracts.

Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is reportedly suffering from prostate cancer and wished to die in his home country of Lybia. I'm sure all 270 passengers aboard Pan Am Flight 103 were wishing the same thing about 10 seconds before it plummeted into the icy waters.

One must begin to ask the question of just what value are we as a human race willing to place on our lives, the lives of our children and all those who are yet to come? How many barrels of oil would buy 270 lives? I guess we will soon know the answer to that one once the real dollar (sterling pound) amount of those lucrative contracts is finally revealed. At least the next time I board a plane for a domestic or international flight I will have some idea what the governments of this world think my value as a human being is. That should give me great comfort when I'm cruising at 30,000 feet.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ted Kennedy Dead at 77

It is said we are not to speak ill of the dead so I'll just say -- R.I.P. Teddy and say hi to Mary Jo for me.

Health Care Public Option - Am I Bashing?

I generally get grief from some of the folks I know from Canada and other countries that live under a government controlled or sponsored health care system. Those of my friends in Canada are especially touchy on the subject when I get their system in my sites. Most claim that since I have never been under their system I am in no position to judge it...and, in large part that is true, but the same applies to those living outside this country who would bash the system here in the United States.

While having not lived under the Canadian system, I have lived under the system the Canadian one was based on and forged from. Therefore, the double-standard does not wholly apply here. However, I will give you that I have not lived under Canada's health care system as it currently is...but, I am familiar with some who have and they, for the most part, agree with my assessment of it.

I am just as hard on our own system here in the United States. The current modus operandi gives insurance bureaucrats far too much power in deciding what is and isn't medically needed. That needs to change and do so quickly. However, it might all be moot since today it was discovered that, just like the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies are in bed with the current administration and are willing to take the public perception media hit because the Obama administration is promising them a lowering of their current coverage liability from 80% to as low as 65% without the same decrease in premium costs which will, except for the very rich in this country, drive most everyone else out of the private sector of health coverage and straight into the arms of the public option. Government and Insurance companies are both playing the sleaze card on this one and most Americans will be left with no choice but the handout and leavings of Uncle Sam. That's another nail in the coffin of American life as we have come to know it and another tear in the Constitution.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Obama's upcoming Attack on the State of Israel

According to Debka.com, an Israeli open-source intelligence paper based in Jerusalem, President Obama is about to do something that could turn out to be the turning point, and quite possibly, the spell of doom on his presidency. Debka and One Jerusalem are claiming that the President is getting ready to put on a tremendous amount of pressure on Israel to turn over their sovereignty of Jerusalem, as well as a complete ban on settlements in the disputed territories and calling on the Israeli government to formally acknowledge the West Bank terrorist-led State.

Besides the crucial issue of having an undivided Jerusalem as the recognized capital of the country of Israel (which is composed of both Jewish and Arab voting and tax-paying citizens) the other hot issue is the question of whether or not Jewish citizens of the State of Israel are to be allowed to buy land and build homes anywhere in Jerusalem.

President Obama will make his (as Jerusalem One calls it) ambush of Israel at the upcoming opening UN Assembly. His first partner in this crime is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a supposed ally of Israel. Of course the United States is also a supposed ally, at least it has been since its founding nearly 60 years ago. Is all that about to change with Obama? One might be led to think so.

The problem with the Obama/Mubarak proposal is both simple and complex. Asking Israel to recognize the West Bank terrorist state would be like asking the American government to recognize and openly negotiate with Al'Queda. Not very wise. Giving any terrorist organization that kind of legitimate claim to public recognition is naive at best and disastrous at worse. Israel played that game with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and that effort has proved fruitless at best for both sides of the table. The only thing it has done is weaken the PLO and strengthen the more hard-lined terror group HAMAS, granting them unprecedented political power in the region that they would have never achieved otherwise.

Asking Israel to govern from a divided capital in Jerusalem would have been equivalent to asking President Abraham Lincoln to divide Washington, DC and give the Confederacy the southern half as their capital. Not only is that foolhardy but just plain stupid.

While a spokesperson for President Obama was quick to deny Mubarak's press release that the American President was finishing up a proposed peace agreement between Israel and Palestine that would entail the realignment of Jerusalem's borders, it must be kept in mind that despite scant assurances from the President, Israel, for the first time since the days of Jimmy Carter, does not have a real friend in the White House.

With the President revving up the pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the settlements and now this supposed restructuring of the walls of Jerusalem in question and the fact that current polling in Israel shows that the majority of Jewish voters don't want a freeze on new Jewish settlements - this could spell some new hard days for Israel. They held firm during such onslaughts in the past, but those were the days when the U.S. was a staunch friend and ally. Now with the support of an old friend waning, Israel may once again have to rely on that one source that has carried them along for nearly 6,000 years and kept them buoyed in troubled waters.