Sinister Plans?

4/23/2008

Sinister plans

Just for the heck of it, let's indulge in some speculation about global political and strategic options of certain Middle Eastern countries.

If you are a country with a singularly aggressive and increasingly intolerant "religious" culture and have been living for many centuries at a mere subsistence level, what would you want to do, now that untold riches have been coming your way which finally might make the fullfilment of your fundamental cultural/religious objectives possible??

You are very intelligent and you want to find a way to overcome other cultures with as little physical damage as possible. You do want the spoils!!! That could very well mean a fifth-column approach of infiltrating your enemies and using their own political and economic system against them to gain your ends. Subversion in other words.

Subversion, in the target countries, but under the aegis of equality of established local rights and options. That's the ticket. Use the enemy's own laws, rules and weaknesses to your advantage and also demonstrate and publicise your own ruthless behavior in other places to intimidate the general population of those targeted countries.

Given time, you might so demoralize your enemies that they will succumb without much
fierce fighting and you will own the world.

Crazy idea??

It's exactly what the thinkers of the famous Muslim Brotherhood have been saying for decades already. The scary thing is that it looks to me, at least, that the Saudis and their allies while financing these militant groups yet appearing supportive to us, have also been playing a double game. What they are doing in effect aids and abets the ultimate plan of Radical Islam to conquer the world. Let's not forget that the Saud family are Wahhabs and it is the Wahhabi dogma that's driving many madrassas where children are inculcated with the self-sacrificing spirit of suicide bombing and terrorism. The Saudi family have been financing this operation for more than 80 years already.

Because the Western world is the ultimate enemy of radical Islam what have these efforts produced so far for the achievement of their cause?

Just review a few items:

I) Immigration of Muslims to Western Europe and now North America continues to grow.

II) Muslim populations in the West are growing at a furious rate compared to native populations.


III) Supported by their local numbers and in tune with how Western towns function politically, Muslim communities in the West increasingly pose demands on their local environments to achieve special arrangements dictated by their religious disciplines.

IV) Muslim leaders increasingly insist on imposing Sharia law on their own communities in defiance of established relevant western rules and laws.

V) Growing numbers of mosques are being built in many towns and areas and it is not really known what is being peached there, but we can guess.

VI) Muslim women are persuaded, if not forced, to adopt radical Islamic dress codes.

VII) Muslim women are intimidated by their men with respect to their duties as a subordinate species.

VIII) Brutal Sharia laws concerned with female mutilation are practised with actual impunity in western countries wherever the authorities do not wish to cause trouble for themselves. In effect Western communities are surrendering established law and conduct for an imported barbaric custom, thus making respect for our own western legal system a farce.

All these elements of immigrant Muslim behavior are part and parcel of the brutality of radical Islamic religious dogma. Thus does central radical Muslim leadership force acceptance of their barbaric behavior by many western countries and channel it into the formation of "in-place fifth column" operations, ready to pounce on their befuddled western neighbors when the time comes.

In parallel with these subversive developments, Islamic countries have achieved enough economic leverage on a world scale to be able to start doing serious damage to western economies. Think about it:

1) Supporting Environmentalism in the West has pretty much made the USA and Western Europe beholden to the Middle East and Russia for major portions of their fossil fuel requirements.

2) OPEC has been manipulating crude oil prices for years already and because it is such a dominant player on the international oil market it can raise prices without too much trouble. Tellingly, in today's (4/21/08) WSJ there appears a news item that Saudi Arabia has shelved the development of new oil fields indefinitely. This supports their policy of raising international crude oil prices nicely.

While the remaining Western oil companies also sell their oil at these prices it is only a short term boon to their financial condition. They are not in control of their own product pricing anymore, which is contrary to good business practice.

3) While Russia, China, India and Brazil are aggressively developing their own fuel resources they are also trying to capture control of foreign oil resources wherever they can. In contrast, the USA has shackled itself to the Environmentalist waggon of doom and almost given up on restarting new energy exploration in North America.

4) I am surprised that the Middle Eastern oil countries haven't made a bigger splash about the fact that the Western generated idea of disastrous global warming is really a scam. Satirizing the claims about doomsday global warming scenarios certainly would support further expansion of the oil markets and reduce respect by western populations for their gullible governments, thereby encouraging the ongoing rise in crude oil prices.

But such an effort may still come when the Middle East considers the timing most propitious. They are very clever and very dangerous.

So what are we going to do about this??

The answer appears God-given. We are going to take serious the renewed interest in the biggest oilfield ever discovered in this country 50 years ago already. The so-called "BAKKEN" area in eastern Montana and the Dakotas.

Our government will explain that no matter how fast we manage to come up with really competitive, non-subsidized, energy alternatives only much more fossil fuel will keep our economy running in growth mode for the next several decades. We will build dozens of nuclear plants, and construct necessary infrastructure such as the electrification of our railroads.

We will be able to disengage ourselves from the exploitative overseas oil suppliers, clean up our economy, regain our national selfrespect, re-educate ourselves in the civic virtues of the past and continue to be the country foreigners would consider their best bet to keep the world at peace. We will also continue to fight and eliminate Islamic radicalism for as long as it will take but we will more aggressively engage the people in those Islamic parts of the world who also want to be rid of it. That's the secret. We must again learn to accept that the maintenance of freedom is invaluable and from time to time costs precious lives and resources in its defense.

All these good things are within our grasp as a nation if we can find the leadership to get us on our way shortly. November is only 7 months away!!

That is what we should do.

Because it is the only honorable thing for us to do as the United States of America.

Letter to Senator McCain

July 17, 2008


The Honorable Senator John McCain
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator McCain,

I don't know whether you ever were given the chance to read my June 23 letter to you, which also was in response to one of many requests for more funds. As I said then, I would like to give you my vote but I hesitate to make further contributions because on at least one important topic we do not seem to agree at all.

Thanks to the current $4/gallon gas price, the whole country is becoming aware of the dreadful job the government has been doing during the past 30 plus years of hamstringing our energy industry to do what they needed to do to ensure a viable, competitive energy market.

In my view, the government in its political correctness approach to life and the world, actually caused the current energy dilemma. Its unreasonable catering to irrational environmentalism and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) adherents has resulted in grievous harm to the country's infrastructural ability to provide plenty of energy at reasonable and competitive prices. Instead of exploring and exploiting the enormous coal, fossil fuel and nuclear power options at our disposal, the Government basically forced the energy industry to buy ever more liquid energy from foreign suppliers at prices over which they no longer have any control. More importantly, and I do not have to spell that out to you Senator, this condition is now seriously affecting our strategic and political position in the world. We cannot allow this condition to fester, it needs resolute action.

I am confident, that you have realized for some time that Mankind is not the cause of global warming, nature itself is. There is a lot of sound scientific evidence available to support my statement. You could do worse than inviting
Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, to brief you on the subject in order to refocus your position on this very critical issue. For at least the next 30 years we will still need to be a fossil fuel economy, whether we like it or not. We can no longer condone any selfish and feel-good actions by those whose personal interests run counter to our national and global ones nor can we afford a further deterioration in the performance of our economy and military capability. If a Presidential decree of National Emergency is necessary to fix this stand-off, so be it.

Consequently, as our potential future President I would expect you to state now, unequivocally, that you do not plan to start spending trillions of dollars on false and impotent schemes to solve a non-existing global warming problem and thereby wreck our country and its future. The hubris of the idea that mankind can control the climate is like King Canute trying to hold back the tides.

In my judgment, the USA's international posture has become seriously compromised by our inability today to act and operate in the international arena independent of "awkward" suppliers of fossil fuels. And that is to say nothing about the detrimental effect this condition is increasingly having on our balance of payments and the value and credibility of our currency.

To top this off, now that the public is beginning to realize that this is really another man-made Washington failure, our politicians can only come up with schemes to punish the industry even more, like really insane schemes such as cap-and-trade and windfall profits taxes.

Therefore dear Senator, my preference would be for you to stand up and proclaim the utter folly of these schemes. Just speak simply and clearly about the urgency to solve this whole dilemma in a practical and common sense manner. Tell the country and the world that you will get the energy industry unshackled and given marching orders to execute their own growth plans, with alacrity, while telling them also that the government, being the people's servant after all, will help and support all their efforts, instead of frustrating them. As a result, not only will you find a lot more people willing to make further contributions to your campaign but the dollar will improve and the cost of gas will drop. I am aware that you recently gave some grudging support to off-shore exploration, but that just is not good enough. We are dealing with our country's near and long term future and to have one we need plenty of energy. If we fail, there may not be much of a future for the whole western world.

I apologize for being blunt Senator, but I much prefer to see you come out on the right side of these key issues and conceivably lose, instead of fudging them in the possibly erroneous belief that you might gather more votes. What this country needs today, is strong, sensible and uncompromising leadership based on a clear voter majority cast on the merits of your approach to the job and your admirable and unquestioned dedication to the country's future. I think you could win this race.

Respectfully and sincerely and may God bless America,

Candidate choice 2008

Here's an example of bias in our media. A few weeks before election day I contacted one of our national newspapers requesting the article below be published. I was told a response might take from 3 to 10 days. No reply after 10 days so I contacted them again reminding the editor of the time limitation involved. No response. But the day AFTER the election I received a reply telling me my request was denied, but I was free again to contact others. Neither a professional nor a civil response, just very political. So much for some of our high class media.
This is what I wrote:

10/21/2008

How to judge Presidential Candidates?

A year and a half ago I wrote a memo about what we should look for in a Presidential candidate's make-up, a) character, b) experience, c) personality and d) political philosophy. To date there is still no basic Presidential candidate profile the average voter might use as an aid to making a reasoned choice, something like a critical roster of fundamental parameters of competence and suitability.

I raise this issue primarily again because our world is becoming more difficult to deal with, our allies fewer, our economy more fragile and the political focus of the media very much on partisan contrasts rather than on the merits of the really fundamental problems the USA is faced with today. Our basic problems are all major in scope and potential risks to the country's security and economic well-being. In order to deal with these challenges we do need to probe into a candidate's real persona much more than we have in the past.

a) Character.

Senator Barack Obama, a relatively young enthusiastic politician, a relative newcomer to national politics with a fresh face and a matching approach. One who loves to talk and speaks well. What's more, what he talks about appears to resonate with many millions of people, thus building enormous public awareness of his candidacy and its aims.

His unwavering, unabashed and seemingly fresh and appealing behavior in often tough, competitive candidate selection performances, helped to make a great impression on the public, carrying him to the top of the ticket. It showed him to be resilient, persistent, even tempered and good at functioning in the national spotlight. All essential characteristics.

On the other hand, Senator Obama's earlier associations with people not known for their support of American values, cast a serious shadow over his ability to judge people critically, since good people judgment becomes ever more critical as one's range of responsibility grows.

His opponent, on the other hand, is a well known Senator with the reputation of being a "maverick" politician. An experienced individual though with a great and courageous personal record of service in the Navy and the Congress. He clearly has shown what his character is made of under the most trying circumstances. We know he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes is good and right for America. In this day and age that's a very valuable aspect to know about a candidate.

b) Experience.

Senator McCain has travelled a lot during his career and seen the trouble-spots our country has been dealing with several times, first hand. Senator Obama on the other hand, just recently visited the Middle East for the first time and cannot claim the personal connections or experience his opponent has with foreign leaders, our military leadership, our armed forces as well as the "government system" at large.

While Senator Obama so far has had little relevant experience in the national political arena it might be argued that organizing and funding a 2 year national political campaign qualifies as executive experience, which may be true. Although its focus is on self-promotion under the guise of eventual service to the nation makes it somewhat questionable. The President of the USA is its Chief Executive so it would seem highly desirable for a candidate to have some real sense of what executive experience is all about.

Senator McCain has had executive experience by virtue of his long Congressional career.

Neither candidate has a thorough grounding in economics although Senator McCain certainly has been through a lot of it during his Senate days.

c) Personality.

Senator Obama has an engaging personality, he appeals more readily to younger people, is closer to them and understands how to deal with them. His enormous popularity shows wherever he goes.

John McCain is a more staid and older individual. No glad-hander, a serious, courageous and experienced individual with a proven record in terms of character and objectives.
Also someone who is no orator but states what he thinks, why he thinks it and leaves the clear impression that he really means what he says.

d) Political philosophy.

Senator McCain's whole intellectual and moral world is anchored in the fundamentals of the American political experiment, our constitutional base and our Christian heritage.
He has studied our history intensively and seen enough of the abroad to realize that America is capable of representing Western civilization at its best and that no other country in the world has done more to try to get our fundamental ideas of individual freedom and economic success adopted by any other country. And really with stunning success to date, we might say. Unfortunately, with this kind of success also come unforeseen problems, national as well as international.

Senator McCain is thoroughly familiar with these events and has dealt with them for years. He knows what needs to be done and is on familiar terrain. A comforting aspect for the electorate. Since humanity has not changed in many thousands of years it is likely to respond to political and economic pressures and challenges the same way as it has in the past. Only experience can be a good guide here. Rash changes could be dangerous.

Mr. Obama on the other hand is an educational product of the post-WW II world, the politically correct and multicultural world. A world where one talks and makes allowances for whatever the other fellow may demand or propose. Everything is negotiable, even honor and reputation it seems. Nothing seems valuable enough to become nasty about, better to give in. Not quite the attitude of the terrorists who deeply believe in their own murderous cause and practice their beliefs at our expense. All in all, a philosophical concept that makes a lot of people very worried about our future as a nation. As one example of this concern, here's what Senator Obama said in Fayetteville, NC on 3/19/08: " I will end the Iraq war because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer". No one who has studied mankind and its history would make such a statement because it flies in the face of The President's foremost responsibility namely, to guard the nation's security. One can only walk away from a fight by surrendering and committing national disgrace once again and this time the self-proclaimed enemy will be on our doorstep sooner rather than later and the fight, to the end, will get bloodier than anything we have seen before.
Together with the Senator's penchant for bigger government it should make us pause and think before voting.

May be some of these thoughts will help others to reach a decision on the merits rather than on the basis of emotion and popular and media driven appeals for support of one or the other candidate.


.