Was I Wrong?

Was I wrong? Is it too late for Syria? Excerpt from an article by Christoph Reuter from Spiegel Online International.

Abandoning Syria: Few Options Left for Stopping the War

By Christoph Reuter in Beirut

FILE - In this June 5, 2014, file photo, a man rides a bicycle  through a devastated part of Homs, Syria. From the three-year-old boy who washed ashore on a Turkish beach to the 71 migrants who suffocated in a truck in Austria to the daily scenes of chaos unfolding in European cities as governments try to halt a human tide heading north. There is no let up to the horrors that Syria’s civil war keeps producing. Syria’s brutal conflict, now in its fifth year, has touched off the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. About 250,000 people have been killed and more than one million wounded since March 2011, according to U.N. officials. (AP Photo/Dusan Vranic, File)
FILE – In this June 5, 2014, file photo, a man rides a bicycle through a devastated part of Homs, Syria. From the three-year-old boy who washed ashore on a Turkish beach to the 71 migrants who suffocated in a truck in Austria to the daily scenes of chaos unfolding in European cities as governments try to halt a human tide heading north. There is no let up to the horrors that Syria’s civil war keeps producing. Syria’s brutal conflict, now in its fifth year, has touched off the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. About 250,000 people have been killed and more than one million wounded since March 2011, according to U.N. officials. (AP Photo/Dusan Vranic, File)

Can the Horrors Be Stopped?

A country is hemorrhaging people. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians are on the road, traveling to Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands, or they have already arrived, and millions will follow suit. The exodus is putting a long-ignored question back onto the political agenda in the West: What can be done to stop the horrors in Syria?

Four years after the beginning of the uprising, a quarter of a million are dead and the political proposals by the United Nations, the German foreign minister, the United States government and others sound very much like proposals in 2011: Negotiate, apply pressure and seek a political solution. The situation is complicated by announcements from France and Great Britain of their intention to participate in air strikes against the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. But what they overlook is that the overwhelming majority of Syrians are not fleeing from IS, but from Assad’s barrel bombs, the Syrian Air Force and the generally hopeless situation.

IS primarily controls sparsely populated desert areas in eastern Syria. According to reports by the Syrian Network for Human Rights, Assad’s soldiers killed about 11,500 people between January and August, while IS killed 1,800. Among civilians, at least 10 times as many people die as a result of the regime’s attacks than at the hands of IS.

IS has made adjustments to cope with the air strikes. Its troops now tend to operate in towns, in which they prevent the residents from fleeing by erecting checkpoints and imposing draconian punishments. This prevents Western forces from effectively attacking IS.

The Assad Question

The refugees are responsible for growing political pressure to find ways out of the war, but their plight does nothing to change the status quo, which has led to the failure of every negotiated solution to date. Russia and Iran want to keep Assad in power, and the West is unwilling to overthrow him and oppose the Russian veto in the UN Security Council or jeopardize Iran’s compliance with the nuclear treaty. Two UN special envoys have already failed to resolve this conflict situation, and a third one is heading in the same direction. Staffan de Mistura has announced new negotiations for October and wants to introduce decentralized task forces, but he has not even mentioned the central issue: Should the goal be to remove Assad or to allow him to remain in power?

The world had already made more headway in earlier negotiations. When influential Syrians from both camps met for secret negotiations at Château de Bossey on Lake Geneva in October 2013, everyone, after initial difficulties, was surprisingly in agreement. Even an advisor to Assad was acquiescent and was not opposed to a peaceful solution. “We will fight down to the last building in Damascus. But what happens after that? The country is ruined. No side can win or stop fighting.”

The meetings were hosted by Switzerland’s Center for Humanitarian Dialogue. As one participant recalls, both sides were exhausted and prepared to make extensive compromises. In the end, the negotiations failed because of one person: Assad. Everything was negotiable, but he had to go, the representatives of the opposition demanded. The participants agreed that a solution was in the hands of the Americans and the Russians.

If there is any solution for Syria anymore, it would have to be similar to the tentative plans suggested in 2013, which called for exiling Assad, his clan, key generals and their families. Those also included extensive amnesties for combatants on both sides, power to be handed over to local authorities — and a common fight against IS. But this type of solution would have required military pressure on Assad, which Washington was never willing to agree to. Even a proposal to install no-fly zones in several Syrian border regions, so that people there could survive without air strikes, was repeatedly rejected.

But then, in August of this year, there was a brief moment when Western diplomats hoped that Iran’s leadership could be willing to agree to Assad’s removal in return for concessions. The Iranians had already secured extensive control over what happened in Damascus by having generals and intelligence chiefs who opposed them removed.

One notable deposition involved the longtime head of Syria’s Republican Guard, Dhu al-Himma Shalish, a close relative of Assad. “With that, the Iranians have direct physical access to Bashar,” said one Western diplomat with good contacts in Damascus. The Iranians also could have deposed Assad, but they didn’t want to.

Meanwhile, the Russians have arrived. In recent days, several Russian navy transport ships have landed in Latakia harbor, fully loaded with armored vehicles and other military equipment. Some 300 soldiers with Russia’s 810th naval infantry brigade are reportedly also on board. Three giant Antonov 124 cargo aircraft and a passenger jet landed at the nearby airport. Mobile housing for 1,000 men and a command post to monitor air traffic have reportedly been installed. Russia is upping the ante on its already massive military aid for Assad.

It is doing so under the pretext of a joint fight with the West against the “terrorists.” But Russia has a very different notion of what constitutes a terrorist than the US or Europe. Putin subscribes to Assad’s definition, which ranges from rebel groups supported by the US to IS militants. Based on the involvement of Russian troops in fighting in the east of the Latakia province, it’s clear who Moscow sees as the prime target: Syrian rebels. The Islamic State isn’t to be found anyhere near that particular theater of battle.

Different Countries, Different Goals

It is unclear what President Vladimir Putin’s strategic goals are in Syria. Is he merely trying to secure Assad’s home region in the mountains between Latakia and Tartus, and preserve Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean? Or does Russia intend to re-establish its vassal Assad’s control over the entire country?

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards already failed in a similar attempt. In 2012, they began sending their own troops and combatants with the Lebanese Hezbollah group to Syria, as well as arranging for the deployment of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. Despite these efforts, the Syrian regime is running out of troops. The fronts are softening in the north and south, and IS has been able to capture natural gas fields and the ancient city of Palmyra in the east. Analysts estimate that this year the Assad regime has lost about a fifth of the territory it controlled in 2014.

There has been little international support for the Syrian rebels — a product of the fact that individual countries are pursuing different goals. The US only wants to fight IS and has implemented a $500-million program to train Syrian fighters. Most of the 54 men in the first of these US-trained units were abducted by radicals with the al-Nusra Front, because the group believed it was the target of the campaign. Saudi Arabia and Qatar tend to fund Islamist groups, which the United States mistrusts. And Turkey is seeking allies for its war against Kurdish separatists with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

A negotiated solution still seems a long way off, at least as long as Assad remains in power. Negotiations can only succeed if both parties stand to benefit. But from the very beginning, Assad and his top leaders chose a path that permits only victory or defeat. And Russia supports them on this path.

Putin is now counting on those in the West who believe that the priority is to fight IS, and that this requires supporting Assad. But his ongoing rule is the original reason for the conflict. Besides, Assad is unable to fulfill these expectations because he controls less and less territory. He has no lack of weapons, aircraft or funds, but he does lack soldiers.

The only way Syria can survive as a nation is if the two large camps, consisting of the moderate rebels and the Syrian army, band together against IS to preserve the country. This could easily work without Assad, but not with him.

Failure to Act

Since the days of his father, dynasty founder Hafez Assad, fear was always a major component in Syria’s principle of rule. It not only includes subjects’ fear of those in power, but also their own followers’ fear of everyone else. The Alawite religious community, to which the Assads belong, makes up one-tenth of the Syrian population. The most effective way to preserve the Alawites’ unconditional loyalty was not preferential treatment but fear of the Sunni majority. And this fear was systematically stoked with such campaigns as the bloody suppression of a rebellion by the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama in 1982. Even after Hafez’s death, any attempt at conciliation was blocked. Fear of revenge by their enemies has turned the Alawites into perfect hostages of Assad. The president, in turn, fears that negotiations will lead to his demise, and that loyalties could be destroyed and pave the way for new protests, because tens of thousands of Alawites have also died defending the family dictatorship without the promised victory ever materializing.

Two years ago, it still would have been possible for the West to intervene on behalf of the moderate rebels. But skeptics feared that intervention in Syria would lead to more violence and deaths, the triumph of jihadist radicals and the collapse of public order. All of these things have occurred — not because, but despite the fact that the West did not intervene.

If US President Barack Obama had ordered air strikes on the military’s nerve centers following Assad’s poison gas attacks on the Damascus suburbs, the regime probably would have collapsed. At the time, intelligence services were already observing efforts by officers and soldiers to defect. But Obama apparently was unwilling to risk an overthrow of Assad and the resulting power vacuum.

But what could have been worse than what happened after that? In September 2013, IS had not yet begun its victory march, around 130,000 people who are now dead were still alive, and it would have been much easier to preserve the entire country than it is today.

There are many indications today that a partition of Syria is the most likely future scenario. Iran and Hezbollah have withdrawn their forces from large parts of the north and south since the beginning of the year. They want to focus on defending the core region controlled by Assad, which they can hold — the densely populated strip from Damascus to Latakia.

A partition of Syria would probably be the biggest favor the world could do for IS. A Russian-Iranian protectorate in the west would stand in the way of any unification of the entire country, and it would mean abandoning the rest of the country — to the delight of IS “Caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who knows that the Syrian rebels alone cannot defeat Islamic State.

No Way Back

The gradual dissolution of Syria makes it extremely difficult to find a solution for the entire country. Two other parties to the conflict have already taken control of large portions of the country. In the north, troops with the YPG, the Syrian branch of the PKK, control the three traditionally Kurdish areas along the Turkish border. And even though the Kurdish party leadership in Syria consistently denies wanting to establish its own state, this is precisely what Western intelligence officials believe it intends to do. This is why the Turkish government is doing everything in its power to prevent the YPG from capturing more territory. Hezbollah, in turn, has captured a broad strip of land along the Lebanese border in a move that could disrupt the country’s delicate confessional balance.

It may simply be too late for Syria.
The hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees apparently agree. It is often overlooked that their exodus to Europe has only just begun. Many Syrians were already leaving the country before, but now everyone wants to leave — not just opponents of the regime, but also those who had kept a low profile, Assad’s followers and supporters. Syrians in all political camps have lost faith in their country’s future.

The wars for control over the decaying country make a peaceful solution virtually impossible. These wars know no borders, as evidenced by IS’ campaign of conquest in Iraq and Ankara’s fight against the PKK. The longer all of this lasts, the more difficult it will be to stop Syria’s demise. And the longer the hundreds of thousands who have left remain in exile, the more unlikely they are to return. A bombed city can be rebuilt, but a destroyed country, abandoned by those who want to live a life of dignity, work and raise children, is a different story.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan.

Full article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/many-syrian-refugees-fleeing-civil-war-have-lost-faith-in-a-solution-a-1052576.html

GIVE ME YOUR POOR ?

This mass immigration of entire populations from the Middle East is a phenomena that the world has never seen before. Even after the Babylonia Exile of 539 BC, when the entire population had to flee, even then in terms of the numbers of people, it was nothing like this nor was it voluntary. They were forced into exile. In the 1930s, when Jews fled Germany it was because they were specifically targeted for death if they remained. I believe that all nations of the world should offer aid to individuals who are personally targeted for annihilation and therefore have been forced to flee.

However, this situation of entire populations leaving their countries and fleeing across continents, expecting permanent care, shelter and jobs in a recipient nation is an entirely different concept. This is the first time in history that entire nations have fled to other countries in search of a better life somewhere else. If they succeed, what will stop millions of others from following? Are these people here to stay or are they just seeking temporary shelter? And why is it that Saudi Arabia hasn’t stepped in. They are fellow Islamists and have air-conditioned tents all set up. If there is a temporary solution, there it is. But that is not what these refugees are looking for. They are looking to take what others have, fleeing their war torn country where they cannot stay and fight without international support.

What kind of a message does this send to the millions of people who are waiting for legal entry into the US and other countries? And what kind of signal are we sending to all those living on subsistence diets or who can’t earn enough to survive here in the United States? I think we should close our borders, keep these people on their own turf and help them there as we should have been doing for the past 60 years or more.

As their exile is voluntary, the problems posed by such masses of people present an entirely new set of issues. The cost to the recipient countries will be enormous in terms of language, religion, culture and economy. The obvious solution is not by opening the gates for entire nations to move from one end of the planet to the other. The obvious solution is, and has always been, to help these people on their native soil. Every revolution, the American, the Russian, the French, have been won by those who stayed on the ground, who faced death and fought for their freedom and for the safety of their own land.

This is something very different. The Syrians have doubled their population twice in 60 years and suffered historical droughts. Out of pure prejudice, they did not seek help from the Israelis who have developed the best irrigation systems in the world. Syria has rivers such as the Euphrates as well as access to the Mediterranean. Why didn’t the Western World help them then? America bears much responsibility, as well as does the rest of the Western World. And what solution is provided by their running away? These problems will not be solved here, there or anywhere else other than on the home turf of the Middle East and all of Africa. These are problems of overpopulation, drought, power-mad leadership and the failure of the Western World to take up the cudgel and fight a war against poverty and hunger.

This mass immigration is playing right into the hands of ISIS and Assad. The fewer discontent people Assad has to deal with, the better from his point of view. And the fewer people ISIS has to deal with, the greater amount of territory they can take. ISIS and Assad, though enemies of each other, each represent a threat to every country in the world. ISIS is supporting their tyrannical rule by illegally selling historical artwork and oil, as well as through ransoms from kidnappings, and seem to have no end to their military supplies. Meanwhile, the Western World seems all too happy to buy their oil and illegal artwork. And who knows if amongst these millions of immigrants, ISIS and Al Qaeda haven’t scattered their sacrificial lambs to raise havoc in each and every country across the Western World by placing moles.

I believe this mass immigration to be a clear and present danger to every recipient country. I believe all borders should be closed and a united world effort to solve these problems on their home turf, whatever is required. We, the Western World, will be destroyed by this if we do not accept this clarion call to action.

Depraved DeBlasio

I have lived most of my life as a resident of New York City. My mother grew up here, and her mother lived here.  My two sons have grown up in New York City, and my grandchildren have grown up here as well. In my entire life here, it never occurred to me nor to anyone else whom I have known, that  dishonesty and criminal behavior could ever put people on an even playing field when applying for a job.  Mayor De Blasio has now set this City on the road to ruination. This man is without conscience. He must be forced to resign, or else he should be impeached. He was swept into office because no one came out to vote. He won by default. This is the most dramatic demonstration of the failure of the American people to take responsibility for their lives and to take the responsibility that is inherent in the idea of a democracy. It is the failure of this public to accept the obligation as citizens to go to the polls to vote for the best person who is entered in the political battle at that time.

Mr. DeBlasio recently signed a bill (Int. No. 318) into legislation making it illegal to run a credit check on someone who is applying for a job. He then fortified that legislation with additional regulations that makes the use of a criminal background check illegal for job applicants in most occupations and professions.  So any criminal can from now on come to work in your building, for your family and maybe even for your school. This is the most unconscionable law ever passed by any ambitious lunatic in government in the nearly 250 year history of this country.  A heroin addict or dealer who has served time in prison can now attend to your child, can work in any capacity in your building, your school, your hospitals, as your housekeeper, your babysitter and your child’s school bus driver. There is no end to where this can lead.

The DeBlasios are depraved. According to the newspaper accounts, this Mayor’s wife was being paid $175,000  when he took office. Supposedly, she was the advisor and assistant to the Mayor. The hue and cry against this abuse caused her to resign. She then hired her friend who was living with a criminal or ex con. I sense that this may be the root of this ill-conceived law. This is their revenge against the City and its inhabitants for having taken public action against Charlene De Blasio and her friends. I absolutely cannot see any other rational reason for such a destructive law. This is an invitation for all honest, hardworking people to leave this city and flee to the countryside or any other place where honesty and integrity are still a factor in our lives. The effect of this on Business is mind boggling. Any corporation with any fiduciary responsibility to the public will be decimated by this law. This leaves corporations and individuals vulnerable to law suits by any perspective employee who has a criminal record . This will certainly be an additional reason for corporations and other businesses to leave the city.  De Blasio is a depraved maniac.  People! Please, men, women, girls, and boys–get out there; hit the streets. Protest in masses. That’s the only way to stop this insanity.

Suicide City

Manhattan is undergoing many disruptive changes. None of them are really good for the city. Ex Mayor Bloomberg had some strange notion that if you turned the city over to the Real-estate Magnates, and IF they got away like burglars with the money from their ridiculously tall buildings, this would bring money into the city. And, that there would be some kind of trickle down in the housing shortage.  Well, I grew up in the Real Estate Business, so I have a pretty fair idea of the of New York City property values. Yes, there is little space in some parts of the city, so of course it’s a great temptation to build upward. Even if doing so  destroys the street life, the quality of life, the Central Park Life and even though it brings nothing to the City itself. Only very tall buildings with ten to thirty year Tax abatements so that for that length of time no money is seen by the City. The money that these buildings bring are largely secreted funds from other countries, and are being illegally laundered in this New York Real-estate .The Real Estate magnates, the so called developers sell the property to these people as soon as they can build them and they get their money and then are gone with no Taxes to be paid to the city. They then stick their money somewhere in the Cayman Islands. They aren’t really crooks because they are aided and abetted by the system.

The real issue here is that no one except these rich foreigners can afford to live in this city anymore. Normal working people are having to move farther and farther out of town. The rents have become ridiculous and the government is doing nothing here to create affordable housing. They talk, they talk and in the end they help the Real Estate magnates to create even less affordable housing.

I walk the City streets day after day. Everywhere I look there are stores for rent. I know that the rents are impossible and lack any connection to reality. Stores can only afford a certain rent. They simply cannot make enough money to pay these astronomical prices. Even Wall Street banks are looking elsewhere. What was the point of building buildings that no one benefits from? We can’t any longer maintain our restaurants, our stores, or our Wall Street banks in this city. We will be left with nothing but empty streets on the ground floors with only the very wealthy foreigners affording to live here. Young people and artists and students and working people have already fled the City. In five more years, this will be a desert with only the very rich and commuters filling the streets in the daytime, and fleeing back home out of town in the evenings.

What ever happened to the idea of affordable housing? I know that Real Estate magnates can’t make that much money on the kind of housing that is needed to maintain the foundation of this City. BUT I do believe that they too must be able to understand the need. That need can be filled, and money can be made but NOT in the most densely populated part of Manhattan. Build elsewhere in town where there is space. BRING THE RENTS DOWN SO THAT STORES AND PEOPLE can afford the city. Make it once more a livable place to be. We have everything going for us, Opera, Ballet, Theater, Concerts, but no one can afford them and no one can afford to live here to attend them. The City depends more and more on Tourism. Like Disney World, we are becoming an amusement park which people come to visit but not to stay. This is suicide.

A New Start

It seems that today’s political fashion is either to blame the poor or the rich for all the problems of the Nation. If you are a Republican,then,you have to blame the poor for being uneducated,lazy,and living off the land on welfare. If you are a Democrat you have to take from the rich, penalize them for their success and give it away to the poor.  There really must be another way .

The other day on Roosevelt Island, Hillary Clinton announced her bid for the Presidential nomination, obviously by the Democrats. She gave a very good speech. She was in control of the media. She was not strident as I have heard her on other occasions. She looked really good and she has my support. However, even she, seemed to feel that there was something wrong with some people being very wealthy and others being very poor. I agree with her to some extent. I simply[ly don’t believe that the way to cure the situation is to penalize the rich. After all most of the time people become exceedingly wealthy in a system that permits and encourages wealth. Everyone wants it.

In the 1930’s when Roosevelt was elected President, he was faced with the worst depression the country had ever known. He created the WPA, built dams and bridges and roads and created jobs by building the infra structure of the country. He did this with the help of the wealthy people who understood that he was saving the Nation.  He won their personal support because they understood what he was doing and where the money was going. They were willing to help him to rebuild the country. Instead of penalizing  them for their wealth, he asked them for their help. They understood where their money was going and they supported him. Don’t you believe that today, there are wealthy people who would support the same kind of effort, if they actually believed in what was being done. It seems to me that the real thrust of the next administration should be to restore the confidence in this Nation and the possibility that we can all help and that our vote again counts.

Guard your Loins

The Gun Manufacturers have a motto: “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” Their point is that it’s not the guns that are the problem. It’s the people.  Well, I have to wonder how the American people have allowed themselves to be talked into this kind of rubbish.Just this past week a New York City newspaper reported that 53 people were injured due to gun violence with thirteen people shot on Saturday alone. At a recent wedding at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Manhattan a man was totting a gun in his pocket. Someone brushed past him and the gun went off. Several people were shot and wounded. Here’s a case where the person didn’t even pull the trigger and the gun went off.

However that’s not the typical story. Of course it’s true that people with guns shoot people. Children with guns shoot other children. What is the answer? Take the bloody gun away from the child and take the gun away from the grownup. I can tell you from firsthand experience that if you have a gun there will at some point be a temptation to use it. I once was frightened in my own home and grabbed my son’s riffle and almost shot my housekeeper whose car had broken down and she had decided to sleep over. I have never again allowed a gun in the house. Having a gun may in itself provide the temptation to use it.

I have yet to see a situation in which having a gun made someone safe. If you do have a gun hanging around the house and someone breaks in and attacks you, the chance of ever getting that gun from wherever it is kept is probably nil. Two cops sitting in the front seat of their car, carrying guns in their holsters, were shot by an  angry nut. What good did their guns do them? On the other hand, the Police are supposed to be trained in the use of their weapon. I am a big supporter of the Police. By and large they do a wonderful job of protecting our communities. I do agree that they too need to have more training in how to shoot without necessarily killing the perpetrator. However, the civilian who owns, and now can legally own and carry a weapon in public need have NO training whatsoever. He needs to have a driver’s license to drive a car. He has to pass a test in order to receive that. The gun carrier doesn’t even need to pass a test. All he needs to do is to file for a permit. No one even checks his character. We do a better job on choosing people who can live in a Coop than this society does on Gun control.

Come on everybody. Why can’t we vote down the Gun Lobby and  make the world a better, safer place?

What Happened to the American Dream?

What is “The American Dream” anyway? Today people do nothing but complain about its loss. I wonder when it got lost. Was it during the great depression of the thirties? Was it during World War 11? Was it in Vietnam or Korea? Was it during the student riots in the sixties? Or was it during the ill-conceived War in Iraq?

In 1938 one third of this nation lived on less than subsistence diets. They lived in abysmal poverty. At the turn of the 20th Century immigrants from all over the world came pouring into the United States…….. They worked on the docks, heavy work,  loading and unloading ships. They worked in sweatshop factories. They worked, as maids, house cleaners, painters and plasterers and anything else that they could find that would pay enough to put bread on the table.

These people dedicated themselves to becoming Americans. They learned to speak English even though often with a heavy accent. They felt it was their language and they had to learn it.They worked without benefit of Unions, pensions, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Their Dream was to become American, to get ahead, to build a better future for their children, not just for themselves. This was their American Dream. These were the people who built and became America’s vast Middle Class. Even then it was not easy. It was not cheap.

When did this dream become the dream of instant satisfaction or nothing? What is the American Dream? When did it get lost?Maybe it was when Americans failed to go to the polls to vote. That’s when the country was sold to the highest bidder. That’s when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.

Can This Be Love?

Mr. Rudy Giuliani the ex-Mayor of New York City recently criticized President Obama as a President who does not love his country or the people who inhabit it.  He launched a tirade against Obama basically attacking him for being weak and indecisive in his presidency. Well, there’s no question that Mr. Giuliani decisively did reduce the crime rate in New York City. He allowed the police to sweep into custody anyone who was suspect of anything. He put any number of people in jail on charges that he could not prove. Obviously some were guilty, and his tactics though totally undemocratic, did reduce the level of crime in the city. However, he has now denounced the President and applauds Mr. George W. Bush.

It is surprising to me that President Obama and the Democrats have never risen en mass to respond, not just to address Mr. Giuliani’s accusations, but also to denounce the Presidency of G.W. Bush. He created the situation now facing the world. It was G.W. Bush who after 9-11, with no thought and no plan in mind set out to destroy Hussein and Iraq .He  simultaneously allowed Bin Laden,  the actual perpetrator of the 9-11 destruction of the towers, to slip away. It was G.W. Bush who thoughtlessly led us into the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and is ultimately responsible for the turmoil and brutality which we now face in the Middle East.  It was G. W. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney who involved us in two major wars, at a cost of  trillions of dollars, and the incredible loss of American lives and limbs. That says nothing of the so called “collateral damage” which means, the destruction of civilian populations.

G.W. Bush was responsible for running this country into financial debt and causing a crisis second only to the great depression of the 1930’s. These are the conditions that Obama inherited  following  16 years of consecutive Republican leadership.

Rudy Giuliani has accused Obama of not loving this country. Was it out of love that G.W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and Rumsfeld fabricated and disseminated lies to this country, to the people and to the Congress. Lies that weapons of mass destruction existed and had been found in Iraq. Giuliani praises these men tho led this country to the brink of destruction. Obviously Hussein was a terrible man, totally abusive and a destructive dictator. That alone does not justify a full scale war by the Untied States. So when Mr. Obama became President, he inherited two wars  and a country on the brink of financial disaster with unemployment rampant at almost 10%.  This was the Legacy left by Mr. Giuliani’s heroes. Following four years of President Herbert Walker Bush , eight years of Reagan, eight years of Bush, twenty years of republican presidents. President Obama is given little or no credit by a right wing Republican Party that has been taken over by the most conservative right wing narrow minded, bigoted and financially powerful group of people who have ever dominated the Congress, the Senate and the financial world.

Obama may not be the greatest communicator in the world.  He may not be the “hale fellow well met charm boy” that Reagan and Bush were reputed to be. He is, however, certainly a thoughtful, highly intelligent and cautious man.  Mr. Giuliani and his cohorts would happily involve this country and the world in a war of total destruction. Mr. Obama, on the other hand has reduced the national debt, created employment, improved the economy helped people get healthcare, killed Bin Laden reduced the number of American soldiers whose lives were carelessly put at risk by G.W. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don’t believe it is because he does not love this country that he has tried and continues to try all possible means of keeping us out of another endless war. He is not power hungry. He is a thoughtful man who looks at all the alternatives trying to find a solution to the conflagration in the Middle East caused by President G.W. Bush and Company. Everything that Obama  has tried to do has been blocked by the fanatical, ultra-conservative, radical right wing Republicans who now dominate the Congress and the Senate. Is this love of country?

 

The greater good

It seems that the Koch brothers with their friends and partners  have already bought the Congress ,the Senate of the United States, and probably the Supreme Court as well. They  are now about to buy the next upcoming 2016 elections. If power and fame is what they want they may succeed but their names will live on in infamy. I have a wonderful idea for these fellows. They have already declared that they will spend at least a Billion dollars on the next 2016 election. Well  I think I have a better idea for them. They could invest in the failing infra structure of the country. They could invest in the rebuilding of the roads and bridges across the Nation. They might even make some money along the way. They could name every road and every bridge after themselves. Their names would live long after they have left this veil of tears, and they would be remembered for the good they will have done for this country and the people who inhabit it.

The Great Divide

The Founding Fathers concept of the Supreme Court was that these nine people would be able to rise above the Politics of  Political Parties. It is their job to see that this country, it’s Politicians, the wealthiest  and the poorest are all represented equally. These nine people are appointed to the Supreme court for life. They should not owe allegiance to any party,any interest or any individual. Their job is simply to opine on those issues which  give equal rights to all citizens and justice for all. This court has failed  this country on one issue after another. It is a court divided within itself. The women against the men. The Liberals versus the conservatives. They are Politically , ethnically and sexually divided., This does not fit the mandate of the Supreme Court. The recent ruling by this court in the Hobby Lobby case gives corporations and  their owners, the power to deny their female employees their right to birth control options under the Corporate insurance policies. This, under the guise of religious Freedom. The Founding fathers of this country never conceived of Religious freedom becoming the tool with which the Society would be controlled. Each person has the right to practice his or her Religion . Religion is a  personal and private matter. However, it was never conceived by the Founding fathers that this right would become the controlling power over the electorate, the people or the Government of this country.  Girls, Boys, Men Women Hit the streets. Impeach this supreme Court.

 

Has condoned the shutting down of abortion clinics by their ruling

Has not just infiltrated the hobby lobby but Roe versus Wade