The Tea Party Movement's protests against big Government and big spending make absolute sense. After all the U.S. is deep in debt and each year, Budget deficits have increased since Bill Clinton left office. It is no brainer that U.S. must bring down its budget deficits and start paying down its debt to curtail it to a more acceptable level of 30 to 40% of GDP compared to the current level of 80 to 90% of GDP.
The amount of money spent on saving the big banks, the auto industry, AIG and such like, have increased national debt enormously. So, protesting about big spending is quite appropriate. But where was the Tea Party Movement when George W. Bush was busy launching an illegal invasion of Iraq costing the U.S. taxpayer nearly a trillion dollars and giving tax cuts to the wealthy at the time of war adding another one and a half trillion dollars to deficit? Where was the Tea Party Movement when Bush merrily turned Bill Clinton's budget surpluses to deficits year after year. If the Tea Party Movement really stands for fiscal conservatism, then why did they not have rowdy gatherings like they do now or organize big rallies on the Mall in Washington D.C. to protest against Bush Administration's disastrous economic policies. The huge budget deficits that now face the nation and the financial crisis that ensued in 2008 are a direct result of those policies.
The Tea Partiers did not raise their voice during Bush era because this movement is not for fiscal conservatism - that is just a facade. They are (at least most of them) a group of nut job racists who malign and blame Barrack Obama for everything as they find it hard to accept an African American occupying the White House. So, when they talk about taking America back, who are they taking America back from?
The Tea Party Movement has won some primary races within the Republican party and no doubt will win some elections too. Momentarily, it may appear a setback for the Democrats, but in reality, it is the Republicans who will lose. Having these crazies in their midst is going to be a major headache for the Republican leadership in the House and Senate.
Some examples of the Tea Party craziness:
Carl Paladino running for New York Governor admits to fathering an illegitimate child, but blames his Democrat opponent for immorality.
Sharon Angle in a race against Harry Reid in Arizona sees ghosts of thousands of terrorists crossing the border from Canada.
Rand Paul wants restaurant owners to decide who comes into their restaurants - in other words racial segregation all over again.
Christine O'Donnell is having to put out ads saying, she is not a witch!
Joe Miller, the Senate candidate from Alaska has a journalist handcuffed for asking questions by his thugs aka private security.
And finally, Sarah Palin wants Muslims to "RUFUDIATE" the mosque in New York.
It will be fun watching some of these jokers occupy the House and Senate seats.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Al-Maliki's Visit to Iran, US May Have Unknowingly Handed Iraq on a Platter to Iran
Nouri Al-Maliki's visit to Iran is supposedly an effort to shore up support to form a Government in Iraq. But, there seems a great deal more than meets the eye.
The more moderate and secular Ayad Allawi has a slight lead in the Iraqi elections and he should form a Government, but Al-Maliki has gone to pledge his unflinching loyalty to the Ayatollahs in Iran. If he is successful in forming a Government, the Iranians will have an enormous influence over Iraq.
After his recent triumphant visit to Lebanon, someone said that Ahmedinajad has the game, set, but not quite the match, but with these developments, he may even have the match. The rousing reception he received in Lebanon not just from Hezbollah, but also from the Lebanese people, their President and Prime Minister speaks volumes of U.S. policy failure in Lebanon. The Bush Administration played a dangerous game in Lebanon. Blaming Syria for Rafik Hariri's murder was a clever ploy and for a while it played well with the Lebanese people and it even got Syrian troops out of Lebanon. But now that the U.N. inquiry commission appears to have exonerated Syria, the U.S. intentions are viewed rather suspiciously in Lebanon.
It appears that U.S. has been played again and again in The Middle East by Israel. First in Iraq by providing it bogus intelligence on WMDs and egging it on to invade Iraq and then in Lebanon by falsely framing Syrians for Hariri's murder.
The net result of it all is that today, Iran has a huge influence in Lebanon and it will also end up with enormous influence over Iraq. This is exactly what Iran wanted and the U.S. may have unknowingly handed Iraq on a platter to Iran.
The more moderate and secular Ayad Allawi has a slight lead in the Iraqi elections and he should form a Government, but Al-Maliki has gone to pledge his unflinching loyalty to the Ayatollahs in Iran. If he is successful in forming a Government, the Iranians will have an enormous influence over Iraq.
After his recent triumphant visit to Lebanon, someone said that Ahmedinajad has the game, set, but not quite the match, but with these developments, he may even have the match. The rousing reception he received in Lebanon not just from Hezbollah, but also from the Lebanese people, their President and Prime Minister speaks volumes of U.S. policy failure in Lebanon. The Bush Administration played a dangerous game in Lebanon. Blaming Syria for Rafik Hariri's murder was a clever ploy and for a while it played well with the Lebanese people and it even got Syrian troops out of Lebanon. But now that the U.N. inquiry commission appears to have exonerated Syria, the U.S. intentions are viewed rather suspiciously in Lebanon.
It appears that U.S. has been played again and again in The Middle East by Israel. First in Iraq by providing it bogus intelligence on WMDs and egging it on to invade Iraq and then in Lebanon by falsely framing Syrians for Hariri's murder.
The net result of it all is that today, Iran has a huge influence in Lebanon and it will also end up with enormous influence over Iraq. This is exactly what Iran wanted and the U.S. may have unknowingly handed Iraq on a platter to Iran.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
General McChrystal - Good Riddance, Now it is time to bring in a new Defense Secretary
General McChrystal's insubordination and inappropriate comments about his superiors and especially the Commander-in-Chief earned him a well deserved sack. Anything less would have been perceived as a weakness on President Obama's part.
Letting McChrystal off the hook would have opened doors to insubordination from other military officers. What is surprising however, is the rumor that Defense Secretary Robert Gates pleaded for a lesser punishment. If this is true, then it is a matter of great concern. How can the Defense Secretary not ask for full and proper punishment. In fact, it is President Obama's open mindedness to invite the General to the Oval office to explain his conduct, otherwise he could have just asked the Defense Secretary to relieve him of his command.
Robert Gates has served many a President, but he may have too much baggage from the past. In these changed times, President Obama needs to appoint a new Defense Secretary to implement his policies, someone whose thinking is completely aligned with the President.
The war in Iraq may be winding down, though the after effects of a total withdrawal are yet to emerge. However, things are not going well in Afghanistan. McChrystal may have befriended the Afghans, but his surge is not working. Taliban are a different breed altogether, each time NATO forces launch a major attack, they simply melt away and regroup to start the fight elsewhere another day. Instead of reducing, their numbers are increasing.
It is time to rethink the Afghan strategy entirely. No foreign force has ever defeated the Afghan people, and this war IS against the Afghan people, be they under the garb of Taliban. It is time to wind down the war and implement an exit strategy based on a political settlement. For that, the President needs to put on his thinking cap and he also needs new leadership at Pentagon.
Letting McChrystal off the hook would have opened doors to insubordination from other military officers. What is surprising however, is the rumor that Defense Secretary Robert Gates pleaded for a lesser punishment. If this is true, then it is a matter of great concern. How can the Defense Secretary not ask for full and proper punishment. In fact, it is President Obama's open mindedness to invite the General to the Oval office to explain his conduct, otherwise he could have just asked the Defense Secretary to relieve him of his command.
Robert Gates has served many a President, but he may have too much baggage from the past. In these changed times, President Obama needs to appoint a new Defense Secretary to implement his policies, someone whose thinking is completely aligned with the President.
The war in Iraq may be winding down, though the after effects of a total withdrawal are yet to emerge. However, things are not going well in Afghanistan. McChrystal may have befriended the Afghans, but his surge is not working. Taliban are a different breed altogether, each time NATO forces launch a major attack, they simply melt away and regroup to start the fight elsewhere another day. Instead of reducing, their numbers are increasing.
It is time to rethink the Afghan strategy entirely. No foreign force has ever defeated the Afghan people, and this war IS against the Afghan people, be they under the garb of Taliban. It is time to wind down the war and implement an exit strategy based on a political settlement. For that, the President needs to put on his thinking cap and he also needs new leadership at Pentagon.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
US Capitualtes to Israel Again - Who runs the US Foreign Policy: AIPAC or the White House?
The Israeli attack on unarmed ships carrying relief goods for Gaza has been squarely condemned by Governments around the world, except the US Government, which has not had the courage to call a spade a spade.
Attacking ships in international waters is piracy under the international law. After this incidence, there is no difference between Somali pirates and Israeli forces attacking ships in international waters - except that Somali pirates don't usually kill.
It is appalling that US has blocked and watered down the UN Security Council resolution in a most shameful manner. Instead of a resolution condemning Israel's actions, it has tabled a watered down resolution that is utterly meaningless.
US also blocked efforts to call for an international investigation, instead it insisted on Israel holding the investigation. This is akin to asking a shooter who has just killed several people to head an investigation into his own actions!
Who controls the US foreign policy, the White House or Israel i.e. AIPAC. It is unfortunate that US has surrendered its sovereignty to Israel. Being the largest super power in the world, it has a moral duty to do the right thing - condemn what is wrong and applaud what is right. By taking a one sided position, it is lowering its stature in the world. Such actions are only likely to strengthen the hands of hate mongering terrorists, who propagate that US is not an honest broker.
Great nations do not surrender their sovereignty to other countries, history has shown us that nations who take unjust actions ultimately lose their power in the world.
Hillary Clinton, being in charge of US foreign policy should show grit and resign to demonstrate her unhappiness at the US foreign policy being hijacked from under her feet.
Attacking ships in international waters is piracy under the international law. After this incidence, there is no difference between Somali pirates and Israeli forces attacking ships in international waters - except that Somali pirates don't usually kill.
It is appalling that US has blocked and watered down the UN Security Council resolution in a most shameful manner. Instead of a resolution condemning Israel's actions, it has tabled a watered down resolution that is utterly meaningless.
US also blocked efforts to call for an international investigation, instead it insisted on Israel holding the investigation. This is akin to asking a shooter who has just killed several people to head an investigation into his own actions!
Who controls the US foreign policy, the White House or Israel i.e. AIPAC. It is unfortunate that US has surrendered its sovereignty to Israel. Being the largest super power in the world, it has a moral duty to do the right thing - condemn what is wrong and applaud what is right. By taking a one sided position, it is lowering its stature in the world. Such actions are only likely to strengthen the hands of hate mongering terrorists, who propagate that US is not an honest broker.
Great nations do not surrender their sovereignty to other countries, history has shown us that nations who take unjust actions ultimately lose their power in the world.
Hillary Clinton, being in charge of US foreign policy should show grit and resign to demonstrate her unhappiness at the US foreign policy being hijacked from under her feet.
Monday, April 26, 2010
ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW - IS THIS A PLOY BY THE REPUBLICANS TO BAIT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS?
Arizona's recent passage of Immigration Law is not only contentious but possibly even unconstitutional, as only the Federal Government has power over immigration matters. However, that is for the courts to decide and it will not be surprising if constitutional petitions head the Supreme Court way in not too distant a future. The Supreme Court may have leanings in a certain direction, but when it comes to interpreting the constitution, the Justices are at their best.
Being a border state, Arizona no doubt has an illegal immigration problem. But, this law may be less to do with that and more to do with tempting President Obama and Democrats to bring about an immigration bill in a haste.
Republicans are still recovering from their failure to block the the Health care bill. They also know that Financial Reform Bill is likely to pass, so they cannot present President Obama victory after victory heading into mid term elections in 2010. An immigration bill before the US House of Representatives and the US Senate is sure to stir passions and anger against a Federal Government providing a route to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
With a strong opposition to such a move in the South and much more so in the border states plus the ire of nearly 10% Americans without jobs, it could create quite a strong anti-immigration lobby in the country, possibly far larger than all of the Latino votes combined. It could prove to be a costly and a high risk strategy for an Administration to bring an immigration bill before the Congress in an election year. Perhaps this is what the Republicans are hoping for. The Arizona Immigration Law could be a bait for President Obama and the Democrats. However, going by President Obama's strategic style so far, he is far ahead in these things than any Republican or Democrat. So, hopefully, he will weigh all options before initiating an immigration bill.
In the meantime, Arizona law could prove to be a good kicking opportunity for the Administration. They could take it to the Supreme Court, hopefully win and garner Latino support without alienating the white voters.
Arizona is already beginning to face the music as more and more people and corporations are planning to stay away from the State. American Immigration Lawyers Association has already canceled its convention in Scottsdale. Other organizations and corporations may follow suit. The hotel industry is complaining bitterly as they rely heavily on immigrants for their staff requirements. All this could have serious consequences for Arizona's economy and its tourist industry.
Being a border state, Arizona no doubt has an illegal immigration problem. But, this law may be less to do with that and more to do with tempting President Obama and Democrats to bring about an immigration bill in a haste.
Republicans are still recovering from their failure to block the the Health care bill. They also know that Financial Reform Bill is likely to pass, so they cannot present President Obama victory after victory heading into mid term elections in 2010. An immigration bill before the US House of Representatives and the US Senate is sure to stir passions and anger against a Federal Government providing a route to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
With a strong opposition to such a move in the South and much more so in the border states plus the ire of nearly 10% Americans without jobs, it could create quite a strong anti-immigration lobby in the country, possibly far larger than all of the Latino votes combined. It could prove to be a costly and a high risk strategy for an Administration to bring an immigration bill before the Congress in an election year. Perhaps this is what the Republicans are hoping for. The Arizona Immigration Law could be a bait for President Obama and the Democrats. However, going by President Obama's strategic style so far, he is far ahead in these things than any Republican or Democrat. So, hopefully, he will weigh all options before initiating an immigration bill.
In the meantime, Arizona law could prove to be a good kicking opportunity for the Administration. They could take it to the Supreme Court, hopefully win and garner Latino support without alienating the white voters.
Arizona is already beginning to face the music as more and more people and corporations are planning to stay away from the State. American Immigration Lawyers Association has already canceled its convention in Scottsdale. Other organizations and corporations may follow suit. The hotel industry is complaining bitterly as they rely heavily on immigrants for their staff requirements. All this could have serious consequences for Arizona's economy and its tourist industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)