The New King Hezekiah - President Obama

President Obama is treading on a very frail foreign policy which seeks to make America like Europe and weaken the last superpower in the world. Does this portend the decline of America and the rise of a European type socialistic state for America? Obama speaking in Strasbourg stated, "In America there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." Going on, he states, "America is changing." And he calls for unprecedented coordination in our policies with those of Europe. He concludes with two outrageous statements: "We got sidetracked by Iraq." "The social safety net that exists in almost all of Europe doesn't exist in America." Needless to say, his budget seeks to rectify that particular problem.
Obama has sent a video "outreach" to Iran and the Muslim people. He has made overtures to Russia about disarmament and a "greater moral authority to say to Iran 'don't develop a nuclear weapon.' His Secretary of State has had private meeting with Iranian officials to talk. He seeks to partner with China and Russia when both have provided Iran and North Korea with nuclear expertise and equipment. And continues to outrageously demean our country in most of his speeches in Europe. Obama is a totally inexperienced and naive president thinking we can talk to terrorists and rogue nations, making them like us and thus, "get along." And all the while he is demonstrating a weakness that can only embolden our sworn enemies. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei and Osama bin Laden must be laughing at our weakest president since Carter and planning their next attack on America. As such, America courts disaster as Obama exposes his weak resolve as demonstrative of America's weak underside. He lays all of our "cards" (Read: defensives) on the table, invites them to the table and says, "Come on guys, let's play nice." In doing so, he is "showing all of America's treasures" to the world.
The Bible relates a very sad story about a king that showed all his treasures to his enemy. King Hezekiah invited his enemy into his home and "Showed him all the house of his treasures...There was nothing in his house or in all his dominion that Hezekiah did not show to them." (Nelson NKJ Version 2 Kings 20:13) "Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the Lord: Behold the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left." (Nelson NKJ version 2 Kings 20: 16,17) And so it was.
Personally, I do not want my country, America, carried off into the European socialism. Personally, I do not want to expose my country, America, to the good graces of Iran, Russia, China, or for that matter any European country. I do not need a president that seeks to demean this country and would seek to reduce us to just another member of the European Union, complete with a new currency. I do not choose to have a president that would lead this great and powerful country to the ash heap of history. We are the only super power remaining in the world. We are the only real beacon of truth. We are the only remaining city set on a hill to give light to all the world. I refuse to let a naïve and inexperienced president lead us down his ideological path which is in complete contravention to the principles, morals and ethical values upon which this country was founded.

God Help Oil Prices If Iran Riots Spill Over Emboldening People in Other Nations in the Region

The Iranian unrest is going to affect world oil barrel prices due to the strikes of workers in that sector over the recent "questionable elections" there, and the aftermath of government crack downs and violence against the protesters. How much could this effect oil prices; well it will not be totally devastating to us in the US, but it could be significant if commodity traders find momentum in this crisis, as they love to create opportunity for themselves out of the chaos of the world media.
Imagine however the effect on the oil markets if in Saudi Arabia, all the people decided to riot and rebel, and overthrow their government? Wow, now that could be rather significant, and depending on the civil unrest and conflict, if it got out of hand oil infrastructure could be damaged, and many of the more hostile groups would launch terrorist like attacks. Even if the threat was there, that would be significant enough to cause huge oil-price-spikes.
Now imagine, the Pakistani People deciding to try their luck to overthrow the government, remember this is a nuclear power, with nuclear weapons. What if the Taliban, was joined by the people against the government? Okay, what about Lebanon, can you see Hezbollah with 10s of thousands of yellow flags, shirts and banners taking over the government, because they were angry with the vote, that took some power away from them recently? How might that effect a peaceful treaty in the region.
For those who criticize our President for not getting too involved, you must realize the larger picture and the bigger game here. There is a lot at stake, and these outcomes and events do very much effect us here, so please consider all this before jumping on a political soap box at this juncture. That's all for now.

Did Radical Ronald Reagan Republicans Destroy Trust in Government?

Before 1965 it appears that the United States public trust in the government was quite a bit higher than it is today. As time has gone on the government has been less and less trusted for some reason. Many Democrats blame the Republicans. Further, they charge that it was the Ronald Reagan era that publicized the ineptness of government that started this downward spiral. But is that really the case?
Did Radical Ronald Reagan Republics Destroy Trust in Government? Or did they merely point out the facts, call the emperor naked, and wake everyone up? And could it be said that the generation of the 1960s and all the antiwar protests did more to destroy the trust in government? This came well before Ronald Reagan.
In the book, "In Defense of Government; The Rise and Fall of Public Trust" by Jacob Weisberg, the author claims that it was the Ronald Reagan era that started the mistrust of government and he noted some facts about the public perception of the time noting that some 75% of the people did not trust the government, during the campaign of President Reagan.
Whether or not this is true is hard to say, but the statistics sound right. Today, it is quite obvious that the people of the United States do not trust their government for some reason. Maybe the mistrust of government is a good thing, as it keeps people on their toes, and not to be led down the wrong path or down a dead end, and yet, one has to ask about other nations, and their blind obedience to their government and their trust factors.
What happens when China's population wakes up to the problems with an overbearing centralized government, and the injustices, and losses of freedoms that comes with it all. The bureaucracy is stifling life, and dashing opportunity. We all ought to be thankful that we live in the US, and trust must be earned no matter which nation you live in. Please consider this.

What Makes America Great

In less than 200 years, America grew from a handful of colonies to become the greatest nation in history. In a few hundred years, we surpassed nations that were many times older. What makes America great?

The two main elements that make America great are our people and our freedoms. Our people have a can do, nothing is impossible, spirit. Starting with the American Revolution, we have always conquered adversity, often in the face of overwhelming odds.

We have more rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the world. Our freedoms are considered inalienable rights, not privileges granted by government. Our freedoms are the envy of the world. Every item in the bill of rights is a precious jewel designed to ensure the immortality of our liberty.

Our founders came from societies where government controlled its citizens. They had a solid understanding of the consequences of unchecked power. Our constitution was crafted specifically to limit the scope of government to prevent its infringing on individual liberties.

Our constitution is a brilliant document, filled with foresight and understanding, that has withstood the test of time. The principles embedded in the constitution are the foundation of our greatness.

In America, each citizen can control his or her destiny without fear of interference by government or others. Our government was formed to serve the people rather than vice versa. Our government was designed to play a minimal role in people's lives.

Our doors have always been open to people from anywhere in the world who want to come here legally to work hard, contribute, and assimilate into our society. America's reputation as a melting pot is derived from the fact that people from every walk of life can work together to create an unstoppable force for good.

In America anything is possible. America is great because it offers its people unlimited opportunity to succeed by bringing their dreams to reality. In America, success requires hard work, determination, and persistence, not permission. We are constitutionally protected to prevent government from confiscating the results of our labor.

America is an engine for unprecedented productivity. Our economic system has been responsible for civilization transforming innovations and discoveries. No other country has even come close and many other systems have failed miserably.

America has a big heart. Whether in this country or elsewhere, we help those who can not help themselves. Americans are first on the scene in the wake of natural or civic disasters. We are there with food, supplies, medical aid, and money. Our brave soldiers travel the globe defending those who can't defend themselves.

In America there are no problems that we can't solve. Any obstacles we may face do not taint our greatness. It is our greatness that enables us to overcome adversity and become even stronger in the process. Everyday, be thankful that you live in America and benefit from its greatness. Don't take for granted that which people in other countries can only dream about. Be proud to be an American.

President Obama - Taking Us Back to Beatlemania

John Lennon once described the scene inside the Beatles during the heyday of the fan frenzy of Beatlemania in the 1960s as similar to being inside the eye of a hurricane. "We always called it the eye of the hurricane - it was calmer right in the middle," Lennon said.

This might be the case inside the White House these days as President Barrack Obama sends the country into a tizzy with weekly announcements of new domestic and foreign policy initiatives that are drastically changing the political landscape.

These policies are so different that critics are arguing he's ruining the country while the President's supporters say his programs are just the right ones to get the country back on track.

With so many pundits and politicians commenting on President Obama's every move, it's reminiscent of the crazy chaos that surrounded the Fab Four in the early days of the British invasion. "Everybody got into the mania," Beatle George Harrison once said.

As an example, in the brief five months since President Obama has taken office, the country has digested an $800 billion economic stimulus package - with little or no debate; the bailing out of our national banks and two major automobile companies; an increased military effort in Afghanistan; potential trouble in Pakistan; nuclear weapons issues in North Korea and Iran; a soaring unemployment rate at home; a worldwide swine flu medical emergency; a Supreme Court appointment featuring the first Hispanic woman; enhanced interrogation issues involving both the former administration and the current Speaker of the House; massive spending deficits; the appointments of several new "czars," including an executive compensation czar; and now imminent - the launching of a national health insurance program.

This is but a partial list of the issues and activities the new administration has thrust upon the country. So it's little wonder that national opinion polls are mixed on the President's personal approval ratings versus those for his programs. No doubt there is a simmering anxiety about his policies, and this can be summed up in one word: spending. The economy is not out of the woods, and there is a justifiable fear that the massive deficit spending as proposed by the President will thwart the economic recovery.

Republicans are almost gleeful over the prospects that the Democrats have overreached on spending - asking the country to borrow upwards of $9 trillion over the next 10 years. The GOP is already anticipating big gains in 2010 congressional elections. The single biggest worry among some is inflation - the inevitable result of the vast amount of money that is now being printed in Washington - but a return to the Jimmy Carter years of stagflation is also a dreaded possibility.

Stagflation is defined as a period of slow economic growth and high unemployment (stagflation) with rising prices (inflation) and the result is a knockout punch that will set the economy back for years. The current economic calamity has brought one thing into focus for the American people - they cannot be addicted to the free spending and vast consumption mentality of the past. Surveys are showing that consumers are reining in their spending and starting to save more in the process -a pattern that might continue for years to come.

Republicans further argue that the Obama plan cannot work because federal spending can only create jobs temporary in nature and add to the growth of the government - not the growth of the economy. Democrats are countering that something different had to be done and jump starting the economy required more federal investment, taxes, and spending.

It will be another year or so before we have the answers to whether the Obama plan has worked. But one thing can be said - President Obama has remained calm and convinced that his ideas will get the country back on track. As the political whirlwind continues, President Obama can take refuge in how four boys from Liverpool handled a mania of a different sort some 45 years ago - as Lennon said, "It was calmer right in the middle."

Palace Eunuchs of Ancient China

First of all, what is an Eunuch? For many this is a strange looking term to visualize but in ancient China many eunuchs held responsible positions inside the walls of the "Forbidden City." Eunuchs were males who were rendered sexually impotent through removal of their genitals in order to serve the emperor of the "Forbidden City". This was considered a great honor and thousands upon thousands of young men and sometimes older men would devote their lives in honor of the emperor. These males would serve as palace menials, harem watch doges and also as spies for the emperor. Many of them served as personal attendants to the emperor and as a result were often in a better position than even the most powerful minister or envoy to the emperor. As personal attendants they were able to exercise influence, curry the emperor favor, and many of them amassed huge amounts of wealth. These castrated servitors represented the epitome of complete servitude to the grand emperor. 

The life of a eunuch in ancient China included a multitude of responsibilities. For example, there was one group of eunuchs that as mentioned earlier watched over the emperor's harem. He basically ensured that the chastity of imperial ladies would not be compromised and this was accomplished by closely guarding over the harem. This was basically done to ensure that there would be a steady flow of heirs to the throne, once the emperor passed away. This was due to the fact that there was a high infant mortality rate for males. By the eunuchs carefully guarding the palace and lurking in the remotest parts of the palace, this was a further guarantee that any child born within the palace walls was sired only by the monarch. Not even relatives of the emperor was allowed in the harem apartments on penalty of death. 

Another strange point of interest about the eunuchs was that they were required to preserve an aura of sacredness and secrecy that surrounded the emperors presence. The Emperor of China was exalted as the recipient of the mystical Mandate of Heaven that justified his right to rule his Chinese subjects. There would be no challenge to his authority and the lowly eunuch who was highly dependent upon the emperor for their lives and daily subsistence were considered cowed enough to be silent witnesses to the emperors private foibles and weaknesses. 

In addition, when the emperor would proceed through the capital city carried in his royal sedan, it was the eunuch who performed this task which was an honor for the eunuch. As the emperor proceeded through the city, eunuchs ensured that bamboo curtains were erected across the streets to shield him from the populace view. One emperor remarked, that they were "creatures docile and loyal as gelded animals".

However, eunuchs who were basically loyal to the emperor were not as naive as one may think. Behind closed doors, many of them would join forces with a scheming empress or concubine in evil plots to do away with the heir apparent where the empress could then with the eunuch assistance place her own son or favorite in line for succession to the throne. As a result of this partnership, and if the plot was successful, the conspiring eunuch was in a better bargaining position which resulted in him usurping enormous authority. Because of this, young rulers found themselves completely under the influence of the eunuchs and these eunuchs were almost impossible to dislodge from power. From one short reign of power to the next, they were firmly in control leading to the emperor fearing his eunuch benefactors. Eunuchs also wielded power over the emperor in the political arena. Had it not been for them, certain Chinese emperors would have been powerless in the face of organized factions seeking control of the throne. 

Even though most of the Eunuchs were employed in household and harem duties, a few were destined to become one of the eighteen Lamaist priests which the palace maintained to attend to the spiritual welfare of the female inmates. Many of these eunuchs could not read or write but still practiced the craft of priesthood and earned a double salary.

Other eunuchs were employed as actors and singers in the palace theatricals. These performers lived outside the palace in the Forbidden City on small salaries but received gratuities from the audiences for their performances. 

Palace eunuchs were also allowed to worship in the temples, to burn incense, practice fasting, and donate money and offerings.These high ranking eunuchs wore ornate robes of brightly embroidered colors whereas the lower ranking eunuchs wore a long grey robe under a shorter dark blue coat and were required to wear official hats and boots when on duty. 

Finally, most of the eunuchs leisure time was spent in gambling among themselves, their greatest source of enjoyment. They were especially affectionate towards women and children and loved pets. Many sold these pets to foreign ladies to supplement their incomes.

Hawks Fight Doves As America Transitions to a Global World

Americans elected a liberal president in 2008 to take the country forward in an era when challenges equaled those of the industrial revolution 150 years before and the Roosevelt era some 60 years later. Globalization was a fact. The information highway spread enlightenment and distortions with equal rapidity. With the election, America embraced the challenges while the losing conservatives rallied to preserve the old ways.

The Oxford dictionary defines conservatives as averse to rapid change while liberals favored individual rights and moderate reform. "Rapid" and "moderate" are relative terms but two associated terms are not. Those are political hawks, who advocate an aggressive or warlike policy, especially in foreign affairs, and political doves, who advocate a peaceful policy. The term "hawk," by that source, also refers to a rapacious person.

The hallmark of the 2008 US election was the choice to make radical changes to meet an unprecedented global economic crisis. By the above definitions, neither conservatives nor liberals would advocate the necessitated course precipitated by hawkish elements in the prior conservative administration that continued a warlike policy despite dwindling support for the approach in an obviously interdependent world. China's well-publicized responses to global sensitivities during the 2008 Olympics just before the American national political conventions exemplified the interconnectedness. World opinion mattered when a record-breaking number of a global audience tuned in on television, internet and emerging electronic devices to affect economics.

American voters recognized those globalizing international sensibilities but the conservative administration was deaf to them. Numerous sources repeatedly reported dissatisfaction with the sitting administration's policies that by the election in November were approved by less than a third of Americans.

That disconnect between the American public and the administration with regard to unilateralist and preemptive policies for protecting the country was echoed by the world's 200 other countries, as evidenced by the continued drawdown of coalition troops in Iraq. Similarly losing favor both at home and abroad were protectionist economic policies of a hawkish campaign to preserve the leading American economic status quo by a hands-off deregulation of American financial institutions controlled by the moneyed.

The old order of conservative male white dominance exploded in 2008 and caused the global economic crisis to clearly prove the approach no longer worked. America broke the global glass ceiling of racism to meet the challenge of the unknown by electing the first non-white leader of a western industrialized nation as most likely able to address the crisis. Predictably enough, that historic step was a trumpet call to hawks of every stripe.

A non-white leader for the world's leading power was not coincidental in a world of 200 countries claiming equal rights to the future. The Pacific island states that provide seafood and vacation spots for the world, as an example, are directly affected by climate change, as documented by the United Nations among others. Trailing behind the industrialized powers on the development scale, they have newly established forums to protect and empower themselves. Those mechanisms, however, have proven to be slower than the world's terrorist hawks, who have laid claim to those emerging areas as headquarters for operating beyond the reach of developing law.

Such non-state terrorist actors were responsible for the brutal 9/11 attack against the world's most prosperous country in 2001. The conservative retaliatory response of the sitting administration at the time continued to escalate until it evolved into a presumptive right to take preemptive military action against not just terrorist groups but other states, using measures of questionable legality by either national or international standards.

Important as they are, the economic issues facing the United States in a global world are a mere integral part of the challenge mandated by the 2008 election. Having broken the global racial glass ceiling to continue on its path as a country blessed with abundance to lead the world by providing opportunity, America in the new Obama era was faced with adjusting to a world in which the developing rule of law was not only sacrosanct but essential for survival.

Rule of law has been the standard for human relations since England's 1215 Magna Carta set limits on the rights of monarchs and gave rights to the people in the form of common law and Babylonia's King Hammurabi set down the principles of governance and conflict dispute in 1250. The rule of law is upheld through national, bilateral, multilateral and international compacts, treaties and accords, all of which are agreements to abide by standards for settling differences, disputes and conflicting approaches to attaining aims without the resort to armed conflict.

In essence, the rule of law signifies cooperativeness and implies constraints on the deepest human primal instincts for the drama of conflict. In the twenty-first century and a nuclear age in which the weapons of conflict are a lucrative staple of human commerce, the resistance to the rule of law represents a terminal activity. It takes the form of suicide bombings, nuclear threats or the promulgation of warnings about cooperating with a global world.