Ronald Reagan|The best president of all time
Jan
11
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Warren Graham asked:
Let me start, lest I be accused of being utterly out of touch with reality, by acknowledging that the Bush Administration has made mistakes, many and grievous, in its prosecution of the Iraq War. Chief among these—and this is, by no means, intended as an exhaustive list—is the intelligence failure concerning WMD, the elimination, top to bottom, of Ba’ath Party functionaries (the only people who knew how to do ANYTHING in Iraq), the total misunderstanding (or non-understanding) of the ancient hatred between Sunni and Shiite factions and Kurds, the unwillingness of rank and file Iraqis to embrace Western-style secular democratic values, the lack of preparedness of our military to serve as a police force, as opposed to a fighting force, and generally inadequate military planning, in trying to fight what has proven to be a difficult war “on the cheap.”
Having said all that, and further conceding that reasonable minds may differ (and do) about the wisdom and efficacy of having placed our armed forces in Iraq in the first instance, the nauseating spectacle of a rush by denizens of both political parties to surrender is a national disgrace, not to mention horrendous and disastrous policy.
Generally speaking, the arguments against having made the choice to invade Iraq (as it was articulated at the time of the national debate, NOT with the convenience and benefit of hindsight), is that there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S., and that the war against terror was properly venued in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq. Fair enough. It should be pointed out, though, that the intelligence failure was shared by the intelligence services of our European Allies and Israel, and that the canard that the President lied about WMD, knowing all the while that Saddam did not possess them, is simply unsupported by any credible evidence (save the rantings of the far left, for those true believers who find rantings to be sufficient to the task).
It has been argued, with some merit, I think, that the real reason we went into Iraq (NOT the other lefty mantras about controlling the oil supply or avenging Bush Sr.’s brush with death at the hands of Saddam hirelings), was at the instance of the so-called “neocons” who had the President’s ear, and who proposed, by instilling a democracy in Iraq, to reinvent the reality that is the Middle East. The counter argument to that neocon mindset, I believe, is that Western-style secular democracy is not a value which can or ever will be embraced in a part of the World which has always been defined either by tribal warfare, strong-man dictatorship or rule of the mullahs. It is, say the critics of the “neocons” no accident that no democracy has ever taken root on its own in that region, except in the case of Israel which is, of course, sui generis, for a variety of reasons. The WMD argument, they go on to say, was a smokescreen to launch an invasion proving the old adage that “war is just politics by another means,” i.e., that it was motivated entirely by a policy of realpolitik. As viscerally satisfying as it was to this author to have removed Saddam and his subordinate thugs from power, I cannot, in fairness, belittle this argument, because I believe it to be largely credible or, at a very minimum, plausible. And while some Americans might well have, nevertheless, supported this military adventure on the basis of the “redrawing of the map” theory, most would probably have not. So WMD, while not a lie, was, perhaps, an excuse.
So much for history. But what now? Even if one concedes that the commencement of this War was misguided and mismanaged, in many and varied respects, ever since, we must consider the tragic, yet painfully obvious consequences of capitulation.
Democrats, having trounced the Republicans in the recent election, widely billed as a referendum on Iraq, are praying that the collective amnesia of the public will cause it to forget that many Democrats voted with Bush and continued to side with him until the War became difficult and less popular. Worse still is the disgusting “rats fleeing from a sinking ship” conduct of many Republicans, who have not only distanced themselves from the Administration, but try to avoid calling themselves Republicans and now, with the benefit of several years experience, are recommending either prompt, or specifically timed withdrawal from Iraq.
These, my friends, are the politics of surrender. On the Democratic side, the motivation is obvious and transparent: that party has won, in spades, a recent election, and its leadership feels itself empowered. Some, especially those on the left, are so driven by blind fury at previous Republican successes (especially in 2000 and 2004) and poisonous hatred for George Bush, that consideration of U.S. national interests are but a secondary consideration to the sweet music of his vilification. Many of those who urge either immediate withdrawal or a date certain for bringing the troops home cannot possibly be so blind or stupid as to think that such action will not have far-reaching horrific implications for American prestige in the World and our ability to influence international affairs; the only rational conclusion, therefore, is that they must surely be indifferent. Their avowed argument that Iraq has become “another Vietnam”– surely the tiredest of tired clichés– is simply unsupportable. That was a different war, fought for different reasons and motivated by highly attenuated foreign policy considerations. There is no doubt (or should be none) among sentient human beings, with any understanding of what has been happening for the past decade, what conclusion our Islamic fascist enemies and the forces of international terrorism will draw from such an ignominious conclusion to this affair.
Amongst Republicans, the impetus by some of them to flee from an Administration on the ropes is not only reprehensible as a matter of principle and loyalty; it will avail them nothing. Indeed, history has shown us time and again that there is nobody so unelectable as a Republican posing as a Democrat. Ronald Reagan, love him or **** him, owed his success to the fact that he never stopped being…well, Ronald Reagan, and unabashedly so. Trying to escape from the current unpopularity of the President’s policies will show them up to the public as nothing more than the hypocrites they are. The consequence of this, of course, is that the election debacle of 2006 will prove a harbinger of worse times yet to come for the GOP.
It may be that, in time, it becomes evident that Iraq neither wants, nor can achieve any kind of democracy. I do not believe that we can, as yet, draw that final conclusion, though the time for Iraqis to “step up to the plate” and prove otherwise is growing short.
The polls and recent election results seem to show that the American Public is, understandably, weary of this War and wishes to have it over. But does that mean that a majority of Americans support an action that amounts, in essence to surrender? I surely hope not. What is needed at this crucial moment in history is leadership. If the public cannot find it in our President, I, for one, hope that someone else with credibility (hopefully not someone from “talk-radio”) stands up and argues articulately for putting our national interest and security above facile isolationist rhetoric and the short term comfort of bringing our beloved young men and women home with the job half-done.
Those who hold World War II up as the only “justified war,” fought by the U.S. in the past century, and beset by no dissension or moral ambiguity, have conveniently forgotten that many voices, some quite prominent, including Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy, were lifted in opposition to any intervention on behalf of the foes of Hitler, until those voices were drowned out in the national bloodlust prompted by Pearl Harbor. We have also forgotten that a mere four months before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, there were calls on Lincoln from the North (especially the “antiwar” factions in New York—how very little has changed!) to stop the bloodletting and sue for peace with the Confederacy.
Now, in an age of instant television news and internet access (George Will once pointed out that, had the TV cameras been rolling at the Battle of Antietam, the Civil War would have ended in 1862, in a draw, in the face of public outrage at the carnage), we live in a society with an extremely short attention span, and no tolerance for pain whatsoever; especially disheartening in the face of a War in which very few, indeed, have been called upon to share in the sacrifice. Maybe, in fact, it is precisely this sense that the War is someone else’s problem and merely a pesky annoyance to most Americans, that explains our apparent national willingness to “pick up our marbles and go home.” This is a short-sighted and dangerous proposition. Our enemies are nothing, if not patient, and even worse, they are true believers in their cause. They know, or think they know, that the West has no stomach for sacrifice and no will to do what is necessary to prevail. It is my fervent hope that they mistake healthy, open democratic debate for weakness. But alas, sadly, they may ultimately prove to be right.
I think the time has come for us to ask ourselves a difficult and introspective question: What do WE believe in?
Copyright 2007
Kelly
Let me start, lest I be accused of being utterly out of touch with reality, by acknowledging that the Bush Administration has made mistakes, many and grievous, in its prosecution of the Iraq War. Chief among these—and this is, by no means, intended as an exhaustive list—is the intelligence failure concerning WMD, the elimination, top to bottom, of Ba’ath Party functionaries (the only people who knew how to do ANYTHING in Iraq), the total misunderstanding (or non-understanding) of the ancient hatred between Sunni and Shiite factions and Kurds, the unwillingness of rank and file Iraqis to embrace Western-style secular democratic values, the lack of preparedness of our military to serve as a police force, as opposed to a fighting force, and generally inadequate military planning, in trying to fight what has proven to be a difficult war “on the cheap.”
Having said all that, and further conceding that reasonable minds may differ (and do) about the wisdom and efficacy of having placed our armed forces in Iraq in the first instance, the nauseating spectacle of a rush by denizens of both political parties to surrender is a national disgrace, not to mention horrendous and disastrous policy.
Generally speaking, the arguments against having made the choice to invade Iraq (as it was articulated at the time of the national debate, NOT with the convenience and benefit of hindsight), is that there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S., and that the war against terror was properly venued in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq. Fair enough. It should be pointed out, though, that the intelligence failure was shared by the intelligence services of our European Allies and Israel, and that the canard that the President lied about WMD, knowing all the while that Saddam did not possess them, is simply unsupported by any credible evidence (save the rantings of the far left, for those true believers who find rantings to be sufficient to the task).
It has been argued, with some merit, I think, that the real reason we went into Iraq (NOT the other lefty mantras about controlling the oil supply or avenging Bush Sr.’s brush with death at the hands of Saddam hirelings), was at the instance of the so-called “neocons” who had the President’s ear, and who proposed, by instilling a democracy in Iraq, to reinvent the reality that is the Middle East. The counter argument to that neocon mindset, I believe, is that Western-style secular democracy is not a value which can or ever will be embraced in a part of the World which has always been defined either by tribal warfare, strong-man dictatorship or rule of the mullahs. It is, say the critics of the “neocons” no accident that no democracy has ever taken root on its own in that region, except in the case of Israel which is, of course, sui generis, for a variety of reasons. The WMD argument, they go on to say, was a smokescreen to launch an invasion proving the old adage that “war is just politics by another means,” i.e., that it was motivated entirely by a policy of realpolitik. As viscerally satisfying as it was to this author to have removed Saddam and his subordinate thugs from power, I cannot, in fairness, belittle this argument, because I believe it to be largely credible or, at a very minimum, plausible. And while some Americans might well have, nevertheless, supported this military adventure on the basis of the “redrawing of the map” theory, most would probably have not. So WMD, while not a lie, was, perhaps, an excuse.
So much for history. But what now? Even if one concedes that the commencement of this War was misguided and mismanaged, in many and varied respects, ever since, we must consider the tragic, yet painfully obvious consequences of capitulation.
Democrats, having trounced the Republicans in the recent election, widely billed as a referendum on Iraq, are praying that the collective amnesia of the public will cause it to forget that many Democrats voted with Bush and continued to side with him until the War became difficult and less popular. Worse still is the disgusting “rats fleeing from a sinking ship” conduct of many Republicans, who have not only distanced themselves from the Administration, but try to avoid calling themselves Republicans and now, with the benefit of several years experience, are recommending either prompt, or specifically timed withdrawal from Iraq.
These, my friends, are the politics of surrender. On the Democratic side, the motivation is obvious and transparent: that party has won, in spades, a recent election, and its leadership feels itself empowered. Some, especially those on the left, are so driven by blind fury at previous Republican successes (especially in 2000 and 2004) and poisonous hatred for George Bush, that consideration of U.S. national interests are but a secondary consideration to the sweet music of his vilification. Many of those who urge either immediate withdrawal or a date certain for bringing the troops home cannot possibly be so blind or stupid as to think that such action will not have far-reaching horrific implications for American prestige in the World and our ability to influence international affairs; the only rational conclusion, therefore, is that they must surely be indifferent. Their avowed argument that Iraq has become “another Vietnam”– surely the tiredest of tired clichés– is simply unsupportable. That was a different war, fought for different reasons and motivated by highly attenuated foreign policy considerations. There is no doubt (or should be none) among sentient human beings, with any understanding of what has been happening for the past decade, what conclusion our Islamic fascist enemies and the forces of international terrorism will draw from such an ignominious conclusion to this affair.
Amongst Republicans, the impetus by some of them to flee from an Administration on the ropes is not only reprehensible as a matter of principle and loyalty; it will avail them nothing. Indeed, history has shown us time and again that there is nobody so unelectable as a Republican posing as a Democrat. Ronald Reagan, love him or **** him, owed his success to the fact that he never stopped being…well, Ronald Reagan, and unabashedly so. Trying to escape from the current unpopularity of the President’s policies will show them up to the public as nothing more than the hypocrites they are. The consequence of this, of course, is that the election debacle of 2006 will prove a harbinger of worse times yet to come for the GOP.
It may be that, in time, it becomes evident that Iraq neither wants, nor can achieve any kind of democracy. I do not believe that we can, as yet, draw that final conclusion, though the time for Iraqis to “step up to the plate” and prove otherwise is growing short.
The polls and recent election results seem to show that the American Public is, understandably, weary of this War and wishes to have it over. But does that mean that a majority of Americans support an action that amounts, in essence to surrender? I surely hope not. What is needed at this crucial moment in history is leadership. If the public cannot find it in our President, I, for one, hope that someone else with credibility (hopefully not someone from “talk-radio”) stands up and argues articulately for putting our national interest and security above facile isolationist rhetoric and the short term comfort of bringing our beloved young men and women home with the job half-done.
Those who hold World War II up as the only “justified war,” fought by the U.S. in the past century, and beset by no dissension or moral ambiguity, have conveniently forgotten that many voices, some quite prominent, including Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy, were lifted in opposition to any intervention on behalf of the foes of Hitler, until those voices were drowned out in the national bloodlust prompted by Pearl Harbor. We have also forgotten that a mere four months before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, there were calls on Lincoln from the North (especially the “antiwar” factions in New York—how very little has changed!) to stop the bloodletting and sue for peace with the Confederacy.
Now, in an age of instant television news and internet access (George Will once pointed out that, had the TV cameras been rolling at the Battle of Antietam, the Civil War would have ended in 1862, in a draw, in the face of public outrage at the carnage), we live in a society with an extremely short attention span, and no tolerance for pain whatsoever; especially disheartening in the face of a War in which very few, indeed, have been called upon to share in the sacrifice. Maybe, in fact, it is precisely this sense that the War is someone else’s problem and merely a pesky annoyance to most Americans, that explains our apparent national willingness to “pick up our marbles and go home.” This is a short-sighted and dangerous proposition. Our enemies are nothing, if not patient, and even worse, they are true believers in their cause. They know, or think they know, that the West has no stomach for sacrifice and no will to do what is necessary to prevail. It is my fervent hope that they mistake healthy, open democratic debate for weakness. But alas, sadly, they may ultimately prove to be right.
I think the time has come for us to ask ourselves a difficult and introspective question: What do WE believe in?
Copyright 2007
Kelly
Comments Off
Jan
11
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Stephan Zimmermann asked:
Another strange milestone has passed in my odd, but colorful life. The new president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez-Kirchner, the wife of the incumbent and outgoing president, was elected as expected. And once again, by happenstance rather than design, I was physically in Argentina.
I have always been interested in politics. In a much younger life, I was actually going to follow my dream and ego and become senior senator from California. That ambition was cut short on the realization that a foreigner, lack of funds, and the anathema of being played by someone else’s strings did not lead to a senate seat.
Nonetheless, much of my life - such as being in Argentina on a crucial election in its history - was being “in the right place” for potential historical events.
I was similarly in Warsaw, Poland, in June, 2003, only a few days before that country voted to join the European Union. At the same time, NATO had chosen to move some of its operations to Poland, and President Bush paid an official visit. People constantly asked me whether I was a member of George Bush’s team, since he had arrived just days after my flight. Nothing could have been further from the truth with the beginnings of the war in Iraq just a few months earlier! I strictly went to Poland that summer to relax, teach a few classes, and see historic places like Krakow. It ended up being a fascinating election!
In November, 1992, I was in Little Rock, Arkansas at the Capital Hotel to watch Bill Clinton and wife Hillary revel in his victory. Nearly a year earlier, when I had barely moved to the southern town and knew little about Bill Clinton other than that he was a minor governor of a minor state, I was outside Arkansas’ historic state house when the candidate first made his announcement. Again, seeing, and later meeting the candidate and President were fortunate, but not by design. The invitation to the Presidential Ball in Washington after Clinton’s formal Inauguration came about through friends both in Arkansas and New York and California.
I was also in Munich, Germany in July,1990 on business. As luck would have it, one of the greatest celebrations was held in Berlin during my sojourn, the concert and celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although I was far in the south of Germany and could not take the time to travel to Berlin, the celebration was transmitted across the world, and people everywhere joined in the spirit of nearly half a million people physically present at Potsdamer Platz.
Watching the festivities in Berlin in 1990, and the echo of Ronald Reagan’s words of his “Tear Down This Wall” speech of 1987, brought home once more that I had met a truly great leader when he had been governor of California and I was simply a teacher in graduate school. More than that, it helped shape a philosophy of life.
More than sixty years ago, I saw first light on the Communist side of East Germany, followed by escapes and relocations over the years, both in Europe and the United States. My father had already been killed by the communists. Fortunately, the rest of my small family escaped unhurt.
That philosophy both gladdened and saddened my experience of election day in Argentina.
It gladdened me because the election, though voting is mandated by law instead of purely voluntary as in the United States, was generally honest, with more than a dozen candidates vying for the spot. It elated me especially since the country’s history has been fraught with dictatorial regimes in the not-too-distant past. For many electors, that memory was still etched sharply in their minds. This election saw none of the atrocities of the past.
Yet, the election also saddened me, watching the revelers enjoy themselves with not much thought, setting off firecrackers, hugging, dancing and swaying to the rhythms of cacophanous music. Most congregated in large and small towns simply for the enjoyment. Some may have gyrated in hopes for the future. Few seemed in sober thought for the troubles ahead for the future. Inflation, productivity, foreign exchange, crime and corruption are as real today as they were yesterday. And the seemingly unstoppable selfishness punctuating human civilization seems to permeate society, whether in Argentina or Germany, the United States or Iraq or elsewhere in 2007 as it did in eons past.
Fortunately, I am only a guest in this country. This simple fact precludes me from much more than observing. Nonetheless, it does lead me to reinforce my thoughts that, while the majority of people may not give more than a microsecond of thought to the larger issues of life facing each an every one of us in the future, constitutional freedom and elections may perhaps spawn leadership with results like the United States under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.
Wealth and prosperity for the population of Argentina does not have to be an elusive exercise. Increased education and communication, along with a pause to assess the willingness to absorb the tradeoffs required, are not materials for a dime novel.
Whether people in this age and time are willing to make that small adjustment to change in human nature remains anyone’s guess.
Jay
Another strange milestone has passed in my odd, but colorful life. The new president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez-Kirchner, the wife of the incumbent and outgoing president, was elected as expected. And once again, by happenstance rather than design, I was physically in Argentina.
I have always been interested in politics. In a much younger life, I was actually going to follow my dream and ego and become senior senator from California. That ambition was cut short on the realization that a foreigner, lack of funds, and the anathema of being played by someone else’s strings did not lead to a senate seat.
Nonetheless, much of my life - such as being in Argentina on a crucial election in its history - was being “in the right place” for potential historical events.
I was similarly in Warsaw, Poland, in June, 2003, only a few days before that country voted to join the European Union. At the same time, NATO had chosen to move some of its operations to Poland, and President Bush paid an official visit. People constantly asked me whether I was a member of George Bush’s team, since he had arrived just days after my flight. Nothing could have been further from the truth with the beginnings of the war in Iraq just a few months earlier! I strictly went to Poland that summer to relax, teach a few classes, and see historic places like Krakow. It ended up being a fascinating election!
In November, 1992, I was in Little Rock, Arkansas at the Capital Hotel to watch Bill Clinton and wife Hillary revel in his victory. Nearly a year earlier, when I had barely moved to the southern town and knew little about Bill Clinton other than that he was a minor governor of a minor state, I was outside Arkansas’ historic state house when the candidate first made his announcement. Again, seeing, and later meeting the candidate and President were fortunate, but not by design. The invitation to the Presidential Ball in Washington after Clinton’s formal Inauguration came about through friends both in Arkansas and New York and California.
I was also in Munich, Germany in July,1990 on business. As luck would have it, one of the greatest celebrations was held in Berlin during my sojourn, the concert and celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although I was far in the south of Germany and could not take the time to travel to Berlin, the celebration was transmitted across the world, and people everywhere joined in the spirit of nearly half a million people physically present at Potsdamer Platz.
Watching the festivities in Berlin in 1990, and the echo of Ronald Reagan’s words of his “Tear Down This Wall” speech of 1987, brought home once more that I had met a truly great leader when he had been governor of California and I was simply a teacher in graduate school. More than that, it helped shape a philosophy of life.
More than sixty years ago, I saw first light on the Communist side of East Germany, followed by escapes and relocations over the years, both in Europe and the United States. My father had already been killed by the communists. Fortunately, the rest of my small family escaped unhurt.
That philosophy both gladdened and saddened my experience of election day in Argentina.
It gladdened me because the election, though voting is mandated by law instead of purely voluntary as in the United States, was generally honest, with more than a dozen candidates vying for the spot. It elated me especially since the country’s history has been fraught with dictatorial regimes in the not-too-distant past. For many electors, that memory was still etched sharply in their minds. This election saw none of the atrocities of the past.
Yet, the election also saddened me, watching the revelers enjoy themselves with not much thought, setting off firecrackers, hugging, dancing and swaying to the rhythms of cacophanous music. Most congregated in large and small towns simply for the enjoyment. Some may have gyrated in hopes for the future. Few seemed in sober thought for the troubles ahead for the future. Inflation, productivity, foreign exchange, crime and corruption are as real today as they were yesterday. And the seemingly unstoppable selfishness punctuating human civilization seems to permeate society, whether in Argentina or Germany, the United States or Iraq or elsewhere in 2007 as it did in eons past.
Fortunately, I am only a guest in this country. This simple fact precludes me from much more than observing. Nonetheless, it does lead me to reinforce my thoughts that, while the majority of people may not give more than a microsecond of thought to the larger issues of life facing each an every one of us in the future, constitutional freedom and elections may perhaps spawn leadership with results like the United States under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.
Wealth and prosperity for the population of Argentina does not have to be an elusive exercise. Increased education and communication, along with a pause to assess the willingness to absorb the tradeoffs required, are not materials for a dime novel.
Whether people in this age and time are willing to make that small adjustment to change in human nature remains anyone’s guess.
Jay
Comments Off
Jan
03
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Prof.dr. Ibrahim Khalil asked:
There are many space disasters. Some of these disasters are avoidable and could be corrected. Other space disasters unfortunately are unavoidable.
Example of the unavoidable Space Shuttle Disaster:
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred in the United States in 1986. As an outcome of this disaster, the United States President Ronald Reagan appointed a special commission to investigate the accident The Rogers Commission offered NASA nine recommendations that were to be seriously considered before shuttle flights resumed.
In 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred when the Shuttle disintegrated over Texas during its re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Space Shuttle Disaster in the Bible:
Nothing is mentioned about this topic in the Bible.
Space Shuttle Disaster in the Quran:
The Quran warns us about the unavoidable space disasters.
The Quran as we knew gives a conditioned prophecy for space travel saying that jinn and man would be able to pass through the regions of the heavens if they have power, authority and knowledge. Jinn and man have to thank Allah, their lord because He gave them countless favors.
Then the Quran tells us about the expected disasters waiting for Space shuttles.
In Space, any Space shuttle is expected to be hit by flames of fire and flash of Copper then the Astronauts in such Space shuttle will not be able to defend themselves.
Surah 55:33-35
SHAKIR: o assembly of the jinn and the men! if you are able to pass through the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass through; you cannot pass through but with authority
PICKTHAL: o company of jinn and men, if ye have power to penetrate (all) regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate (them)! ye will never penetrate them save with (our) sanction.
YUSUFALI: o ye assembly of jinn and men! if it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to pass!
SHAKIR: which then of the bounties of your lord will you deny?
PICKTHAL: which is it, of the favors of your lord that ye deny?
YUSUFALI: then which of the favors of your lord will ye deny?
SHAKIR: the flames of fire and smoke (Copper) will be sent on you two, then you will not be able to defend yourselves
PICKTHAL: there will be sent, against you both, heat of fire and flash of brass, and ye will not escape.
YUSUFALI: on you will be sent (o ye evil ones twain!) a flame of fire (to burn) and a smoke (to choke): no defense will ye have:
In respect to Jinn, they are invisible creatures that are able to flight in space.
Jinn used to steal a hearing in the Space.
There is a missile of flaming fire for who steals a hearing.
This missile of flaming fire is piercing.
Surah 72:9
SHAKIR: and that we used to sit in some of the sitting-places thereof to steal a hearing (in space), but he who would (try to) listen now would find a flame lying in wait for him:
PICKTHAL: and we used to sit on places (high in space) therein to listen. but he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for him;
YUSUFALI: ‘we used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations (in space), to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.
Surah 15:18
SHAKIR: but he who steals a hearing, so there follows him a visible flame
PICKTHAL: save him who stealeth the hearing, and them doth a clear flame pursue.
YUSUFALI: but any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).
Surah 37:10
SHAKIR: except him who snatches off but once, then there follows him a brightly shining flame
PICKTHAL: save him who snatcheth a fragment, and there pursueth him a piercing flame.
YUSUFALI: except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.
NASA may need to put the Quranic warning about the unavoidable space disasters into consideration. Using Silver and Gold in manufacturing the Spaceship will certainly help as the Quran proposes.
Also, the choice of the name of the Space shuttle is very important.
I do not know why NASA named the shuttle “Challenger”
Challenging who?
Challenging Allah?
Challenging the Lord?
Challenging the nature?
Challenging the Space?
Challenging the universe?
Challenging what?
However, if the Western people are affectionate with challenging, it might be productive to remind them by the two Quranic challenges that Allah challenges the entire human with. One of these challenges is Linguistic and the other is Biological.
The first challenge is a Linguistic Challenge:
This Linguistic Challenge is addressed to all the jinn and man. This Linguistic Challenge dated more than 1400 years and jinn and mankind have nothing yet to do with it.
Surah 17:88
SHAKIR: say: if men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others
PICKTHAL: say: verily, though mankind and the jinn should assemble to produce the like of this qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof though they were helpers one of another.
YUSUFALI: say: “if the whole of mankind and jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
The Biological Challenge:
This challenge is addressed to the entire human.
Can mankind create a fly?
Surah 22:73-74
SHAKIR: o people! a parable is set forth, therefore listen to it: surely those whom you call upon besides Allah cannot create fly, though they should all gather for it, and should the fly snatch away anything from them, they could not take it back from i weak are the invoker and the invoked
PICKTHAL: o mankind! a similitude is coined, so pay ye heed to it: lo! those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. and if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from it. so weak are (both) the seeker and the sought!
YUSUFALI: o men! here is a parable set forth! Listen to it! those on whom, besides Allah, ye call, cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! and if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition!
SHAKIR: they have not estimated Allah with the estimation that is due to him; most surely Allah is strong, mighty
PICKTHAL: they measure not Allah his rightful measure. lo! Allah is strong, almighty.
YUSUFALI: no just estimate have they made of Allah: for Allah is he who is strong and able to carry out his will.
Back to the main topic of my series of articles (1- 49); this is my question to you smart readers: “Is the Quran quoted from the Bible “? And which book preceded the modern Sciences?
Jerome
There are many space disasters. Some of these disasters are avoidable and could be corrected. Other space disasters unfortunately are unavoidable.
Example of the unavoidable Space Shuttle Disaster:
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster occurred in the United States in 1986. As an outcome of this disaster, the United States President Ronald Reagan appointed a special commission to investigate the accident The Rogers Commission offered NASA nine recommendations that were to be seriously considered before shuttle flights resumed.
In 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred when the Shuttle disintegrated over Texas during its re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Space Shuttle Disaster in the Bible:
Nothing is mentioned about this topic in the Bible.
Space Shuttle Disaster in the Quran:
The Quran warns us about the unavoidable space disasters.
The Quran as we knew gives a conditioned prophecy for space travel saying that jinn and man would be able to pass through the regions of the heavens if they have power, authority and knowledge. Jinn and man have to thank Allah, their lord because He gave them countless favors.
Then the Quran tells us about the expected disasters waiting for Space shuttles.
In Space, any Space shuttle is expected to be hit by flames of fire and flash of Copper then the Astronauts in such Space shuttle will not be able to defend themselves.
Surah 55:33-35
SHAKIR: o assembly of the jinn and the men! if you are able to pass through the regions of the heavens and the earth, then pass through; you cannot pass through but with authority
PICKTHAL: o company of jinn and men, if ye have power to penetrate (all) regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate (them)! ye will never penetrate them save with (our) sanction.
YUSUFALI: o ye assembly of jinn and men! if it be ye can pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, pass ye! not without authority shall ye be able to pass!
SHAKIR: which then of the bounties of your lord will you deny?
PICKTHAL: which is it, of the favors of your lord that ye deny?
YUSUFALI: then which of the favors of your lord will ye deny?
SHAKIR: the flames of fire and smoke (Copper) will be sent on you two, then you will not be able to defend yourselves
PICKTHAL: there will be sent, against you both, heat of fire and flash of brass, and ye will not escape.
YUSUFALI: on you will be sent (o ye evil ones twain!) a flame of fire (to burn) and a smoke (to choke): no defense will ye have:
In respect to Jinn, they are invisible creatures that are able to flight in space.
Jinn used to steal a hearing in the Space.
There is a missile of flaming fire for who steals a hearing.
This missile of flaming fire is piercing.
Surah 72:9
SHAKIR: and that we used to sit in some of the sitting-places thereof to steal a hearing (in space), but he who would (try to) listen now would find a flame lying in wait for him:
PICKTHAL: and we used to sit on places (high in space) therein to listen. but he who listeneth now findeth a flame in wait for him;
YUSUFALI: ‘we used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations (in space), to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.
Surah 15:18
SHAKIR: but he who steals a hearing, so there follows him a visible flame
PICKTHAL: save him who stealeth the hearing, and them doth a clear flame pursue.
YUSUFALI: but any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).
Surah 37:10
SHAKIR: except him who snatches off but once, then there follows him a brightly shining flame
PICKTHAL: save him who snatcheth a fragment, and there pursueth him a piercing flame.
YUSUFALI: except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.
NASA may need to put the Quranic warning about the unavoidable space disasters into consideration. Using Silver and Gold in manufacturing the Spaceship will certainly help as the Quran proposes.
Also, the choice of the name of the Space shuttle is very important.
I do not know why NASA named the shuttle “Challenger”
Challenging who?
Challenging Allah?
Challenging the Lord?
Challenging the nature?
Challenging the Space?
Challenging the universe?
Challenging what?
However, if the Western people are affectionate with challenging, it might be productive to remind them by the two Quranic challenges that Allah challenges the entire human with. One of these challenges is Linguistic and the other is Biological.
The first challenge is a Linguistic Challenge:
This Linguistic Challenge is addressed to all the jinn and man. This Linguistic Challenge dated more than 1400 years and jinn and mankind have nothing yet to do with it.
Surah 17:88
SHAKIR: say: if men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others
PICKTHAL: say: verily, though mankind and the jinn should assemble to produce the like of this qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof though they were helpers one of another.
YUSUFALI: say: “if the whole of mankind and jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
The Biological Challenge:
This challenge is addressed to the entire human.
Can mankind create a fly?
Surah 22:73-74
SHAKIR: o people! a parable is set forth, therefore listen to it: surely those whom you call upon besides Allah cannot create fly, though they should all gather for it, and should the fly snatch away anything from them, they could not take it back from i weak are the invoker and the invoked
PICKTHAL: o mankind! a similitude is coined, so pay ye heed to it: lo! those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. and if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from it. so weak are (both) the seeker and the sought!
YUSUFALI: o men! here is a parable set forth! Listen to it! those on whom, besides Allah, ye call, cannot create (even) a fly, if they all met together for the purpose! and if the fly should snatch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. Feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition!
SHAKIR: they have not estimated Allah with the estimation that is due to him; most surely Allah is strong, mighty
PICKTHAL: they measure not Allah his rightful measure. lo! Allah is strong, almighty.
YUSUFALI: no just estimate have they made of Allah: for Allah is he who is strong and able to carry out his will.
Back to the main topic of my series of articles (1- 49); this is my question to you smart readers: “Is the Quran quoted from the Bible “? And which book preceded the modern Sciences?
Jerome
Comments Off
Dec
12
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Ted Hebert asked:
Love him or not, Senator Barack Obama has proven to be a Maverick Thinker. His campaign has done so many things that are just not standard politician fare. Just the idea that a young, African-American man would even have a real shot at the Presidency is a maverick thought in itself. But, Sen. Obama is on the verge of being elected President of the United States. The lessons of his highly successful campaign should be applied to your business every single day.
This is not to say that everything the Obama campaign has done is completely original. It’s just that the campaign has been able to mix some ideas of the past with new ideas, and package it as something fresh and new. It seems the Senator and his aides are able to recognize what has worked well in the past, but are not just rehashing it the same way it was done previously.
If you’re honest, regardless of what candidate you support, Sen. Obama has made Senator John McCain look plain, old fashioned, and just out of date.
The Key to the Obama campaign is positive buzz. The announcement that Sen. Obama will accept the Democratic nomination in a football stadium in front of 75,000 people is downright brilliant. Rather than stand on a stage in front of 19,000 people in an indoor arena, he will give the most important speech of his life in a massive venue. He will be surrounded by thousands of cheering supporters. On TV screens across America this will look amazing, and reinforce the image of Sen. Obama as the overwhelming choice of the people. How can John McCain help but look small in comparison?
As brilliant an idea as this is, it is not completely original. John F. Kennedy did the same thing in 1960. Many voters today don’t remember the Kennedy years, but they know he is revered. Just hearing that JFK accepted his nomination in a football stadium, and that Obama is doing the same links them emotionally in the hearts of many Americans. Especially young Americans, many of whom will vote for the first time this year.
Now consider how you can Omabatize your business. Whether it’s politics, entertainment, or business people always flock to the hottest buzz. Your marketing should make you stand out first and foremost. Marketing technical jargon, and the same old bullet point features or benefits makes you just another face in the crowd. Our culture has A.D.D., so you need to grab the attention of your target market. You want to have the hot new product or service that is ready to set the world on fire.
Vanity matters. So many people I work with fear tooting their own horn. They feel if they brag too much about their product or service they’ll be perceived in a negative fashion. Ever heard of a fellow named Donald Trump? There has never been a bigger self-promoter. Even when he was a virtual nobody he figured out how to get attention, and use publicity to rocket to the top of his industry. That’s not easy in New York City, but he did it to perfection.
Just like Sen. Obama, love him or not you have to admit he knows how to get what he wants. Four years ago most people had no idea who Barack Obama was. Yet, just four years later he is on the cusp of becoming the most powerful man on Earth. That’s pretty wild, and amazing self-promotion.
So, don’t be afraid to talk up your business or your products or services. Don’t be arrogant, but be proud. Talk about what you do in the same way you would talk about your child who is an honor student, or about that sweet new sports car you just bought. When you beam with pride you give off a positive vibe that people pick up on. People are always drawn to positive messages that make them feel good. Your target market will be far more receptive to you if they feel you can somehow transfer your positivity to them to make their life better.
The big thing in molding the image you want people to have of you is how you package yourself or your business. You won’t find many competing companies that are both successful by looking the same as each other.
Think of Coke & Pepsi. Both soft drinks look alike if you pour them in a glass, but they are packaged very differently. They both have bright, colorful labels that are nothing alike. They both use plastic bottles, but they are shaped very differently and evoke different emotions. Their logos are also very different.
The lesson is trying to look like your most successful competitor will will really make you look a like something your customers have already seen before. There’s nothing to motivate them to take a deeper look. You become the same old same old. Don’t copy what others have done. Be bold. Your customers will be motivated to give you a call, or check out your web site by feeling as though they might find something new and exciting. Maybe you have a solution that your competitors don’t.
One of the most successful pieces of copy I ever wrote was two sentences on a postcard. It read, “You’re pissing away millions of dollars every year by not managing your inventory properly. You might want to fix that.” It was a little crass, I know, but boy did it get the attention of those who received it.
The point is don’t be afraid to be daring. Don’t be shackled by so called “business language.” Speak to people the way you would about your favorite movie or your cool new smartphone with all the bells and whistles. It’s OK to say what you do is “awesome” or “cool” or gasp, FUN.
Be controversial. Even the bad publicity that has surrounded Sen. Obama has kept him at the forefront of almost every news cycle since the start of the year. His decision not to take public financing was very controversial. Heck, just the fact that a black man is within months of possibly being elected President is controversial. Barack Obama is controversial, and that draws people to him. His positive message keeps them in his corner.
Sen. Obama is the sunshine breaking through the clouds. Ronald Reagan said it was morning in America , and that made people feel good. It conjured up an image of a new beginning with the prospect of great things to come. Sen. Obama brings a similar message of hope and change in an increasingly dark time. People want to believe that great things are just ahead, and will vote for the person they think will bring those great things to their lives.
Be sunny and positive. No one likes a rain cloud, but people love fun in the sun. Let your customers know how good they’ll feel working with you. They’ll be happy to vote for you to bring those rays of sunshine to their daily grind. Of course, your customers cast their votes for you in dollars, and that will make you feel pretty darn good too.
Tamara
Love him or not, Senator Barack Obama has proven to be a Maverick Thinker. His campaign has done so many things that are just not standard politician fare. Just the idea that a young, African-American man would even have a real shot at the Presidency is a maverick thought in itself. But, Sen. Obama is on the verge of being elected President of the United States. The lessons of his highly successful campaign should be applied to your business every single day.
This is not to say that everything the Obama campaign has done is completely original. It’s just that the campaign has been able to mix some ideas of the past with new ideas, and package it as something fresh and new. It seems the Senator and his aides are able to recognize what has worked well in the past, but are not just rehashing it the same way it was done previously.
If you’re honest, regardless of what candidate you support, Sen. Obama has made Senator John McCain look plain, old fashioned, and just out of date.
The Key to the Obama campaign is positive buzz. The announcement that Sen. Obama will accept the Democratic nomination in a football stadium in front of 75,000 people is downright brilliant. Rather than stand on a stage in front of 19,000 people in an indoor arena, he will give the most important speech of his life in a massive venue. He will be surrounded by thousands of cheering supporters. On TV screens across America this will look amazing, and reinforce the image of Sen. Obama as the overwhelming choice of the people. How can John McCain help but look small in comparison?
As brilliant an idea as this is, it is not completely original. John F. Kennedy did the same thing in 1960. Many voters today don’t remember the Kennedy years, but they know he is revered. Just hearing that JFK accepted his nomination in a football stadium, and that Obama is doing the same links them emotionally in the hearts of many Americans. Especially young Americans, many of whom will vote for the first time this year.
Now consider how you can Omabatize your business. Whether it’s politics, entertainment, or business people always flock to the hottest buzz. Your marketing should make you stand out first and foremost. Marketing technical jargon, and the same old bullet point features or benefits makes you just another face in the crowd. Our culture has A.D.D., so you need to grab the attention of your target market. You want to have the hot new product or service that is ready to set the world on fire.
Vanity matters. So many people I work with fear tooting their own horn. They feel if they brag too much about their product or service they’ll be perceived in a negative fashion. Ever heard of a fellow named Donald Trump? There has never been a bigger self-promoter. Even when he was a virtual nobody he figured out how to get attention, and use publicity to rocket to the top of his industry. That’s not easy in New York City, but he did it to perfection.
Just like Sen. Obama, love him or not you have to admit he knows how to get what he wants. Four years ago most people had no idea who Barack Obama was. Yet, just four years later he is on the cusp of becoming the most powerful man on Earth. That’s pretty wild, and amazing self-promotion.
So, don’t be afraid to talk up your business or your products or services. Don’t be arrogant, but be proud. Talk about what you do in the same way you would talk about your child who is an honor student, or about that sweet new sports car you just bought. When you beam with pride you give off a positive vibe that people pick up on. People are always drawn to positive messages that make them feel good. Your target market will be far more receptive to you if they feel you can somehow transfer your positivity to them to make their life better.
The big thing in molding the image you want people to have of you is how you package yourself or your business. You won’t find many competing companies that are both successful by looking the same as each other.
Think of Coke & Pepsi. Both soft drinks look alike if you pour them in a glass, but they are packaged very differently. They both have bright, colorful labels that are nothing alike. They both use plastic bottles, but they are shaped very differently and evoke different emotions. Their logos are also very different.
The lesson is trying to look like your most successful competitor will will really make you look a like something your customers have already seen before. There’s nothing to motivate them to take a deeper look. You become the same old same old. Don’t copy what others have done. Be bold. Your customers will be motivated to give you a call, or check out your web site by feeling as though they might find something new and exciting. Maybe you have a solution that your competitors don’t.
One of the most successful pieces of copy I ever wrote was two sentences on a postcard. It read, “You’re pissing away millions of dollars every year by not managing your inventory properly. You might want to fix that.” It was a little crass, I know, but boy did it get the attention of those who received it.
The point is don’t be afraid to be daring. Don’t be shackled by so called “business language.” Speak to people the way you would about your favorite movie or your cool new smartphone with all the bells and whistles. It’s OK to say what you do is “awesome” or “cool” or gasp, FUN.
Be controversial. Even the bad publicity that has surrounded Sen. Obama has kept him at the forefront of almost every news cycle since the start of the year. His decision not to take public financing was very controversial. Heck, just the fact that a black man is within months of possibly being elected President is controversial. Barack Obama is controversial, and that draws people to him. His positive message keeps them in his corner.
Sen. Obama is the sunshine breaking through the clouds. Ronald Reagan said it was morning in America , and that made people feel good. It conjured up an image of a new beginning with the prospect of great things to come. Sen. Obama brings a similar message of hope and change in an increasingly dark time. People want to believe that great things are just ahead, and will vote for the person they think will bring those great things to their lives.
Be sunny and positive. No one likes a rain cloud, but people love fun in the sun. Let your customers know how good they’ll feel working with you. They’ll be happy to vote for you to bring those rays of sunshine to their daily grind. Of course, your customers cast their votes for you in dollars, and that will make you feel pretty darn good too.
Tamara
Comments Off
Nov
13
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Russell Shortt asked:
Barack Obama’s great-great-great-grandfather, Falmouth Kearney was born and reared in Moneygall, Co. Offaly, Ireland. His father, Joseph was a shoemaker but Falmouth left Ireland at the tender age of nineteen, sailing on the SS Marmion and arriving in New York on 20 March, 1850. It was a time when droves upon droves of migrants were flooding out of the country, fleeing the terrible famine that was wracking Ireland at that time. Falmouth moved out west, settling in Ohio, were he married and had eight children and eventually moved to Indiana. In a curious twist of fate, three of Falmouth’s daughters married three brothers named Dunham. Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Durham is descended from one of these couples. Ann Durham married a Kenyan, also named Barack Obama, who she met while he was studying in Hawaii and in 1961 they had a son named Barack Obama, now the President of the United States. Obama joins a long list of US presidents with Irish ancestry. Ronald Reagan’s great-grandfather, Michael O’Reagan hailed from Ballyporeen, Co. Tipperary. John F Kennedy’s great-grandfather Partrick Kennedy, came from Dunganstown, Co. Wexford, while Bill Clinton’s roots can be traced back to Co. Fermanagh. Obama’s hometown of Moneygall is located on the N7 route between Dublin and Limerick on the Co. Tipperary/Co. Offaly border. It has a population of approximately 300 people, a Catholic church, five shops, a post office, a primary school and a police station and of course two pubs. The people of Moneygall welcome Barack to drop in on his ancestral home in the coming years.
Leonard
Barack Obama’s great-great-great-grandfather, Falmouth Kearney was born and reared in Moneygall, Co. Offaly, Ireland. His father, Joseph was a shoemaker but Falmouth left Ireland at the tender age of nineteen, sailing on the SS Marmion and arriving in New York on 20 March, 1850. It was a time when droves upon droves of migrants were flooding out of the country, fleeing the terrible famine that was wracking Ireland at that time. Falmouth moved out west, settling in Ohio, were he married and had eight children and eventually moved to Indiana. In a curious twist of fate, three of Falmouth’s daughters married three brothers named Dunham. Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Durham is descended from one of these couples. Ann Durham married a Kenyan, also named Barack Obama, who she met while he was studying in Hawaii and in 1961 they had a son named Barack Obama, now the President of the United States. Obama joins a long list of US presidents with Irish ancestry. Ronald Reagan’s great-grandfather, Michael O’Reagan hailed from Ballyporeen, Co. Tipperary. John F Kennedy’s great-grandfather Partrick Kennedy, came from Dunganstown, Co. Wexford, while Bill Clinton’s roots can be traced back to Co. Fermanagh. Obama’s hometown of Moneygall is located on the N7 route between Dublin and Limerick on the Co. Tipperary/Co. Offaly border. It has a population of approximately 300 people, a Catholic church, five shops, a post office, a primary school and a police station and of course two pubs. The people of Moneygall welcome Barack to drop in on his ancestral home in the coming years.
Leonard
Comments Off
Nov
08
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Nov
04
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
kbf_private_joker asked:
I was born in the 80s and so don’t know too much about the economy and politics at the time, but it seems that liberals **** Reagan and conservatives love him. I am looking for specifics, like certain policies and who it affected. All I know is that he shrunk government and cut taxes. There must be a ton of stuff because he was in there for 8 years.
I was born in the 80s and so don’t know too much about the economy and politics at the time, but it seems that liberals **** Reagan and conservatives love him. I am looking for specifics, like certain policies and who it affected. All I know is that he shrunk government and cut taxes. There must be a ton of stuff because he was in there for 8 years.
Also, please don’t get crazy and bash the each other. If you disagree, say something intelligent to back your answer. This isn’t a liberals vs conservatives shouting match.
Thanks!
Irene
Nov
03
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Randall E asked:
The Government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. – Ronald Reagan
Ben
The Government is like a baby’s alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. – Ronald Reagan
Ben
Oct
22
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
James Opiko asked:
Rap Artist Kanye West had this to say: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!” — Said during a Hurricane Katrina telethon.
After the Katrina disaster many polls indicated that large majorities of blacks believed that the federal response to Hurricane Katrina would have been considerably speedier had those trapped in New Orleans been rich and white, and that the slow response was an indication of continuing racial inequity in this country.
Most whites disagreed.
A poll average indicated that 72 percent of blacks thought Bush doesn’t care, while only 26 percent of whites thought likewise, meaning a 74 percent majority of whites believe that Bush cares. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, said: “I do not think that this president cares about everybody in America…”
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, as expected — defended Bush. Condoleezza, like Colin Powell are examples of blacks who have allowed themselves to be used by the Republican Party “for an illusion of ‘black’ inclusion,” — a party which not only acts, but commits to things anti-black and anti-minority for good measure.
Usually, when a professional team performs dismally, the coach is the first to go, even if the failure is with the players — hence, the blame on Bush. In this instance, I believe the blame should be spread across the “system,” a system initially born of hypocrisy and nurtured in racism and oppression, and which still does not sufficiently address stark inequities across this great nation.
Now, pictures don’t lie[6]. African Americans were hit hardest. These pictures portray “3rd world living” in a first world nation.
Lets turn to Africa and Africans.
Over the years most U.S. presidents have not really cared about Africans, mainly Republican presidents, and I am not letting the Democrats off the rope either, for example Bill Clinton sat in the Oval office, busy “serenading” Monica Lewinsky, while Rwandans slit each others throats. Classified papers show Clinton was aware of “final solution”[1] to eliminate Tutsis, but buried the information to justify U.S. inaction.
Africans are ultimately responsible for their fate, but for a Superpower, that has colluded with Africa’s former colonial masters — to plant seeds of discord[2] in the continent, and to **** it bare of it’s natural resources [in concert with some African dictators],…to date, to sit back and watch, is in my view unequivocally detestable.
Perhaps the biggest culprit of them all is Ronald Reagan — “A serial liar with a Heart of Darkness who made Americans feel good about themselves[3].” To Reagan, Africans, Black Americans and Homosexuals were expendable, as he ignored and mocked the onslaught of AIDS[4], and propped up the apartheid regime of South Africa, a country with vast deposits of industrial diamonds.
At the peak of apartheid, in 1985, Ronald Reagan had the gall to proclaim that the “reformist administration” of South Africa had “eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country.” In 1986, Reagan gave a speech where he said Mandela should be released but denounced sanctions with crocodile tears, claiming that they would “hurt black workers,” who were already ridiculously impoverished.
Reagan’s legacy was: “Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian.” — These were the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, spoken on Capitol Hill at a US committee hearing in late 1984. It was just after Reagan’s easy re-election. Tutu had just been awarded the Nobel peace prize for his non-violent struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
Yet, American companies continued to do business with ****** South Africa under the stewardship of the “president of sunny optimism.”
Meanwhile, apartheid rained death on black Africans.
American governments do not care about Africa — they never bothered about Rwanda [Clinton], and Bush has not bothered about Darfur until now, after hundreds of thousands have been killed by the despicable and moronic militia, the Janjaweed — supported by an “Islamic Terrorist” government of the Sudan, that does “OIL” business with large U.S. companies.
Now, that his legacy seems headed to the dustbin, and amidst intense pleading by the International community — Bush suddenly cares?
Do I think Bush is a bigot. No. I think he is part of a predatory, lying, devious and hypocritical system, an elitist system of government that doesn’t really care about the poor, and whenever they seem to do, it is always with debilitating strings attached.
Some may argue that the United States gives the third world millions of dollars in aid. That’s a fallacy, for most U.S. aid actually winds up subsidizing American corporations. So, U.S. foreign aid serves not only as a coercive instrument of foreign policy but also to support private U.S. contractors, universities, banks, consulting firms, lobbyists, and many others. Foreign aid is a lucrative business, and America always ends “repatriating more” back to the United States than what it “donates” as “foreign aid.”
STOP! Wonder why illegal migrants are flocking into the United States?
Click here[5] to find out how greedy the “First World” is.
The world bank, whose leader is appointed by the sitting U.S. president, is a monstrous arm-twisting tool used to “coordinate” American interests in the third world, and the sorry fact that some third world leaders are a bunch of heartless nincompoops, just worsens the situation. They steal the “Foreign Aid,” profit from it and repatriate the proceeds back to western banks — whose governments look the other way.
Bush’s Darfur initiative — is a little too late? Probably. As for AIDs — Better late than never.
That said, the Sudanese government is guilty of “ethnic cleansing” and crimes against humanity, crimes against black Sudanese peasants, and the leaders of this regime must be brought to justice.
This is the war Bush should be fighting and not the bottomless pit in Iraq that reportedly has claimed close to a million Iraqi lives and thousands of U.S. military men and women, not forgetting the millions who have been driven away from their homes.
But, guess what, because they have OIL, they got away with harbouring Osama bin Laden, and now they will get way with genocide — courtesy the United States, China and all other predatory western nations, who have repeatedly used Africa like a disposable mistress.
References: [Web Pages Referred To In Article]
[1] — http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1182431,00.html
[2] — http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/how-europe/index.htm
[3] — http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/7340/
[4] — http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2004/bronski0104.html
[5] — http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Helen_Caldicott/Third_World_Debt_IYLTP.html
[6] — http://www.clubafrika.com/photos/cpg133/index.php?cat=10010
Benjamin
Rap Artist Kanye West had this to say: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!” — Said during a Hurricane Katrina telethon.
After the Katrina disaster many polls indicated that large majorities of blacks believed that the federal response to Hurricane Katrina would have been considerably speedier had those trapped in New Orleans been rich and white, and that the slow response was an indication of continuing racial inequity in this country.
Most whites disagreed.
A poll average indicated that 72 percent of blacks thought Bush doesn’t care, while only 26 percent of whites thought likewise, meaning a 74 percent majority of whites believe that Bush cares. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, said: “I do not think that this president cares about everybody in America…”
Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, as expected — defended Bush. Condoleezza, like Colin Powell are examples of blacks who have allowed themselves to be used by the Republican Party “for an illusion of ‘black’ inclusion,” — a party which not only acts, but commits to things anti-black and anti-minority for good measure.
Usually, when a professional team performs dismally, the coach is the first to go, even if the failure is with the players — hence, the blame on Bush. In this instance, I believe the blame should be spread across the “system,” a system initially born of hypocrisy and nurtured in racism and oppression, and which still does not sufficiently address stark inequities across this great nation.
Now, pictures don’t lie[6]. African Americans were hit hardest. These pictures portray “3rd world living” in a first world nation.
Lets turn to Africa and Africans.
Over the years most U.S. presidents have not really cared about Africans, mainly Republican presidents, and I am not letting the Democrats off the rope either, for example Bill Clinton sat in the Oval office, busy “serenading” Monica Lewinsky, while Rwandans slit each others throats. Classified papers show Clinton was aware of “final solution”[1] to eliminate Tutsis, but buried the information to justify U.S. inaction.
Africans are ultimately responsible for their fate, but for a Superpower, that has colluded with Africa’s former colonial masters — to plant seeds of discord[2] in the continent, and to **** it bare of it’s natural resources [in concert with some African dictators],…to date, to sit back and watch, is in my view unequivocally detestable.
Perhaps the biggest culprit of them all is Ronald Reagan — “A serial liar with a Heart of Darkness who made Americans feel good about themselves[3].” To Reagan, Africans, Black Americans and Homosexuals were expendable, as he ignored and mocked the onslaught of AIDS[4], and propped up the apartheid regime of South Africa, a country with vast deposits of industrial diamonds.
At the peak of apartheid, in 1985, Ronald Reagan had the gall to proclaim that the “reformist administration” of South Africa had “eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country.” In 1986, Reagan gave a speech where he said Mandela should be released but denounced sanctions with crocodile tears, claiming that they would “hurt black workers,” who were already ridiculously impoverished.
Reagan’s legacy was: “Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian.” — These were the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, spoken on Capitol Hill at a US committee hearing in late 1984. It was just after Reagan’s easy re-election. Tutu had just been awarded the Nobel peace prize for his non-violent struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
Yet, American companies continued to do business with ****** South Africa under the stewardship of the “president of sunny optimism.”
Meanwhile, apartheid rained death on black Africans.
American governments do not care about Africa — they never bothered about Rwanda [Clinton], and Bush has not bothered about Darfur until now, after hundreds of thousands have been killed by the despicable and moronic militia, the Janjaweed — supported by an “Islamic Terrorist” government of the Sudan, that does “OIL” business with large U.S. companies.
Now, that his legacy seems headed to the dustbin, and amidst intense pleading by the International community — Bush suddenly cares?
Do I think Bush is a bigot. No. I think he is part of a predatory, lying, devious and hypocritical system, an elitist system of government that doesn’t really care about the poor, and whenever they seem to do, it is always with debilitating strings attached.
Some may argue that the United States gives the third world millions of dollars in aid. That’s a fallacy, for most U.S. aid actually winds up subsidizing American corporations. So, U.S. foreign aid serves not only as a coercive instrument of foreign policy but also to support private U.S. contractors, universities, banks, consulting firms, lobbyists, and many others. Foreign aid is a lucrative business, and America always ends “repatriating more” back to the United States than what it “donates” as “foreign aid.”
STOP! Wonder why illegal migrants are flocking into the United States?
Click here[5] to find out how greedy the “First World” is.
The world bank, whose leader is appointed by the sitting U.S. president, is a monstrous arm-twisting tool used to “coordinate” American interests in the third world, and the sorry fact that some third world leaders are a bunch of heartless nincompoops, just worsens the situation. They steal the “Foreign Aid,” profit from it and repatriate the proceeds back to western banks — whose governments look the other way.
Bush’s Darfur initiative — is a little too late? Probably. As for AIDs — Better late than never.
That said, the Sudanese government is guilty of “ethnic cleansing” and crimes against humanity, crimes against black Sudanese peasants, and the leaders of this regime must be brought to justice.
This is the war Bush should be fighting and not the bottomless pit in Iraq that reportedly has claimed close to a million Iraqi lives and thousands of U.S. military men and women, not forgetting the millions who have been driven away from their homes.
But, guess what, because they have OIL, they got away with harbouring Osama bin Laden, and now they will get way with genocide — courtesy the United States, China and all other predatory western nations, who have repeatedly used Africa like a disposable mistress.
References: [Web Pages Referred To In Article]
[1] — http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1182431,00.html
[2] — http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/rodney-walter/how-europe/index.htm
[3] — http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/7340/
[4] — http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2004/bronski0104.html
[5] — http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Helen_Caldicott/Third_World_Debt_IYLTP.html
[6] — http://www.clubafrika.com/photos/cpg133/index.php?cat=10010
Benjamin
Comments Off
Oct
15
Filed Under (Ronald Reagan) by harrybelafonte
Retro Cool asked:
I know many conservatives/Republicans hold a high regard for the late president Ronald Reagan but I was wondering how they equate Gerald Ford’s criticisms of Regan’s administration. Do they know much about Ford’s position on this subject or do the hold Ford and Reagan as having different perspectives of conservatism?
Pamela
I know many conservatives/Republicans hold a high regard for the late president Ronald Reagan but I was wondering how they equate Gerald Ford’s criticisms of Regan’s administration. Do they know much about Ford’s position on this subject or do the hold Ford and Reagan as having different perspectives of conservatism?
Pamela
