Posts Tagged ‘Middle East’


It is time to hold these politicians accountable

 

*NOTE: H. Res. 268 I personally agree on this one as you can see so does the Congressman and Congresswomen above do as well. None the less shows that Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL) apparently does not know his own voting record.

This goes on forever you get the drift…Once again when you start to hold our Politicians accountable they want to basically call you a liar…


President Obama, whose standing abroad helped earn him a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office, has declined in popularity in the Arab world since his Cairo speech in the summer of 2009. From an American Arab Institute poll conducted by Zogby International:

With the 2008 election of Barack Obama, favorable attitudes toward the U.S. more than doubled in many Arab countries. But in the two years since his famous “Cairo speech,” ratings for both the U.S. and the President have spiraled downwards. The President is seen overwhelmingly as failing to meet the expectations set during his speech, and the vast majority of those surveyed disagree with U.S policies.

In five out of the six countries surveyed, the U.S. was viewed less favorably than Turkey, China, France—or Iran. Far from seeing the U.S. as a leader in the post-Arab Spring environment, the countries surveyed viewed “U.S. interference in the Arab world” as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East, second only to the continued Palestinian occupation.


And to think he is being not only rejected by the American voter but also by the Israeli PM……..

President Barack Obama has held talks on the peace process with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House.


REASON NUMBER 5: (Iraq War)

Obama said that all troops would be out of Iraq by August 31st 2010…We are now almost in August of 2011 and still no troop with drawl….

Don’t take my word for it…take his..

REASON NUMBER 4: (Obamacare)

Majority of Americans both Republican & Democrat sent a huge wake up call to Washington DC. In the midterm elections of 2010…That message was REPEAL AND REPLACE Obamacare….What does Obama say to that? He fights it tooth and nail…

REASON NUMBER 3: (Gulf Oil Spill)

Millions of gallons of oil was spilling out into the gulf..What was Obama’s response? “What do you want me to do, get down with a straw and suck it out?” YES MR. PRESIDENT …He criticized Bush on Katrina well the Gulf Oil Spill is Obama’s Katrina…….

REASON NUMBER 2: (Huge deficit)

Obama said that by the end of his 1st term he would cut the deficit in half….He has almost doubled it since he has been in office……14 TRILLION dollars…..

REASON NUMBER 1: (ECONOMICAL DOWN FALL/AND RECORD JOB LOSS)

This is Obama’s Achilles’ heel this is why you do not hear Obama speaking about the most important issues of today…The American people are hurting bad and yet he talks about immigration reform (WHICH DOES NOT CREATE JOBS) He is talking about the Middle East (WHICH DOES NOT CREATE JOBS) he is talking about all these topics but he has yet to talk about the economy why? BECAUSE HE KNOWS HIS STIMULUS PLAN WAS A FAILURE.. HE KNOWS THAT HE HAS FAILED TO CREATE THE 1ST JOB….THE AMERICAN VOTER IS PISSED…Granted Obama looks ok in the polls now because of Usama…But those numbers are dropping fast…The American workers you know the “middle” class are the ones hurting they are also the ones that will NOT vote for 4 MORE YEARS OF OBAMA….


So as the Obama Campaign machine prepares to roar and mow over the Oil companies for supposedly high gas prices..Yes I said supposedly because while the gas prices are very high they will continue to get even higher. SO the White House aka the Obama Administration aka the Obama re-election campaign may want to be careful who they target. Because if it is not OPEC then they are to put it lightly PISSING in the wind, let’s look at exactly where and WHO we get our oil from?

Canadatotal oil exports to the U.S. exceeded 2.4 million barrels per day.

OPEC (Oil Producing Exporting Countries)

Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela

We pretty much import oil from just about every nation in the world the list of non OPEC countries can be found HERE.

So to point the finger at Domestic Oil Companies alone would be not only ludicrous but stupid as well this is one thing I agree with Donald Trump on, if one of these “non” Allied countries need help and they need some military support then instead of just going over there for FREE. They can pay us back in OIL. Also we are the customers and being a customer you have great power people just do not know it. If our leadership would stop bowing to these people and instead say hey! Look knock the shit off either sell us the oil at a reasonable rate or take your oil and shove it up you’re a**. That will get their damn attention. But also you have to take in consideration that if we stopped buying oil from the OPEC countries then the only alternative is to DRILL OUR OWN DAMN OIL.

People the problem is you cannot have your cake and eat it too, if you want lower gas prices then DRILL he you want to have “green way of living” then pay 6 bucks a gallon. The whole going green BS is a major factor in as well. You have these environmentalist crying about how we are destroying our environment. Then guess what LIVE with the 6bucks per gallon gas.

Canada most likely is driving the price of OIL up to offset it’s “universal” healthcare program, you know the health care system where everyone has equal coverage and the Govt. or the people pay very high taxes for it. The Canadian health care system is defined as a “single payer” system. This means that the government pays most of the healthcare expenses. Hence why the OIL is so high.

“Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done.” – C. E. Stowe


UN Security Council Chamber in New York.

Image via Wikipedia

Critics howled with derision at the UN Security Council‘s response to the bloodshed in Libya this week.

An emergency session produced no action, not even a legally binding resolution: only the Council’s weakest form of expression, a press statement.

Here at the UN, however, Western diplomats were flush with the triumph of finally getting the Council to address at least one of the revolts in the Middle East. One called it the “strongest statement in years”.

‘Protecting peace’

That difference reflects the enormous gap in perception between the public and the diplomats over how the UN works and what it can do.

The Security Council was set up in 1945 to “protect international peace and security,” which at the time essentially meant preventing another world war.

Some Council members – China and Russia in particular – still hold to a narrow definition of what threats deserve UN attention.

In the case of Libya, they see a tyrant accused of killing his people as a domestic, if bloody, affair.

Others, like the European states, see the prospect of refugees flooding across borders as an international threat.

They also argue the Security Council’s role has evolved to include a “responsibility to protect” civilians from murderous governments.

But Council diplomats put great stock in sending a “unified message”.

They strive to achieve consensus among all 15 members, and they have to avoid a veto by one of the five permanent members – Britain, France, Russia, China and America.

So the Security Council tends to settle on the lowest common denominator.

That is why its responses are often bemoaned as inadequate by the world, but hailed by insiders as hard-fought achievements.

Still, we haven’t heard the last word from the Council on Libya yet. Western nations are pushing for action, not just statements.

That could include mandating safe passages for humanitarian goods, an arms embargo, sanctions, an investigation into alleged atrocities, the deployment of peacekeepers, a no-fly zone to protect civilians from regime air strikes, and/or military intervention.

Western intervention

But which of the steps listed above is likely to happen?

Military intervention can be safely ruled out: It is so complex and controversial that the Council has only twice taken that route – Korea in 1950 and Iraq in 1991.

Sending in peacekeepers, too, is a non-starter – typically, they are deployed to fortify existing truces or borders (not to fight) at the request of the government of a strife-torn country.

Instituting a “no-fly zone” over Libya enforced by fighter jets is also most unlikely. Council members are wary of such Western-led military measures after their experience in Iraq.

Authorising an investigation into Col Gaddafi’s violent crackdown is more feasible, but New York will almost certainly wait to see what comes out of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which is currently debating such a measure.

Such a probe could prompt the Security Council to refer Libya to the International Criminal Court for a war crimes investigation, but that is not an easy step: Only Sudan has received such treatment, and some Council diplomats believe that was counter productive.

The concept of a humanitarian corridor has been tossed around, but no one’s very clear on what that would entail.

Some talk about asking neighbouring countries to ease border restrictions to facilitate convoys, although that seems to be happening already.

Perhaps the Security Council would formally endorse that step. UN humanitarian agencies are already poised to take their own action.

That leaves us with an arms embargo and sanctions targeting Col Gaddafi’s entourage and key members of the military and elite.

These might send a “political signal” that would encourage defection from the Colonel’s ranks, says a UN diplomat.

If the Security Council does authorise action, these last are the most likely options.

But before that, we may very well get more words – a more authoritative, tougher statement.

The Libyan revolt has put the UN under the spotlight, partly because the collapse of the state threatens a fallout more dangerous than that from the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, but also because European nations on the Security Council are under public pressure to be seen as doing something.

The trick is to win agreement from all Council members on something that is not dismissed as meaningless by people in the West, the region, and above all in Libya.