HERE'S HOW I SEE THE SITUATION IN... ALMOST EVERYWHERE!

The recent shelling of South Korea by their northern neighbors, reminded me of a bully in junior high school ("middle school" to some of you).

What would the United States do if we were attacked by... let's say the Mexican Army (instead of just an army of Mexicans sneaking across our southern border)? Imagine that Felipe Calderon lost his mind (just like North Korea's Kim), and began lobbing artillery shells into Arizona, California or Texas. What would our response be? Would our "president" issue a statement condemning such an action, and threaten that a strongly worded letter will follow? Obama probably would do just exactly that.

What should the response be to an attack by a bully? You can either submit and accept the beating, in the hope that someday the bully will weary of beating you up, or... you could (and should) respond quickly and surely, with all the strength you can muster. To accept the beating simply encourages the continuation of such behavior! A strong defensive response, on the other hand, has just the opposite effect - it discourages such displays of such aggressive behaviors. A swift and powerful response is what is demanded.

However......... there's another factor in the South Korea-DPRK situation. Apparently the "bully" from the North has the (thus far) unwavering backing of the Giant of the North - China - whose standing army is estimated at 2.5 MILLION (and, if you include paramilitary organizations the estimate jumps to 7.5 MILLION). To complicate matters even more, China has - primarily through lopsided international trade agreements - gained de facto control of the world economy.

Now you have to ask yourself, "If I defend myself against this little piss-ant, tin-horn dictator, will I also be fighting the hordes of Chinese military? How much affection does Hu Jintao of China really have for Kim Jong Il of the DPRK? Will we have any true allies if we respond and are faced with China? Will WalMart still be in business if China gets distracted for a few days?"

But, one thing is certain - taking no action is admitting you are powerless, and you will submit to the whims of your personal "bully". It escalates from bully to gang to army. International politics is a bitch... take the odds and kick Kim's butt!

Obama Continues To Pander To Muslims, Desires Unsustainable World Conditions

In a much-touted speech delivered from Cairo, Barak Hussein Obama (NMP) outlined what he sees as the first and second greatest sources of tension between the Muslim world and the United States. Al-Qaeda topped his list, but Israel came in as the second greatest source of tension. The president said, “Israel has been depriving the Palestinians of their homeland for sixty years.”

The president made another point in his speech: “And any nation– including Iran –should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu does not believe that a state which is the center of gravity for world terrorism has the right to have any nuclear power, period.

My question is this: Is Obama's understanding of the history of the middle East that weak, or does he just choose to ignore that history it in favor of his Muslim brethren? It annoys me when people ignore - or worse, pervert - historical data to justify their own position. Everybody seems to overlook the fact that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were taken from the Jews by the Romans as retribution for the "Great Revolt" in 66AD. Jewish lands were seized and partitioned. The Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had existed for about 1,000 years before the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, partitioned it around 135AD and renamed the land that was Israel and Judea "Syria Palaestina". THERE WAS NO "PALESTINE" PRIOR TO THAT! True, the nation of Israel is built upon stolen land, but the Jews are not the thieves. That small plot of land called Israel was originally about thirty- five times larger than it is today, or roughly encompassing 85% of what we refer to today as the "middle East". Israel is recovered land!

His second point - in a display of absolute ignorance - supports Iran's continued nuclear development, which begs another question... why does a major oil-producing country need "nuclear power"? That is what Iranian President Mahmoud I'manutjob claims is their goal. This claim from a country whose entire national culture seems to be built around the total destruction of tiny Israel! The frothing-at-the-mouth, mad-dog leadership of Iran has frequently called for Israel to "be wiped from the face of the Earth". Not only does it show Obama's ignorance, this international kow-towing will be seen by the "Muslim world" as yet another sign of American lack of resolve and weakness.

The evolution of international relationships is based on a popular rule of triadic interaction: "the friend of my friend is my friend, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy". The rule is shown to lead to the formation and preservation of unipolar and bipolar configurations of nations, with the strengths of relationships, both friendly and conflictual, intensifying through time. International alliances are also conditions of convenience for each member of the alliance. When, at some point in time, the risks of such an alliance are seen to outweigh the benefits, one or more of the parties involved will "jump ship" out of a sense of self-preservation. This may be more than just an abandonment of the alliance... your old ally may defect to the "other side", becoming the friend of your enemy.

I submit that, based upon human behavioral patterns, there is a quaternary interdiction - "the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend". International "befriending" is based upon which of the available competing nations is best liked ... or, for those of you of the "cup is half empty" persuasion, that nation which is the least despised. Those are conditions which are subject to change at any given point in time.

As I have said before, in any negotiation, personal or international, he who negotiates from a position of strength will always walk away from the negotiating table with "the lion's share". One cannot successfully negotiate from a position of weakness (in the animal kingdom the weak are referred to as "food").

I could be absolutely wrong about this... show me.

$500M shipwreck treasure ordered back to Spain

"TAMPA, Florida (AP) — Florida deep-sea explorers who raised an estimated $500 million treasure from the 200-year-old wreck of a Spanish galleon should give all the loot back to Spain, a federal magistrate judge said." Here's the problem I have with that kind of thinking...

The Spanish Naval galleon, Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes y las Animas sunk in the Atlantic Ocean under unspecified circumstances in 1804. If Spain was that concerned about the loss of the ship's cargo, where was their due diligence for recovery during the last 205 years? At the very most, I would award the Spanish government the actual value of the cargo at the time of loss, and then invoke the universal law of "Finders Keepers".

Spain apparently did nothing to recover the bounty of the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes y las Animas, but instead, chose to wait until it was discovered and recovered after a great expenditure of time, effort and money, by somebody else!

The two-year tug-of-war over the 17 tons of silver coins and other artifacts from what is believed to be the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes y las Animas is likely far from over. Odyssey Marine Exploration created an international stir when it announced in May 2007 that the 500,000 silver coins and other artifacts had been raised from an Atlantic Ocean wreck and flown back to Tampa. Spain then went to U.S. District Court claiming ownership of the treasure if it is in any way connected to the country's national heritage. Odyssey said it will oppose Wednesday's written recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo, which will be considered by another federal judge who will issue an order later.

There is neither logic nor equity to this ruling. Rewarding 205 years of indolence and indifference by the Spanish government, versus the initiative and efforts of a publicly held corporation is obviously international politics in action. There is no justice in such a decision.

If Spain is only concerned about the treasure's connection "to the country's national heritage", let them purchase it from Odyssey at today's market value. Then Spain would have this critical link to their "national heritage" - which is apparently priceless to them - and Odyssey would be fully compensated. Or, as an alternative, Odyssey could gift Spain with one coin of each denomination, and perhaps one cluster known as "pieces of eight", and there is their "national heritage" from history.

But, as anybody with any intelligence can see, the true motivation for Spain's attempt to involve our courts in legally pirating this treasure trove from Odyssey is GREED! Odyssey did not sink the ship... nor is Odyssey responsbile for this treasure lying undisturbed at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for over 200 years! Odyssey showed initiative uninvoked by Spain, and for demonstrating this commendable American trait our government court system wishes to punish them? What's wrong with this picture?

I could be completely wrong in the way I see this issue... all I need is for somebody to explain to me the error of my line of reasoning.

Palestine Homeland Stolen by Israel? Not According to History!

It annoys me when people ignore - or worse, pervert - historical data to justify their own position. Everybody seems to overlook the fact that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were taken from the Jews by the Romans as retribution for the "Great Revolt" in 66AD (or 66CE [Common Era] as the PC folks now identify it).

The Romans first occupied Israel in 63BC (or 66BCE) at which time there was no "Palestine". At the beginning of the Common Era, a new group arose among the Jews: the Zealots. These anti-Roman rebels were active for more than six decades, and later instigated the Great Revolt. Their most basic belief was that all means were justified to attain political and religious liberty.

The Jews' anti-Roman feelings were seriously exacerbated during the reign of the half-crazed emperor Caligula, who in the year 39 declared himself to be a deity and ordered his statue to be set up at every temple in the Roman Empire. The Jews, alone in the empire, refused the command; they would not defile God's Temple with a statue of pagan Rome's newest deity. Only the emperor's sudden, violent death saved the Jews from wholesale massacre.

In the decades after Caligula's death, Jews found their religion subject to periodic gross indignities, Roman soldiers exposing themselves in the Temple on one occasion, and burning a Torah scroll on another.

In the year 66, Florus, the last Roman procurator, stole vast quantities of silver from the Temple. The outraged Jewish masses rioted and wiped out the small Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem. Cestius Gallus, the Roman ruler in neighboring Syria, sent in a larger force of soldiers. But the Jewish insurgents routed them as well.

This was a heartening victory that had a terrible consequence: Many Jews suddenly became convinced that they could defeat Rome, and the Zealots' ranks grew geometrically. Never again, however, did the Jews achieve so decisive a victory.

When the Romans returned, they had 60,000 heavily armed and highly professional troops. They launched their first attack against the Jewish state's most radicalized area, the Galilee in the north. The Romans vanquished the Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea. It is estimated that as many as one million Jews died in the Great Revolt against Rome. When people today speak of the almost two-thousand-year span of Jewish homelessness and exile, they are dating it from the failure of the revolt and the destruction of the Temple

After Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70, the Great Revolt ended - except for the surviving Zealots, who fled Jerusalem to the fortress of Masada, near the Dead Sea. There, they held out for three years. Masada is situated on top of an enormous, isolated rock: Anyone climbing it to attack the fortress would be an easy target. Yet the Jews, encamped in the fortress, could never feel secure; every morning, they awoke to see the Roman Tenth Legion hard at work, constructing battering rams and other weapons. If the 960 defenders of Masada hoped that the Romans eventually would consider this last Jewish beachhead too insignificant to bother conquering, they were to be disappointed. The Romans were well aware that the Zealots at Masada were the group that had started the Great Revolt; in fact, the Zealots had been in revolt against the Romans since the year 6. More than anything else, the length and bitterness of their uprising probably account for Rome's unwillingness to let Masada and its small group of defiant Jews alone.

The Zealots were Jewish extremists, even the Jews recognize that. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had existed for about 1,000 years before the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, partitioned it around 135AD and renamed the land that was Israel and Judea "Syria Palaestina".

In 1922, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country", the 28 Articles of the Mandate for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were ratified, and Israel was rightfully re-established - at least in a technical and legal sense.

His Britannic Majesty, King George V, was nominated for and accepted the function of, the Mandatory for Palestine. That mandate continued until 1947, when Israel was recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign entity. However, "the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away" ... the U.N. Partition Plan also gave most of what once was Judah to an Arab State.

Following the time line, it is fairly obvious that the Jews, established by the year 1004BC/BCE, had their homelands seized and redistributed by the Romans in 135AD/CE, and that prior to that time there was no Palestine. The Palestinians should stop their whining and their terroristic acts, accept the fact that Israel does exist as a legitimately recognized Nation State, and concentrate their energies on living in peace with their neighbors.

I won't argue with history, however keep in mind that history is written by the victors. I could be wrong in how I see this ... but I'm NOT!

Political Plums Being Harvested Already - Leon Panetta To Head CIA ... Was Sean Penn Unavailable?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to lead the CIA, which has been widely criticized for harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects..."

I don't know who to feel the most sorry for - Obama for his stupid choice for CIA Director; Panetta for being so far out of his element; or the American people ... for having to suffer a fool in either office! Kiefer Sutherland, based on his "experience" as Agent Jack Bauer in the TV show 24, probably knows more about the internal operations of the CIA than does Leon Panetta. Panetta is best known as President Bill "Zipper" Clinton's Chief of Staff, and as a budget expert who tamed deficits in the Clinton White House. I'm confused ... how do either of these positions - or anything else in Panetta's résumé - qualify him him to oversee the largest single intelligence function of the United States Government?

So far, it appears that not only do we get a President with no proven qualifications, now he has shown himself to be foolish enough to surround himself with equally unqualified cabinet members. Or, does his Cabinet provide a buffer zone of deniability, selected by careful design to insulate Obama from policy failures? Is there more treachery afoot than meets the eye?

Obama's first really big mistake will be to turn his back on Israel. I could be wrong ... but I'm NOT!

United Nations - Those Who Would Rule The World

Our left-wing loonies, most of whom worship at the temple of the United Nations in New York City, are supporting the following, extracted from the United Nations "Declaration of Human Rights" (emphasis added to Article 29 (3)):

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Congratulations, Article 29(3) has given you the right to agree with the UN (in their infinite wisdom)! According to (1) you also may fully develop your personality within the scope of your "duties" to the community (this sounds quite Orwellian to me ... shades of 1984). And then there's (2), wherein your "rights and freedoms" are restricted "as are determined by law", as distinguished from a Constitution - which is the basis for OUR laws. Exactly whose "laws" are we talking about here? The UN's laws? It couldn't possibly be the individual laws of each sovereign nation, because there are too many inconsistencies between the cultures - and therefore the laws - of each country. It would also be a virtual impossibility for any objective organization to accurately monitor and interpret 192 assorted laws covering a single infraction, misdemeanor or felony. So, it appears that the UN is out to establish a universal set of laws ... perhaps cloaked in the mantle of "International Law". Good luck with that!

I'm not claiming that there are no good aspects to the UN's UDoHR, there are many ... but they are, for the most part, vaguely worded and easily interpreted in any manner the reader desires. Am I the only person who has wondered (sometimes aloud to others) if the EU, and NAFTA (the obvious precursor to the North American Union, or perhaps just the American Union) are the first two steps to world domination by the UN? The third, and final step, would be the formation of the Asian Union - which, given the significant antagonism and distrust between most of the Asian countries, will be the greatest challenge of this unification project. It is much easier to exercise control over 3 entities than 192 independent ones. BUT, once the Asian Union has been accomplished through 'diplomacy' (read: intimidation and ostracism), there is only one obvious Puppet Master. What controlling body would be more apparent than the UN? There would be only one independent state left in the world - The Vatcian - assuming the UN allows them to retain their independent status , rather than incorporating the Vatican into Italy. You can use your own imagination for drawing further conclusions ... my imagination is fatigued!