DONALD TRUMP - OUT OF HIS DEPTH STANDING WITH PEOPLE SHORTER THAN HIMSELF

Donald Trump equates campaigning for the Presidency of the United States with hosting a reality show. On The Apprentice he could say whatever he liked. He was the boss. He weighted the performances of contestants for value added. He concluded each show with his patented, “You’re Fired.” He has come to this campaign believing that everything about which he feels strongly, can be expressed with his unguarded ‘Trumpisms,’ but he has misunderstood the audience. TV ‘Apprentice’ audiences stay tuned because they are entertained and the outcomes are harmless. Voters tune him out because his skill set is evidently unsuited for the Presidency of a nation with its need for diplomacy and peacemaking as well as security and economic growth. No I don’t believe voters should validate a candidate who businesses have gone bankrupt four times before this current successful run; or, who is on his third marriage; or, who is democrat or republican depending upon the decade; or, who is so clearly out of his depth when standing on a stage with candidates shorter than himself.

In the end when the public tells him, “You’re Fired,” he’ll tell us all with typical Trumpite flair, “I entered just to get people talking about the right issues. No one was talking about immigration before I brought it up.” And that won’t be true either. Trump better stick to making billions. He’s so rich. But he will never be the President of the United States of America, unless the people, by voting for him, prove that they deserve him.

THE LATEST HORROR & FURTHER BAD PR

This is today's BBC Middle East News for  24 February 2015, "'Islamic State 'abducts dozens of Christians in Syria'"

At least 90 Assyrian Christians, men, women and children have been abducted by ISIS fighters who swept through a strong of villages along south bank of the Khabur River in north-eastern Syria during dawn raids on Monday. This is in Hassakeh province in Syria, where 40,000 Assyrian Nestorian Christians live, speaking Syriac, a form of Aramaic, the language of Christ.  Many Assyrians have fled Syria to escape extremist pressure to convert to Islam, to pay a religious levy or to face death.

Now tell me again that the conflict is not in any sense religiously motivated.

Furthermore, The group's aim is to establish a "caliphate", that is, a state ruled by a single political and religious leader according to Islamic law, or Sharia. As it seeks to move beyond its present confining borders of Iraq and Syria into Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine, it demands that all swear allegiance to its leader - Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai, better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

ISIS is now commonly known as IS, and IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam, considering themselves to be the only true believers. For them, the rest of the world is comprised of unbelievers who are seeking to destroy Islam, and that justifies IS attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Beheadings, crucifixions and mass shootings have been used to terrorise their enemies. IS members have justified such atrocities by citing the Koranic verses that talk of "striking off the heads" of unbelievers, but Muslims have denounced them. Even al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who disavowed IS in February over its actions in Syria, warned Zarqawi in 2005 that such brutality loses "Muslim hearts and minds".

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME

My friend has written in response to my previous article on ISIS, now called IS. He takes exception to my piece, and I think that he misread me, and fails to understand what’s going on. He supports the inane comment by President Obama that dismisses IS atrocities as merely what bad people do. He wrote ...

"Obama is quite right to say that ISIS has nothing to do with true Islamic beliefs. Although there are different branches of Islam, they all promote a moral and ethical code. He is quite right that you cannot tar all Muslims with the same brush, anymore than you can tar all Christians, or where would it end. Shall I blame you Ron for the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, or the denial of truth imposed on Galileo by the Pope. That good born-again evangelical Christian George W. Bush eagerly bombed and killed well over sixty thousand innocent Iraqi men women and children. He was supported by thousands and possibly millions of other bible belt zealots in the U.S.A. Has that got anything to do with true Christian belief. I too am sorry that Obama said that so many Egyptians were killed. He should simply have said so many people were killed. It was a terrible thing to do whether they were Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Egyptian, German or Inuit. Most religious believers tend to pick and choose the bits of their holy books that suit them at the moment. I seem to remember reading about some guy, who who advised people to take the beam out of their own eyes before pointing out the mote in their neighbour's eye. I think he was not a Christian, but an very orthodox Jew."

1. 
   with a few edits I replied the following … RonFebruary 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM

   That is a mistaken read of both Obama's remarks and my reason for finding them unacceptable. I would not have objected or wasted my time with the issue if Obama had simply said that ISIS does not accurately represent Islam nor is it true Islam. That's not what he said. He completely disassociated ISIS and its horror show from Islam and religion. That is not being truthful. Even if the ISIS interpretation of the Quran is grotesque, it is nevertheless for those distorted religious reasons that ISIS did what it, by beheading 21 Coptic Christians and by shooting and burning to death, 60 men, women and children at worship in a church. No one is saying that these atrocities should be laid to the accounts of moral, highly principled, spiritually minded Muslims. You do not, however, make that point by ignoring the religious intention of the perpetrators who base their actions on their sourcebook. And of course, such madness done to anyone, of any nationality or faith is wickedly appalling, but you purposely steer from ISIS's point. They did it to these 21 Egyptians because they were Christian and because after torturing them for days, they did not recant, repent and turn to Islam.
   
   On the other hand, I will disassociate George Bush's military assaults from anything to do with Christianity or my faith. The US military is not a Christian organization, nor is aligned with my Statement of Faith. No military action in our lifetimes by USA or Canada or a Coalition is conducted for Christian/religious reasons. 

OBAMA & UNDERSTANDING THE ISLAMIC STATE

That ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, is a reckless conception. Yet that is what President Obama has said. Nearly all Muslims reject the Islamic State. That's true. ISIS does not represent true Islam. That's true. But ISIS zealots are driven by a reasoned interpretation of Islam. Enough 'Wingnuts' reside in every state of the Union that the White House seeks to avert a horrid Islamophobic response at home. We are not in a holy war, so Obama said, "No religion is responsible for terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism." Further, he terms the atrocities 'violent extremism,' when he should call it 'Islamist extremism.' That's what it is. ISIS doesn't deny this.

President Obama (Alex Wong/Getty)

It was disingenuous and disgusting when Obama deliberately described the 21 beheaded victims as "Egyptians", rather than 'Coptic Christians.' They were targeted precisely because of their association with the cross of Christ. Religion is very much at the heart of what is going on in the ISIS world. Americans should be able to count on their President having a clear view and honest acknowledgement that ISIS's Islam is a combination of a revived ancient puritanical Islam and some modern politicized Islam.  The President's disavowal does not serve inter-faith dialogue well, nor mutual tolerance. The Islamic State is unquestionably Islamic, even as it has attracted adventurists and psychopaths.

Graeme Wood has written an intelligent, meticulously researched article for The Atlantic Monthly March 2015 issue, entitled, 'What ISIS Really Wants'. I encourage you to read it.

Obama and Nobel

Obama and Nobel

Almost no one outside the Committee itself was linking the two names before Friday morning.

Universal surprise best expresses the world’s reaction to the news that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barak Obama, eight months into his first term as president of the United States of America.

I am weary already of mean spirited people poking at Barak Obama, but…. As much as I applaud the good intentions and some values of this president, I too believe that the prize was not deserved, just yet. The truth is the award this time appears to have been bestowed as an encouragement for intentions rather than as a reward for achievement. This distinction according to Alfred Nobel himself should be conferred on "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." And get this. The deadline for nominations for the prize was February 1st 2009 and Obama had just been inaugurated two weeks earlier. What presumptive group of strategists thought this nomination would be more than a joke when it nominated him so long ago. Obama was compelled to produce something resembling an international peace initiative. So he has reached out to adversaries, particularly Iran and with mixed results. He also delivered a commendable speech in Cairo in which he called for "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." Further, he has called for a world without nuclear weapons. But all this is mere ambition and hope and aspiration yet the Nobel awards Committee maintains that Obama’s contribution this year is more worthy of its honour than 204 other nominations for this year's peace prize. Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Chinese dissident Hu Jia were among the favourites. In fact the Nobel Committee’s choice of Obama was for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." It also stated, "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." Further, "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve."

Obama in his statement sees the prize to him for what it is by saying the he would accept the prize as a "call to action".