Is Sarah Palin a Hillary Clinton? In my opinion I say no. She did a fair job as governor of Alaska, I would say. On some political issues, if she were president, I would argue she could turn out to be placed politically in the center. On others, she would likely be center-right. But the truth about her political platform on the whole is, she is all the way to the right, on every political issue that the country faces right now. This I find is absolutely perilous.

     Monica Crowley, on the McLaughlin Group, finds her politics plausible for she is an extreme conservative. I on the other hand, find it untrustworthy. Such extreme right-wing thinking is exemplary of the era before the Civil Rights Movement and the direct result of it.

     Sarah Palin, running for vice-president in the republican party, during the 2008 campaign election, stated at the Republican National Convention she was for hockey-moms, since she herself was a hockey-mom. This admission of being just an ordinary, down-home, white, conservative female mother, connotes, she can identify with over fifty-percent of middle-class and lower-class white females, nationwide, conventionally conservative, and maybe can understand just what it is they stand for and want from a politician, and that she fits that bill. Further, since she shares their outlook on the political landscape of America, they should know, she most assuredly has their self-interests at heart.

     This is a horse-of-a-pill to swallow. War is not a game of hockey. That is the first problem I have with Sarah’s political platform as a capitalist and centrist. Second, terrorism is shifting its methodology from simple suicide attacks in the present to biological and bacterial attacks in the coming future. Monica Crowley, on the McLaughlin Group, compared Washington’s recent paralyzing snow storm that shut the city down to what an Anthrax attack could do should the Taliban and or Al-Qaida put forth such a scheme. She is dead wrong. What nitwit would risk such an open and easily trackable plan. The idea of a counter-terrorist attack (whatever type) on the enemy, is put forth with a goal in mind and not to fail. That is to say, details of failure, by radical terrorists, would have been pre-considered I’m sure.

     What is being undermined by experts in the Pentagon and Monica Crowley is these guys are Suicide-hardliners. That is, they sacrifice their lives for the greater good of the whole. This connotes, there is nothing they won’t do. For material meeds are not the ends that justifies the means. Their meeds are immaterial and are perceived to be metaphysically amassed.

     With this in mind, their [the jihadists] next move could be in the bacterial realm of attack. Let me explain what I mean. First off, man can easily emulate mother nature in many areas of evolution in the laboratory now. Insects such as mosquitos, flies, fleas, bats, and even dogs, are carriers for Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes that feed off the human species. These types of carriers usually possess enzymes, due to millions of years of evolution, that prevent the parasite from the eradication of the host. Thus they, the insect and the bacterium, or virus, live symbiotically as one.

     This very same principle of co-sharing, by insects and microorganisms, can be used to launch a bacterial attack. Remember the Bubonic Plague or Black Death, Yersinia Pestis, that first struck in 429, and 427/6 BC in Athens, and then reappeared during the early Renaissance in the 1300s and killed nearly half the population of Europe? How did this occur? Simply put, for the Greeks by Professor Thomas Noble, fleas got on rats. Rats got on trading ships. Once on the ships the fleas got off the rats and got onto humans. Simple as that. Moreover, we as humans already live symbiotically with Prokaryotes such as Staphylococcus, E. Coli, and Streptococcus, which however are considered avirulent strains.

     Why can’t this model be repeated? I argue it can be. It is a simple process of culturing a parasite that can be injected into man as a host, provided symbiosis is transient, not quite like that of the example with the aforementioned Bubonic Plague, because of the method of direct injection, then, based on the means to transmit the disease, for example, sharing food, sexual intercourse, shaking of hands, coughing, sneezing, whatever’s fastest and most efficient, all could be an undetectable means of initiating the biological chain reaction of human contamination. This is not rocket science I am discussing here. Such possibilities are within the realm of reason right now. Since Immigration policy in the US is relaxed, newcomers could bring a manufactured parasite, living in their bodies, into the country, which can do irreparable damage once inside and transmission starts. In contrast, they, the host, is a mere vessel for the deed and disease, they are sacrificed eventually and for a national religious cause.

     The day is coming for such extreme measures of religious counter-warfare. Understand, the point of a war, let me remind you, is to vanquish your enemy, if total eradication is necessary, than so be it. This is the foremost fundamental principle of war: To eliminate the chance of your enemy regrouping and initiating a potential new threat. One even more devastating than the first encounter.

     Sarah Palin as a devout hockey mom up against such odds would be way out of her league, no pun intended. What this country needs are political leaders, now and in the future, whose rationale is focused on what is best for America. And in time of war, especially when men are being sacrificed for the sake of freedom and national security, or when foreign policy demands that the armed forces, protect its allies, games have no place in such matters of magnitude.

     Hillary Clinton would be able to gird herself with the mental fortitude to undertake such a costly task, should such a contest between Palin and herself occurred and she [Hillary Clinton] wins. She is, empirically, better suited for political problems such as the ones I mentioned. She understands the world is in a state of flux, as Heraclitus the philosopher and empiricist, from sixth century BC, philosophized.

     Emphatically, the governance of one state is far different from the governance of 50 states. Sarah Palin,’s rhetoric is easily understood as spin or sophistry, but I am not persuaded. What I think she is doing is laying the ground work politically for other more favorable republican candidates, in the future, who can eventually, as we get closer once more to the primary election, pose a more serious threat for the democratic party, and if, Obama nose dives by then, shift the plurality, in government, back to the GOP.

Leap Wireless International is a public telecommunications company that provides wireless services through its subsidiaries, Cricket Communications and Jump Mobile. It was founded in 1998 and was built on the premise of unlimited services with no contracts and no credit checks. (Wikipedia)

It is trading on the NASDAQ for $10 per share. JP Morgan downgraded Leap to underperformed. According to Notable Calls: at http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3841795, Leap Wireless International may be in the market for an acquisitioner. If this is the case, than it is likely there will be some changes made in the two subsidiaries if such a deal is in the plan.

This may be why Cricket Communications is resorting to acts of fraud and deception. For it is certain their future hangs in the balance, and maybe even the life of the company itself.  

Also, Leap Wireless International has been charged with inflating its stock on the NASDAQ, in December 31, 2004. (DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-2388) It seems,
nine securities class action lawsuits were filed against Leap, and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Leap’s common stock from February 11, 2002 through July 24, 2002.

The possibility of Leap Wireless International and its subsidiaries colluding does not sound unreasonable a behavior. After all, with an uncertain economy all across the US and the world, Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest would apply at any costs. For if they are going down I believe they plan to take everyone they can with them. As for Cricket communications, complaints can be found at many blogs about their services and attempts to defraud wireless patrons by deceptive online payment schemes.  

I have reported this to the Attorney General of Ohio and will follow up with a complaint with the FCC and BBB. Anyone having any problems with Leap, Cricket or Jump Mobile should do likewise.

Part One: Focus on the Middle East

     This commentary deals with why I believe President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan may fail. One of the biggest obstacles to his impending success is opium. Not just opium as a raw material but what the raw material opium can become. The fact that this raw material is essential to many other medicinal and chemical, both legal and illegal, products means there is large scale global trade in this industry and the U.S. is largely involved. This realization alone is one of the major reasons Obama may run into industry road blocks politically as he pursues an end to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a fight to reduce the illegal trade of opium. Something that has not been done ever. The grappling with this necessary evil goes as far back as the nineteenth century when the Opium Wars loomed between the British and the Chinese. Yet opium is still around and ostensibly shall always be with us. Thus securing its place among the most powerful inelastic commodities in the world. A good example of why I hold this political viewpoint is the fact that Adolf Hitler mostly held power because the Hitler regime was financially backed and supported largely by Corporate America, with major allies like Henry Ford.

     Statistically, Afghanistan has an estimated population of 32,738,376 inhabitants. Sunni Muslims are the major religious group with 80 percent and only 19 percent for the Shiites. Roughly only 28 percent above the age of 15 can read and write. That is, 43 percent males and scarcely 13 percent females. It is an Islamic republic. That means its government type is based on a religious foundation. Unlike U.S. Republicanism, which is founded on a written constitution and church and state are separate. The president or chief of state is Hamid Karzai. There is the ANA, the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Army Air Corps. But remember the literacy rate among males is average and thus their means of highly developed intelligence capability would appear weak in contrast to lets say the Soviet’s, Great Britain’s or the American’s, where the literacy rate is much higher for males over 15. As far as transnational issues goes Pakistan and Afghanistan are invariably engaged in border disputes. The main disagreements are: terrorism and illicit drugs. Afghanistan is the largest producer of opium globally with a steady increase in poppy cultivation. The Taliban participates in this industry explicitly. Not to mention the fact that most of the heroin that goes to Europe and Eurasia comes from Afghan opium. And there are various financial networks covertly involved in drug money laundering, such as U.S. corporations and perhaps even banks though as far as banks I am speculating. But it would make sense that since we face a financial economic global crisis in 2009, I would not rule such a hypothetical out.

     GDP for the Afghan economy in 2007 was estimated to be about $35 billion, which came mostly from the agriculture and service sector of the economy. Industry that same year only mustered 24 percent of the GDP. One big problem the Obama administration has is the fact that the Afghan labor force is only 15 million people out of a population of 32,738,376 inhabitants. And statistically the unemployment rate is about 40 percent, with a population below the poverty line of 53 percent. This is a huge barrier to President Obama’s political and military objectives for the region. These numbers clearly point out the advantage the Taliban and al-Qaida have in furthering their ambitions, which is to fundamentalize the Afghan state and secure a nuclear bomb from Pakistan. Moreover, the global recession has gone unrestrained. The national unemployment rate in the U.S. alone is over 10 percent not counting those that work part-time or the jobless worker who has totally given up seeking work altogether, and those who volunteer, but receive no pay. Such hopelessly depressed conditions for many people nationally and even worldwide has brought disfavor with the President and his administration.

     This hamstrung economic social paradigm has produced, high rates of violent crimes, from drugs, within families, hindering the efforts of police doing their jobs, on the highways, and many more social conflicts worldwide.

     U.S. interests in the region is more than the threat of Soviet expansion as I mention in my last commentary. The fact is the U.S. is Afghanistan’s third largest trading partner among a group of four with India its leading Exporter. Another major political problem vaguely discussed by the Obama administration is the border disputes between India and Pakistan. Even if the U.S. could by 2011 stabilize Afghanistan militarily from terrorism they may underestimate the Taliban’s ability to drive a wedge further between India and Pakistan. This wedge would target the 80.5 percent Hindu population in India and the 97 percent Muslim population in Pakistan. Including the competition that exist among Afghanistan, Pakistan and India in the opium trade. But beyond that, there is India’s ongoing conflict with China. One of America’s major debt holders. The Pharmaceutical industry would not look favorably on the Obama administration if any hindrance to licit opium were to materialize in this area. In addition, the President, Admiral Mullen, Senator John Kerry, and General McChrystal has failed to mention the illicit narcotics trade exported to Southeast Asia by India. Again, stabilizing Afghanistan will only have a minor impact on destroying terrorism. Admiral Mullen told Charlie Rose the draw down of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by mid-2011 does not mean a complete withdrawal. And with such uncertainty the question arises, “What does draw down mean then?”

     Iran, on the other hand, has a population of 65,875,223 inhabitants, of which 98 percent are Muslims, and of that, 89 percent are Shiites and 9 percent are Sunni. It has a literacy rate of 77 percent. Eighty-three percent males over 15 and 70.4 percent females. Its government type is a theocratic republic. That is, both state and church are combined. The capital is Tehran and the chief of state or Supreme Leader is Ali Hoseini-Khamenei. The head of government is President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad. The Iranian economy is reliant on oil. It supplies about 85 percent of revenues. A major barrier for the UN and NATO is the state has sovereignty and thus most economic activity is under the state’s authority. And too, corruption plays a big role in sociopolitical progress for the Iranian economy. Something the Obama administration fails to address. I think the U.S. abstains from this encounter with the Iranians, primarily Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is because Iran’s major Importer and Exporter is China. Although Japan leads China as Iran’s major Exporter overall.

     What does this mean in the short and long term for the Obama administration when time to draw down the troops in Afghanistan? I believe it means there will have to be politically some concession on the part of the superpowers, spearheaded by President Obama, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkal, and Nicolas Sarkozy.

     We must not forget as far as the terrorists are concerned, al-Qaida is backed by Osama Bin Laden, and according to Forbes magazine, issue: November 30 list of most powerful people, had Mr. Bin Laden at No. 37. He is estimated to be worth more than $300,000,000. And maybe considerably more in the light of the opium trade he is engaged in as well. Bin Laden most definitively has ties with U.S. corporations as well as corporations in Europe and Asia. All this has to do with the probability of his acquiring a nuclear bomb at some point in the future. Neither President Hamid Karzai, a Sunni Muslim, of Afghanistan nor President Asif Ali Zardari, a Shiite Muslim, of Pakistan can control all the political factions in their respective governments. Let me underscore a very important point… and that is the Taliban, a radical Sunni Islamist movement, was a legitimate government from 1996 until late 2001, when they were removed by NATO forces. It is the Sunni connection between President Karzai and the Taliban that holds weight here. Though Karzai may appear to be a Patriot he could switch sides for any reason and become an Islamic nationalist. I would not rule out pecuniary bribes, patronage, from the Taliban, once the U.S. begins military withdrawal.

     Even though Pakistan is a federal republic as mentioned above, they may see a need to employ Taliban forces to help fend off Indian’s attacks should they materialize. Or they could find the Taliban instrumental with their impoverished and underdeveloped economic circumstances and as such would be willing to grant political favors, such as vital political positions in government. But one thing is for certain above all else and that is, the Taliban and al-Qaida are both in Pakistan. In fact according to Senator John Kerry, al-Qaida is headquartered there, while Bin Laden is in the Northwest region of Pakistan. So the border that divides both Afghanistan and Pakistan could seem to disappear, in the light of Islamic fundametalist objectives, in terms of the war on terrorism.

     One of the major goals of General McChrystal should be to drive the Taliban to the Northeastern sector of Afghanistan from the southwest central region. That is, from the Helmand province to the Palmir Mountains in the Gorno-Badakhshan province. The mountains are covered in snow year round. Palmir has long and bitterly cold winters and short cool summers. Making Drone attacks more effective in the summer while the winter would take its toll on the Taliban forces almost unaided by Afghan and NATO forces. I know some officials maybe going through the roof, since the U.S. is interested in these mountains for trade purposes, but that is every reason to drive the Taliban there and put an end to their insurgency.

     Let me switch focus at this point. I had the opportunity to see a movie called ‘Head-On’ about a young Turkish woman, a cocaine addict, who moved from Germany, to Istanbul because her husband, a cocaine addict also, had been put in prison for manslaughter, where her sister lived, and got turned on to opium. Probably illegally imported from Afghanistan. Certainly this movie was fictitious. But that does not mean opium is not in reality flourishing in Istanbul or Germany in one form or another. Turkey is a republican parliamentary democracy somewhat similar to the U.S.’s government and has no restrictions on religious freedoms. You can dress as Western or Eastern as you please without coercion from the Turkish government. Ironically, in terms of religion the country is 99.8 percent Muslim, mostly Sunni. The point being, opium could be purchased or acquired for recreational use in the real world as well. The movie makes the old adage, “there is a thin line between fiction and reality” a true aphorism.

     In summary, let me state we will take a closer look at opium in part two of this two part commentary. I think up to this point in the discussion the reader gets an understanding of the complexity of President Obama’s foreign policy dilemma. He can save the American ship of virtue from the eye of the radical Islamist storm so-to-speak, but he can’t save all the people in it. Such a metaphor helps us to grasp his likelihood of having to make many unfortunate sacrifices, politically. Jobs are eating at his will to rescue an America under siege by a global economic crisis that does not seem to want to go away. Surely he inherited all these political fire dragons. But it was he, was it not, who said he could bring about resolution over time. I say the two most important tidal waves you have to get us through Mr. President is the war in Afghanistan and the economic global depression in full swing right now. And if you can do that you will then have to turn your attention to the likely internal rise of illicit drug distribution and use, and the gun violence that will escalate culminating in the new terrorist hydra residing in America covertly derived from its parent Islamic fundamentalist groups, the Taliban and al-Qaida, from the Middle East, formulating since 9/11.

     I listened to the speech Mr. Obama gave to the U.S. Military Academy about his ordering 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. It would appear that Senator McCain is in accord with the President’s new strategy, and I am too… but unconvinced whether it will work. What he hopes to do, the president that is, I believe is to push the Taliban and al-Qaida back far enough to the north that the Afghan military can takeover and finish the job of driving the Taliban out after the U.S. pulls out in what is predicted 2011.

     This strategy on the part of the president breeds uncertainty. Call me a skeptic all you want. But I don’t see the Taliban or al-Qaida responding to the wishes of either the President of the United States or any other president for that matter.

? What Mr. Obama again fails to take into consideration is the fact that this war is a battle of wits, two diametrically opposed interests in the host, that is, a game theory. While the U.S. troops under the command of General McChrystal will seek militarily to drive the Taliban insurgents out of Afghanistan and Pakistan by the various psychological resource methods available, i.e., bribes, trained Afghan government forces, reduced corruption in the Karzai and Pratibha Patil regimes, use CIA agents and or fake Islamic defectors of U.S. contingents or the CIA itself, to infiltrate the Taliban forces and pose as reliable and genuine recruits for the cause of the Fundamentalist’s holy crusade in both Afghanistan and Pakistan against the infidels, even commit to tactics of intimidation by posing [the CIA’s agents] as Taliban and al-Qaida troops in order to threaten Afghan peasants, with hopes that such a stratagem on the part of the CIA will cause hate for the insurgents permanently, while once inside the Taliban they will be sending co-ordinates back to U.S. forces for aerial assaults and will attempt to drive wedges of dissension in between Taliban Loyalists to weaken their internal bonds of unity. Sounds like a good infallible plan. But what may sound good may have bad and disappointing repercussions overtime.

     What does both General McChrystal and the President think the Taliban and al-Qaida will be doing all this time as their opponents? Just sitting on their duffs letting it happen or giving up the jihad? Not hardly. Since this is as I have stated a war based on game theory, it is safe to suppose that Osama Bin Laden and his followers in al-Qaida, along with the Taliban will employ whatever methods, be they voodoo, black magic, mysticism, summoning Islamic Clairvoyants, intimidating the Afghan and Pakistani peasant enclaves with torture and murder or the reverse, that is, use virtue and good deeds to win their loyalty, and any other vile wicked schemes to offset any military strategies the U.S. may apply. But that is not all. What’s more, they will, because they have nothing to lose, since they are fighting what they perceive to be a just holy war, increase and step up suicide attacks both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in addition to that, they may then set their sights, full blown, on internal attacks in the United States. That is for two reasons, first because of the direct connection to the drug industry and this countries abuse of illegal drugs, and second, because I predict such a strategy would shift the political and domestic focus away from the Middle East to the U.S. directly, and may weaken American morale here at home, not to mention undermine their faith in our leadership if they [the Taliban] succeeds.

     To the Taliban and al-Qaida the war is not just a war to prove who is the most powerful militarily, but a war to prove Allah is on their side. This makes such a jihad, machine-driven. Like the Japanese were, during World War Two, (but most were atheist) when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Their behavior stunned American military high officials, who had no idea to win to the Japanese meant to die and die unnerved and heaven bound. Such an attitude toward a desire to defend one’s religious convictions is the worst foe psychologically any army can face in battle, analogous to the attitude of the Knight’s Templars. Oh, sure the U.S. can nuke the Taliban and al-Qaida like they did the unyielding Japanese in 1945. Or they can get out of the Middle East altogether, if they fail to succeed in driving the Taliban and al-Qaida into internal self-destruction, with their tails between their legs and their heads hung low in shame.

     This war seems to be about winning to the U.S., but not to the Islamic Fundamentalists. To them the war is about religious freedom from foreign Christian rule. And that basic aim is no different than the aim the American colonists had when they fought the British in the Revolutionary War, which was a human right’s struggle.

     It is not going to be a downhill ski-ride for Obama. He is fighting religious Nationalists, who control a large portion of the drug industry, globally, and ethics, surrounding the cause of the Islamic brotherhood is morally indiscriminate, Antinomianism, that is, there is no moral law in war. That alone tells me what the President and the Pentagon can’t see, the Taliban and al-Qaida can, and will use, to defend themselves, and Allah will forgive them, according to the Quran, when all is said and done. This is the principle of the Greater Good Doctrine, that is, there are no exceptions to immorality but there are exemptions. Worst still, as the body count rises on both sides, the American people down the road, lets say by mid-2010, will begin to question the country’s real intentions once again. More United Nation’s troops deployed to the region, if called for and approved by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, would only add to the overall regional devastation as the war drags on.

     I don’t call the uncertainty in my mind now brewing in the Middle East for the American forces there a Vietnam; I call it an Islam-nam.

     On the subject of using food to bribe the Afghan peasant into aiding U.S. forces in the region to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida cannot last and will not last. If U.S. forces are scheduled to defect in 2011, and return military control to both Afghan and Pakistani military personnel, I predict in time corruption will rage once more, due to drugs and political corruption of the Afghan and Pakistani peasantry and nothing would have changed. Just like the Vietnam War after the Americans departed in 1975. The North Vietcong took over power in the south regardless of U.S. superior military might in the aftermath. So the war in Vietnam was a waste of human life and the same results will occur in Islam-nam as well; as fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, son-in-laws, daughter-in-laws etc., (the Tet Offensive) see the value of multicultural unity through socialization based on one religious culture, Islam, whose roots go back to the prophet Muhammad in 570 to 622 A.D.

     This brief commentary will deal with Jesse Jackson and his challenge for the Presidency in the 1980s. But more than that, this paper is about Mulattoism. Well you say Jesse Jackson was not a Mulatto. What does he have to do with such a topic? That is easy to answer. Mr. Jackson did not need to be a Mulatto to do what he did, and that was to run for President of the United States of America in a time of high racial tension, not once but twice, which existed openly among social groups in this country. And… this liberal social attitude is what keeps him going now.

     When he announced his candidacy in 1983, the first time, it had been 15 years since the death of Martin Luther King. Fifteen years is not a long time for a man like Mr. Jackson, who for the most part played a subordinate role in the Civil Rights Movement.

     Nevertheless, thereafter he ended up the spearhead of his own organization called the Rainbow Coalition, and then ultimately leader of Operation PUSH. It makes one wonder how could the social mobility of a member of the SCLC push all the right political buttons without being the bellwether of the Civil Rights Movement. But he did.

     In Mr. Jackson’s case he did not need to be as I said a Mulatto. What he had to offer as collateral for his right to lead as a African American man was his membership as a Freemason, of Prince Hall. The only other African American person to run for the presidency before him was Shirley Chisholm. In Mrs. Chisholm’s case, now deceased, she was born in New York. But her parents came from British Guiana, who were probably brought from the West African Coast, to South America by the Dutch. Under Dutch rule first, than under British rule. Nonetheless, her background was anything but southern, or American. And if you have a good memory of American history, you’ll remember, New York was settled by Jews. My guess is that Shirley Chisholm’s majority support for a candidate for the Presidency came from wealthy white Jewish organizations in New York. Who the majority, probably were in banking.

     She was dark with a nose like an African and fairly thick lips. In other words she resembled anything but a European. This means she was not a Mulatto according to the definition of a Mulatto. In truth, her roots were from south America, which made her status in the eyes of white American females, having an intellect, comparable to Europeans, but set apart from African American women, who for the most part were perceived as of average to below average intelligence. And thus were not thought of as capable of leading white women not even to a soup kitchen, and those who held this worldview was mainly the racist, KKK, the southern white protestant woman.

     As for Mr. Jackson, his way around Mulattoism for certain was his Freemasonry. He is brown skinned. Somewhat tall with marked African features. Thin lips and fairly articulate. But above all, he appeared to be, in the eyes of African America, Jesus Christ number three. You see, there was Martin Luther King, number two, but he was assassinated. Then there was the real Jesus Christ, and he was crucified. Then came Jesse Jackson. Such popularity, demanded respect among the aristocracy. They judged Mr. Jackson’s affect on the people, especially, African Americans, as a way to promote democracy in this country, and at the same time to make money. Big money. Lots of money. Jews held the same sentiments. So Mr. Jackson got the go ahead with his run for the presidency. Believe me, Mr. Jackson had some of the most powerful people in America behind him, including Jews, analogous to President Barack Obama’s campaign for the Presidency in November 2008.

     Prince Hall, during the 1980s was segregated from the Freemasons in Scottland, England, France, Germany and other European countries. And to a large degree it still is. It amazes me that Jewish Freemasonry is also segregated. That means they, the Jews, may excludes African Americans from membership in their lodges. I wonder why that is? If in fact oppression for Jews, as they purport, is comparable to the historical oppression of African Americans, why wouldn’t Jewish Freemasonry not join forces with African American Freemasonry? Doesn’t it seem puerile for grown men to be behaving this way? But what do I know. A woman will call a man a boy if he ignores her, and when he casts an eye her way, she’ll turn around and call him a pervert, or a stalker. I guess we are what we are, and that’s just the way it is.

     Martin Luther King was not a Freemason as far as I can find out. There seems to be no record of documents or anyone in Freemasonry who would attest to this. Could this have been a major reason why MLK didn’t get a chance to run for the presidency in America? He certainly was not a Mulatto. His features were African plain as day. But his knowledge of politics, and his faculty for oration was, among the African American leaders at that time, unsurpassable. I’m not intimating that Jesse Jackson had anything to do with MLK’s death or that the Masons did either. However, it strikes me awfully strange that MLK, leader of the SCLC, was not a mason himself. If he had been, would he still be alive today? And would he had been the one to have run for president in 1983 instead of Jesse Jackson, in spite of his strong African features? We may never know the answer to this question.

     Also another puzzling interrogative left unanswered is, “if MLK had joined Prince Hall, would he have been satisfied with their reportedly strange rites? Could he have overlooked their believe that God or GUA, the universal architect of the world, as the Freemasons call him, was not Jesus Christ incarnate? That, according to Freemasonry, Jesus Christ was just a man not unlike any other.” But if you believe in a supreme being, according to the Freemasons, GUA, greatest universal architect, you are welcomed to join one of their lodges. Preferably, one not of this world.

     The fact that Jesse Jackson was a Freemason, but not a Mulatto, makes perfect sense how he came to be a candidate for the presidency of the United States. Almost a third of all presidents since the American Revolution have been Freemasons, among other political positions in government. But Jesse’s candidacy raised the conscious level of the underclass all across this country when he ran. That had never been done before. The wealthy made more money off Jesse’s campaign for presidency than they’ve made since, other than Barack Obama. President Obama, however, is a Mulatto. If Mr. Jackson were to run again in 2012, how do you think he would be perceived by the American public? And lets say he runs on the Republican ticket as a liberal republican against Barack Obama, as an incumbent and left-wing democrat. How do you think today the election would turn out? Have rich Jews, in banking, given any thought to such a contest, or the contestants? Of course we all know without a doubt who would win.

     We now have some idea of the type of impact a Mulatto has in this country. Plus it hints that racism is more refined. More illusive. More subtle. Yet, still in place in this country. There is a degree of decency among white America, and they may be in the majority. And they may be left of center. And they may be democratically accountable, and socially indiscriminate. But the rest, the minority, those that want things as they used to be, before all this liberalism got going since the end of 2008, are decent in appearance only. Further they haven’t forgotten the southern African Americans, who fought in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. This helps them to curb their attitudes toward southern African American men. Not necessarily toward northern African American men though.

     Mr. Jackson is their boy. Not boy in the sense of a dumb, stupid, lazy, good-for-nothing, human monkey. As they [the southern white good old boys] used to view all African Americans not so long ago. But boy in the sense that he is the pride of southern black virtue. In other words, to the ‘good old southern white boys’, Jesse is a fine man. And it doesn’t matter he is not a Mulatto. As a result, Mr. Jackson has had an opportunity to be a diplomat, in the past, and has dealt with issues of foreign affairs, representing the state department. For example, in 1983 he traveled to Syria to secure the release of a captured American pilot, Navy Lt. Robert Goodman. This helped Mr. Jackson’s presidency attempt in 1984. Then he traveled to Kenya in 1997 to meet with Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi, as United States President Bill Clinton’s special envoy for democracy to promote free and fair elections. In April 1999, during the Kosovo War, Jackson traveled to Belgrade to negotiate the release of three U.S. POWs. Also in 2000, on February 15, 2003, Jackson spoke in front of over an estimated one million people in Hyde Park, London, for an anti-war demonstration. (Wikipedia: Jesse Jackson)

     But he is not well known worldwide. So why isn’t his worldwide popularity as well known as MLK’s? Since Freemasonry is international, and today, Prince Hall has roughly 4000 lodges worldwide, with over 300,000 members. What do you think the reason is for Mr. Jackson’s world image being circumscribed? I’m sure he knows the British has erected a statue of MLK at Westminister Abbey.

     I believe we can safely say that Mr. Jackson’s Masonic background may be the most powerful influence working for him. Former President Bill Clinton is still, far as I know, part of the Trilateral Commission along with Former President Jimmy Carter. And may be a member of the Illuminati. Adam Weishaupt, a German Jew, was a member of the Freemasons in Germany, but broke away to start is own secret society, the Perfectibilists, which ultimately became the Illuminati, in 1776. These secret societies do help each other out, despite, racial differences.

     Let me include a plug here. President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, when he was in office in the 1990s, should have gotten him impeached. But his credentials and friends in high places including Former President Jimmy Carter, the Illuminati, and the Trilateral Commission, would not let such a thing occur. President Clinton, at the time, was just bored with work and home, and needed a breather, that’s all.

     Now back to our argument; don’t get me wrong MLK’s private, verses, his public life, was anything but sacrosanct. Moreover, what public figure’s public life hasn’t been that way? From your Presidents down to your local Mayors. All have sinned. And sex is usually the route of public degradation. My interest though is the public image the man represented. And that was one of charisma. Only God is his judge. Jesse Jackson has not been attacked from this public political perspective yet. But his day is coming, when all the private sexual escapades of adultery he may have been involved in, will be brought out in the open for the public to know about.

     In summary, things in 2009 have not changed much. Maybe for the underclass, who were of the notion, that as soon as an African American man became president the world would totally change, because an African American man, is somehow a good bullshitter, rather than a bully like the Euro-American man, and for that reason he was elected to run America, the greatest most powerful nation on earth. They now know, I hope, that line of reasoning was just plain dumb. That every country rules under their own sovereignty. That an African American man, Mulatto or otherwise, is still just a man. That the super geniuses are not by products of Eugenics, but products of evolution.

     The BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics, purports the unemployment rate to be, double digit. That is to say, over 10.1 percent up from 9.8 percent. The highest it’s been since the pre-World War Two era. As it now stands today there are over 15 million people nationwide out of work. Is this statistic something to be alarmed about? I believe it is. But I don’t believe it is as critical yet as it may become in time. But something has to be done soon for it will cause other more debilitating problems that, coupled with the current unemployment crisis, will become economically endemic. I will go more into this later but for now I want to embroil the stock market. As of today the stock market is reflecting some very good predictions for the future of America if it continues the upward pecuniary climb currently taking place. This could mean the best is yet to come and the Obama Administration has refueled our economy as promised.    

     I could not be more wrong.

     What I have just described above about the state and condition of the economy in the U.S., as it stands, is so far from the truth, you could fire a rocket at my metaphysical logic in outer space, and before the rocket reaches its target, my reasoning, it will burn up in its pursuit. Why is that you say? Well, for one thing, the unemployment rate and the stock market are not related. They are totally independent of each other. If there is some correlation it certainly is not obvious to the naked eye. I mean, now as we experience an upswing in investing in 2009, in contrast, we see a heavy downturn in employment. This I argue means that there are different forces at work here. And the forces are not or may not be from the same source seeking to produce the same impact. It is possible to assume what the rise in unemployment seeks to do, which is to reduce consumption and increase government spending, while on the other hand, the rise in the stock market seeks to enrich corporate speculators and investors seeking to get rich, causes a divergence in wealth among all Americans. But the reader must know that speculation is not sound investing. It is ‘carrot-chasing’. Or whimsically digging for gold or oil in a mind field. The fact that these two very different economic worlds exist regulated by perhaps parallel, yes, even obverse economic forces, makes matters even worse for the federal government. It is unsuggested that government place more constraints on Wall Street speculation. I am though purporting that what appears to be sound policy and a safe strategy on the part of the speculative investor, from the mogul, the CEO, and down to the lay investor, soon is bound to come unraveled, dragged down by pragmatic economic events occurring in the real world.    

     As the rise in unemployment persist consumption is obliged to decline. This breeds fear. This is what the 2008 Depression was all about and still smolders right now. This fear brought with it diffidence. This diffidence in the past for the economy brought with it more fear. Which led to a slow down in production and investment and the eventual loss of jobs. Banks, with no way to off load toxic assets from the housing industry, declined to make loans due to the growing fear on the economic horizon as well, which they were prime initiators of, and further, which orchestrated a zero sum game. Soon, as this negative economic psychological organic monster grew in size and strength over the course of the Bush II administration, and because it did not know how to correct itself, it brought everything globally to a halt. The massive infusions of money over time by the Obama administration, in 2009, only served to stimulate the sociopsychological desire to return to an atmosphere of economic stability for some, but without a genuine objective for all it was doomed to continue disproportionately. And certainly could not, due to the feds inability to get control of the unemployment situation, eliminate every possible unforeseen consequence, that would, and have, occurred as a result of the positive predicted forecasts of Obama’s economic advisors when his administration began.

     If you ask Obama today if he or his advisors were mindful of the high rate of unemployment today they probably would not give you a definitive answer. That is because they would not have one. Meaning they were devoid of one in the past, as a result of inconsideration for such consequences, whether they took the time to do a comprehensive analysis or not, as a consequence, now fosters double digit unemployment today.

     So we are not out of the woods yet. We have a long road to hoe. However, under the liberal politics of the Obama administration we can count ourselves lucky thus far. How long this luck will last is still unknown. That is why we need to address the rise in unemployment in this country. The ten plus percent by no means reflects the percent of unemployed who have totally given up looking for a job altogether. Stimulus political strategy has proved to be transient. Not a panacea in the least. American’s confidence is weaning again. Prices are stable but in some areas of the country they are receding, except for oil. This is not a good sign for the overall economy. For investors in the stock market, investments in banks, retail, restaurants, research, construction, appears to be doing poorly but the stock market’s daily closing results say something else as well as in the European Union. Chew on this, virtue alone, philosophically, can not uncorrupt the uncorrupted. What a man is, is the man. Given, straight away when his watch began, the Obama administration poured stimulus money into these sectors of the economy to bring about an economic turn around. But little in the way of a turn around has occurred so far. Why? I believe it is a matter of social psychology.

     For example, there are three types of unemployment, structural, frictional, and cyclical. Structural unemployment being the first respectively, deals with the sufficiently skilled worker and the lack of sufficient jobs to provide for the array of jobseekers. This causes people to demographically shift their residence to places where they have better chances of acquiring work in their respective fields. Frictional unemployment just means people stay less in one particular job, unlike their ancestors did in the 1900s, but move about in the course of their work history. And finally, cyclical unemployment has to do with the economic cycle on the whole. It means when the economy is doing good, and factories are hiring, people fair better, and more people are employed, but when the economy is doing bad, people are laid off, and the factory owner cuts back on production and the purchase of raw materials. With this information we can ask ourselves, “Which one of these events is the cause of the high rate of unemployment, if any? And is there anything to be worried about?”

     One thing for certain is climate change and the reduction in the use of fossil fuels, globally. Now whether the former or the latter or both has anything to do with the rate of unemployment is a horse of another color. That is to say, if there is a correlation it does not imply causation. Nevertheless, it does seem to show that novel technology is at the sociopolitical and economic helm and competitively so. But where it will take us globally, that is the question we have to answer. Lets all agree we have up to this point in time since the 19th century destroyed the quality of air we breathe to some degree and in many places on planet earth. We have also depleted or drastically reduced the volume of some of our natural resources, such as coal and petroleum, which as a consequence we must import at uncontrollable prices. This negligence, unknowingly, is now presenting to us the effects of such reckless disregard for our environment and posterity.

     Laws the legislators now enact, in pollution control, reforestation, and for endangered specie’s protection, is long after the fact. Some of these inner subfields are thus soon to be obsolete worldwide. People who worked in the aforementioned occupations will have to ultimately find work elsewhere. Or return to school which is the accepted norm and objective of most Americans, young and old, today. The transition however is no guarantee they will find jobs. Let alone in their respective fields which are currently dying out. Thus only shifting the burden of welfare to some other state government, as they relocate, to resolve their economic circumstances. Not to mention the rise in social destabilization, sociopsychological abuse and disappointment such strategies garner when people find job competition stiff in their new adopted location. I would mention prejudice, racism, and discrimination as three of the most destabilizing and sociopsychologically crippling as social impediments to upward mobility. When job-shifters fail to be employed they either must decide to leave or to seek help from the state. Yet this phenomenon does not effect the rise in prices for goods and services throughout the nation or the joblessness of the foregoing aforementioned nation-state entirely. All it does is add to the over full social soup of the unemployed in that hard hit province, due to government spending.

     Now we see clearly that you can run but you can’t hide. Even an education is ineffective against some negative economic forces, built into the business cycle, to check the sociopolitical and economic status of a town, city, state, and the nation. And because they are a natural, though negative, part of the economic cycle, inherently, they are for the most part uncontrollable and unpredictable. This is why the most experienced of economists still needs a crystal ball to foretell all the possible consequences, negative and positive, that could happen over time when needed economic decisions are made, at the congressional and executive level, that effect the entire country. Count that though as mere conjecture. I am pipe-dreaming. I like economists. I would do anything to help them out. Be that as it may, more stimulation of the economy in government spending will only resolve a physical and not a psychological deficit that underlies why we have such an interstice in the stock market and unemployment. We need to address or the President needs to address why the average American still dawdles in economic fear and suspicion about the future. Not for themselves alone but for their children’s future too.

     This argument I make clearly outlines two divided camps on the issue. One that argues the economy is improving and the other that says it is not. It just depends on whether you are an investor or the unemployed respectively. Or perhaps a conservative or democrat. Or a capitalist or socialist. Or all in one. Point is, the artificial monetary image reflected in the mirror of the stock market in no way reflects the same nonprosperous image in the job market. In fact, it is a direct affront to it. Health care therefore, if passed in the Senate, I do believe will appear to be comprehensive, and if so, for whom? Certainly not for the underclass. This too though not a direct correlation to the causation of the currently high national unemployment figures, still along with such socially morbid forecasts adds to the overwhelming growth of rising fear and the cycle will continue.

     The CPI, consumer price index, (seasonally adjusted) rose 0.2 percent in September but the increase was less than the 0.4 percent rise in August. While the PPI, producer price index, declined 0.6 percent in September, (seasonally adjusted). In addition, from September 2008 to September 2009, prices for finished goods fell 4.8 percent, the tenth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. These numbers are ominous for the most part. They clearly tell us or imply we have not done well since the Obama administration had assumed the political helm. Again I argue another economic stimulus will not have very much of an effect vehemently because it is not a physical problem we are dealing with but a social psychological one. One that has an array of far reaching components which are entities unto themselves, subjectively rooted. In other words, they create their own branches, from their own trees, in the minds of people immersed in fear and uncertainty.

     Do you create better products to get people to consume more? Do you offer customers pecuniary incentives for shopping at their stores? What will it take to spur economic growth in this country sufficient enough to generate a real upturn in the business cycle? These are the main questions that the Obama Administration must address and without delay. But don’t count on being an American to know how American’s think or what they will and won’t do. Further, I disbelieve it is a mere crap shoot. What I purport is economic advisors in the Obama Administration can resolve the problem of rising unemployment but they are going to have to listen to the people. That is to hint, the public policy course we are on right now may be out of sink with the true wishes of the American people, but only if the American people truly know what they want. And though Washington may think it knows best it may do better to listen even if it does. Certainly President Obama has underplayed this issue. Rising unemployment to him may not seem like a major public issue, however, it is in fact the issue. Profits depends on consumption. Consumption depends on spending. Spending depends on dollars. Dollars depends on jobs. And jobs depends on employers. This is the upward-revolving chart to national economic success, ceteris paribus, theoretically. Consumption spurs economic growth. It provides for tax revenue for both the state and federal governments. It puts money back into the system for reinvestment, without which everything grinds to a standstill. It encourages the acquisition of land and private property, and opens the door to research and development.

     I won’t point the blameworthy finger at the budget and trade deficits. As a footnote, I would say if our debts become to great we can always barter to resolve our financial problems with foreign trading partners. For example, country-A could say to country-B, C, and D. Hey, I got raw material-X, and you need raw material-X to produce product- Y, which would give you the monopoly in industry-N. I would be willing to trade this raw material-X if you would relieve debt number-1, I have with you. Such trading schemes are not novel, but are for the most part the most sound and rational way to alleviate a trade imbalance, where hard currency is out of the question at the time. Loyalty of this kind asserts that country-A is sincere in its efforts to maintain a good viable trading relationship with countries B, C and D. Remember, a densely populated forest, metaphorically, may appear impossible to navigate through physically but there is always the support of the mind and the desire to conquer. A labyrinth, an entangled web of uncertainty, always provides a way out of any complicated situation if one takes the time to reason, singly or collectively or both. Moreover, cynics and skeptics, atheists and pagans, offer opposing arguments that lend credence to any positive struggle no matter what it is. Take them. Use them. Benefit from them. For they offer a negative opportunity to enhance true positive knowledge.

     Here at home in the United States President Obama got elected because of his strong attack on the Bush II administration for neglecting the American people and the economy. As of now in November 2009, things are no better overall than they were before Bush’s political downfall. The rise in unemployment will continue I predict. That is because Obama has so many crises to deal with simultaneously, i.e., the war in Afghanistan, domestic policy, China, North Korea, the Middle East and Israel, he is bound to focus on one and neglect the other or others. Even with all the advisors in his cabinet working dependently with Obama, or independently and on their own to monitor the people’s needs, can and will, in no way wrestle them all to the ground and restrain their momentum until a rational solution is resolved. What then is the answer? And who wins and who loses? For surely this has always been a zero sum game. So the stock market numbers verses the unemployment numbers are going in inverse directions with no clear-cut culprit at the helm on a full tank of gas.

This commentary about possibly the true Rosa Parks is not to ridicule, insult, or belittle, but to clarify some very important facts that have gone unwarranted by millions of people in America.

According to the book by Ralph David Abernathy, And The Walls Came Tumbling Down, on page 131, first paragraph, and I quote:

“Most accounts of the Montgomery bus boycott began with the refusal of Rosa Parks to obey a bus driver’s order. As a matter of fact, two black women had
already been arrested earlier in the year. One of them, Claudette Colvin, a fifteen year old student, had been dragged from the bus and charged with assault and battery as well as failure to comply with Jim Crow laws governing public transportation.”

Rosa Parks’s character, that of a soft-spoken courteous woman, and slight in stature, sounds unlike the person who turned out to be defiant, emboldened, and fearless in the face of white oppressors, capable of unlawfully lynching her without sanction. After reading Mr. Abernathy’s book over and over again for the past 15 years and doing research I came to the conclusion that the NAACP planned the whole event to test the segregation laws in Montgomery Alabama in the federal courts. But why Rosa Parks? What was so special about her?
These two questions puzzled me time and again and left me blank of mind. I just could not see how Rosa Parks’s appearance on the bus that day could have been random. Her character was totally out of context with her behavior.

Thereafter I peered into the Plessy v. Ferguson case. What was I looking for? I was after any evidence that would shed light on why Rosa Parks. In Plessy v. Ferguson we learn that Homer Plessy was a Octoroon, a light-skinned Creole. That is, he had only one eighth black blood. In fact, Plessy was genetically a white man. But the owners of the train wanted the strict letter of the law to be followed. Blacks and whites period would occupy separate cars, but whites alone would ride in luxury and style.

When we examine the case microscopically we apprehend that Plessy’s image, that of a near white Anglo-Saxon, rather than a charcoal-black African, raised eyebrows after he lost his case in the Supreme Court. But the choice to use Plessy by influential Creole Civic Louisiana businessmen could have been due to his white features in order to attract white sentiment. However, neither white sentiment nor the fourteenth Amendment, the separate but equal clause, did Plessy any good.

This strategy to use Plessy because of his skin color is Mulattoism. And was not novel. White American men since slavery began in 1609 favored Mulattoes over the darker black claiming they were inferior to the Mulattoes, who possessed
white blood and undoubtedly were superior in intelligence as a result. And this philosophy paved the way for whites to better control blacks by dividing the race on intra-racial grounds.

Once I understood the context and depths of this last paragraph I realized some very important points about Rosa Parks. Miss Parks great grandfather was Scottish and Irish and probably unmixed with African blood. So Rosa had features
that would mirror Anglo-Saxon features. In which case they would appeal to white women and men socially and biologically by design.

There is evidence that Homer Plessy was part of a planned challenge to the 1890 Louisiana Separate Car Act by the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law by a small group of black professionals in New
Orleans. And historically, we can draw inferences from this, or repeat its social paradigm should the same or similar
circumstances arise in our own time. This I believe is why Rosa Parks was chosen. I say that for several reasons: 1. She worked for the NAACP. Coincidence? 2. She was a Mulatto. 3. She was fair skinned. 4. She possessed features resembling Anglo-Saxon women. In addition, the same set of reasons, used to harness Plessy were at work here. To challenge Montgomery Alabama’s Jim Crow Laws.

Now, let us go one step further with this argument. Another black individual had also challenged the white racist establishment in the south before Rosa Parks. It was Bayard Rustin in 1942, who boarded a Tennessee bus in the
white section, and was beaten for his insolence and refusal to be seated in the black section. However in Rustin’s case and because he was a devout homosexual, the NAACP categorized him as the wrong image. Plus Bayard was dark-skinned, and his features were more African than European.

Moreover, Bayard Rustin challenged southern segregationists on his own. It is a wonder they did not kill him. And at the time lynching was prosaic. You could say the NAACP discriminated against Mr. Rustin on the grounds he was homosexual. Which is a contradiction. If they were for equal rights for all, than why exclude the accomplishments of Mr. Rustin, in spite of his homosexuality.

This then helped me to apprehend the truth about Rosa Parks. She was a pawn. But a pawn with the right appeal that the NAACP looked for to undertake their political ploy. It was her near white color and Scottish-Irish background that they sought to exploit, and above all, she was not a convicted felon as Bayard Rustin. But NAACP’s legal strategy was no different than
the Louisiana businessmen and Homer Plessy of some 70 years
earlier. In contrast, Bayard Rustin was born in Pennsylvania and not the south. Wrong region. Northern black boys were not slaves; and slavery was the issue, and the South was the focus.

So Bayard Rustin’s efforts were undermined. In fact, they were cast totally aside. And as a result my liberalism and thirst for truth will not allow me to honor Rosa Parks because of this, because Parks’s challenge of the white segregationists was dishonest. It hinged on Mulattoism, not an honest act of
altruism as Bayard displayed, but an act based on racial class distinction determined by white rule, and accepted by both southern and northern black leaders. And this, in and of itself is racism, but intra-racial racism to be exact. And that is exactly why I’m convinced Rosa Parks was chosen.

The desire for denuclearization is in game theory the tragedy of the commons. And it means that though the superpowers know it is in their own best interest to denuclearize, that being to avoid a nuclear war and its consequences, however, rather than be rational, they choose to continue stockpiling nuclear weapons. In principle, they do this because they can never be certain that the other countries with nuclear weapons will keep their agreement, and reduce their stockpile, believing it is in their own best interests to maintain production of their nuclear arsenal. And to avoid being discovered by UN peacekeeping forces or on site inspectors directed by the UN security council, they stockpile their most advanced weapons systems underground in secret bunkers. Thus we realize, in truth, no nation is willing to totally cooperate with the other, but would rather defect and continue amassing nuclear weapons, since it is in their own best interest to do so, regardless of their UN membership status. And consequently, our fate for the future will be an unavoidable nuclear war.

Admiral Mike Mullen, on Face The Nation today, Sunday July 5, 2009, mentioned Israel launching a first strike, or preemptive strike against Iran. I take it he meant an aggressive nuclear attack on an Islamic country without there being a real current physical threat of some kind from that particular nation. To engage in nuclear war without probable cause, other than a defensive counterattack, means such unscrupulous behavior will surely have disastrous effects globally. One event is sure to occur thereafter, and that is, other Islamic countries that are democratic and partial to the US or the West and perhaps members of the UN, like Egypt, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, maybe even Turkey and Saudi Arabia, could change sides, due to a religious affinity. Such a strategy, whether overt or covert, would come about from religious sect pressure, such as, the Sunnis, the Shi´ites, the Zoroastrians, Christians, or other religious sects within each regime.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty since August 2008 halted any forward progress to enter the organizational phase in 2009. Thus this impasse reeks of uncertainty for all the countries involved, including the US, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and many others for the future. Which reinforces my suspicion about the assertion of the Tragedy of the Commons. Besides that, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty discriminates on the bases of economic wealth as well, and thus prevents other nations such as Pakistan, North Korea, India and Iran for example, from having a strong political voice in world affairs in the UN security Council, which consist mainly of five major countries. The US being one of them, and Russia another. Such disparity leaves the excluded nations no choice but to act totally in their own best interests. The adoption of UN security council resolution 1874, 12 June 2009, by the General Assembly, has only a marginal affect on North Korea’s push forward with nuclear testing. And this means you can only push people so far, and that goes for countries too, before they stop caring about the consequences of their actions.

The Seventh Man

When the first nuclear weapons were produced at Los Alamos under the Manhattan Project it is obvious the US perceived such an accomplishment as one of a kind. That is, that they, the US government, would lead, as well as dominate the world in military might. It is hard to apprehend why they presumed the rest of the world would sit idly by and just let them [the US] dictate the rules of life based on the rules of war. Since they now had the atomic power to crush a nation without much ground-fighting or risk to human life.

Shortly after careful study and testing at Los Alamos New Mexico from 1942 to 1945, and the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945, the US government learned that its enemy the Russians had the atomic bomb. Suddenly the game changed. No longer did the US sit atop the realm of the atomic mountain of mass destruction alone, but thereafter they had to share it with the Russians.

And down through the years they have continued to misjudge other countries equally eager in producing a nuclear bomb for their own protection in an otherwise hostile world. Is this equity? Is it okay for the fox to raid the chicken coop, while all the other foxes sit idly by and go hungry? I don’t think so, and neither should the American government. One kid can’t have all the money to buy all the candy in the neighborhood candy store. Some other kids will have to have a chance to acquire money and buy too. That is just the way the world has become today.

Now other developing countries want atomic protection in addition. Why shouldn’t they be any less equipped with the bomb? Even if it gives you a false since of security. That is to say, that as proliferation moves ahead, an even greater risk of nuclear annihilation is ever looming on the horizon. There is no other way to assess it. And even though the big countries with atomic weapons know this, they are powerless to stop less developing countries from aspiring to better arm themselves against a nuclear war, in which, they realize they will be defenseless if they don’t acquire the technology needed to build the A-bomb, the N-bomb, the H-bomb, or Thermonuclear technology.

To deny other countries the right to possess weapons equal to the weapons the superpowers possess is a form of world Imperialism. This type of game theory strategy is the underlying factor that is driving nuclear proliferation throughout the globe. The psychology that only the superpowers are divinely worthy to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction is falling on death ears. No one wants to be without an ace-in-the-whole, so-to-speak, in this nuclear day and age, or in a time of a world war. Or think of it this way, your friend has a nuclear bomb, and you want to be like your friend; so you want one too. Or your enemy has an atomic bomb, and you want to be like your enemy; so you want one too.

Imperialism, espionage, the meddling in the internal affairs of others, usurpation, enslavement by military means, military intimidation, the establishment of puppet regimes, the turning of one country against another by lies and deceit for the ultimate takeover, has all occurred in the past to stop weaker countries, by stronger ones with nuclear weapons, from the achievements they have attained,
[the stronger ones] that is, the military power to destroy an entire city. And to prevent these smaller weaker countries from being the masters of their own destinies in this global society by any means.

The wanting of nuclear weapons by less developed countries such as Iran or North Korea, is not uncommon a desire. Why shouldn’t they want to protect themselves from those that wield atomic power? That is, to prevent, or deter a nuclear preemptive strike. What is wrong with that? What we have here is a double standard, which these smaller less developed countries no longer see as sustainable, and moreover, as they see it, both morally and militarily wrong. There is only one way to stop the expansion of WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, and that is for the superpowers to begin comprehensive denuclearization now, and can the UN crap, or be run over by the smaller countries with an inexorable political will, and money, to develop nuclear bombs for their own self protection. And as destiny has in the past provided the knowledge for a few to acquire nuclear weapons, destiny will for many in the future.

The Seventh Man

Traditionally, Americans are spoon fed, political baby food, when it comes to foreign affairs. Mainly the lower and middle classes. What they do apprehend are human rights. And that is at the most fundamental level perceived.

When it comes to foreign affairs they normally get it wrong. Not all the time, but most of the time. The US government often camouflages the truth in order to protect American interests.

In terms of Iran and the Iranian government the American people are mainly up in arms about how free speech is being sanctioned. What they fail to understand moreover, is how the Iranian government is undivided on the issue of the election turnout. The right to sovereignty as an independent regime is a moral right.