Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Medical mystery solved
Girl who couldn't stop sneezing finally has a diagnosis...... Good for her! It must have been so frustrating having to sneeze incessantly like that, to miss school, and be away from her friends. Thankfully, it seems like that she will be able to be treated and move on with her life.
Skeptical Dems have "serious misgivings" about Obama's Afghanistan plan
What a shocker for the Obama White House!
Not only are Republicans weary of Obama's Afghanistan plan, but so are members of his own party.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan
Not only are Republicans weary of Obama's Afghanistan plan, but so are members of his own party.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Negotiations with Iran not working
Ahmadenijad announced today that uranium enrichments will continue indefinitely despite the international community's strong condemnation of Iran's nuclear program. Iran has also refused to shut down a secret uranium enrichment plant. (BTW, the international community has been condemning Ahmadenijad's psychopathic rants for at least two years now to no avail as Iran has not indicated that it feels threatened enough by the west to disband its nuclear program). Clearly, empty threats are not effective. And, neither are negotiations as Iran has already rejected demands to work with the IAEA and the UN. The Iranian leader adamantly stated "You should know that even if you sizzle (from impatience or desire to talk) ... the Iranian nation won't talk to you concerning the nuclear issue." In response to this statement from Iran, the IAEA even believes that negotiations are at a dead end. If the IAEA believes that negotiations will not be the mechanism that destroys Iran's nuclear program, what more proof does the Obama administration need to accept the fact that no one is capable of negotiating with a tyrannical regime that seeks to dominate the world and destroy western and Jewish civilization?
Its time for a new strategy. When will Obama make a speech regarding his strategy on Iran? Unfortunately, Obama is opposed to even consider taking any military action which in all likelihood will be the only option that will stop Iran from getting their hands on a nuclear bomb. He has not been successful thus far in procuring sanctions against the Iranians. Obama has also left Israel in the dark as the Jewish state waits anxiuosly for Obama to make a decision.(Israel may be forced to go into Iran alone) Meanwhile, as Obama continues to hedge his bets on meaningless negotiations, Iran is enhancing its nuclear program at an alarming rate.
Its time for a new strategy. When will Obama make a speech regarding his strategy on Iran? Unfortunately, Obama is opposed to even consider taking any military action which in all likelihood will be the only option that will stop Iran from getting their hands on a nuclear bomb. He has not been successful thus far in procuring sanctions against the Iranians. Obama has also left Israel in the dark as the Jewish state waits anxiuosly for Obama to make a decision.(Israel may be forced to go into Iran alone) Meanwhile, as Obama continues to hedge his bets on meaningless negotiations, Iran is enhancing its nuclear program at an alarming rate.
Analysis of President Obama's Afghanistan defeatist speech
Conclusion: Obama is more concerned about rebuilding the economy than securing the world from radical Islamic tyranny. Obama admitted in this speech what we already knew. He is opposed to war. He does not support going to war for any reason. If he had his way, he would pull the troops out immediately and focus all of his efforts on health care. As Obama stated, " I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions." In actuality, the long term effects of defeating Al Qaeda will result in freedom for the Afghani people and by extension the American people. Instead, Obama would rather restrain himself as Al Qaeda and others rearm.
He made clear that the economy is his number one priority: 1) " the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home." 2) "Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. " [Bush should have focused on the economy and ignored national security] 3) "global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars." 4) "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth."
You get the picture. Obama is trying to find a way out of these wars by asserting that the economy should be our main focus. But, what Obama fails to realize is that as long as Al qaeda is in business, no entrepreneur will be able to save America from a terrorist attack. And, if there is Gdforbid another terrorist attack, the economy will plunge anyway which is why it would behoove Obama to equally focus on national security issues as well.
Unfortunately, his Afghanistan plan will not secure America and may not even secure Afghanistan. By alerting to the enemy that you plan to remove the troops by a deadline, you encourage them to continue their war against America because no matter how many attacks they launch against U.S. troops, the U.S. will withdraw by 2011. Its a defeatist strategy. One thing about President Bush when he announced his surge in 2007 is that he never gave any timetables. Timetables are dangerous for morale and Obama fell into the terrorists trap.
I gather that the following occurred. Obama found himself in a difficult situation. General McChrystal informed him that the U.S. needed to put more troops in Afghanistan. Obama was not pleased at the recommendation which is why he waited to make a decision. Obama finally came up with a clever compromised plan. He decided to authorize the sending of 30,000 troops. (Mchrystal asked for close to 60,000 troops) In the meantime, he'll blame the fact that he needs to send more troops to Afghanistan on Bush. And in the speech, Obama eluded to the reduced troops in Afghanistan as being Bush's fault "the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world." But, Obama will get the troops out of Afghanistan in 2011 just in time for his reelection campaign so he will be able to reunite the left that is no doubt upset about his decision to enhance the war efforts. This goes hand in hand with Hoyer who in responding to Cheney's criticism of Obama remarked that Obama is merely fixing the mess that he inherited from Bush. (Mchrystal's request is somewhat accepted, Obama can frame the surge as a response to Bush's failures and the troops can be out by 2011)
What happens after 2011 when the Taliban reemerges and Al qaeda kicks out Karzai after our troops have left Afghanistan. We got a problem on our hands which Obama fails to understand.
He made clear that the economy is his number one priority: 1) " the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home." 2) "Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. " [Bush should have focused on the economy and ignored national security] 3) "global economy has grown more fierce, so we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars." 4) "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people, from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth."
You get the picture. Obama is trying to find a way out of these wars by asserting that the economy should be our main focus. But, what Obama fails to realize is that as long as Al qaeda is in business, no entrepreneur will be able to save America from a terrorist attack. And, if there is Gdforbid another terrorist attack, the economy will plunge anyway which is why it would behoove Obama to equally focus on national security issues as well.
Unfortunately, his Afghanistan plan will not secure America and may not even secure Afghanistan. By alerting to the enemy that you plan to remove the troops by a deadline, you encourage them to continue their war against America because no matter how many attacks they launch against U.S. troops, the U.S. will withdraw by 2011. Its a defeatist strategy. One thing about President Bush when he announced his surge in 2007 is that he never gave any timetables. Timetables are dangerous for morale and Obama fell into the terrorists trap.
I gather that the following occurred. Obama found himself in a difficult situation. General McChrystal informed him that the U.S. needed to put more troops in Afghanistan. Obama was not pleased at the recommendation which is why he waited to make a decision. Obama finally came up with a clever compromised plan. He decided to authorize the sending of 30,000 troops. (Mchrystal asked for close to 60,000 troops) In the meantime, he'll blame the fact that he needs to send more troops to Afghanistan on Bush. And in the speech, Obama eluded to the reduced troops in Afghanistan as being Bush's fault "the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention, and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world." But, Obama will get the troops out of Afghanistan in 2011 just in time for his reelection campaign so he will be able to reunite the left that is no doubt upset about his decision to enhance the war efforts. This goes hand in hand with Hoyer who in responding to Cheney's criticism of Obama remarked that Obama is merely fixing the mess that he inherited from Bush. (Mchrystal's request is somewhat accepted, Obama can frame the surge as a response to Bush's failures and the troops can be out by 2011)
What happens after 2011 when the Taliban reemerges and Al qaeda kicks out Karzai after our troops have left Afghanistan. We got a problem on our hands which Obama fails to understand.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Candidate Obama vs. President Obama
One of the reasons President Obama was successful in his bid for the presidency in 2008 is because he was able to cultivate a relationship with the media. The media idolized Obama either because of his "rockstar" status or because he may have been the first leftwing African-American politician in recent years that had a decent shot at winning the White House. Even though Obama had only been in the U.S. Senate for four years and had virtually no other leadership experience other than serving in the Illinois State legislature and being a "community organizer," the media in a violation of journalistic integrity refused to cover any negative stories that could ruin the Obama campaign and instead propped up candidate Obama all the way to the White House. Obama's conversant and cool personality only excited the media even more. Having the media as your friend in a political campaign is a huge asset and that's why Obama went out of his way to be in regular contact with the media answering their questions in an "open door policy" because he knew that the media would never ask him any threatening questions. After becoming President, Obama continued his cozy relationship with the media and held more press conferences and sat down for more interviews than any other President in his first months in office. However, Obama's honeymoon period with the media may be coming to an end as the Washington Times is reporting that Obama has in recent days ducked questions from the WH press corps. If he had ducked questions during the campaign and the media actually reported on the ducked answers, Obama may not have become President. Perhaps, people would have started to question whether Obama had the experience to be President as they questioned Palin's ability. Thats's all fantasy at this point. But, the real question now is what effect Obama's change of heart in dealing with the the media will have on his political chances in the future. Will the media turn on Obsma? Without the media on his side, Obama may be vulnerable in 2010 and 2012. Maybe Obama will finally come to the realization that his free ride wouldn't last forever and even the "annoited one" will have to be held accountable. If he continues down this path of avoiding questions and not holding regular press conferences which he sought out to do when he became President, the media factor which created the "Obama phenomena" may become less significant.
Taxpayer money on flowers?
Nancy Pelosi is adamant that the Dems socialist healthcare plan wont cripple the economy even though a public health option clearly can not operate alongside a private health option. Our economy can not logistically sustain both options and expect an improvement in the economy. Even if the health care legislation would be able to survive the economic downturn that we are in, you would think that Nancy Pelosi would be more conservative with her money on less important matters considering that she's proposing a multi billion dollar health care initiative. Not Speaker Nancy. Would you know that Speaker Pelosi spent $2,993.00 on flowers between June and October? Lets get this straight. She can not go to the local giant and pay $10.00 for flowers? Thats not sufficient? Everyone else is expected to spend less and downsize in order to conserve money. Why does that not also apply to the Speaker? On what other pointless matters is the Speaker going to spend money? Maybe she'll spend 3,000.00 for the House to eat choclate chip cookies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
