IS THIS THE BEGINING OF OBAMA'S CUBAN "MISSLE CRISIS""

The Media and Obama himself, likes to refer to him as another JFK. Well as most of you know JFK was confronted with a Cuban missile crisis in the early 60S when the Soviet Union placed ICBMS capable of carrying atom weapons inside multiple bases in Cuba. This resulted in a blockade of the Ocean around Cuba, and eventually the Soviet Union pulled the missiles out of Cuba, but for a moment in time we were threatened by a nuclear war!

Now the Associated Press is reporting the following: " MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.

The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.

The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.This is not entirely true, as a report in the London Times Today illustrates. "Russia resumed patrols by its long-distance strategic bombers(TU-160s) in August 2007 after a 15-year hiatus, noting at the time that it was mirroring the United States, which did not suspend its global bomber patrols after the Cold War".

Last year, Russia temporarily based a pair of Tu-160 bombers at an airbase in Venezuela in a carefully choreographed display of force regarded as a warning to the US. Cuba's ruling Castro family and Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez have formed a Left-wing alliance designed to counter Washington's hegemony in Latin America.



"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said.

Zhikharev said Chavez had offered "a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers," the agency reported. "If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island ... by the Russian Air Force is possible."

You can be certain that if the Russians do not take up the offer from Chavez. The Chinese Communists will seriously consider the offer.


In May 1960, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev promised military assistance to the beleaguered Castro regime in Cuba. Two years later, he saw that the USSR's relations with Cuba also represented a unique opportunity to offset the threat posed to Moscow by US nuclear missiles based in Turkey. In addition to aircraft, air defence systems, armoured vehicles, and troops, Khrushchev offered a selection of nuclear-armed medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. Castro accepted the offer and within months the USA and the USSR were on the verge of all-out nuclear war.

On 14 October 1962, following indications of increased military activity on Cuba and a growing Soviet presence, an American U-2 aircraft photographed missile sites in western Cuba. Subsequent intelligence indicated that the missiles—SS-4 and SS-5, both with 1 megaton warheads—had the ability to reach almost the entire continental USA, including every Strategic Air Command base. On 22 October 1962, after intense debate in the Executive Committee (ExComm) of the National Security Council, during which the possibilities of aerial bombardment or invasion of Cuba were discussed, US Pres John Kennedy announced a maritime blockade to prevent further shipments of missiles and military equipment.

Kennedy also demanded that Khrushchev dismantle and remove all missiles from Cuba. For six terrifying days, the two superpowers considered their options until on 28 October Khrushchev agreed to Kennedy's demands. In return, the USA agreed never to invade Cuba and (secretly) to remove its missiles from Turkey.Source:West's Encyclopedia

The problem I have with this situation that now presents itself is that all the signs coming out of the White House are appeasement and diplomacy. Obama even said he would talk to "moderate" Taliban leaders. No such thing exists!
He is also making nice with Communist China, ignoring their obvious human rights violations and their naked aggression in Tibet. Of course he needs the Chinese to buy billions more of our Bonds to finance his welfare state plans, so I guess expediency is the answer for him.
He also has made hints of concessions to Russia by saying he is reconsidering placement of missile defense weapons in Poland. This before using this move a "chip" to offer the Russians if they do not place bombers in Venezuela or Cuba or both.

Certainly Obama has access to CIA, NSA and State Department information that should have alerted him about the potential deals in Cuba and Venezuela with Russia. Yet he made the concession to consider not placing the anti-missile weapons long before the Media and the public learned about the deal.Chosing to use diplomacy and "jawboning" rather than confronting Russia, and to compound the problem he is lifting all embargos and travel restrictions on a Country, Cuba, that may be a launching pad for Russian bombers!

A LOOK AT WHERE A BIG CHUNK OF THE "STIMULUS" CASH IS GOING

Now that we have a trillion plus "stimulus", aka spedulus package, strapped to the backs of taxpayers present and future generations. The President and Queen Pelosi are talking about a second stimulus package!
He has only been in office 55 days, and still has run the Federal deficit and tax payer liability into stratospheric levels never seen before in the USA!

I have been getting a large part of my financial impact news from web sites in London and Frankfurt,Germany. What it has shown me is the Germans expect and are receiving a great amount of the money in the so called "bailout" of our economy.
The main reason is that with the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail.The Federal Reserve and the Bush administration and Congress, in September of 2008, decided that they had to send a message to the profligate bankers on Wall Street that they should be aware that the reckless way they were running the investment business had to stop.
And for good reason. "In 2006, the financial sector accounted for a third of corporate profits in the US, although it only represents 2 or 3 percent of total gross domestic product. Goldman Sachs alone distributed $16.5 billion in bonuses to its 26,000 employees. I'm sorry, I think it's unbelievable. You can't just make money out of thin air like this, and underlaying this there were enormous risks being taken" .Source:Harvard academic and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff


The resulting backlash in the financial markets on Wall Street produced two financial institutions where there previously had been five.
The Fed. allowed Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch for 50 billion dollars after they let Lehman go bankrupt. A company with 26,000 employees and a total of $786 billion in debt on its balance sheets!
Then the FED.moved to take over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thus protecting them from collapse, Republican political resistance mounted against bailing out yet another private bank at taxpayers' cost. In the cases of Fanny and Freddie alone, the government is providing an estimated $1.5 trillion dollars. This does not count on the interest we taxpayers will have to pay on the loans that are backing this largess!If China does not buy the Bonds!
This government debacle has resulted in 11 small U.S. banks have been forced to close their doors since September 2007.

Christopher Whalen from Institutional Risk Analytics has even predicted that, "by July 2009, almost 110 of the 8,400 banks in the U.S. might have to call it quits".
In fact, the crash of the Lehman stocks has threaten to cause other bank assets to slide as well. The reason for this lies in the fact that it continues to be unclear how many billions in losses are hidden in the balance books of other large financial institutions.
Citigroup is rumored to be keeping even steeper losses in the background. And it is easy to see that the bailout reaches into European affiliates of U.S. Financial institutions more than our Media and Government want us to know.

The web site Der Spigel reports that the skittishness on the stock market in Germany is being caused by the fact that the Lehman bankruptcy threatens to create fresh losses for German banks. "Lehman is the world's biggest bonds trader," said Schiereck. Because the bank isn't being bailed out, it's likely that the bonds from the bank's holdings will be sold to pay back creditors.

In total, the market could be flooded with bonds valuing up to €50 or €60 billion. That will create a glut that will further depress prices internationally. "Ultimately, it's the banks that will be affected," Schiereck said.

Even without the latest episode in the global crisis, it is still unclear how many billions in losses are still hanging in the balance sheets of other large investment banks. Current speculation suggests losses at Citi Group will be even higher than previously reported. The Lehman bankruptcy could cause banks already hit by the crisis to collapse entirely.

And in Great Britain it is a repeat of the same misery as told by this story by Thomas Hüetlin
.
"Her mistake lay in believing what banks and politicians in Great Britain have been advising for years. Conventional wisdom was to get a “foot on the property ladder” as quickly as possible. In other words, buy property, and do it early in life. And it was okay, they said, to take out a large amount of credit, because property values would continue to rise, just as they had nearly tripled in the preceding decade".

In the past year, however, the trend has reversed.. The decrease in property values began in the United States, and in the past few months the phenomenon has reached Spain, Ireland and Great Britain -- countries where a building boom produced a housing bubble that is now bursting.

After that bubble bursts, the next sound is often a quiet whimper at the kitchen table. With interest rates rising and the value of houses declining, the first to go bankrupt are those who had little capital to begin with and could only receive dubious credit. In the United States it’s called “subprime”: credit that’s risky, second-rate and expensive".

For years, banks bundled these credits together and then resold them, making first-rate profits. That bubble, too, has burst. Between March and June alone, 37,740 British homeowners had to turn their property back over to the banks. By the end of the year it’s likely to be 75,000.

And it all started when Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and co-horts demanded that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations on home lending require lending institutions lend to people who had neither the means or the money to pay back their house loans. This is one more act of affirmative action! A reckless if noble effort to say the least!

As the richest nations prepare to meet in April for the G-20, the World Bank has warned of a $700 billion shortfall in developing countries and the IMF is asking for donations. Many Economic commentators wonder whether the two organizations(World Bank and IMF) are up to the task of dealing with the crisis.

The financial crisis may have originated in the investment banks of Wall Street and the City of London but it is now being felt by the world's most vulnerable people, those living on the verge of poverty in the developing nations. As the G-20 group of world's richest countries prepare to gather in London on April 3-4, the World Bank is pleading with them to continue supporting the poorer nations saying that international financial institutions cannot bear the burden alone. So you can see the burden on the taxpayers isn't even started, if the Obama administration doesn't stop spending money like drunken sailors!
With the way Congress and President Obama are spending money it's very conceivable that the federal deficit will move from $11 trillion to $12 trillion or maybe more!

Biting The Hand That FEEDS You1

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House objected Thursday to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's description of the United States as a "deadbeat" donor to the world body.
Ban used the phrase Wednesday during a private meeting with lawmakers at the Capitol, one day after he met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ban's "word choice was unfortunate," given that the U.S. is the largest contributor to the United Nations.

The United States pays 22 percent of the organization's nearly $5 billion operating budget but is perennially late paying its dues.

Ban, apparently concerned about his choice of words, issued a statement late Wednesday saying the U.S. "generously supports the work of the U.N., both in assessed and voluntary contributions."
Source: Breitbart.com

Since third world nations consist of 2/3rds of the membership of the General assembly of the United Nations, and contribute much less than the assessment we have to "purchase our seat and seldom listened to position". As illustrated by how long it took the UN to decide to do something about Saddam's genocide and procurement of WMDs.And there oher favorite target for "bashing" israel!
It would seem that his lame excuse for an apology is too little and "after ths cat got out of the bag"!

Late last year, the United Nations General Assembly, the international organization's main deliberative body, wound up adopting a $1.9 billion plan to renovate the UN Campus on the Hudson River in New York City.
Because of the renovation,The United Nations has agreed to lease the Albano Building on East 46th Street as substitute office space for the roughly 700 United Nations employees that will soon be dislocated from its signature headquarters tower, the Secretariat Building. A hallmark of the city's East Side skyline since it was built in the early 1950s, the Secretariat is scheduled to undergo an extensive renovation beginning in early 2009.

Given the precipitous rise of office rents in midtown and the widespread belief among real estate experts that the organization would have to pay astronomical rates for whatever space it could find, the UN's rationale seemed sound.

But if the terms of its lease at the Albano Building on are any indication, that concern was overblown and the UN's efforts to stay within budget seem off to a good start. According to a source with knowledge of the organization's leasing negotiations but who couldn't speak on the record because they had not been authorized to reveal information about the deal, the United Nations will lease the entire 180,000 s/f building for rents that start "south of $50 per s/f." Such a rate is considered a pittance compared to typical rents in the district, which can easily rise above $100 per s/f for high-end buildings.Seems like the UN is getting a real good deal when the USA economy is so bad that no landlord can afford to undercut market prices, but then the Un is a "Sacred Cow".

A sacred cow that costs the American taxpayers a great deal for what it gets in return. Personally I think the UN Bldg. should be torn down and the pieces sold like "pet rocks" were sold years ago to reduce our deficit, for all the good the UN has done to promote World Peace!Make them relocate to Geneva Switzerland or some place in the Hauge.

When the UN relocates to the new Bldg. many Press Corps.representatives will be without space unless they pay rent to the UN to help defray the cost of the relocation. As could be predicted the Liberal representatives of the Press Corps. are upset that they(the anointed ones who pass on their slanted news) will have to pay for their space as illustrated by this report from the IPS Internet site.
"from James A. Paul, executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, which monitors the United Nations on a daily basis.

"Now that neo-liberalism is less fashionable and understood to be largely responsible for the world financial crisis, it is surprising that the United Nations would enlarge its neo-liberal management practices and policies to cover the space made available to journalists," he told IPS.
"The new policy, therefore, may produce a small trickle of revenue, but it may be entirely the opposite of what is needed," he said.
Southern representation in the U.N. press corps may be especially at risk. So to act on a narrowly economic basis, may result in less coverage of the U.N., less support for the U.N., less effectiveness of the U.N. My comment is ,how important does this man think bias news is?

He continues by saying: "These foreseeable problems show that some people just are not thinking seriously about implications and long-term effects," he added.
And in typical left wing thinking he threw out the hate the rich guy card with this comment about how he believes the rent should be paid by others for the Third World Countries.
Paul said, "it's time for the U.N. to shake off these neo-liberal(?) habits and to return to some kind of welfare budgeting, that really takes into account the full picture and leads the U.N. in the right direction".

His idea of the right direction is what is wrong with the UN. It is too full off Countries with heir hands out for their despotic, and in some cases genocidal, leaders, and do little to co-operate with those Countries like the USA who do help them, and continually want more!

DESTROYING THE GOOD TO GET THE BAD!

While squandering the future of our children and grandchildren, President Obama has proposed myriad welfare programs to involve the Federal Government in what is traditionally the private sector.If you add the stimulus and the omnibus you get about $1.2 trillion.
He has already signed into law a National budget that contains "earmarks" that spend eight billion dollars for pet projects for Congressional districts to allow Congressman and Senators to go back to the States and tell voters that they should be elected again to their "princely" position in Washington because they brought home the "bacon"!

Senators quietly tucked 8000 earmarks into the $$410 billion spending bill/tax package that was signed in a closed signing by Obama yesterday.
Some of the "important "earmarks' include a $2 million tax benefit for makers of wooden arrows for children; a $100 million tax break to benefit auto racetrack owners; $192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican and Virgin Islands rum industry; $148 million in tax relief for U.S. wool fabric producers; and a $49 million tax benefit for fishermen and other plaintiffs who sued over the 1989 tanker Exxon Valdez spill.The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.
How does this help the economy in the USA?

With the economy as indicated by the stock market reacting negatively to the tax and spend programs of the new President. Obama is charging ahead with his effort to socialize our medical system.
He is using "facts" and figures to support the concept of National Health Insurance for every person in the USA that don't really equate.


In addition to propping up the failed Big 3 in Detroit to the tune of billions of dollars needed because of the exorbitant Union contracts. On of the driving force for the National Health insurance is that costs have long been a problem for U.S. auto companies. General Motors spends more per car on health care than it does on steel. But as more American companies face global competition, the "value gap" is being felt by more CEOs — and their hard pressed workers.

One thing the report does not do is endorse the same solution that countries like Canada have adopted: a government-run health care system.

Since America continues to move from a manufacturing based economy to a service economy, and employee working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable.The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts, and it is true that due to rising health insurance premiums, many small small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits, and those that do offer it require the employee to share in the cost. Thus, many employees opt to decline the health insurance to get more money in their pay check!

Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent,of our population under age 65 are without health insurance as of US census statistics published in 2007.
The percentage of uninsured Hispanics (many illegals) is 32.1 % or 15 million people. To put the number of people with out health insurance in perspective, you have to understand that as of this morning at 11:25am we have 363,992,936 people living in the USA!

To satisfy the Unions and radicals that hate the free enterprise system that is the envy of all other nations. President Obama wants to destroy the best health care system in the World and replace it with National Health like you find in Canada, Sweden and Great Britain.

To plan the destruction of the health care system ,that people who can afford it, come from Canada, England, Germany and South America to be treated is nothing more than travesty!!

An article published in the London Times today illustrates the problems you face when you replace the decision makers( patients and doctors) with bureaucrats.
Over the years that England and the British Isles has had Socialized medicine thousands of doctors and nurses have left the medical field to seek other employment. Many of them have emigrated to the USA.
AS a result Marie Burnham(A NHS bureaucrat) has flown to Eastern Europe in an urgent attempt to find six A&E doctors and six qualified anaesthetists.

But her hopes of hiring 200 nurses there to fill vacancies have been prevented by a "ridiculous" Government ban on bringing in foreign nursing staff.

Miss Burnham, chief executive of Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, said: "We will always look to the UK first for staff, but there is a shortage of doctors and we can go to the EU to recruit excellent staff.What she does not tell you is that the NHS has just reduced the number of hours that doctors must be on duty from 60 hours a week to 48 hours like a factory worker!

"Nurse recruitment is a difficult issue. We can't go abroad for staff nurses any more because the Government no longer sees it as a shortage profession. It's a ridiculous situation but it's what we have to work with."

Miss Burnham, who took up her post eight months ago, described recruitment as "essential" to improving morale of overworked staff in overflowing wards.

As well as promoting East Lancashire throughout the UK, the trust is advertising posts through the Job Centre, NHS Jobs and newspapers.

Despite fears of job cuts due to the recession, she revealed that all 37 student nurses who trained with the trust this year have been offered permanent posts.

She has flown out the 750 miles to Prague in an attempt to identify suitable candidates for the unfilled doctors' posts.

Caroline Collins, of the Royal College of Nursing, said politicians, the NHS and universities had failed to plan nursing training properly for a number of years.

She said: "It was only three years ago that there were jobs lost all over the country, including 70 in East Lancashire, and nurses were coming out of training to find there were no jobs.

"After that, trained people got jobs in the private sector and students turned away from nursing as a career option. Now we are going through the other end of that cycle, and we haven't got enough nurses to fill the posts."

Darren Reynolds, of the "It's Our NHS campaign" group, said mistakes made by the trust in 2007 had resulted in low staff morale and a bad reputation which it had "an awful lot of work" to do to repair. And Obama wants to substitute this mess for our quality if expensive health care!
And he could have mentioned that it takes 18 weeks o get a referral to a specialist in surgery for even the most serious illnesses!

HE IS NO JOHN KENNEDY, NOT EVEN FDR AND FORGET LINCOLN COMPARISON

"BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5311939528362538482" />



The arrogance and audacity of the new President in office only 50 days is illustrated by his response to questions from those who believe he may be taking on too many issues at one time.
In a speech on his 50th day in office outlining his plans to reform education, Mr Obama said: "I know there are some who believe we can only handle one challenge at a time."

Obama recalled that "Lincoln had laid the transcontinental railway during the civil war, that Roosevelt "didn't have the luxury of choosing between ending a depression and fighting a war" and Kennedy didn't "have the luxury of choosing between civil rights and sending us to the moon".

"And we don't have the luxury of choosing between getting our economy moving now and rebuilding it over the long term," he said.

The president and his advisers believe that unless they begin to fix long-term problems now, short-term efforts to save jobs and revive credit flow will be useless.

Mr. Obama has not only passed a $787 billion (£542 billion) stimulus bill but introduced a budget that looks ahead ten years and contains ambitious plans for reforming health care, energy and education, setting the stage for several time-consuming and draining legislative battles over the next two years. Every day seems to bring a new policy speech or the announcement of a forum or initiative.

Even supporters are questioning whether or not the president would be better advised to concentrate all or most of his fire on reviving the economy, and in particular, finalising the details of saving the banking sector.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and an early of support of Mr Obama, has criticised the government for a "muddled message". David Brooks, a sympathetic if conservative columnist for the New York Times said that "Democrats apparently think that dealing with the crisis is a part-time job, which leaves the afternoons free to work on long-range plans to reform education, health care, energy and a dozen smaller things".

To begin with Kennedy openly stated that Americans were taxed too much, and had little to do with the Civil Rights legislation that made Blacks and people of color equal to white people. President, Kennedy initially believed the grassroots movement for civil rights would only anger many Southern whites and make it even more difficult to pass civil rights laws through Congress, which was dominated by Southern Democrats, and he distanced himself from it. As a result, many civil rights leaders viewed Kennedy as unsupportive of their efforts.
And Kennedy was certainly pro-military not a diplomacy freak like Obama.

And somebody should tell Obama that JFK.jr. had the FBI wiretap the telephones of hundreds of suspected Communists including Martin Luther KIng, jr.!


AS for FDR. All his NRA and welfare programs pushed the USA deeper into the depression, and the War saved us from bankruptcy. And by the way the American people bought Victory Bonds to help pay for the weapons of war, the Government did not print billions of worthless dollars to finance the war effort.During his three terms the average unemployment was 13% with a high of 17.2%!
He redeined modern Liberalism with a coalition of labor unions, racial minorities, intellectuals, big city machines and people on the public dole(Relief).
He also cut the military veterans benefits by 40%, and removed over 500,000 widows and veterans from government pension rolls! I harldy think Obama wants to have the public reminded of these facts.

Then there is Abraham Lincoln. He was not in favor of freeing the slaves in the states that would agree to stay in the Union, and he was a Republican who spoke what he meant and did what he promised he would do.In other words, "he talked the talk and walked the walk". He wasn't a double talking President whose promises were steeped in Left wing philosophy. He tried to maintain the Union of States, not separate the people by highlighting class hatred!His enemy was the break away South, not the Capitalist system.

Source: Wikapedia and London Times

IS ANYONE MINDING THE STORE AT U.S. TREASURY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

NOT ONLY ARE THE MEDIA AND THE CONGRESS NOT GETTING REPORTS ON THE PROGRESS AT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. Our most trusted ally is unable to get a response from the Treasury department prior to the summit of the G20.The London Telegraph is reporting the following:

Gus O'Donnell: "Amid the worst global economic crisis in decades, the Cabinet Secretary said Number 10 was having trouble even getting in touch with key personnel at the US Treasury Photo: DAVID ROSE
The continuing handover to President Barack Obama's administration has severely hindered discussions over the meeting in London next month, according to Sir Gus.

Amid the worst global economic crisis in decades, the Cabinet Secretary said Number 10 was having trouble even getting in touch with key personnel at the US Treasury.

"There is nobody there," he told a civil service conference in Gateshead. "You cannot believe how difficult it is."

The reported comments come after Downing Street aides were left frustrated by the White House's chaotic handling of arrangements for Gordon Brown's visit last week.

The Prime Minister was left facing claims that he had been "snubbed" after an expected formal press conference with the two leaders was downgraded to a handful of questions in the Oval Office.

Sir Gus criticised the US system of new administrations appointing their own senior civil servants, saying it would be "absolute madness" to introduce similar rules here.

The Whitehall & Westminster World website, whose publisher Dods organised the event, reported that he stressed the importance of continuity for projects like the Olympics.

"You get to a certain point, and you can't go any further," Sir Gus said.

"If there's a change of administration, you're out, and a whole new bunch of people come in who probably haven't been in government before."

Maybe we elected a man with a strong speaking voice, but a weak constitution? This report from England illustrates that the first fifty days have been too much of a strain for Obama to follow normal protocols when receiving heads of state from allied countries.

"British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.


Those with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

Perhaps if President Obama spent less time traveling around the country giving campaign type speeches for his myriad programs, and spent more time in the Oval Office attempting to solve the number one crisis. The Economy! He would not be so worn out. A man his age should be able to work 15 hours a day if he wasn't flying around the country and giving parties every Wednesday night to push his programs!

DOES OUR PRESIDENT UNDERSTAND FOREIGN RELATIONS?

When the candidate Obama said he was against the war in Iraq despite the fact that all but a few Senators voted to support President Bush's invasion of Iraq to topple the tyrant Saddam. I felt it was his way of catering to the anti-war, anti-defense establishment to gain votes.
When he said he would if elected, negotiate with no pre- conditions, with Iran's President Ahmedinejad. Many including myself thought this was a bad idea since the diminutive dictator and the theocracy leader Ruhollah Khomeini had declared the USA the "Great Satan"!

Because of this, the United States has viewed the Islamic Republic of Iran as an enemy. It has done so at least since the forced occupation of the US embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 and the humiliating 444-day hostage-taking of 52 embassy staff, which included a failed rescue attempt during the Carter Administration.
Since then Iran has shared the top place on the US list of "rogue states" with Libya, Iraq, and North Korea. The United States has made numerous attempts since 1979 to reverse the Islamic Revolution and to bring down the regime that emerged from it through political and economic sanctions to no avail.

But when President Obama declared over the weekend that he was open to talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan I was convinced he and his minions know little about Foreign policy!
Iraq is not Afghanistan. (Iraq) is a country with a sophisticated cultural history and a distinct experience of administration. In (Afghanistan) there has never been a democracy and there is neither a functioning civil society nor a central power. Afghan society is structured along tribal lines. That poses both risks and opportunities. It should be possible to win over the powerful tribes that are friendly with the Taliban -- including those in Pakistan. Not every Islamic fundamentalist is a Taliban. The opportunity and challenge that faces OUR new US administration is finding those Islamists who are willing to cooperate.

In Iraq, an anti-American alliance between the local Sunni population and mostly foreign al-Qaida fighters broke up because the terror and the demand for total power eventually became unbearable to the locals. The partners became bitter enemies.

"The US military used this quarrel to present themselves as the new strong partner to the Sunni militia. This is why the invitation to Sunnis to take part in the political process in Iraq succeeded."

"This strategic innovation was not an offer of dialogue with 'moderate Sunnis,' but the willingness of the US to work closely together with former enemy fighters. Al-Qaida was not convinced and gradually pacified but rather defeated by the use of force." Source: Der Spiegel

It is far from certain that similar conditions for an alliance with the tribes exist in the Afghan mountains. And it is important to remember that Russia sent six divisions of troops into the fight( 182,000 at one time) with the Taliban, and lost after nine years and the loss of 14,000 killed!

GORDON BROWN GETS BETTER RECEPTION IN CONGRESS THAN IN HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT

One of the good things that cable television has brought to those who are interested.Is the re -broadcasting of the proceedings of the sessions of Great Britain's House of Parliament.
As a long time student of European history, I often watch the BBC televised sessions that involve the House of Parliament and the Prime Minister. Sessions when the Prime Minister is on the hot seat with questions from the opposition party.
Gordon Brown, elected after Tony Blair's term expired, has been openly challenged by the opposition to resign at least two times since his Labour party took power. The last time in 2008.
The reasons for his opposition in the Parliament could be any one of the following issues.
He has reduced the National Budget for Health Care from 6.2 billion pounds to 4.2 billion pounds, while demanding that Doctors surgeries be open on weekends, and General Practice doctors be available "on call" during evenings!

Or perhaps, it could be that his administration has neglected the military with poor housing, lack of modern equipment and lack of adequate health care for active military personal. What ever the reason, Mr. Brown has had a rough going in his appearances before the Parliament, but not so when he spoke to a joint session of the USA Congress.

The Prime Minister received numerous standing ovations for his speech that included the call for a World co-operation in eliminating off shore banks and a unified effort to educate all African children. This while both British and USA schools turn out students who cannot read correctly or know rudimentary math!
But the loudest applause, it appeared to me, was when Mr. Brown said: "So let us work together for the worldwide reduction of interest rates and a scale of stimulus round the world equal to the depth of the recession and the dimensions of the recovery we must make.
Let us together renew our international economic cooperation, helping the emerging markets rebuild their banks. And let us work together for a low carbon recovery worldwide. And I am confident that this President, this Congress and the peoples of the world can come together in Copenhagen this December to reach a historic agreement on climate change".

But the whole speech sounded to me as though it was written by Ram Emanuel, as it was a testimony to President Obama, and reinforced the call for CHANGE that the Obama minions have rode into power.
Such comments as those near the close of his speech illustrate the point that he was "preaching to the choir", when he said: "I keep returning to something I first learned in my father's church as a child. In this most modern of crises I am drawn to the most ancient of truths; wherever there is hardship, wherever there is suffering, we cannot, we will not, pass by on the other side.

But working together there is no challenge to which we are not equal, no obstacle that we cannot overcome, no aspiration so high that it cannot be achieved.

In the depths of the Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt did battle with fear itself, it was not simply by the power of his words, his personality and his example that he triumphed.

Yes, all these things mattered. But what mattered more was this enduring truth: that you, the American people, at your core, were, as you remain, every bit as optimistic as your Roosevelt's, your Reagan's and your Obama". My comment about this statement is that it is blatant heresy to use Ronald Reagan's name in the same sentence as two Socialists like FDR and Obama!

Reagan welcomed and encouraged business, and was successful. FDR was saved by WWII, and Obama is moving rapidly to destroying the stock market and small business while stifling free speech with the return of a cleverly named FOCA, National Health Care, taxpayer funded abortion, Federal control of education, Gay marriage, Allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military while taxing and spending the USA to a position of effete militarism and hyper inflation with a devalued dollar!

I believe, the above statements illustrate that the Democrat controlled Congress and the complicit RINOs appear more inclined to accept "One World" control than they do to conforming to the Constitutional Republic that we are, and was the dream of our founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights!