Captialism defeats Socialism at the World Cup.

Anyone watching the World Cup knows that the French embarrassed themselves while the Americans fought through adversity to win their group for the first time since the first world cup. I believe the reason for this can be found in comparing freedom to socialism.

The French team came to the World Cup by way of a handball goal against Ireland. Even the most novice soccer fans knows your not suppose to use your hands in soccer. Then after getting here they embarrassed themselves. Nicholas Anika was sent home after an argument with their head coach Domenech. This resulted in the French team boycotting practice the next day. Then of course Domench retaliates by keeping the French captain Partice Evra off the field for the final game which South Africa won 2-1. France still could have made the next round with a win. After the game Domenech refused to shake the hand of the South African coach. There's also a video of one of the French managers throwing a clipboard but I can't seem to locate that. You probably saw it on ESPN anyway. Let's compare this to the Americans

The United States ties heavily favored England to open play, Then goes down 2-0 in the first half to Slovenia and comes back to tie. Then has their game winner disallowed by a terrible call by a official. Today the U.S. again has a goal disallowed by a terrible call. They have to score in extra time to advance. Meanwhile there was no skipped practices no one was sent home for being mean to the coach and the captain Landon Donavan scored the winning goal.

So what was the difference in the two teams. The French team was more talented by most accounts. They didn't get anywhere near the amount of bad breaks the Americans did. I think the difference is the France felt entitled to be here. The French team believed everything should be handed to them, much like it is in France. When things started going poorly for them they looked for someone to blame instead of sucking it up and playing hard. The coach blamed the captain the team blamed the coach the manager just quit and has a result the French managed all of one goal in the world cup and even that came when they were behind by two.

Capitalism teaches us that we are responsible for ourselves no matter what the circumstances. In other words when the going gets tough the tough get going. Socialism teaches that when the going gets tough go look for someone to blame then tell them to give you their money. Of course were experiencing a little of that with this administration here in America but I'm praying that doesn't last past
2012. Capitalism will always defeat Socialism and this is just another example.

You Can't Clean Up Oil Wthout Fire Extinguishers and Life Vests?!?

Today the oil clean-up was halted by bureaucracy. The Coast Guard stopped barges that were to be used in the oil clean-up because they could not confirm the boats had fire extinguishers and life vests. "We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer. Unfortunately this appears not to be true the enemy of Louisiana and the rest of the Gulf Coast is bureaucracy. The barges have now sat for twenty four hours while thousands of barrels of oil have spilled into the gulf coast. Of course Governor Jindal tried to contact the White House without success. However Jindal is not the only governor that is having problems.

Governor Riley of Alabama is also experiencing difficulty trying to get anything done.

"The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."

Hey President Obama put one person in charge of the decision making. If you want them to run it by you first by all means, but quit allowing bureaucracy to harm the country. You can't keep having different people giving different answers to every question. Put one person in charge. Oh wait you did, your in charge! At least you say you are. Take control of this situation before all of the beaches on the East Coast are covered with oil. Or at least ask someone else too. Maybe a President with a backbone who knows something about oil. Kinda like the last guy we had in there. I think I'm going to go out and by one of those President Bush miss me yet shirts.

Seriously, this is what happens when you allow someone with no experience running anything to run a country. You almost can't even blame Obama for this, He doesn't know what to do because he never learned. He had no experience running anything before he became President. I mean Heck he only served 153 days in the U.S. Senate before his campaign started. I'll admit he probably had no business running for President having no experience, but 53% of the country voted for him. I guess this really goes back to an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for you just might get it." I wonder if Obama is wishing he had left this President thing to someone who has a clue how to lead.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379&page=1

It's Game 7!

Hey guys I'm getting a post about the SC Democratic Party ready to post, but I think It will have to wait until tomorrow night. Game 7 Boston vs L.A.

Gather your Armies

I just saw this ad on O'Reilly and I thought it was the best thing I have seen since McCain's Celebrity Ad. If you haven't seen it watch it now if you have seen it watch it again.




The Left is saying that the ad implies that we should overthrow the government by force. I guess they've never heard of a metaphor. The ad is obviously about overthrowing the bums in congress. It's amazing how soon the left forgets about free speech when their not the ones speaking.

Another one Bites the Bus?

It appears has Ken Salazar will be the next member of Obama's inner circle to be thrown under a bus. Before we get to Mr Salazar let's review a list of the other members of the bus club. First we have Our President's own Grandma who he called a racist to gain favor in the African American community. Then we have his pastor whose church Obama attended for the same reason. Then he threw Rev Wright under the bus with his Grandma when he realized that "white America" wouldn't accept a pastor that cursed America from the pulpit. Remember Arlen Spector, Here's a man who switched parties and was promised not to be challenged in the Primary. Of course he was and when he was down and needed the Presidents help President Obama, you guessed it, threw him under the bus. Let's not forget the situation when Obama threw police under the bus when they responded to a call about a possible break in at Henry Louis Gates house. They get there some guy outside says he lives there but can't prove that he does. So Our President says they acted stupidly. He even threw Israel under the bus after their soldiers responded in self defense to an attack aboard a ship illegally in their waters.

Back to Mr. Salazar he was appointed to his position by President Obama. Has Interior Secretary it is his job to make sure these oil rigs don't explode. So he should be fired. The problem is this comes after a long line of Obama appointees were tax cheats or felons. Those that weren't were seen as partisan choices like Leon Panetta to run the CIA. I already written about this on march 3rd if you want to read about it http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-first-instict-is-usually-wrong.html

The situation with the oil may have worked out differently if Obama had accepted help from the Dutch and many others that was offered immediately after the spill happened. The Dutch offered skimmers that would pick the oil out of the water. According to the AJC (hardly a conservative paper) the skimmers could have removed 4.4. million gallons of oil by now. 5 million is total have entered the gulf. That means that 88% of the oil could have been already removed from the Gulf Coast. http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/06/09/oil-spill-why-did-obama-refuse-to-go-dutch/

Instead the spill is now a crisis. I guess his instincts haven't gotten any better in a year. However first he must show he is not to blame for the on going crisis and the best way to do that is to say that someone else is. However since Bush and Cheney have been gone for over a year it's going to be hard to lay this at there feet. Not that he didn't try last night, "Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility -- a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill

Seriously this man has got to quit blaming the last guy for everything that goes wrong during his administration. This is one of the reasons no one trust him anymore. That and he can't deliver on anything he promised in the campaign. Of course most of us at this site already knew that. So since no one with a brain will believe this is the fault of President Bush he will have to find another fall guy. Mr. Salazar get ready I hear the bus coming.

Mexico upsets America ON OUR BORDER!

That's right America has just ceeded terrority to Mexico! The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service has closed part of a national park due to drug smuggling and other illegal activity on the border. “It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico.“

How are we going to keep Americans from going into this part of the park. More guards telling them to stay away perhaps, No! Instead we're using the time tested method of posting signs. I can see the press conference now. "President Obama two fourteen year old girls were killed on the border by Mexican drug lords today, what do you have to say about that?" President Obama: "Can't they read didn't they see those signs I had posted."

Of Course Sheriff Paul Babeu had much more to say on the subject. We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.” Oh great no fence either. Let me see if I have this right President Obama wants no troops, no barriers, is it possible he wants no borders?


This just makes me angry. The situation on our border is becoming unbearable. This is why we have to secure our borders now! Let's send some troops down there and stop the crime that is occuring on our border and the illegal immigration. Then after we have secured a permanent solution to the problem we can perhaps talk about Immigration Reform. However just like the oil spill it's hard to accomplish anything until you stop the leak. I think the sheriff sums this up best, “We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16/closes-park-land-mexico-border-americans/

Obama and Bush in a dead heat.

A new poll as come out showing that when people are given a choice between Obama and Bush Obama only comes out with 50% of the vote. Bush actually gets 44%. I guess the other 6% were stoned. Now while this technically means Obama is still more popular than bush you have to remember that when President Bush left office his approval ratings were below 30%. I figure in about six more months Bush will be leading in this hypothetical matchup.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/12/obamas-december-standing.html
Obama has shown over and over again he is not a strong leader. From taken way too long on his decision on Afghanistan, to being all over the place on the public option and healthcare. If Obama wants to survive the midterms he is going to have to find his backbone if he ever had one to begin with.

Politically Correct Seasons Greetings:

I just saw this and thought everyone would enjoy it. Merry Christmas!

Please accept with no obligation,
implied or implicit our best wishes for
an environmentally conscious,
socially responsible, low stress,
non-addictive, gender neutral,
celebration of the winter solstice
holiday, practiced within the most
enjoyable traditions of the religious
persuasion of your choice, or secular
practices of your choice, with respect
for the religious/secular persuasions
and/or traditions of others, or their
choice not to practice religious or
secular traditions at all ...

and a fiscally successful,
personally fulfilling, and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the onset
of the generally accepted calendar
year _______, but not without due respect
for the calendars of choice of other
cultures whose contributions to
society have helped make America great,
(not to imply that America is necessarily
greater than any other country or is
the only "AMERICA" in the western
hemisphere), and without regard to the
race, creed, color, age, physical ability,
religious faith, choice of computer platform,
or sexual preference of the wishee.

- DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTABILITY -

(By accepting this greeting,
you are accepting these terms.
This greeting is subject to
clarification or withdrawal. It is freely
transferable with no alteration to the
original greeting. It implies no
promise by the wisher to actually
implement any of the wishes for
her/himself or others, and is
void where prohibited by law, and is
revocable at the sole discretion of
the wisher. This wish is warranted
to perform as expected within the
usual application of good tidings
for a period of one year, or until the
issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting,
whichever comes first, and warranty is
limited to replacement of this wish
or issuance of a new wish at the
sole discretion of the wisher.)

I'm Engaged

Just thought I'd let everyone know that on Thanksgiving Day I proposed to my girlfriend and for reasons defying explanation she said yes. We are planning on getting married in Feburary or thereabouts. I hope everyone is doing well. Merry Christmas!

P.S. Sorry I can't seem to get to this blog as much as I would like to. I don't have internet access at home. Hopefully this will change and I'll be back to blogging soon.

Thank you to our Veterans

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month the war to end all wars also know as World War 1 came to an end. Of course we now know that World War 1 was not the war to end all wars it wasn't even the war to end all world wars. Still this day as been chosen to honor all veteran's living and dead. I just want to take a moment to thank our soldiers who are fighting and Iraq and Afghanistan and who are stationed in foreign lands across the world. Their sacrifices along with the families of these soldiers is what makes America the greatest country on earth. Thank You you to all the soldiers who volunteer to protect this great land and even more thanks to the ones that never made it home.

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.


It is the VETERAN, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.


It is the VETERAN, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.


It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.


It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.


It is the VETERAN, not the politician, Who has given us the right to vote.


It is the VETERAN who salutes the Flagand


It is the VETERAN who serves under the Flag

The Berlin Wall

I was nine years old when the Berlin Wall fell, but I still remember the event. Back then the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were seemingly always about a moment from destroying each other. We were long past the days of duck and cover. (Perhaps because someone pointed out the absurdity of hiding from a nuke under a small wooden desk.) However the threat was still very real until the moment the Berlin Wall came down.

Their is great history behind the Berlin Wall. The Wall was completed on August 13, 1961. This closed the border between the communist East Berlin and the democratic West Berlin. The Wall was more than 87 miles long. Many families were separated and would not be reunited until the Berlin Wall fell. On June 26, 1963 President John F. Kennedy went to West Berlin and uttered the now famous phase "Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a Berliner). The phase was intended to be a shot at the Soviets as well as the encourage people in West Berlin. Another American President would deliver a similarly iconic speech on June 12, 1987 at the Brandenburg gate. "We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Just a little over two years later the wall did come down.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was the first visible sign weakness from the Soviets. While it is now well known that many of their shows of might were just that shows in 1989 they were still viewed as the one of the World's two superpowers. When the people in East Berlin took their sledgehammers to the wall twenty years ago they did so under the threat or maybe in their minds the certainty of death. The people of East Germany and West Germany decided that they'd rather die than live one more day without freedom. Only because they were willing to die for freedom did they received freedom. Men can only have freedom if they are willing to die for it and can only keep it in the same way.

Here in America we must never forget as President Reagan so eloquently said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Here in America has long has we have brave men and women willing to go across the world to fight for freedom we will always be free.

The Revolution Has Started

Last night we saw a glimpse of what could happen in 2010 if Republicans stick to their guns and continue fighting run away spending and irresponsible government that is coming out of the Obama Admission. With Republicans winning the top three spots in Virginia for the first time since 1997, and with Chris Christie upset victory in New Jersey it became a big night for the Republican Party. On the downside upstart Doug Hoffman was defeated in the NY 23rd, but I expect him to run again as a Republican and win that seat a year from now.
Regardless of the results from last night we simply cannot become complacent. We must continue to call out our own party when they are in the wrong. We must demand accountability from all Republicans. I expect RINO's will see several primary challenges in 2010 and 2012. If conservatives are to take back this country it will be one election at a time. Last night was a good start, but that is all it was a start.

What I've been doing

Hello everyone,
Just wanted to take this time and let you know what I've been up to and why I'm not posting articles much lately. The first reason is that I'm now working third shift so I basically wakeup, go to work, eat, workout, sleep, eat, go to work. Not much time in the during the week for much of anything. The second reason is that when I'm not doing one of the above I'm working on getting a Young Republicans group started. I've attended a few meetings of my local republican groups and am making good progress on this front. I think it should be off the ground within two weeks. Thank You to all the people who still visit this blog. I'm hoping to have it up and running again soon.

Thanks
New Conservative

No You Don't Have to Go to College, seriously.

After graduating from college in 2007. I was all set to explode on the scene. Instead two years later I just took a job for $7 an hour from Wal-Mart. I have to admit I'm lucky to get that job in this economy. However what happened to college degree's being the gateway to success. How come I just spent $30,000 and my degree is basically worthless. It's because now everyone goes to college even people who don't need to. It has basically become the new high school diploma.

I have a new idea. I think students should be set on individual paths after eighth grade. In my scenario students would could chose one of three options. Option one would be to go to college. Many jobs do involve a high level of math and foreign languages that you just can't get in high school. Someone who wants to be a CIA operative would probably what to learn Arabic and Chinese. Engineers need high levels of Algebra and even calculus to be successful. Also someone who wanted to teach should go to college and learn about what he or she would be instructing. Doctors and lawyers would also still need advanced degrees.

Now that we've discussed what people need to go to college for now let's talk about option two skill based education. Any kid who has decided they want to learn a skill such as locksmith, plumber, carpenter, or welder just to name a few should not bother with college. We should have a separate track for these young men. For instance I had to take four English classes to graduate high school. If you can explain to me how poetry helps someone become a better pipe fitter or work on an assembly line in a plant I'm all ears, but if you can't, and face it you can't, does it make any sense to force these young men to learn poetry. Instead wouldn't we be better off if they took classes that helped them in their chosen profession. In some cases Algebra would be needed in others Geometry. If you needed a 5/8 wrench (by the way I have no idea what that is or if it even exist) you would probably want to know how much 5/8 was. Therefore a faction based math class might be necessary for some professions. I went to college with kids who couldn't do fractions. I never had any problem with factions, but some people could use a course on them in high school.

This bring me to option three business based education. The American dream is to come from nothing and succeed. When someone achieves the American dream it is usually because they started their own business. Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-mart is a good example of this. As is Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's and of course Bill Gates, Microsoft founder. What if we taught some high school students how to start a business? Admittedly many businesses fail, but is that a reason not to give someone a chance to go after the American dream if they want to.

The final thing I would change is this need to require more education than necessary for almost everything these days. With few exceptions such as speciality doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Most profession should only require a four year degree.
Now don't get me wrong some jobs obviously require not only college but Master's Degrees. Lawyers, Doctors, engineers, and scientist just to name a few. However many government jobs require Master's degree's and then offer salaries that you can barely live on.

Of course the problem with the track system is what if someone changes their mind. Well here's an idea we allow them to change tracks. Any class that overlaps curriculum, and many would, could count toward the new track. However the student would have to start from scratch with the other courses. Yes this means it may take longer for a student that switched curriculum to graduate than one who did not switch. What if someone gets tired of being a plumber and wants to go to college? Well we still have technical college where you can go for two years and then transfer. Who knows maybe some four year institutions would who took different tracks. Also no system would be perfect, but I believe this system is the best out of all possible options.

If we adopted this model for education I believe we the dropout rates would drop tremendously because the kids wouldn't be bored out of their minds in school. They would wake up in the morning wanting to attend school instead of dreading attending school. Crime would drop because the kids that used to join gangs would now have a trade or be opening up their own business. Maybe I'm just being an optimist, but I think if you teach kids how to make money legally that won't go sell drugs and risk being thrown in prison. Of course we don't live in a utopia. No matter what the system some people will try to cheat, steal and even kill their way through life. However I believe if more of these kids could learn a skill or how to open their own business we would all benefit.

Time to make some changes

When I started this blog I intended to make it different from other blogs, but I found that to be difficult especially in an election year. I ended up posting about what I saw on other blogs and searching the internet for interesting news articles. I gave my opinions on these articles, but now I want to do what I intended in the first place.
The New Conservatives was meant to attract new people to conservatism and changing the minds of some conservatives on issues like the Environment. Don't get me wrong I haven't become a global warming fanatic. I meant looking after the environment the way hunters would like us too. In my mind hunters are environmentalist. On Energy I believe the all of the above approach we have the right message, but on Education and the Environment I think we could use a little work on our message. Tomorrow I'm going to write an article about overhauling our education system. I hope you will stop by and read my article.

U.N. to U.S.: Quit Demonizing the Devil

Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, The President of the U.N. Security Council, said that the U.S. has been demonizing Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When asked about Ahmadinejad's comments about wiping Israel off the map Brockman said "if he said that, it's lamentable," but he quickly added that "words as such don't kill" and it's the actions that have to be watched. If he said it, well just in case you have has bad a memory as the President of the Security Council here's an article referring the quote. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/ I look for a clip but apparently there either isn't one or I just can't find it.

Brockman continued the defend the Iranian President, "I don't think anyone can doubt that in our part of the world ... (President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has been demonized," he said. "The United States has been in the business of the demonization of people forever and the canonization of the worst of dictators."

He also criticized the International criminal court for issuing a warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity. "It helps to deepen the perception that international justice is racist because this is the third time that you have something from the ICC, and for the third time it has to do with Africa," d'Escoto said. Bashir is responsible for the genocide occurring in Darfur.

The spokesman for the U.S. Mark Kornblau, was almost speechless when asked about the situation, "It's hard to make sense of Mr. D'Escoto's increasingly bizarre statements."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509596,00.html

Obama to Charge Troops For Injuries.

Obama is planning on forcing Private insurance carriers to pay for wounded soldiers that were hurt while fighting for our country. This news came after Obama met with Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. Rehbein said after the meeting that he is deeply disappointed and concerned." Rehbein described his conversation with the President Obama, "It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

Let me see if I get this straight we have money 3.6 trillion dollars to spend in the 2010 fiscal year, but not enough money to take care of our soldiers when they come home. Wasn't it Obama that said McCain didn't care about the troops? Looks like we know the truth now. Too bad it's about three months too late.

The commander wasn't happy with the results of the meeting and let that be known. "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

He had previously written a letter to the Administration letting his views be known. The letter read in part, "There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Outside of the fact that Obama is turning his back on the men and women that defends out country there are other problems that these troops will face if this becomes government policy. "The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits."

However none of this seemed to matter to President Obama. "I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue."

Apparently for Obama this is all about saving money. However how comes the first time he has trying to save money it involves taking a shot (for a lack of a better word) at our men and women fighting overseas. Why could he not save money by trimming his own budget requests, or vetoing that spending bill that had over 7 billion dollars in earmarks. It's simple those earmarks were more important to him than our soldiers. I hope President Obama comes to his senses and recommits to our brave soldiers that protect this country. However if he's insisted on trying to make them pay for the wounds they incur while fighting overseas, I hope he fails. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment

Obama to Negotiate with Terrorist

Obama told the New York Times over the weekend that he consider working with the Taliban. This comes of course after he's already reached out to Iran, Syria, and Russia. Pretty soon Obama's going to extend his hand in friendship and come back with a nub. I've posted the article below

Only seven weeks into his presidency, President Obama has already made fresh overtures to countries like Syria, Iran and Russia, fulfilling a campaign pledge to reach out to America's adversaries in hopes of settling tensions and shoring up U.S. interests around the globe.

But ... working with the Taliban?

In an interview with the New York Times over the weekend, the president pointed to the success the U.S. military had in persuading Sunni insurgents in Iraq to turn away from Al Qaeda, and he suggested that the U.S. would consider working with moderate Taliban elements in Afghanistan to do the same.

"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region," Obama said.

But some foreign affairs analysts cringed at the suggestion.

David Rittgers, a legal policy analyst with the Cato Institute who served three tours with the U.S. Army's Special Forces in Afghanistan, said the statement would mark the most extreme attempt so far to engage an adversary.

He said negotiating with moderates at the local level, some of whom might fall under the multifaceted umbrella of the Taliban, could be possible and worthwhile. But he said any attempt to divide and conquer the Taliban would probably fail, and he said Obama had given the Taliban leadership "propaganda strength" in publicly suggesting that outreach is possible."They really are negotiating from a position of strength. What are we going to offer them?" Rittgers said. "I don't know where we're going to find the common ground, with the exception of leaving their drug money alone."

He said the Taliban does not offer the same opportunities as the Sunnis in Iraq, because whereas the Sunnis could be economically motivated, many in the Taliban control drug money and are economically independent.

Shortly after the Obama interview was published, a Taliban spokesman told Britain's Guardian newspaper that the overture was a sign that Americans are "tired and worried."

He challenged Obama to find so-called moderates in the Taliban: "They will not be able to find such people because we are united around the aim of fighting for freedom and bringing an Islamic system to Afghanistan."

Some analysts have also questioned whether the moderates are plentiful or influential enough to make a difference.

"The notion of moderates ... I'm not sure they exist," said Simon Henderson, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But he said it is "worth trying" to reach out to persuadable elements of the Taliban.

"This is a distraction which (Obama) wants to settle down and also to contain," Henderson said. "It's a cancerous growth which he would like to cut off completely but in fact can't."

Obama told the Times he understands that dealing with the complex nature of the Taliban is challenging. And some argue that the need for discussions with these groups is a political reality.

Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs in December urging the U.S. to distinguish political opponents of the U.S. from global terrorists like Al Qaeda -- suggesting members of the Taliban could be swayed. Rubin envisioned an agreement that would prohibit the Taliban from allowing Afghanistan to be used for launching international terrorism, in exchange for an agreement from the U.S. and NATO to end military action.

"Any agreement in which the Taliban or other insurgents disavowed Al Qaeda would constitute a strategic defeat for Al Qaeda," the article said.

Obama has won both praise and criticism for his efforts to mend troubled relations with other U.S. adversaries.

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled a major shift when she said the U.S. would send two envoys to Syria to begin "preliminary conversations." It would mark the highest-level U.S. administration visit in more than four years to Syria, which has been called a state sponsor of terrorism. The Bush administration withdrew the U.S. ambassador to Syria in early 2005 to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. (Syria officials have been investigated in the killing, though Damascus denies involvement.)

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Monday that Syrian behavior is still of "great concern" to the Obama administration.

"We want to work with Syria, but it does take, you know, two to tango here. And up until now, Syria hasn't played that positive role that we've wanted to see in a number of areas, with regard to foreign fighters in Iraq, with regards to interference in Lebanese affairs," he said.

Further, Congress is poised to pass a spending bill that includes provisions to ease restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba.

Wayne Smith, with the Center for International Policy, said Obama should go even further than that in order to send a friendly signal to Latin America ahead of the upcoming Summit of the Americas, a meeting of North, South and Central American countries. He said Obama could move to lift restrictions on academic travel, for instance.

"All this can be done with the stroke of a pen," Smith said. He said normalizing relations with Cuba might actually prove less challenging than some of Obama's other diplomatic aims.

"This is much easier than talking with the Taliban," he said.

The Obama administration is also reportedly planning to invite Iran to an international conference on Afghanistan in late March.

And the administration has escalated outreach to Russia in recent weeks, with Obama writing a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Though Obama denied it, some officials suggested the letter floated the possibility that the U.S. could junk its plans for a missile defense shield Moscow opposes in exchange for Russia's help in stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Clinton also met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last week, saying the talks marked a "fresh start" in resetting relations with Russia.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/talk-taliban-outreach-obama-makes-court-press/

Obama Thinks We're Retarded.

Obama is trying to say he's saving money by not spending money on the War in Iraq. While at first blush this seems to be true when you take a look at the amount and the length of time he projects the war would've lasted had he not stepped in it's obvious either he's retarded or he thinks the American people are.

Obama's budget presumes that we would spend over $100 billion ever year until 2019.
Of course we know that every troop will be out of Iraq by December 31th 2011 due to an agreement signed by former President Bush. John Boehner said "This budget is a lesson in fuzzy math,"

The high for spending in the Iraq war was $188 billion a year, but Obama's budget has the U.S. still spending 183.5 billion in 2019. Either Obama is planning on starting a third Iraq war, or he's not being honest. Of course their is still the option he's retarded.

"It's like a family trying to claim savings of $10,000 by assuming a family vacation and not taking it," said Brian Riedl, a senior federal budget analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Riedl said the estimate is unrealistic and allows Obama to claim massive cuts to spending that was never going to take place anyway." Obama is using these stats to say that he is heading off a $9 trillion deficit 10 years from now. Yep he thinks we're retarded.

Obama making up fake deficits and then erasing them is not change, wait yes it is, it's change for the worse. I guess since no one bothered to ask what you meant by change your still keeping your promises. It's going to be a long, long four years. I hope everyone has started hording their non-perishables.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/republicans-expected-war-savings-obama-budget-suggest-fuzzy-math/

WSJ: The Obama Economy

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

And those sources have been forming for some time. The price of oil and other commodities have fallen by two-thirds since their 2008 summer peak, which has the effect of a major tax cut. The world is awash in liquidity, thanks to monetary ease by the Federal Reserve and other central banks. Monetary policy operates with a lag, but last year's easing will eventually stir economic activity.

Housing prices have fallen 27% from their Case-Shiller peak, or some two-thirds of the way back to their historical trend. While still high, credit spreads are far from their peaks during the panic, and corporate borrowers are again able to tap the credit markets. As equities were signaling with their late 2008 rally and January top, growth should under normal circumstances begin to appear in the second half of this year.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

AIG yesterday received its fourth "rescue," including $70 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program cash, without any clear business direction. (See here.) Citigroup's restructuring last week added not a dollar of new capital, and also no clear direction. Perhaps the imminent Treasury "stress tests" will clear the decks, but until they do the banks are all living in fear of becoming the next AIG. All of this squanders public money that could better go toward burning down bank debt.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html#