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#

Obama First Instict is usually wrong.

It seems to me that usually Obama's first choice is wrong. This goes back to the campaign Obama said in a a democratic primary debate he would meet with leaders from terrorist sponsoring countries without Pre-conditions. He later changed his answer. In the Presidential compaign Obama first blamed Georgia for being invaded by Russia. It took Obama three attempts to figure out that the bigger county was bullying the smaller country. I think a first grader would've understood what was going on faster than Obama did. Apparently this hasn't changed with Obama's cabinet picks.

Ron Kirk- Obama's choice for trade representative owes $100,00 in back taxes. This is now the fourth nominee with tax problems. It appears he will be confirmed

Tom Daschel- failed to disclose $300,000 in past income. withdrew

Timothy Geithner- failed to pay $40,000 in payroll taxes. He is now our Treasury Secretary

Nancy Killfer- Obama's pick for Chief Performance officer had tax problems. withdrew

So it appears Obama will get half of his tax cheating cabinet picks confirmed. I think I've figured out why this administration is so set on raising taxes. It's because no one in the cabinet is going to pay them anyway.

If we combine those choices with a couple of Obama's other picks such as Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg I think a pattern starts to emerge. Richarson withdrew after it was discovered he was under federal investigation into how his political donors got a transportation contract. Gregg also withdrew after he realized Obama had no intention of listening to any of his ideas and just wanted to appear bipartisan.

It should be clear to anyone that our new President's instincts are not good. He has chosen four tax cheats and a man under federal investigation to serve in his cabinet so far. This doesn't even include other very partisan choices he has made to serve in his cabinet such as Kathleen Seblius to serve as Health and Human Services secretary and Leon Panetta to head up the CIA. These are not choices that bring the country together these are choices that tear it apart.

The New Look GOP

The GOP has finally figured out what I've known for the last ten years. It has to become more racially diverse, it must reach out to woman and it must get younger. The truth is the GOP always has been the party of diversity, but now some of this diversity is finally being put out front for everyone to see. Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana, is giving the GOP response to Obama's speech to congress tonight. Jindal is 37. He is also the first Asian governor ever elected in the Continental U.S. We have also selected Michael Steele the first African African ever to hold a statewide office in the state of Maryland. He was also the first Republican elected to that office. Steele is now the Chairman of the GOP. Of Course the difference between these Republicans and Barack Obama is simple Jindal and Steele are qualified to hold their positions Obama is not qualified to be President of this country. A fact I believe will become painfully obvious in the next four years.

As far as getting younger goes the GOP's new House minority whip is showing great leadership. Eric Cantor got every Republican in the House to vote against Obama's wasteful spending bill, also know as the stimulus package. Cantor was also a finalist in the Veep stakes in 2008. Cantor is also the only Jewish Republican in Congress.

The National Young Republicans want to have 40% of challengers for congress to be under the age of 40 by 2012. This is a way to bring youth back into the Republican Party. The Republican Party is perceived has the party of old white guys because we are. Don't believe me go to the next Republican County meeting and tell me what you see. I do think a shift is starting to occur. Hopefully our Young guns in congress along with our youthful governors and new RNC chair can keep the momentum going in the "right" direction.
Governor of Louisiana


GOP National Chairman



2008 VP Candidate and Governor of Alaska



U.S. House Minority Whip

Super Bowl Pick

My pick to win the Super Bowl is the Arizona Cardinals. My reason Kurt Warner is the man! Plus we all know he has Jesus in his corner so that can't hurt. Besides the Steelers have enough trophies. GO Cards!

Michael Steele's Blueprint for Tomorrow.

Michael Steele is the GOP's new Chairman. He was my first choice with Katon Dawson being my second choice. The truth is those were really the only two picks tha would've made any sense at all in my opinion. Steele defeated Dawson head to head on the final ballot. I have enjoyed watching Steele on various news programs. I think he has the determination and the ideas to lead us out of the wilderness and back to the promise land. This is his platform.

Blueprint Chapter1

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Politics & Governmen michael steele Republican Party

It's Offical our Treasury Secretary is a Tax Cheat

Timothy Geithner was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by 60-34 vote today. This despite the fact that the man couldn't manage to pay his taxes. Obama said there had been a "devastating loss in trust and confidence" in the U.S. economy. And installing tax cheat as the top finacinal man in the country is going to fix that how?

I'm going to take a look at Obama's whole cabinet pretty soon. Stay tuned that will be one interesting article.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/26/senate-confirms-geithner-treasury-secretary/100days/

Pelosi: Close GITMO but don't put those terrorist in my district.

When I heard that Rep Bill Young suggested that we should reopen the Rock and put the GITMO detainees there I thought it sounded like a great idea. I mean if were going to close GITMO lets and bring those detainees to America (an idea I think is idiotic) AT LEAST we should put them in the most secure facility possible. Alcatraz seems like it would be the place. Even if they escape they would still have to get through shark infested waters. So why not The Rock? Well It turns out The Rock is located in Speaker Pelosi's district. So? Doesn't Pelosi want them bought to America? She should be willing to put them in her district, right? Why that might make sense to the rest of was Pelosi says NO! When asked if the idea was a serious one Pelosi said, "It is -- no." She has the NIMBY syndrome. NIMBY stands for not in my backyard. Amazingly while she is in favor of bringing terrorist here and giving them rights. She is against terrorist being anywhere near San Francisco. (I guess she wants them in the South where all the uneducated, gun toting, bible clinging, conservatives live.) Pelosi what's the deal? I thought these guys were all wrongly imprisoned and were just turned in for ransom, at least that's what you've been telling the country for the last three years.

Despite the fact that Pelosi has no idea where we could put these terrorist, she still said, "What the president put forth was very wise. He said he's going to close Guantanamo, take the time to do it. You can't just go down there today and say, 'Everybody out,' and lock the door. They're going to review the cases, narrow it down and then go from there. ... It's brilliant," she said on ABC's "This Week."

Brilliant, Closing GITMO and having nowhere to send the detainees is brilliant. You can't really believe that. I know your trying to suck up to the new President, but you really believe this is brilliant. Maybe it's time for someone to give you a reality check and since we all know the press won't do it allow me Speaker Pelosi.

Closing GITMO and bringing the terrorist to America (while keeping them far away from your district) puts this country in danger. For example the terrorist will now have lawyers. What happens when some "lawyer" turns out to be relaying messages for Al Qaeda." It happens with the Mafia why wouldn't it be the same with terrorist. Two, what if we know their guilty, but can't prosecute them because we can't reveal how we got the information without revealing national security secrets? In that case the terrorist would walk right out the door of an American courtroom a free man. This could happened with several detainees. Not to mention what if one of those liberal Judges you love so much overturns a rightful conviction on appeal. The Supreme Court probably won't review every case some nutball liberal overturns by making up new constitutional rights.

Just incase you thought there couldn't possibly be anyone else who thought like Pelosi let me introduce you to our Vice President. Joe Biden said of GITMO, "There's no question it has to be closed. And we don't think it's inconsistent to deal with our national security and our Constitution. ... That's why we have the White House counsel -- Mr. Craig is now going through this meticulously, deciding what we're going to do with each and every prisoner,"

Biden also tries to ensure Americans by telling them even if some are released they won't stay here. "They have no legal status to stay here, I don't anticipate that happening. What I anticipate happening is that those people who are in a situation where it is either the evidence is in question or it's going to be hard to make a case, we will most likely be rendering them back to their countries of origin or another country,"

Alright lets take the Vice President at his word. So the terrorist will be handed over to countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Syria, along with many others that would allow them to go right back to killing Americans on the Battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. We already know many GITMO detainees that have been released have been recaptured on the battlefield. One recently popped up as an Al-Qaeda commander in Yemen. He had been released to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation.

If I were a solider I'd have a hard time not feeling like my country was betraying me. We're going to end up releasing terrorist that U.S. soldiers died capturing.
The people that say they want to close GITMO don't want the terrorist anywhere near their cities, and what's the Speaker of the U.S. House say about all this. "It's Brilliant."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/25/pelosi-shrugs-alcatraz-possible-terror-detention-facility/

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009901240323

Sunday Funnies

I Just saw some amazing Political cartoons. Check them out.
http://brettpassmore.com/2009/01/political-funnies/

Obama Better Organizine the White House Better Than He Did the Inauguration

"Optimistic chants of "change" and "O-bam-A" morphed into angered shouts of "Let us in!" outside the security gates to the inauguration. These folks had tickets, and they wanted in." Yet many didn't get in too see the event because of bad organization. "There was a "chaos of people, no line and no bullhorns with directions," said Haverkate. We were so disappointed that we missed the historical moment we'd be waiting for for months," he said. Another person who came all the way from California had this to say, "The entire experience was extremely disappointing, and I am utterly disgusted and appalled at the organization and preparation of this event," Well at least you didn't come from Michigan in your Wheelchair. After a bus ride from Detroit to D.C. Denise Robinson was twenty feet from the gate when it closed. Mayor John Bull from Coxsackie, New York who was also denied entry said this, "It's heartbreaking to think how far she came and how hard is was for her and her husband to fight through the crowds and push her wheelchair just to be shunned in the end."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/inauguration.problems.irpt/index.html?iref=24hours

First of all I feel bad for all those people who had tickets that were unable to get in to the inauguration. I know when I buy a ticket for an event I expect to be able to attend the event. However apparently that isn't the case if it's an event Obama is a part of. Obama if this is a preview of how you plan to run the country I'd say it's going to be a long four years.

Fidel is alive and has a "very good Perception"of Obama.

The title alone should scare the crap out of every American. When bad people be it Fidel, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, have positive things to say about you I don't consider that to be a good thing. If it was one bad person I'd say not to worry about it but it seems like every bad person has something nice to say about "The One."

In a meeting with Argentina President Fernandez Castro. Castro called Obama, "a man who seems absolutely sincere," who believes strongly in his ideas "and who hopefully can carry them out." He also said, "I personally did not have the slightest doubt about the honesty of Obama, the 11th president since Jan. 1, 1959, when he expresses his ideas." Well if a mass murder trust him and wants him to succeed that's good enough for me. I guess I was wrong about Obama.
Or maybe it's possible Castro wants Obama to succeed because he and Obama share the same vision of government.

Raul Castro also had nice things to say about Obama. "Earlier Wednesday, Raul Castro said Obama "seemed like a good man" and wished him luck." Obama has offered to negotiate with Raul Castro and to ease restrictions on Cuba. I guess we'll just be negotitating how much we will ease restrictions. I'm sure telling Castro you planned to ease them anyway won't give him the upper hand in those negotiations.

Is there an evil dicator anywhere in the world that Obama won't negotiate with. Maybe Obama can offer Florida in exchange for them not killing or imprisoning anyone that disagrees with them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481407,00.html

Obama is no Abe Lincoln Here's the Proof

So apparently somehow Obama got the idea he is the next Abraham Lincoln. Maybe it's all the media coverage saying how great he is even though he hasn't accomplished anything yet. Or it could be that he's just an overconfident self-absorbed egomaniac.
This quote from June 29th 2005 tells us everything we need to know. "This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles." "Mr. Obama said he keeps a photographic portrait of Lincoln on the wall of his office, and that "it asks me questions."

"I'm sure it does. I'm sure it says, "Barack, why are you such an egomaniac?" Or perhaps, "Is it no longer possible in American politics to speak of another's greatness without suggesting your own?"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006884

Obama was sworn in on the Lincoln bible a feat no other President, probably because of modesty, had ever attempted. His Inauguration dinner is a tribute to Lincoln's favorite foods. If you want to see the menu you can go here. After that he took the same route that Lincoln had traveled in the inaugural parade. He also is took the same train route Lincoln took to D.C.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4229770/Barack-Obama-to-turn-inauguration-into-Abraham-Lincoln-memorial.html
http://inaugural.senate.gov/luncheon/

Lincoln owned his own business and was a Captain in a state militia. He learned leadership in these areas. Show me one place Obama learned leadership. Being a senator for 143 days before he started running for office doesn't even come close. Even if you take the liberal number of 304 days that's still less than a year of experience. Plus Obama now has exactly 12.5 hours of executive experience. Something Lincoln learned has a business owner and a Captain.
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=707
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/832119/is_is_true_that_barack_obama_only_has.html?cat=75

President Lincoln did what he had to do to keep this country united. Including suspending Habeus Corpus rights. Obama can't handle the fact that we use enhanced interrogation techniques on people that want to kill us all. They even want to kill the liberals. Of course from talking to liberals I know they'd rather we sacrifice ourselves for our ideals. What good are ideals if their is no one alive to defend them? I'm all for standing up for what I believe in. I do it all the time. That's what being a conservative is, but when I believe in something that's contrary to what liberals believe in they say I'm a coward because I won't die for their ideals.

Lincoln made hard decisions in possibly the most difficult time in American history. I think the fact we still exist as a union 143 years after the civil war proves he made the right decisions.

Hearing Obama compared to Lincoln is absurd. How absurd? Let's Compare these two men.

President Obama:
The First African American President

44th President of the U.S.

3 terms in Illinois State Legislature

4 years as U.S. Senator

Called for withdrawal from Iraq in 2006

Backed off his promise to take
public financing in General Election

President Lincoln:
The First Republican President

16th President of the U.S.

4 terms in the Illinois State Legislature

1 term has U.S. Congressman.

Spoke out against slavery said it was
"founded on both injustice and bad policy."

Made Thanksgiving a national holiday

Captain of Illinois Militia company

Known has honest Abe

Ran a small business

Worked to pass the 13th Amendment of the
Constitution ending slavery

suspended Habeus Corpus during Civil War

Won the Civil War

Obama may have a similar biography as Lincoln, but that is where the similarities end. He has neither the courage nor the conviction to be anywhere near the man Lincoln was much less the President. I wish Obama well as President I hope he does a good job however the first thing he needs to do is realize there is only one Abraham Lincoln.

Happy MLK Day.

Even though it's no longer MLK day I thought I'd wish everyone a happy one anyway. MLK was a man that stood up for his principles and was willing to die for them. I feel sure he knew that standing up for what he believed in would not be popular and may get him killed (which it did.) He did it anyway because he understood that his actions could affect generations of people that would come after him. Partly because of his courage we elected our first black President this year. However Obama is no Martin Luther King Jr. He's also not Abraham Lincoln even though his belief that he is will be the subject of a later post. Perhaps Tomorrow. Actually make that later today.

Back to a post a day on Monday

To anyone who is still reading my blog. I will go back to putting up at least one post a day on Monday. Sorry I haven't been doing a very good job of staying updated lately. I'll probably also start cross-posting with Conservatism Today and Patriot Room. To try and drive up my traffic again. Anyone got a clue when RealClearPolitics is going to start accepting Reader Articles again?