As a brief follow-up, or it might well be gloating, to the posting of Monday on the Senate race in Massachusetts, what a wonderful message the voters of that state have sent with the election of the Republican candidate Scott Brown. That individual will soon be sworn in as Senator Brown and could well help to erect a barrier to Obama's efforts.
The rational interpretation from this Senate election outcome, as well as the recent New Jersey and Virginia election out-comes, can only point to a confirmation that the Obama Administration and those who support his liberal view points are in trouble with the voters of this nation.
More victories for the Republican Party in November 2010 are now more possible than ever. The desired result that the liberals in Congress as well as the international socialist in the White House become politically harmless may truly be a reachable goal.
Thank you Massachusetts voters and congratulations soon-to-be Senator Brown.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Tuesday's Pending Senate Results
By early evening tomorrow the nation will learn of the results of the Senatorial election being held in Massachusetts. This is more than just another Senate seat contest and is more than just another contest between a Democrat and Republican. This election offers an opportunity for the door to substantially close on a piece of liberal political history - the legacy of the Kennedy Clan - and send a message that conservative politics is back.
In my youth I was of a liberal political persuasion and closely identified myself with the efforts of the Kennedy men. My high school, Tampa Jesuit, released early to allow the all-male student body to see in person JFK as he motorcaded near our school. Very soon thereafter he was killed in Texas. While in college at the University of Florida, there was a very strong Bobby For President organization whose members, including me, suffered greatly when our new "idol" was killed in California.
Years of exposure to the realities of life converted my political views into a much more conservative perspective and effectively eliminated any positive thoughts held in favor of the remaining powerful Kennedy, Ted. At the time of Senator Ted Kennedy's death there was no real thought given to the belief that this federal governmental power slot would be claimed by anyone other than another liberal Democrat. That early thought has proved to be in error as all media elements now proclaim that the Republican candidate for the vacant Kennedy seat could very well be victorious.
The race is now between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley and is much to close to confidently call. The new Senator will be determined by Americans worried about the economy and the huge amount of money we owe Communist China; worried about Iran and Afghanistan; and generally concerned with how President Obama has failed in his leadership of this nation. This is all negative news for the said Democrat candidate.
Tomorrow a message may well be sent to our nation by the voters in Boston and by the voters in the rest of that State. The message could be, and I sincerely hope is, that even the legacy of the liberal Kennedy Clan cannot cure the negative, liberal aspects of the Democrats and their leader, Obama.
In my youth I was of a liberal political persuasion and closely identified myself with the efforts of the Kennedy men. My high school, Tampa Jesuit, released early to allow the all-male student body to see in person JFK as he motorcaded near our school. Very soon thereafter he was killed in Texas. While in college at the University of Florida, there was a very strong Bobby For President organization whose members, including me, suffered greatly when our new "idol" was killed in California.
Years of exposure to the realities of life converted my political views into a much more conservative perspective and effectively eliminated any positive thoughts held in favor of the remaining powerful Kennedy, Ted. At the time of Senator Ted Kennedy's death there was no real thought given to the belief that this federal governmental power slot would be claimed by anyone other than another liberal Democrat. That early thought has proved to be in error as all media elements now proclaim that the Republican candidate for the vacant Kennedy seat could very well be victorious.
The race is now between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley and is much to close to confidently call. The new Senator will be determined by Americans worried about the economy and the huge amount of money we owe Communist China; worried about Iran and Afghanistan; and generally concerned with how President Obama has failed in his leadership of this nation. This is all negative news for the said Democrat candidate.
Tomorrow a message may well be sent to our nation by the voters in Boston and by the voters in the rest of that State. The message could be, and I sincerely hope is, that even the legacy of the liberal Kennedy Clan cannot cure the negative, liberal aspects of the Democrats and their leader, Obama.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Military Action In Iran
There has long been a fear about Iran in the back of the minds of many of our governmental and military leaders. As was evidenced by a most recent editorial in The Washington Times, this fear grows as Iran moves closer to developing itself as an a-bomb threat.
Israel, through its leader Benjamin Netanyahu, has expressed the position that it is absolutely unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear armed nation. The clear implication is that those military steps as are deemed appropriate by Israel to terminate an Iranian nuclear effort will be fully planned and undertaken. Based on the past international conduct of Israel, little doubt should be given to the seriousness of these threats. The past efforts of President Obama to "calm" the fears of Israel have been of some success but are rapidly running out of time. Most recently the press has announced that the Obama diplomatic efforts to "reform" Iran are dead.
The approach by Obama to the Iran situation has been via diplomacy and sanctions. Neither has worked. Washington imposed deadlines have been ignored by Iran; additional nuclear developmental projects have been announced by Iran; and most recently the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist has resulted in the blame being placed on the USA and on Israel. This Iran matter just cannot be treated with white gloves by the White House.
Obama continues to express his view that the goals of individual nations must be diminished in importance so to allow the best interests of the world-at-large to receive top attention. This international socialist option is not only foreign to American politics but is unrealistic when the real goals of Cuba, Venezuela, Communist China, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Russia and other nations are considered. In reality there are only three Iranian options open to Obama: 1) continue the low-key approach and watch matters get worse; 2) assist Israel militarily in eliminating the nuclear menace in Iran and in doing so send the rest of the anti-American nations a clear message; or 3) withdraw all American forces back to the USA to venture out only if America is directly threatened.
All three options have rewards, risks and draw backs but the best interests of America must be protected and that means no nuclear threat from Iran.
Israel, through its leader Benjamin Netanyahu, has expressed the position that it is absolutely unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear armed nation. The clear implication is that those military steps as are deemed appropriate by Israel to terminate an Iranian nuclear effort will be fully planned and undertaken. Based on the past international conduct of Israel, little doubt should be given to the seriousness of these threats. The past efforts of President Obama to "calm" the fears of Israel have been of some success but are rapidly running out of time. Most recently the press has announced that the Obama diplomatic efforts to "reform" Iran are dead.
The approach by Obama to the Iran situation has been via diplomacy and sanctions. Neither has worked. Washington imposed deadlines have been ignored by Iran; additional nuclear developmental projects have been announced by Iran; and most recently the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist has resulted in the blame being placed on the USA and on Israel. This Iran matter just cannot be treated with white gloves by the White House.
Obama continues to express his view that the goals of individual nations must be diminished in importance so to allow the best interests of the world-at-large to receive top attention. This international socialist option is not only foreign to American politics but is unrealistic when the real goals of Cuba, Venezuela, Communist China, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Russia and other nations are considered. In reality there are only three Iranian options open to Obama: 1) continue the low-key approach and watch matters get worse; 2) assist Israel militarily in eliminating the nuclear menace in Iran and in doing so send the rest of the anti-American nations a clear message; or 3) withdraw all American forces back to the USA to venture out only if America is directly threatened.
All three options have rewards, risks and draw backs but the best interests of America must be protected and that means no nuclear threat from Iran.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Unemployment
The unemployment figures for December 2009, as released last week by the Obama Administration and as augmented by independent data, were simple, realistic and depressing. By Federal government standards the extent of America's national unemployment remained at 10% with some 85,000 additional citizens losing their jobs during this past reporting period.
As expected, many sources published that the real extent of the current level of the unemployed in our nation is at the figure of 17.3% which is just slightly higher than last month.
A quick analysis of this information draws the conclusion that the lower figure is bad news and the larger figure is just horrendous.
Several thoughts come immediately to mind: 1) It remains a mystery as to why Obama and his followers continue to express to the American public the phony representation that our nation has "only" a 10% level of unemployment. Six months ago it was difficult to find any general publication touching on the reality that unemployment was more in the range of 17% than 10%. Today, every news article on this labor subject now reports both figures which only hurts the credibility of the White House; 2) Within a few days Obama will complete 25% of his Presidential term and the most pressing national issue, the economy, remains unaddressed and unresolved. At present the down-sliding appears to have slowed but no improvements, minor much less significant, are being reported; and 3) The political pundits are now expressing that Federal government spending programs will soon impact the unemployed by at least doling out temporary government funded jobs (which means jobs paid for by current or future tax obligations imposed on the American public). This coming increase in the activity level of the Obama Administration on the unemployed is intentionally scheduled to have its biggest impact just as Americans prepare to vote in November. The goal is obvious - keep Congress in the hands of Obama advocates.
The old expression that "all is fair in love and war and politics" rings true in this first month of 2010 but it does not justify Obama's plans to try to link helping our unemployed to his desire for a November election success.
As expected, many sources published that the real extent of the current level of the unemployed in our nation is at the figure of 17.3% which is just slightly higher than last month.
A quick analysis of this information draws the conclusion that the lower figure is bad news and the larger figure is just horrendous.
Several thoughts come immediately to mind: 1) It remains a mystery as to why Obama and his followers continue to express to the American public the phony representation that our nation has "only" a 10% level of unemployment. Six months ago it was difficult to find any general publication touching on the reality that unemployment was more in the range of 17% than 10%. Today, every news article on this labor subject now reports both figures which only hurts the credibility of the White House; 2) Within a few days Obama will complete 25% of his Presidential term and the most pressing national issue, the economy, remains unaddressed and unresolved. At present the down-sliding appears to have slowed but no improvements, minor much less significant, are being reported; and 3) The political pundits are now expressing that Federal government spending programs will soon impact the unemployed by at least doling out temporary government funded jobs (which means jobs paid for by current or future tax obligations imposed on the American public). This coming increase in the activity level of the Obama Administration on the unemployed is intentionally scheduled to have its biggest impact just as Americans prepare to vote in November. The goal is obvious - keep Congress in the hands of Obama advocates.
The old expression that "all is fair in love and war and politics" rings true in this first month of 2010 but it does not justify Obama's plans to try to link helping our unemployed to his desire for a November election success.
Friday, January 8, 2010
A WARNING TO AMERICA
There is no question that the name of Edward L. Koch is well recognized by the vast majority of politically minded American citizens. Even though he is retired from active political life and has suffered some health problems, his backing is still sought by many office-seeking Democrats. Although Koch actively campaigned for Obama in 2008, particularly in Jewish communities, the
attraction Koch had for that candidate appears to have faded if not vanished. The cause of Koch's retreat is Obama's weak approach to the real world-wide threat of radical Islam to America.
In a most recently published article Koch expressed, "Democrats have been seen as inadequate in the area of national security. If that perception continues or grows we will see not only the normal loss expected in a bi-annual congressional election but a rout with the Republicans taking both Houses in November of this year."
It is not hard to see that Koch's term "Democrats" is in reality a reference to President Obama and the expressed fear of inadequacy in national security equates to the fact that Islamic terrorism is not being confronted by Obama in a serious and aggressive manner. Koch clearly sees that unless a modification of this behavior comes quickly from the White House, the punishment will be inflicted by the voters upon Obama's fellow Democrats seeking office in 2010. With the recent number of office-holding Democrats who have already declared that they will not again seek election in 2010, Koch is not alone in his comprehension of the realities of the upcoming campaign and election.
There is however both a positive and negative side to the prospect that the Republicans could in 2010 reclaim the House and the Senate. The positive side is that the liberal, socialist policies of the Obama Administration would be effectively blocked. The negative side is that for 2011 and 2012 the federal government would be at a standstill which could be tremendously damaging to the citizens of our nation.
The bottom line would be which is worse: 1) an unfettered Obama until January 2013 or 2) a drifting, ineffective America government until January of 2013?
attraction Koch had for that candidate appears to have faded if not vanished. The cause of Koch's retreat is Obama's weak approach to the real world-wide threat of radical Islam to America.
In a most recently published article Koch expressed, "Democrats have been seen as inadequate in the area of national security. If that perception continues or grows we will see not only the normal loss expected in a bi-annual congressional election but a rout with the Republicans taking both Houses in November of this year."
It is not hard to see that Koch's term "Democrats" is in reality a reference to President Obama and the expressed fear of inadequacy in national security equates to the fact that Islamic terrorism is not being confronted by Obama in a serious and aggressive manner. Koch clearly sees that unless a modification of this behavior comes quickly from the White House, the punishment will be inflicted by the voters upon Obama's fellow Democrats seeking office in 2010. With the recent number of office-holding Democrats who have already declared that they will not again seek election in 2010, Koch is not alone in his comprehension of the realities of the upcoming campaign and election.
There is however both a positive and negative side to the prospect that the Republicans could in 2010 reclaim the House and the Senate. The positive side is that the liberal, socialist policies of the Obama Administration would be effectively blocked. The negative side is that for 2011 and 2012 the federal government would be at a standstill which could be tremendously damaging to the citizens of our nation.
The bottom line would be which is worse: 1) an unfettered Obama until January 2013 or 2) a drifting, ineffective America government until January of 2013?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Afghanistan
With all of the problem areas, national and international in nature, that are facing Americans in general and the Obama Administration specifically as we enter into the year of 2010, none is worst than Afghanistan. Is it possible to declare even one aspect of the American effort in that exotic and backward nation a success? Other than the daily demonstration of the heroic nature of the members of the American military stationed in that foreign nation, the answer is no.
The Afghanistan government is still and apparently again under the political control of Hamid Karzai and although his normal public attire is most unique and attractive, his efforts to bring stability to that part of the world has been a failure. There was nothing reassuring about his contested reelection particularly the "voluntarily" withdrawal of his last opponent from a runoff. Since that time, Karzai has attempted to establish an executive government structure by sending to the Afghan parliament a series of cabinet nominations only to have 17 of his 24 choices rejected. Several important positions were filled but generally the assertiveness of the parliament has placed a paralysis on the Afghan national government. The outcome of this impasse has been in favor of the radicals who daily attack with deadly impact the representatives of the military, government and establishment of Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, these deadly attacks far too often take American lives.
Most recently, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center For Strategic & International Studies expressed in a lengthy article on the status of Afghanistan at the close of 2009, that the "US and its allies won largely meaningless tactical clashes while steadily losing the country and the people". He further expressed that there was a "virtual power vacuum in much of Afghanistan".
No American ever wants our military to abandon a fight once our opening effort has been rightfully initiated, but in Afghanistan there has not yet even been established a realistic goal. There is only a continuous drain of American assets and, more sadly, American lives. Obama's most recent, and long delayed, decision to expand the number of US forces in Afghanistan even carried a caveat that the military would come home not on achieving certain goals but rather by a pre-set time table. An absolutely wrong, losing approach.
Obama will be President until January of 2013 but his Afghanistan efforts can be stopped or even corrected as early as January of 2011 with a new Republican/anti-Obama controlled Congress. One of our political goals for 2010 is to secure from Obama's control at least the House of Representatives and via that power base correct the failing efforts in Afghanistan.
The Afghanistan government is still and apparently again under the political control of Hamid Karzai and although his normal public attire is most unique and attractive, his efforts to bring stability to that part of the world has been a failure. There was nothing reassuring about his contested reelection particularly the "voluntarily" withdrawal of his last opponent from a runoff. Since that time, Karzai has attempted to establish an executive government structure by sending to the Afghan parliament a series of cabinet nominations only to have 17 of his 24 choices rejected. Several important positions were filled but generally the assertiveness of the parliament has placed a paralysis on the Afghan national government. The outcome of this impasse has been in favor of the radicals who daily attack with deadly impact the representatives of the military, government and establishment of Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, these deadly attacks far too often take American lives.
Most recently, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center For Strategic & International Studies expressed in a lengthy article on the status of Afghanistan at the close of 2009, that the "US and its allies won largely meaningless tactical clashes while steadily losing the country and the people". He further expressed that there was a "virtual power vacuum in much of Afghanistan".
No American ever wants our military to abandon a fight once our opening effort has been rightfully initiated, but in Afghanistan there has not yet even been established a realistic goal. There is only a continuous drain of American assets and, more sadly, American lives. Obama's most recent, and long delayed, decision to expand the number of US forces in Afghanistan even carried a caveat that the military would come home not on achieving certain goals but rather by a pre-set time table. An absolutely wrong, losing approach.
Obama will be President until January of 2013 but his Afghanistan efforts can be stopped or even corrected as early as January of 2011 with a new Republican/anti-Obama controlled Congress. One of our political goals for 2010 is to secure from Obama's control at least the House of Representatives and via that power base correct the failing efforts in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)