What If We Used Joe Biden’s Plan For Iraq?

Barack Obama selected Senator Joe Biden as a running mate, in part, because of the vast amount of experience Senator Biden has in foreign affairs.  He is said to bring enough to the table to balance out all of the experience Senator Obama lacks in that arena.

So, should we take Joe Biden’s advice?  His plan for Iraq, which he expressed on the floor of the Senate, so I have to assume it was not one of his gaffes and it wasn’t just Joe being Joe, was divide Iraq into three different countries…one Sunni, one Shia and one Kurd.  Joe thought that was the best solution to all of the problems in Iraq.  Civil war would be avoided with Joe’s plan.  Political fighting between the differing groups would be cast aside.  Peace would reign over the former country of Iraq.

So, should WE consider Joe’s plan?  We have been a divided country for years.  The past several elections prove it.  We have our Red States and our Blue States.  We have our liberal elites in the northeast and on the west coast and then there is everything that lies between the two (flyover country).

Secessionist groups have been around for years since the end of our Civil War, but they have grown in strength and numbers in the past year!  The media elites, Hollywood elites and Washington insiders consider those living in middle America as being hicks and hayseeds who are too ignorant to know what is really going on.  Then, we need to face up to the race card being played more often now than any time since the 1960s.

So, using Joe Biden’s plan for Iraq, only making it apply to the United States, we would split the country into three different countries.  Taking all of New England including New York, eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Washington DC and create a new country.  They would all be very happy together knowing how much smarter they are than the rest of the world and could all agree on everything liberal. 

California, Oregon and Washington State could also become their own liberal bastion.  It would be a natural place for several different minority groups to have the influence over their own society that they so deeply desire.  Who knows, the northeast and left coast groups might want to form a united nation albeit separated by the middle of North America.

The middle states would be a more conservative nation of people with a limited government.  They, of course would be sniped at by the two new liberal nations because of the overwhelming amount of ignorance, the lack of culture and funny way of talking, but they would be content to live in peace.

I haven’t quite figured out, using Joe’s plan what would happen to Michigan, the areas immediately surrounding the cities of Chicago and Cleveland or New Orleans. 

Somebody should ask Senator Biden what he would suggest for us with regard to this idea.  Where is Joe?  Has anybody seen him lately?

Advertisements

The Big Loser of the 2008 Election

After an entire year of hearing all of the various campaigns try to position themselves by hammering on the Bush administration, I would have to say that one loser will be George Bush.  He has done a lot of the damage to himself with a simply horrific job of managing the country.  Frankly, and many disagree, the tax cuts he implemented were terrific for the economy and his handling of the affairs immediately following the attacks of September 11th were first rate including revamping the intelligence community and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which was overdue).  From there, it’s hard to find the good things about his administration.  No Child Left Behind, which I think was supposed to have been the foundation of his legacy was never properly funded and was a dud.  His love affair with the leaders of Mexico left our southern borders open to the flood of illegals and, despite the desires of the American public and Congressional legislation, it remains open with little sign of it becoming secure anytime soon.  His Prescription Drug plan is a very expensive bad idea.  The war in Afghanistan was a legitimate endeavour, but the need for a war in Iraq will be argued by historians for years to come.  Then, even though the Bush administration asked Congress to get control of the outrageous lending practices of Freddie and Fannie, he will get the blame for the economic collapse we are currently suffering through.  But he is not the big loser for 2008.

At this point in time, it is impossible for me to have a clue which candidate will win the election on November 4th.  Whoever is not selected as the next President of the United States, will be a loser by definition.  I think, either way, both political parties are losers in this campaign.  The Democratic Party has been highjacked by the extreme left wing of their party and I feel sorry for the dedicated Democrats who are more moderate.  I used to be one of them and got fed up with the direction of the party several years ago.  The Republican Party apparently decided that they should throw off the conservative wing and the evangelical wings of their party in an attempt to appeal to moderate Democrats and Independents.  That has not worked out so well for them this year.  The Democrats nominated the most liberal candidate in American history and the most underqualified for the job, while the Republicans nominated a candidate that would not get a majority of dedicated, hard-core Republicans to vote for him if he were running against anyone other than his opponent in this election.  But the political parties aren’t the big losers this year.

Most of you think that the next thing on my list would be the American people, so let’s discuss it.  The American people are indeed extreme losers in this election cycle.  We’ve all had to suffer through the endless campaign that has even die-hard political junkies like myself longing for the end of it all.  I’m actually a little surprised that someone hasn’t announced their candidacy for the 2012 Presidential campaign yet.  I’m sure there is some planning under way by several possible candidates!  The American people have been so overwhelmed by sound bites and news reports that it has become irritating.  One of things that I think has caused the American people to be losers in this election is the idea of early voting.  I know it sounds like a good idea because it is sometimes hard to get to the polling places on election day, but there are arguments to be made against it as well.  For instance, in my home state of Florida I know several people who voted for their choices of Fred Thompson and Rudy Giulliani and the voted early before the primary.  Unfortunately, by the time the primary date rolled around, Thompson was out of the race and Rudy might as well have been.  I know several people  who feel that their votes were wasted.  The American people, while suffering through this painful election year are not the big losers of the year.

The mainstream media has been in the tank for Barack Obama since the beginning.  Oh, there were a few reporters still supported Hillary out of loyalty (or possibly fear) and several made themselves seem friendly to John McCain.  They all joined the Obama tide before anyone was nominated by either party.  The reporting, if you can call it reporting, was so favorable to Obama by both television and print medias that he wouldn’t have needed to spend any money on advertising if he didn’t want to.  (As much money as he raised, he could have paid for his health care plan with the money instead!)  One of the results of the reporting is the lack of readers and viewers that they are experiencing.

When the election is over, Americans will adjust to whoever is their next President.  That has been the beauty of the American system of government.  We have always had a peaceful transfer of leadership.  When the election is over, however, the American people will not forget, nor will they forgive the slanted news that media has provided this year.  The press has not asked any hard question of Senator Obama, nor have they investigated and reported on his experience.  They have gone out of their way to dig for any dirt they could find on any of his opponents, from Clinton to McCain/Palin.  And the opponents’ families, their associates, their records, their spending habits and even their email accounts were fair game to pro-Obama reporting.  Americans don’t like unfair tactics or unfair reporting.  Americans will end up punishing the press.  Take a look at readership of the major newspapers.  Compare viewership of Fox News compared to any other news organization.  The big losers for the 2008 is the mainstream media.  They have lost their credibility and they have lost the confidence of the American people!

Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care

Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.  The state will stop funding the Keiki Care Plan, a basic health insurance program for some 2,000 children, beginning November 1. The program was a public-private partnership with Hawaii Medical Service Association (HMSA), which will pay to cover the children through the end of 2008.

 

Hawaii lawmakers approved the health plan in 2007 as a way to ensure every child can get basic medical help. The Keiki (child) Care program aimed to cover every child from birth to 18 years old who didn’t already have health insurance — mostly immigrants and members of lower-income families.

 

Gov. Linda Lingle’s administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

 

“People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free,” said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”

 

The universal health care program for children that Hawaii tried is very similar to what Barack Obama is describing as his Universal Health Care Program that he is promising all voters.  He says that if you are already covered and want to keep your insurance, you can do that and if you don’t have health care, you can get the same health plan that members of the U.S. Senate has.

 

I suspect that he will find that he will get the same type of results that lawmakers in Hawaii got.  Many, many people opting out of their private insurance plans to get signed up for the one provide by the government.  The big difference is that Hawaii could get out of the plan much easier than the U.S. government will be able to.

 

 

Jesse Jackson Speaks of Obama Administration Changing U.S. Policy in Middle East

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum in Evian, France last week according to Amir Taheri in a New York Post article.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.”

 

“Obama is about change,” Jackson said in a wide-ranging conversation with Taheri.  “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself.  It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

 

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

 

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

 

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation’s institutions: “We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don’t see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction.”

 

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn’t part of Obama’s policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

 

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

 

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

The Obama campaign was quick to dismiss Jackson’s comments pointing out that he does not speak for the campaign.  They went on to state that Obama is committed to the security of Israel.

Jackson is, indeed, not part of the Obama campaign and it should be noted that Jackson has actually been critical of Senator Obama.  That doesn’t answer the question about whether or not, and if so, how well Jesse Jackson knows Barack Obama.

Biden’s Warning of Crisis Coming

During the Democratic primaries, Senator Joe Biden indicated that he did not believe that Barack Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief.  The question might be asked is if he doesn’t still believe that to be true.

 

“Mark my words,” Biden warned Sunday at a Democratic fund-raiser in Seattle Sunday night. “It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.   The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.  Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

 

Now, here’s where it gets scary.

 

Obama’s “gonna need your help to use your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Exactly what was he referring to?  Is Biden saying that America’s current enemies – sorely aware of Obama’s inexperience – plan to test a President Obama with crises similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis, to see what he’s made of?

Biden went on to say that during the time period that he is predicting, the Obama/Biden polls will be so low that people will wonder how they got that bad.  He said that the decisions that will be made will be tough to live with and Americans will tend to believe they are wrong.

But what if Obama is still on the wrong side of the learning curve when this major international crisis hits?   What if he makes the wrong decision – as even Joe Biden suggests he might?

After all, Obama was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq.

And he was wrong in his initial response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia – when he urged the victimized nation to “show restraint.”

And he was wrong when he said he would gladly sit down unconditionally with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – the very people his own running-mate now says are planning to “test” him.

Little wonder, then, that Biden later admitted that he “probably shouldn’t have said all this.”

For those who weren’t already nervous about an Obama presidency, Joe Biden is warning you that you probably should be.

Obama Endorsed By Former Weathermen Terrorists

Four former top leaders of the Weathermen terrorist organization are listed as signatories on an online petition calling for an “independent grassroots effort” to help strengthen Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.

 

The petition was initiated by Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator’s election.

 

Progressives includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) from which the Weathermen evolved, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.

 

“We agree that Barack Obama is our best option for president in 2008, and that an independent grassroots effort can help strengthen his campaign,” states the online petition. “It can also strengthen the mandate for his programs for stopping war, promoting global justice and securing our rights, liberties, and economic well-being.”

 

All former Weathermen leaders who signed the pro-Obama petition worked closely for years with Weathermen terrorist William Ayers, whose association with Obama has generated controversy for the presidential candidate.

 

The signatories and endorsers of the Obama activist group, listed on the Progressives website, include scores of well known communist, socialist and anarchist activists and former SDS members.

Obama’s Judgement in Associations

Barack Obama lacks judgment needed to be the leader of the United States.   He has a background of extremism and surrounds himself with and is supported by those who would do our country harm.

 

This argument is extremely easy to make, given Obama’s many, many choices to build relationships that are most charitably described as “problematic.”  By what criteria does a man choose his friends and associates and end up with the likes of Tony Rezko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers?  

 

Given that he had a choice of political allies, why would he align himself with and endorse in elections the worst perpetrators of Chicago’s crooked machine politics?

 

Why would he choose as campaign and outreach advisers two men (Robert Malley and Mazen Asbahi) who have since had to resign over alleged ties to Hamas, as well as others who advocate reparations for slavery (Charles Ogletree) and praise Hugo Chavez as a champion of democracy in Venezuela(Cornel West)?  Why would he choose as advisers people who were so deeply involved in the Fannie Mae debacle (Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson)?

 

What would an Obama cabinet look like?  Hard to tell, but his past associations are enough to make you worry about it.