Why Hillary Clinton Won't Leave Presidential Race

There is one very sinister reason Hillary Clinton won't leave the presidential race and that is because she cannot let Barack Obama win the presidency. As I stated previously in not so many terms, Hillary Clinton will do anything to get into the White House. Never before has there been a presidential candidate so power hungry. Hillary Clinton makes Donald Trump look like an omega commune member.

Media and blogs everywhere have talked about how Hillary Clinton, along with her husband Bill, act as if the White House was personal property and it is their inherent right to return to the White House.

Barack Obama creates a major obstacle for the Clintons return to the White House. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination that means that Clinton cannot run again until 2012. Worse yet, if Obama wins the presidency Clinton cannot run for president until 2016 and at that point it may be too late for the Clintons.

To avert this doomsday scenario, Clinton cannot let Obama win the presidency in 2008. Her best chance at running in 2012 is to stay in the Democratic primary as long as possible and do John McCain's dirty work for him dragging Obama into the mud by hitting Obama on the Jeremiah Wright issue and his lack of foreign policy experience.

Hillary Clinton needs Obama to lose presidency once he wins the Democratic nomination. This is the guiding principle that is driving her campaign forward at this point.

Obama, Clinton and the Presidential Elections of 2008 & 2012

Last summer it looked like the Democrats were a shoe in for the presidential election in 2008. And Hillary Clinton was going to be the shoe that was in the door. It was all but a done deal. There was no way Giuliani (the prohibitive favorite) could steal the presidency from Clinton.

What a difference a few months make. Giuliani flamed out with the Florida last stand plan and the political neophyte Barack Obama struck a chord with the American Idol culture of America.

The problem is Queen Hillary the First is suppose to take the crown in 2008. Beware John McCain and Barack Obama, specifically Barack Obama.

The 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry was doomed from the start. The Clintons couldn't allow Kerry to win because if he did, there was no way Clinton could take her place as ruler of the world.

Now, Barack Obama is in the way of the Clintons. If Hillary ever gets the chance she could possibly unleash the "nuclear option," or could it be the Vince Foster option.

This is why Barack Obama won't win the presidency in 2008. If Barack Obama wins the presidency in 2008, Hillary cannot run in 2012. At least with John McCain, Hillary could run for presidency again in 2012.

Until then, watch your back Barack.

McCain's Foreign Policy Agenda

McCain's foreign policy agenda is somewhat different than George W. Bush's. Remember that George W. Bush back in 2000 ran as a uniter and was weak on foreign policy. Unfortunately, for Bush, the people who he put in power hijacked his presidency after 9-11. McCain is different in that foreign policy is his strongest qualification. For Bush remember that education was his strong suit. Back in 2001 there was a warming between the Democrats and Republican's to the point Senator Ted Kennedy was there making a speech from the White House lawn touting the progress the government had made on education. But that was all taken away after 9-11.

It shouldn't be a surprise that McCain's foreign policy agenda differs from Bush's because McCain was always more of a foreign policy and national security advocate. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies." McCain stated at a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. This doesn't sound like the neocons that stole the presidency from Bush. Unfortunately for Bush, he lost control of his presidency along the way. McCain, as well noted, has the temperament that would prevent this.

McCain's speech was directed at two audiences. The first was the American voters. McCain knows foreign affairs, and unlike Hillary Clinton that claims she was shot at in Bosnia, McCain was not only shot at, but shot down over Vietnam. McCain knows when to pull out the stick and when to pull out the carrot. foreign policy isn't an and or situation, it is a delicate balance of all natoinal Instruments of Power, IOPs. This finely nuance speech should strip away several voters from the Democrats during the general election. McCain's policy towards Iraq is much more sound than Clinton's or Obama's. The question was, would McCain jump into Iran? The answer is not unless it is truly a last resort. This should alleviate many voter's fears.

The second audience McCain's foreign polcy speech was directed at was the world in general. The McCain foreign policy agenda is going to emphasize a balance IOP platform and include allies in the process more.

In general, McCain's foreign policy is text book and will serve the US well.

China's Beijing Olympics is an Olympic Mistake

The idea behind the Beijing Olympics was that it was suppose to be a coming out party, a debutante ball if you will, for China to put itself on the world stage.

China wanted these Olympics because it would show the world that China was not only a world power, but the emerging global hegemon. China, like any most nations is extremely prideful on the edge of arrogant. They believe that they have a superior culture that is destined to rule the world, must like most Americans believe now and English, French, Romans and Greeks before America.

The problem for China was that the Beijing Olympics was a bridge too far.

After China's Beijing was awarded the 2008 Olympics most analysts immediately thought of Taiwan. The experts expected Taiwan to take this opportunity to declare independence from China. The thinking is that China couldn't react to any declaration of independence Taiwan made because China wouldn't jeopardize its Beijing Olympics.

The experts and analysts misjudged Taiwan, which instead of rattled for independence has rolled over to be Beijing's lapdog.

Tibet and Nepal on the other hand have given  Beijing all it can handle. The best part is Beijing doesn't know how to react to the rioting going on in Nepal and Tibet because they would like to give the impression that there are no problems in China.

Now, China has started to complain that the foreign press is blowing all demonstrations out of proportion, and is lambasting the press with a full frontal propaganda attack. The truth is China is just not ready for primetime as they had thought.

How the internet the Changed Malaysian Elections and the Dangers Future Internet Era Elections Face

The internet has changed America, the world and now Malaysia.

The National Front coalition of Malaysian political parties have ruled Malaysia since its independence. But the internet now threatens this domination of Malaysian politics. The Opposition composed of three main parties has bit into the two-thirds majority the National Front used to enjoy to rule with. That majority allowed the National Front to override legislation passed by the states and make amendments to the constitution.

As a result of this dominance, Malaysian government television broadcast little if any of the opposition's campaign. Tired of the single mouthpiece the Opposition supporters turned to the internet for news, specifically Malaysiakini, an independent online newspaper with a diminutive staff of 35.

But this is a good thing right? More outlets for more information for the Malaysian population to view and form and opinion from right?

For years the US was held captive by three liberal networks that dominated news outlets. Thanks to radio and cable news, conservatives now have an outlet. Some also contend that the internet is mostly conservative, but I've yet to see evidence of this claim.

But what are the dangers of the internet and politics? The answer is Google. Google and Yahoo are both the brainstorm of Standford alumni. They are the ones who write the code that determines what websites will appear when you type in Trustworthy New Commentary, in their search engine.

These handful of Standford educated computer wizards determine what sites will show up and the top of searches you type into their search engines. Depending on their formulas different sites will show up on page one or page 101 of your search?

How would you feel if the first page was laced with sites like Daily Kos or Huffington Post? How would you feel if the top hits were Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter?

What is more worrisome is that Yahoo is waining in support. Google is taking over the search engine lead and running away with it. Will Google become the Big Brother George Orwell spoke of and determine what we should think? Worse yet, imagine if the government regulated the Google search engine formula?

What if I searched for Conservative New Commentary, or Liberal News Commentary? This still may not help. If results show either positive or negative articles about each. Imagine if the liberal search put out Daily Kos and Huffington Post type pages, and the conservative search would put out sites that derided Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham? Today, as I type in Conservative Bloggers, one of the most liberal blogs, Daily Kos shows up on page one which is most definitely not a conservative blog. How does this happen? Google won't say. It doesn't reveal what its formula is exactly, but there are parts of it that are known.

Can the Google formula be manipulated by some small time conservative blogger typing in a Minneapolis hotel? Yes, to some extent. A website's rank increases by the number of links it has pointing to it. So, by linking to Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham multiple times and not Daily Kos and Huffington Post in this post, I've incrementally increased the the rankings of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham relatively compared to Daily Kos and Huffington Post.

With that in mind, please link to Air Force Blue, and other fine conservative bloggers on the Internet.

Obama, Wright Relationship Has No Effect at Grassroots?

There is no fallout yet from Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama's, relationship with his inflammatory Reverend Wright according to Dante Chinni of the Christian Science Monitor.

He claims that the nation at the grassroots level is too concerned with the fifth year anniversary of the Iraq War, flooding and what color to paint the kitchen to pay attention to the crumbling Democratic Presidential Candidate's campaign.

Obama tried to come out with a speech shortly after his "race" speech where he lumped his grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro with the hateful racist bigot Wright.

As much as the left claims that the Obama/Wright story has no legs, the American people disagree sharply. One look at the Obama numbers compared to McCain in mid March on RealClearPolitics.com tells the true story. Obama has lost the general election and this is why. Imagine a 527 add with a picture of Obama in a pew and Wright singing, "God Damn America." This story has legs and longevity. The Clintons know it, but the Democratic Party is so whipped up into a frenzy with the left wing media that they can't see it.

Obama was always going to get the black vote unless McCain comes up with a running mate like I suggested, JC Watts. What gave Obama legs was the white apologist and the independent vote. The Obama/Wright relationship has the white apologist thinking twice. As much as they would like to see a black man in the White House, they don't want to hear the hatred from a black man just as much as they don't want to hear it from a white man.

Obama lost the independent vote because independents thought Obama was a "different" candidate that rose above normal politics. To the trained ear, Obama's speech on race was just a political move that was a day late and a dollar short. Twenty years in a pew in front of Wright and claiming you knew nothing of his hatred for America, Jews and white people in general seems too disingenuous to believe. Obama's speech was a calculated chess move in a line of calculated chess moves and "present" votes for a power hungry opportunist who is no different than any other American politician. You can't explain this indiscretion away. America didn't want to even hear David Duke's Klan explanation and rightfully so. Any association with the Klan is too much just like any association with Wright is too much.

If Obama loses in the general election, the left again ask why. Just like after the Kerry election they will ask, how can the American people be so stupid as to not vote for our guy. And when looking back they will say that it certainly wasn't the Wright issue that lost the election when it most certainly was.

Military Caught Aiding Former Enemy?

There is a possibility the US military was caught aiding a former Soviet spy and arms dealer.

Victor Bout served in the Soviet military as a spy posing as a translator in Africa at the height of the Cold War. But what does a Soviet spy do after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Turn to capitalism of course.

And Bout did well as a capitalist raking in millions of dollars making illegal arms trades, including modern surface-to-air missiles, to al Qeada, the terrorist group FARC in Colombia, and other western countries. It may turn out that one of those western countries was the US.

Quite why Mr Bout has now fallen into the clutches of the international justice system is still unclear. Previous attempts to nab him have fallen foul of Western disunity. Clinton-era efforts fizzled out during the Bush administration. Belgian and British attempts to arrest him seem to have been leaked (some blame America for that). Mr Bout appears to have been a useful contractor for American forces in Iraq, and to have trafficked arms to American-backed causes elsewhere. That may have endeared him to the Pentagon, even as the DEA and other agencies were hunting him on other grounds.

You may not hear much about this case in the US press if the DoD has anything to say about it. If this turns out to be true, this will be a huge black eye for the DoD and heads will roll because of it.

Curiously, Bout traveled Thailand to meet with agents posing as FARC members to make a small arms deal where he was caught by Thai officials. Bout is now waiting extradition to the US. But Bout doesn't seem to be worried. It appears he may have enough "greymail" to implicate the DoD and make a deal to be let free.

Obama's Speech Failed

Barack Obama may not share the same point of view of Rev. Wright, but the country doesn't believe him.

Obama's speech on Tuesday convinced the left wing media that it was a monumental turning point in US black/white relations. The right is not so convince.

America on the other hand is not only skeptical. The people of America are turning their backs on Obama in droves.

The lily white part of the country like Wyoming and Idaho which voted for Obama is sure to think twice about Obama. Along with white people everywhere.

The left wing media is dumbfounded by the overwhelming uprising against Obama. Left wing media outlets trying to convince America that Obama hit a home run are being bombarded with calls and emails questioning their intelligence. The word on the street is that Obama is a anti-semitic white hater.

Live by the soundbite, die by the soundbite. Obama used to give a charismatic speech when he was talking about nothing and gave several good soundbites for the left wing media to swoon over.

Unfortunately, the soundbites of Rev. Wright are much more impressionable. Those visions are stuck in America's mind.

Obama by staying at a racist church for over 20 years has not brought this country together, he's legitimized racism. Obama has implicitly by turning a blind eye to the racism that was going on underneath his nose and in front of his children.

McCain Has Part of the Healthcare Solution

Pharmaceutical companies must be cringing and building a war chest for 527 ads against the extreme left socialists that the Democratic part have offered up as presidential candidates for the 2008 presidential election. Compared to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton looks like Rush Limbaugh. The socialized medicine solutions the Democrats are considering would send healthcare prices through the roof and decrease the quality of healthcare the middle class would receive. Admittedly, the very poor may do better.

On the right though, the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, doesn't offer much relief for the pharmaceutical companies, but not all of his policies are counter capitalism.

First, rather than forcing an expansion of insurance coverage through government mandates, he hopes to motivate individuals to buy insurance through tax credits.

This will help the healthcare crisis. Individuals need to know and choose their healthcare plan. The idea behind capitalism is that people buy the best product for the best price. When the company (or worse the government) chooses you healthcare for you, you don't see how much it cost, you are stuck with the few plans available, and you pay more taxes or your company pays more in healthcare premiums.

Second, he has some good ideas for tackling America's runaway health costs. Those are largely driven up by the overuse of technology and needless medical diagnostic tests and treatments. Mr McCain wants to reverse the perverse incentives that lead to such abuse by scrapping payments for individual procedures in favour of giving fixed payments to doctors and hospitals for actually solving particular health problems.

This is not a good idea. If you have a condition you may need an MRI, not an Xray. But an Xray is cheaper. Under the McCain plan the cost for your bad back is the same whethr you get an MRI or an Xray. Naturally, the healthcare provider will give you an Xray and charge you for the same rate as if you got an MRI.

The last and final McCain measure would be to go after tort reform. This is the best idea that is long overdue.

Trial lawyers like former Democratic Presidential  Candidate, John Edwards, have done more damage than good. Edwards made millions with "junk science" suing obstetricians for procedures he claimed caused cerebral palsy-this turned out to be false.

This forced obstetricians to perform C-sections when it was unwarranted.

Tort lawyers have driven up the price of malpractice insurance premiums and in turn healthcare prices. Don't be fooled, the cost of malpractice insurance is paid by the customer, not the physician, through healthcare costs. So while making a very few very rich, tort lawyers have increased the price of healthcare for the rest of us.

When Will the Iraq War End

CSM asks How Will the Iraq War End. Another question that is more dear to Americans is when will the Iraq war end? But a more important question is when will the Iraq war be fiscally reasonable?

"It will take the whole term of the next president to get this right," says Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution foreign-policy expert who advocates continuing surge-level US military efforts.

Remember the Brookings Institute is a left leaning think tank in Washington DC. I didn't know that Brookings allowed anyone to advocate the surge. Are liberals starting to see Iraq in a different light now that they are on the verge of winning the White House back? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both changed their exit plans for Iraq, or at least nuanced them to allow troops to stay longer.

One of Hollywood's liberals now believes that the US should stay in Iraq.

In a piece Angelina penned for The Washington Post newspaper titled 'A Reason to Stay in Iraq', she wrote: "What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance." 

The sentiment that is growing seems to be that the US has maybe not won in Iraq, but is capable of maintaining order. The maturity Jolie displays is that whether you agreed with going into Iraq or not is irrelevant at this point in history. Although Pope John Paul II was very much against the US going into Iraq, but once the US went into Iraq the Vatican changed its tune. "'The child has been born," [The Vatican] declared...'It may be illegitimate, but it's here, and it must be reared and educated.'" The point that Obama is missing is that his, I would have never gone in the first place, doesn't answer the question, what do we do now?

The problem is that the Iraq war will never end the way Americans expect it to end. The USS Missouri isn't going to sail into the Persian Gulf for Muqtada Sadr, al Qeda, and other enemies of Iraq to surrender to the US.

The corner has turned in Iraq and the US is on the way to setting up the Iraqis for victory in their own country. Now that the US has identified the village elders as the center of gravity in Iraq and the village elders have identified al Qaeda and sectarian violence as the enemies of Iraq, Iraq will continue to show progress.

When will the Iraq war end? It already has and it never will all in the same. The continuum of the state of Iraq will continue to slip towards peace at such a gradual state that at no point will anybody be able to say, "today, we won the Iraq war."

Perhaps the Iraq war will end when the the last US troops leave Iraq. This isn't a likely endpoint either. The US will have a military presence in Iraq for decades. Maybe it was the initial redeployment of troops. If that is the case the war is in its final stages.

To answer when will the Iraq war end, will require decades after the actual war ends and even then analysts and experts will disagree as to when the Iraq war ended.

Tibet Rioting, When Will Taiwan Make Its Move?

China has now upped the death toll in Tibet to 16 from last week's riots. The Dalai Lama the exiled spiritural leader of Tibet has instigated the riots in Tibet and has asked his followers not to surrender.

If you remember to last October, President Bush met with the Dalai Lama to give him the Congressional Gold Medal which infuriated China. This gave some amount of legitimacy to the Dalai Lama frustrating China's attempt to continue suppressing Tibet.

The question now becomes, what will Taiwan do-nothing likely. Taiwan has been moving towards a more peaceful stance towards Beijing.

In Taiwan, the pro-independence ruling party of outgoing President Chen Shui-bian seized on the violence in Tibet and China's threat of harsh measures against protesters as a warning of what could lie in store for the island if it was reunited with the mainland.

The front-runner in the presidential race, the Nationalist Party candidate Ma Ying-jeou, has campaigned strongly for improved ties with China, but he also called for an end to the "violence used by Beijing authorities."

Another indicator is President Bush didn't make any overtures towards Taiwan that would embolden them to act rash.

The driving force behind this might be that the US isn't obligated to Tibet by a military alliance like it is to Taiwan. If Taiwan and China were to come to blows, the US would be obligated to come to Taiwan's defense. There is doubt as to whether the US would actually come to Taiwan's defense and might have to appease China to avert World War III.

The Bush administration has changed its commitment towards Taiwan.

Consider the change in President Bush's stance. Shortly after he took office in 2001, Bush told an interviewer the U.S. would do "whatever it takes" to protect Taiwan. "Our nation will help Taiwan to defend itself," he declared.

This coincides with China's growing military power. The consequences of the US failing to defend Taiwan include:

* Damage, and possibly destroy, the U.S. reputation as a reliable ally in the eyes of treaty partners in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. The same would be true of friends in Singapore, Indonesia and India.

* Jeopardize U.S. naval supremacy in the western Pacific and give China control of the northern entrance of the South China Sea, through which passes more shipping than through the Suez and Panama canals combined.

* Undercut the ability of any administration in Washington, Republican or Democratic, to persuade other nations to become democratic.

In a few years though, as China's military continues to grow by leaps and bounds compared to the US military, the US defense of Taiwan will be in words only.
 

Obama, Clinton, and McCain on Iraq

Obama, Clinton and McCain all have a course of action for Iraq they wish to implement.

But beyond the rhetoric how will the candidates have to approach Iraq when they win the presidential election.

The two Democrats' plans to withdraw US troops quickly, for instance, may be tempered by the practical realities of what that entails. If Republican Sen. John McCain is president, he would need to be responsive to the electorate and find a US troop level for Iraq that is sustainable.

The reality is that the American Idol culture of America has tired of Iraq. But there aren't the high body counts so the Media has nothing sensational to show adrenaline junked Americans who love to watch Die Hard on their evening news.

Obama's rhetoric is the furthest left of center. Obama plays the same tired tune since the campaign started that he would have never gotten into Iraq in he first place. This argument may help when the debate turns to Iran, but the immediate problem is Iraq and how to win in Iraq-or not to win as the case may be.

Obama is a foreign affairs neophyte and severely lacks any credibility in foreign affairs. His stance on Pakistan alone shows he isn't ready for prime time.

Fortunately, for Obama, an advisor, Samantha Power (who was fired for the Clinton is a monster comment), leaked the truth to his plans for Iraq. "Obama's plan to remove most US troops from Iraq within 16 months was 'a best-case scenario." This will hopefully soften the blow to his left wing radical supporters who expect Obama to abandon Iraq on day one of his presidency.

The left wing extremists are still crucifying Hillary Clinton for not admitting her vote to authorize force in Iraq was a mistake. For the record she's said that she would start pulling troops out of Iraq within 60 days. Her advisers say the policy is a little more nuanced, "counsel from the Pentagon staff could result in a slight tweak of her plan to remove troops at the rate of one to two brigades a month, to suit the realities at the time."

John McCain who supported the troop surge has a different problem. How long will he keep troops in Iraq? America would obviously like to win in Iraq, but at what cost. The human toll is not as great as it was before and during the beginning of the surge, but how much will the fiscal toll of Iraq extract from the US? That is and easy number to come up with and an quick number to tally, but how much will it cost the US to lose the Iraq war? That number isn't as easily formulated. The loss will mean a foothold for al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq possibly creating a larger foreign policy dilemma in the future. As much as America is sprinting towards alternative energy, America will still be fiscally tied to oil for the next decade at a minimum. America cannot write off the Middle East just yet.

American troops are still in Germany, Japan and Kosovo a decade after President Bill Clinton said US troops would have been out of Kosovo.

The hardest sell will be for the Democrats. The Democratic president will be seen as the president that either didn't pull out troops quick enough for the left wing extremists, or abandoned Iraq and allowed al Qaeda, Iran, sectarian violence and possibly civil war rule to overtake Iraq. Although the surge didn't foster a quick political solution, it proved the US can maintain order within Iraq and quell the violence.

How Ahmadinejad is Like Any US Pork Spending Politician

"You cannot run the country with projects. You have to have plans and policies." Mohammad Khoshchehreh Iranian parliament member and economist.

Tell me if this sounds familiar.

"But Mr. Ahmadinejad has no plans at all," he said, referring to economic and foreign policy. "He wants to run the country with charity projects, like giving out loans."

Can you say, "mortgage bailout." Not skipping the beat, the US House of Representatives passed an election friendly budget on Thursday. Instead of adhering to a one year ban on pork spending, The politicians instead decided to spend themselves into office once again on the backs of our children's future by buying votes with pet projects and bridges to nowhere.

The House defeated a Republican alternative that would have slowed spending on Medicare and other entitlement programs, permanently extended the tax cuts, invested more in military spending and put a one-year freeze on the congressional pet projects known as earmarks.

Republicans could talk fiscal sanity because they knew their policies wouldn't pass. But during the heyday of the Republican Party, in 2004, Bush signed into office one of the biggest entitlements ever with extended Medicare Part D coverage that provides government subsidies to elderly for private insurance to supply prescriptions. He had to buy some Florida votes to shore up Florida which he won by a handful of votes in 2000. Florida has a large retired population and Medicare is one of their primary concerns.

Fiscal sanity comes from less medicare, less social projects, less military waste, less decadence. Once you start to eat steak it is hard to go back to hot dogs but it is a must for congress. America needs to start producing again, either in services or manufacturing, but at some point the government is going to have to stop paying bills by firing up the printing press. Instead of having the people who committed to bad loans pay the consequences (outcomes-see below) the government will devaluate the dollar some more by loaning money to banks to loan to people who couldn't pay off their loans in the first place or so it would seem.

Eliminating poverty is like reaching the speed of light. As an object's velocity increases its mass increases requiring more energy to move the mass. As the object approaches the speed of light mass increases to infinity and energy required increases to infinity. Same can be said about poverty. The more government subsidies, the greater the tax burden. Greater tax burden increases poverty. Somehow Americans must be rewarded for working again. Every American has the right to purchase affordable, market driven, health insurance. No American should be demanded to purchase healthcare, as the Clinton plan demands. Nor does any American have the right to free healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid started this mess, because once you subsidize healthcare, everybody's problems become a matter of the state. If you want to smoke, eat yourself into obesity that is fine, just sign away your right to Medicare and Medicaid and everyone will benefit. You get to live your unhealthy lifestyle and I don't have to pay for you gluttony. But, again, this doesn't buy votes and is entirely too libertarian for the Democratic Socialist Party of America.

"People's hope grows like a bubble when politicians give populist promises," Khoshchehreh said. "But if these hopes are not materialized, the bubble bursts and the consequences are disastrous."

Hope, Change, whatever the political buzzword is today. Tell the people what they want to hear and they'll vote for you. Whether you follow through with it in office is a different story. 

It seems that politicians are incapable of fiscal sanity. The oddity is that Iran is only a shell of a democracy and being popular shouldn't be a necessary requirement. On the other hand China, and outright dictatorship has been implementing capitalist policy as the years go on to their benefit. Does democracy work? Yes, but only if your population is somewhat intelligent and is willing to watch the news or read the newspaper. The US's, American Idol culture is far from a critically thinking society. What should be frightening to every American is that Barack Obama is a rock star, but his supporters rarely know what he's done or plans to do. The younger generation seem intent on texting in their vote for the guy who looks and sounds cool.

[Khoshchehreh] has warned that Ahmadinejad's economic policies have led to inflation and have only made the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Yes, socialist policies only make the poor poorer. I would say that what socialism does is take the thwarts the lower middle class of reaching any better standard of living. Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton's plan for healthcare is that everyone must purchase healthcare or else there will be "outcomes" (newspeak for consequences enforced by the state upon those who choose not to participate).
 
Side note: Khoshchehreh also criticized Ahmadinejad's foreign policy for being too confrontational and Khoshchehreh is a group of Iranian political figures that have become more moderate as the US becomes more aggressive. This is surely to change once the Democrats win the White House in November 2008. Iran will again become more aggressive and the US becomes more moderate in its foreign policy.

Venezuela Proves, Again, Socialism Doesn't Work

Hopefully California, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have noticed the fall of the Venezuelan bolivar. It is so bad that Venezuelans are gladly taking American dollars at a premium over its bolivar even though the dollar itself is losing value at a remarkable pace.

The Venezuelan bolivar started its fall when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez plunged Venezuela into a socialist state by implementing socialist economic policies including nationalizing oil and telephone companies.

Investors bailed out of Venezuela faster than Eliot Spitzer pulled up his pants after his last cabinet meeting. This sent inflation as high as 24%. To stabilize their own wealth Venezuelans tried to scramble out of the bolivar for the more stable (only in relative terms) dollar.

Trying to slow capital flight, Venezuela limits its citizens to $5,000 in annual credit card purchases abroad. That is 10,750 bolivars, at the official exchange rate of 2.15 to the dollar. But at the prevailing black-market rate of 4.5 to the dollar, the amount more than doubles to 22,500 bolivars.

Now imagine this, socialized medicine. It is guaranteed that the US will enter the abyss of socialized healthcare if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama get their hands on White House.

Will healthcare prices inflate? Yes, part of the problem now is that health care is subsidized to some extent. For healthcare to come down in price the consumer must know the price they are paying for the service. As it stands now, the insurance company, negotiates a price and the consumer never knows how much they paid for the service. If the consumer has unlimited free trips to the emergency room for runny noses, they will continually run to the emergency room for runny noses. It happens, most military members can vouch for this.

On the other hand, if the consumer must pay for the service they are seeking, they will think twice before running into the emergency room for a runny nose at $600 per visit or whatever the going rate is today.

This is not perfect, some people who need to go to the emergency room may not because of the price, but nothing is ever perfect.

The bottom line to socialized medicine is this, the very bottom of the social ladder will see an increase in healthcare benefits, but private healthcare costs will escalate to the point the middle class will not be able to afford decent healthcare and be sentenced to a system similar to the UK's or Canada's. Clinton's and Obama's plan doesn't raise the poor so much as it just drags down the middle class to the impoverished level. That way everyone will be equally miserable.

Amber Alert: California Schools Kidnap Thousands.

If you are a home schooler in the socialist Democratic Peoples Republic of California, expect a knock on your door from Big Brother soon.

Last month, a three-judge panel in California ruled that only parents with state-recognized teaching credentials can educate their children at home. Otherwise, the parents are criminals and, as the court wrote, their children will not learn "loyalty to the state."

The key phrase here is, "loyalty to the state." California keeps marching towards an Orwellian state, declaring children must attend public indoctrination at state approved institutions.  That means California needs access to your child to indoctrinate the "creature of government" with California liberal fallacies such as heterosexuality should be muted, preaching communism. California also likes to indoctrinate other questionable theories as law such as evolution and human caused global warming.

Home schoolers already had to stick to a tightly bound state curriculum, but that wasn't enough, because home schoolers could be "poisoning" children's thoughts with additional information that would be against the state like homosexuality is a sin.  And multiculturalism means the American white man is the cause of all evils in the world.

The biggest offenders are those parents who are offering a Christian based education for their children. Christianity is strictly against the California religion of hedonism, and socialism. For those who can't afford private Christian schools, this was the only option. This is also why the state is adamantly against one of the best policies the Bush presidency ever developed, school vouchers.

The socialists had to take this drastic measure because the home schooled children were learning too well. "The record of home-schooled students – such as the many winners of spelling bees – show parents have the devotion and means for high standards."

Draconian pales in comparison with the direction of California. With Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the way to White House it is conceivable that they will continue the march to make all children ward of the state upon birth. "It takes a village" after all, as Clinton stated in the title of her book outlining the Clinton socialist plan to take away your rights to raise your children the way you see fit.

Fallon Fallen From CENTCOM

Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, commander of US Central Command in Tampa, Fla., resigned after an article in Esquire magazine portrayed his views on Iran as being at odds with those of his commander in chief, President Bush.

Thomas PM Barnett, the one who brought you The Pentagon's New Map, continued his sometimes lucid liberal diatribe against the Bush administration in his latest offering The Man Between War and Peace based on Fallon. If you remember, Barnett was initially for the Iraq War, but once turned south on it once he saw how it was handled and rails against Bush in such colorful prose it appears to be personal for Barnett.

In Fallon, Barnett has found a sympathetic voice, or one that at least sounded sympathetic enough, to coax a few lines out of Fallon that Barnett could use to beat Bush over the head once more in regards to Iraq.

This time Barnett has stymied his own cause by getting the one flag officer he agreed with fired.

Here is an offering from Fallon in an interview with Al Jazeera, "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

He survived that statement, but Barnett premised Fallon's fall from grace.

How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.

As it turned out Barnett was the catalyst for Fallon not getting away with it for much longer.

Fallon himself rejects the Esquire article. "Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it 'poison pen stuff' that is 'really disrespectful and ugly.' He did not cite specific objections."

In the end Barnett used Fallon as his own personal devise to bash Bush once more over Iraq and ending the career of the "man of strategic brilliance."

Boeing to Air Force, "Not So Fast," on EADS Tanker Contract

Boeing said Monday it will formally protest a $35 billion U.S. Air Force tanker award it lost to European Aeronautic Defence and Space and Northrop Grumman Corp.

This will cause delays and frustrate the Air Force's desire to get a replacement tanker by 2011. Although this may frustrate the Air Force leadership, it only has itself to blame for tilting the tables in Boeing's favor in first place in 2003 when the Air Force first tried to award a contract.

At first glance it looks like Boeing has a solid argument.

Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington who is a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee and a Boeing ally, accused Pentagon officials of asking for a midsize tanker and then switching specifications to favor the bigger A330.

"If they had been transparent and honest, they would have said, 'We want a large tanker.' We got a raw deal," Dicks added, noting that Boeing might have offered a tanker based on its larger and newer 777 jet.

The Air Force's timing of the announced $35 billion KC-45A (sometimes referred to as the KC-30) contract with a foreign plane manufacturer couldn't have been any worse. The US is headed into a recession and angry Americans want to know why the Air Force has decided to send jobs to socialist countries instead of employing thousands of hard working American aircraft manufacturers.

First of all sending jobs overseas is never popular with American politics. Ultimately, congressional members will have to fund this project, and they will also have to get elected again if they wish to continue serving. The hard feelings of Americans is deep. This decision will damage John McCain's presidential bid. Boeing and the Air Force have been furious with John McCain ever since he blew the whistle on a corrupt deal some Air Force leaders were building with Boeing in 2003 when the Air Force first tried to build the next generation tanker. While trying to save taxpayer dollars from corrupt Air Force officials, he ended up costing American jobs. Which is the greater sin? That depends on whether you work for Boeing or sympathize with the plight of the American worker or not.

This is one avenue congress could drive this deal down. Congress stalls the funding for the contract until Boeing has regrouped and put together a better bid on a better aircraft platform (the 777) and congress demands that the Air Force go back and re-evaluate the contracts. Eventually, the Air Force will learn that they will have to go back to the drawing board every timer the answer comes up EADS. There is a benefit to this process though, the Air Force and America will eventually get the best deal it can from Boeing.

This will also incite tremendous bile from the Europeans who lavished praise upon the US when EADS initially won the next generation tanker contract. But the last time I checked, European socialists don't have a vote for anyone in the US Congress.

McCain Must Press Obama on Attacking Pakistan

With the fall of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the US is scrambling to build a relationship with the new ruling Pakistani parties.

This will be a challenge for whomever wins the presidency in November. This would be a particularly difficult challenge for a foreign policy neophyte like Barack Obama.

In a debate last year, Hillary Clinton schooled Barack Obama on his "naive" foreign policy where Obama stated he would, without precondition meet with evil dictators around the world. See video of CNN Democratic debate. "I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," said Clinton. In an effort to sound tough, Obama responded later with a an aggessive foreign policy for someone who is building his foreign policy around multilateralism. Obama's policy sounds like it came straight from the desk of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.                       

This statement was purely political and much like his NAFTA flip-flop was probably only meant for US consumption. Unlike his wavering stance on NAFTA and Canada, Obama's campaign staff probably didn't call up Islamabad to give them a heads up that he was about to, in more than just the sense of the word, drop a bomb on their heads.

This statement is contradictory to Obama's stated foreign policy that he would act to build international support.

The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.

And in Obama's defense he said he wasn't going to invade Pakistan, like some have claimed, but he did say he would strike at al Qaeda targets within Pakistan.

"With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against [Osama] Bin Laden or other key Al Qaeda officials and we – and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should.

Trying to split the hairs between bombing Pakistan and striking al Qaeda targets in Pakistan is very thin. Either way you are dropping bombs on Pakistan not that Obama is incorrect about this policy, he continues, "And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that."

So he admits that he would continue George Bush's policy in regards to al Qaeda in Pakistan. The problem is he shouldn't try to play both sides of the aisle. Obama is not to be trusted if he is going to try to please everyone. If he came out with a clear policy without nuances, Americans could start to believe what Obama is saying. It seems Obama wants/needs to be liked/loved by everyone. When you do that, you alienate everyone, because no one believes anything you say anymore.

The question that Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain should ask is, what strong international support does Obama have to unilaterally attack al Qaeda targets within Pakistan with or without the Pakistani government's approval? I imagine a lot less than what George W. Bush had when invading Iraq. Although it was a smaller coalition than the first Gulf war, the Iraq War had over three dozen countries supporting the coalition. Although I'm not sure I want Hillary Clinton answering the phone at three am, I surely don't want Obama fumbling his way through foreign policy 101 at three am.

The conclusion we have to draw from this contradiction is that Barack Obama still knows very little about foreign affairs and how diplomacy works with other instruments of power.

Taliban Enjoying Refuge in Unstable Pakistan

The headline on the Department of Defense website states, "General Says Infiltration Down in Eastern Afghanistan." This is the equivalent of looking at a cup with a few drops of water in it and calling it half full.

Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, the commander of NATO's Regional Command East says there are a number of reasons the Taliban is disappearing. The porous Pakistani border is the major reason the Taliban is disappearing in eastern Afghanistan.

The truth is the Taliban found itself a better target of opportunity, Pakistan. With US ally, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, on the way out the Taliban surely hopes to have greater access to northwest Pakistan on the Afghanistan border. More on Musharraf's exit.

The bonus for the Taliban is if it can influence Pakistan, it would then have access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Although their native Pashtun tribal area is the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, the thought of nuclear weapons is tempting for any terrorist organization or sympathetic government. The course of action the Taliban should take is to try to legitimize itself in Pakistan. This may mean tempering terrorist attacks and using more soft power to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistanis.

If the Taliban can establish roots in Pakistan that take hold, in 20--30 years, it could be the ruling party of Pakistan. Some may say this is impossible, but they probably said last summer that McCain would never win the Republican nomination.

The point is, shift happens. Twenty to thirty years is a long time. Where was China twenty years ago? Did you ever believe capitalism would win over in China? Where was Berlin 20 years ago? In conclusion, 20 years is ample time for the Taliban to control Pakistan if it follows a sound course of action.

The worst part is that the US has limited access to Pakistan when it comes to tracking down the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan. The US military can't roam the Pakistani countryside looking for the Taliban like it can in Afghanistan.

Of course, Barack Obama has already stated that once he is president he will act unilaterally (without consultation with Pakistan or any other country for that matter) on al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. "Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region."

More...Taliban makes demands on new Pakistani government-leave us alone-or else. Pakistan is only a stone's throw away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons.

Europe Giving Up on Capitalism: Socialists Take France and Spain

In a blow to Nicolas Sarkozy's 10-month-old presidency, France's opposition Socialist Party was on course Sunday to wrest control of from his center-right camp after the first round of local elections.

Sarkozy preceded Barack Obama with the seductive campaign, and was able to steal an election from the Socialist Party. "Initially he seduced me [Céline Cohen, a 34-year-old mother of two] and a lot of my friends with his energy and ideas," she added. "But over the last few months, he has just not acted like a president. He has become a liability."

Sarkozy's approval rating has fallen to the George W. Bush territory of 37%. The biggest crime Sarkozy made was trying to cross the aisle to the Socialist Party and added Socialists to his cabinet. Many centre-right have abandoned him because of it. Note to John McCain: No Democrats in the cabinet.

Meanwhile in Spain, the Socialists (who gained power 4 years ago and immediately pulled their troops from Iraq) have blamed the recent downturn in the economy on Basque separatists. A red herring if there ever was. The Socialists offered the same promises liberals in the US make, tax the rich, feed the poor to buy votes even though socialism have proved faulty in the past.

Although the Popular Party worked hard to promote their own economic policies and raise fears about the impact of immigration on the average Spaniard's financial well-being, its strategies were not as persuasive as Socialist promises to issue tax rebates and to subsidize housing..."What I care about is the economy," says Mr. Nieto, a young industrial engineer. "I voted for the Popular Party because when they were in power 12 years ago. They took an economy that was in pretty bad shape and brought it to the top. They could do the same thing again."

With the trend in Europe and America, look to Asia to provide the next superpower(s). Socialism doesn't work and with Obama and Clinton a decent bet for the White House, look for more government, less US business, less US jobs and more government entitlements. Even George W. Bush is not innocent when it comes to socialist policy. The medicare plan he sponsored and passed was a massive entitlement, our children will pay for the rest of their lives.

As China and India introduce more capitalistic policies its economy skyrockets, while the US continues to thwart capitalism and suffers a stymied economy. If I had a dollar to invest it wouldn't be in any American company that is going to be ravaged by more and more regulation and taxes.

More on the elections.

Why Do Conservatives Like Obama?

Barack Obama won another conservative state today, Wyoming. So far Obama has won most of the conservative states including Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming and North Dakota.

While Clinton isn't the pillar of conservative values, her rating of her voting record is just slightly more conservative than Obama's voting record 9-8. In 2007, Obama won Most Liberal Senator.

Clinton is a known evil for American conservatives, meanwhile Obama is trying to be everything to everyone. Remember, Obama is against NAFTA in Ohio, but for NAFTA when talking with Canada.

It appears that the more conservative democrats of the country have bought into Obamamania.

Or, has nearly two decades of Rush Limbaugh demonizing Hillary Clinton made the conservative democrats of the country adopt an anybody but a Clinton philosophy.

Limbaugh had to reverse himself last week when he asked his "dittoheads" to vote for Clinton in Texas so she could tighten the Democratic primary and cause more chaos in the Democratic party and as a byproduct, more political drama. Political drama is key for Limbaugh's income. The more political drama, the more people tune into Limbaugh. Limbaugh can thank the Clintons for he superstar status he gained while railing daily against the Clintons.

But as usual, Limbaugh is right. the more chaos the better for McCain. And on top of that, if a gun was held against his head and he had to vote for Clinton or Obama, I imagine that even Limbaugh would recognize Clinton's qualities are superior to Obama's. The key to Clinton is that her closet has been open for years and we all know the skeletons she has in her closet. Who knows what skeletons we'll come across with Obama? To begin with there is Rezko's shady real estate deals with Obama and Obama's openly racist minister. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The press has just started to look under the hood of Obama's record.

But for some reason, the conservative Democrats seem to prefer an unknown candidate over a known candidate.

Air Force, EADS Tanker Contract Timing in Poor Judgment

The Air Force picked a poor time to award a foreign nation a $35 billion contract that is potentially worth $100 billion.

The US economy is slowing, outsourcing is a sore point with American labor, and on top of it all, it is an election year.

"We are hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to foreign countries already, so I cannot imagine why ... our government would decide to take 44,000 American jobs, good jobs, and give them to the Europeans," said Sen. Patty Murray (D) of Washington, where an award to Boeing would have been a huge boon. "Instead of securing the American economy and our military while we are at war, we are creating a European economic stimulus plan."

The Pentagon responded that EADS was only a subcontractor, but that pitiful argument isn't going to fly. Northrop-Grumman's name was on top of the contract, but it was in "name" only. Most of the real labor, and profits are going overseas. EADS most likely paid a pittance fee to Northrop-Grumman to represent EADS and do nothing else.

While congress can't change the Air Force's decision, it is the keeper of the purse. This could create a staring contest between congress and the Air Force. The Air Force desperately needs to replace its half century old tankers but congress doesn't have to fund them.

One of the reasons the Air Force might have decided on EADS was the belief EADS could deliver aircraft tankers sooner. But congress may hold up the process with hearings, investigations and other stall tactics, that it may have been quicker for the Air Force to award Boeing the contract in the first place.

Granted EADS is planning on building the interiors of the aircraft in Mobile, AL. EADS is going to construct the majority of the aircraft overseas and then fly them to the US to have the interiors built.

Some have said that EADS/Airbus is considering moving the entire tanker construction process to the US because the dollar has fallen to an all time low against the euro making US labor relatively cheap compared to the socialist based European economies.

But the profits will still go overseas. Just like when American companies outsource labor. The labor costs go over seas, but the US based company still pockets the profits. So if EADS was to move the entire tanker assembly project to the US, Europe would still retain the profits.

All things being equal, the Air Force should have waited for Boeing to announce a major 787 Dreamliner sale to announce it was selling out the American worker. Awarding the contract to a foreign company while staring at a recession during an election year was truly in bad taste.

Democratic Election Results Convoluted

The Democratic insiders who built the Democratic primary process are convoluted.

First of all there are the Super Delegates. These are the "political insiders" who can hijack the election at any moment. The history of the super delegates goes back to the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago (that spawned rioting in Chicago). After the Chicago convention, the McGovern-Fraser Commission came up with a way to give a larger voice to the party's disenfranchised. Without the support of the Democratic partly leaders, the candidates didn't fair as well.

Needless to say the Democratic party elders didn't like their influence on the party stripped from them. In response, in the early 80's the Democratic party leaders took back control of the party. It as if the Democratic party leaders have determined that, in the end, the partly leaders will pick the candidate for the Democratic party because they know what is best for the Democratic party. Shaky logic at best.

This means that at the moment, although Hillary Clinton is behind Barack Obama by 101 delegates, depending on how the super delegates go, Clinton could be ahead of Obama as early as tomorrow if some of the super delegates would just switch their vote. Georgia congressman, John Lewis, was a super delegate for Hillary Clinton...until he was a super delegate for Obama.

While the super delegates can vote for who they want on a a whim, the entire Democratic population of Florida and Michigan don't get a single vote (that counts), delegate or say in the Democratic primary election. Their states Democratic party moved up their primary and the Democratic National Committee decided to punish them by taking away their delegates.

Finally, there is the distribution of delegate in the Democratic primary. Obama beats Clinton in Vermont by 3200 votes and gains 3 delegates over Clinton. Clinton beats Obama by 28,000 votes in Ohio and only gains 9 delegates over Obama. While in Texas Clinton beats Obama by nearly 100,000 votes and gained only 4 delegates over Obama! To add insult to injury, Obama will probably win the Texas Caucus (only state in the country where you can caucus and vote) and gain more delegates overall than Clinton in Texas even though Clinton beat Obama by a 51% to 47 % in the popular vote.

In the long run the danger for the Democratic party is that if the race ends exceedingly close as it is now, there will be a lot of "what ifs" the losing side will be able to ask along with all their disenchanted voters. Disenchanting half of the party is no