I think that "mass head explosions" are the goal of the Obama administration. How is it that every week there is a new crisis? How is it that every single "problem" that exists is blammed on the private sector. Can the government do no wrong?

Does the administration really expect everyone to believe that we have made it all the way up to now with a "broken" financial system. Obama claims; not just a broken financial system but one that is flawed by design. Obama doesn't believe in a free-market system. If Obama believed in a free market system, we would not have General Motors --owned primarily by the U.S. government.

The U.S. Treasury holds a 60.8 percent stake in the common stock of GM, Export Development Canada 11.7 percent, the United Auto Workers healthcare trust 17.5 percent and old GM, now known as Motors Liquidation, holds 10 percent.

Remember, Obama doesn't want to run car companies.

We now have a govnerment doing exactly what it wants, the will of the people be damned. If you ask me, we are either nearing our end, or at one of the most crucial turning points in American history.

The latter would be my wish.

p.s. I was ahead of the news on the General Motors payback...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I have the opportunity to upgrade to a different blog engine. I have considered using WordPress, because of its ease of use. I have less time now that I'm a father.

The only problem is that I have not yet found a converter that will move me from my current engine over to WordPress. This blog is maintained (at least text wise) using a database. The problem is that there are differences between the way that b2evolution (the blog engine I use) and WordPress access and configure the database. There are converters to move from b2evolution to WordPress, but they all have issues with correcting HTTP linking. For me that would be a huge problem, because I frequently link to other sources for my posts.

Anyway, if any of you out there know anything about blog engines in general or WordPress perhaps you could help me.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Iran Nuclear Ring Probed

An Iranian firm closely linked to Tehran's nuclear program acquired special hardware for enriching uranium, despite sanctions intended to keep such equipment out of Iran, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

In recent weeks, the officials said, an Iranian procurement firm obtained critical valves and vacuum gauges made by a French company that until December was owned by U.S. industrial conglomerate Tyco International. The French and U.S. firms said they knew nothing of the case.

Western officials said the firm has been working since last year to procure nuclear materials on behalf of the Kalaye Electric Company, an Iranian firm involved in centrifuge research and development that is part of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. The officials said JMT also has sought to acquire magnets used in centrifuges systems during uranium enrichment.

Both Kalaye and the AEO were sanctioned by the U.N. in December 2006 for alleged nuclear activities. Iran says it has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including technology that could be used to build nuclear weapons.

I find this to be quite interesting. I'm not implying any foul play on behalf of the French, but it does seem strange that these things keep happening. Somehow they keep happening right after sanctions or trade embargoes are enacted.

Remember this?

U.S. Military Officer Dies in Rocket Barrage at Baghdad Hotel

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 26 — An American colonel was killed and at least 16 people were wounded early Sunday when a barrage of air-to-ground missiles from a homemade launchpad slammed into a highly protected hotel where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was staying.

Half the missiles were 68-millimeter, which have a range of two to three miles; the other half were 85-millimeter, with a three- to four-mile range, he said. The smaller ones were French-made, and designed for use by helicopters. The others were Russian. The French rockets, officers said, were quite new, and were probably purchased after the arms embargo was in place. "They were in pristine condition," said one military officer who inspected the rocket tubes and assembly.

Mr. Hussein had weapons of that type, but General Dempsey said he did not know if the missiles used the hotel attack came from Mr. Hussein's arsenal.

Considering all of the sanctions and embargoes; we should be done with all of this right? Oh that's right, there is absolutely no way to enforce U.N. agreements.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Obama set to reject ‘nuclear posture’ on eve of Start deal with Russia

President Obama will rewrite America’s policy on nuclear weapons next week, heralding further reductions in the US stockpile and giving a pledge not to develop new systems.

After the President’s speech in Prague last April, when he laid out his personal vision of a world without nuclear weapons, the US has been carrying out a review of its nuclear posture and the conclusions are due to be published in a declassified version early next week — before Mr Obama flies back to Prague to sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) with President Medvedev of Russia on April 8.

I have a few questions:

-- With all of the problems plaguing the country, why is disarmament even an issue?

-- With the U.S. being attacked in many ways and from many fronts; why would we want to disarm, and pledge to stop development?

-- At a time when more rouge nations are liable to become a nuclear threat; why would it make sense for the U.S. and Russia (two responsible nuclear nations) to disarm?

-- How will nuclear weapons reduction and help secure the country in any way?

-- Why am I asking these questions, not the U.S. media? Does this not effect all of us?

Obama's ignorant stance on nuclear weapons reminds me of a song by Rush. A line from the song "Manhattan Project"; while referring to atomic weapons (and their development) states, "The big shots tried to hold it back Fools tried to wish it away." Obama is a fool. Obama has a "personal vision of a world without nuclear weapons"!? Well isn't that nice.

Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons will result in a world --with nuclear weapons belonging to those most likely to use them. What Obama is doing will insure that the number of responsible nations with nuclear weapons is reduced, while countries like Iran move forward with weapon development.

Obama is the antithesis to Ronald Reagan. As the antithesis to Ronald Reagan; Obama (either directly, or by congress' legislation) will weaken the country economically, militarily, reduce our freedom and reduce America's influence on a global scale.

The 2010 elections are coming. Obama can be stopped by replacing members of congress. It's time we take The United States of America back from those who do not like this country the way it was was founded. Vote out those who show contempt for the United States Constitution. That is the only way to stop the downhill slide.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I find it interesting that CNN starts out their article this way.

Washington (CNN) - Most Americans disapprove of the health care reform law, but that does not translate into majority support for the "repeal and replace" strategy backed by most GOP leaders, according to a new national poll.

They attempt to spin it to look as if the dislike of the bill does not equal a want to remove it. There is a disconnect here. I guarantee that anyone who understands the implications of this health care bill will want it repealed. For crying out loud; the only thing bipartisan about the bill was the opposition to it! Why else would democrats have been so worried about getting the votes to pass it?

Here are the internals...

Tell me that the questions are not leading. It starts at 16 don't ask me why. Let me list a few:

16. Which of the following statements best describes your views about the health care bill that Congress passed this week:

Mar. 25-28
2010

You approve of the bill becoming law and have no
reservations about it - 15%

You approve of the bill becoming law but you think it did
not go far enough - 27%

You disapprove of the bill becoming law but you support
a few of its proposals - 31%

You disapprove of the bill becoming law and oppose
all of its proposals - 25%

No opinion - 1%

That makes 56% who disaprove. Not everything in the bill is nasty, but the vast majority of it is. Lets read on...

17. Thinking about the health care bill that Congress passed this week, which of the following statements best describes your view of what Congress should do in the future?

Mar. 25-28
2010

Congress should leave the bill as it is - 23%

Congress should make additional changes to increase the government's involvement in the nation's health care system - 27%

Congress should repeal most of the major provisions in that bill and replace them with a completely different set of proposals - 47%

No opinion - 3%

How does this number not equal "Repeal and Replace"?

18. Do you feel enthusiastic, pleased, displeased, or angry about the health care bill that Congress passed?

Mar. 25-28
2010

Enthusiastic - 15%

Pleased - 30%

Displeased - 27%

Angry - 26%

Other (vol.) - 2%

No opinion - 1%

Call me crazy here, but couldn't you consider angry also displeased? That number is more like 53% displeased not 27%. I couldn't see someone in favor of the bill being angry that it passed.

19. From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family would, in general, be better off, worse off or about the same if it becomes law?

Mar. 25-28 Mar.
2010

Better off - 22%

Worse off - 39%

About the same - 37%

No opinion - 1%

This plainly shows that nobody polled thinks that they will be better off. and for the last one...

19. From what you know of that legislation, do you think you and your family would, in general, be better off, worse off or about the same if it becomes law?
20. (IF WORSE OFF OR ABOUT THE SAME) Do you think other families in this country would be better off if that legislation becomes law, or do you think that legislation would not help anyone in the country?

QUESTIONS 19 AND 20 COMBINED

Mar. 25-28 Mar. 19-21
2010

Better off (from Question 19) - 22%

Better off for other families - 43%

Not help anyone - 29%

No opinion - 5%

Everyone agrees that we need to do something to curb the cost of health care, so the answer is always going to be better off for other families. The media has been throwing around this number of 46 million Americans, and 30 million American Citizens. They claim that the bill will allow for some of those people to get coverage, so people are going to assume that they will be better off. This just shows that most of the people polled have health care! 43% think that someone else might benefit from the bill's passage.

This last question is completely pointless.

Do you consider the passage of the health care bill to be a major victory for Obama, a minor accomplishment for Obama, or not a positive achievement at all?

Mar. 25-28
2010

Major victory - 47%

Minor accomplishment - 20%

Not a positive achievement - 33%

No opinion *

This question is pointless and misleading. What does Obama's accomplishment, or lack of, have to do with the overall potential positive effect of the bill? These two questions make no sense together.

As you can see CNN is attempting to make things look more rosy than they are for the Obama administration. Most people are aware that this bill is going to do the opposite of what is proposed. Americans no that this country was not founded on "Rob Peter to pay Paul." The question is; what are we going to do about it?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.