The Left and Obama's Dream

Guardian: Is somewhat critical of Obama's new nuclear defence plan for no new nuclear weapons and not to use these weapons on countries should they attack the US with biological and chemical weapons, the left wing Guardian states the following, " Radical is not the word that leaps to mind reading through President Obama's long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review. ". That is the problem with the left, they don't see the threat over the hill, the Guardian would allow Iran to become a nuclear armed power, its in the same basket as the extreme liberal New York Times. The left never want to defend the USA and the UK, they argued in the 80s for the West to give up its nuclear weapons, while leaving the USSR with its nuclear force. If these people had been charge of Western security at the time of the Cold War they USSR would still be about, and Eastern Europe would be under the boot of Moscow. If you want the West to be secure it is important that Iran does not get the bomb, the lack of action by Bill Clinton and Bush 43 allowed North Korea to get the bomb and missile technology. Thus the most important national security issue facing President Obama is Iran, if he flunks Iran then Obama is just another Jimmy Carter.

Obama's Nuclear Dream and the US Senate

Newsweek: Reports on the problems that the new START nuclear Treaty could have getting passed the US Senate, the article states the following, " But it's not entirely clear that a polarized Congress will find the two-thirds majority to ratify the treaty. " The Obama dream of getting rid of nuclear weapons was supported by Ronald Reagan, but the real world is not based on the whims of an American President , even the greats such as Reagan had to see the real world. Thus when President Reagan and President Gorbachev of the USSR agreed to the abolition of all nuclear weapons there was a problem, Reagan could see beyond the his own time and the need to protect the US from future threats, Reagan would remove all nuclear weapons but he wanted a defence in case of a threat to US security. This was a deal breaker for President Gorbachev, in the end Reagan was right, the US and the West needs Anti Missile Defence shield against threats from Iran and North Korea. The difference is that Reagan did not care to be popular with the Nobel Committee, he was President of the United States, he wanted to protect the West, thus while the elite media wanted a deal at any cost, Reagan walked away. One can see Obama in the same meeting saying yes and selling out Western Security so he can be popular with the New York Times.

Obama is a FOOL

CNN: Reports that the Obama Administration will not modernize the US nuclear arsenal and will not use nuclear weapons if attacked by chemical or biological weapons by a non nuclear country. This is why President Obama is unfit to be Command in Chief of the United States, this is the type of 80s seminar bull that is best left in the seminar room. Thus Iran and North Korea will now know that if they attack the US with chemical or biological weapons the USA will not take action. Or if they clever they will give these weapons to Al Qaeda, thus no fingerprints. It seems that President Obama is willing to sacrifice the security of the United States so he can be loved by Norway, this is another reason Obama will get his clocked wiped in 2012, a basic understanding of international politics is that you don't give the enemy your strategy for beating them, lets really hope the Republican take the House and Senate in 2010 and reverse this extreme liberal foolish Agenda. If Obama had been in the shoes of President Truman in 1945 he would have allowed hundred of thousands of US soldiers to die and not drop the nuclear bomb on Japan, Obama is unfit to serve, Republicans pick a decent candidate in 2012 and he will walk his way to the Oval.

Gallup - Obama 49% Approval

Gallup: Reports that President Obama has a 49% job approval in its daily tracking poll, with 46% disapproving of the job performance of President Obama. This poll can be looked at in two ways, at least POTUS is closer to the 50% mark, this is always good for getting your Agenda through Congress. It should be noted that the Gipper in the same time frame has the same level of support, and he later went on to win 49 states in 1984. But the problem is that budge cuts of the early Reagan years then allowed for the economic boom of the late 80s, the Obama health care reform has the hurt in stages, thus tax hikes and and forcing Americans to buy insurance, the election calender thus will be effect by these HCR stages. While Reagan could point to the economic boom ahead, Obama will not be that lucky, he has not spent a year on getting the economy moving, he has spent a year on health care reform, thus it can be postulated that the real verdict on Obama comes in the 2010 Mid Term Elections, if the Republicans can take the House and Senate this will force Obama to the centre of American politics, if the Democrats control both House and Senate they will not learn, they will push their liberal Agenda and Obama will turn in to VP Walter Mondale in 2012.

The Next UK PM

Is David Cameron the next Tony Blair, it can be argued that Mr Cameron has the best chance of winning this time for the Conservative Party.

Change = Conservatives

2010

Vote Conservative Party

CUTTING NATIONAL INSURANCE TAX AND PROTECTING THE NHS.

VOTE CONSERVATIVE MAY6TH

The BIG Debates - UK Election

BBC News: Looks at the political timetable in till the votes are cast on May 6th 2010. The most important aspects are the political debates between the Party leaders, thus PM Gordon Brown, the Conservative Leader David Cameron and the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will debate on three occasions, the debates are shared between the ITV, BBC and Sky. Thus here at the dates to circle or go out to the pub, ITV starts off on 15 April, Sky on 22 April and BBC the last on 29 April. Let the games start, lets hope we can be as fun as US elections.