Missle Defense Shield

On February 4th, Iranian officials announced that they launched their first satellite into orbit. There is no international agreement limiting countries from developing missiles for space launch vehicles (SLV), but even the UN admits that, "Aside from warhead-specific technology and re-entry vehicle technology, there is little difference from SLV and ballistic missile technology."

The Iranian SAFIR-2 rocket has a range of about 1500 miles and its design is not capable of carrying a warhead. However, considering the pace that Iran is developing a nuclear program and obtaining enriched uranium, isn’t it inconceivable to think that this hostile nation would try to develop rockets with the range to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel or even the United States?

For thirty years Iran has been a model of a rouge state; deliberately refusing to live up to international agreements, financing and harboring terrorists and creating a state that is intolerant to dissent. Even if President Obama is successful with opening a diplomatic dialogue with Iran, it is doubtful that we will ever get to the point that we can "trust, but verify".

The international community has two options; go to war with Iran or develop technologies that would make the Iranian pursuit of weapons of mass destruction obsolete; this would be the Missile Defense Shield. President Obama’s reluctance to do either has put a cornerstone of his foreign policy (improving relations with Iran) at a great disadvantage and this country at risk.

Based on Obama’s statement against the Iraqi War, I cannot see him supporting a first strike against Iran. That leaves a Missile Defense Shield; during the campaign Obama was less than enthusiastic about the defense shield program, saying that he would evaluate the program based on the success of testing. The Defense Department has conducted 13 tests, of which 8 have been successful, most recently on December 6th, 2008. Despite the success, Obama seems to be more than willing to trade in this program to appease Vladimir Putin than to implement and protect his country.

What the Obama Administration should do is to convince Russia that the Missile Defense Shield can be used to protect Russians as well as Americans. Offer to share the technology and the development with Russia. This is nothing new, both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has made similar offers. Obama should show Russia that we are serious about this offer.

It’s this simple, without a first strike option or a strong missile defense diplomatic efforts with Iran will fail.

Obama: You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly

This from the UK Telegraph.

Barack Obama throws Joe Biden under the bus
Posted By: Toby Harnden at Feb 10, 2009 at 02:30:33

Pity poor Joe Biden. His "there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong" quote is put straight to President Barack Obama during the White House press conference just now and his boss seemed to want to say: "Vice-President Who?"

As reporters started giggling, Obama came close to conceding that Biden was indeed a joke. "You know, I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly."

The President went on to say that "I think what Joe may have been suggesting, although I wouldn't ascribe any numerical percentage to any of this, is that given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution."

Of course, Biden wasn't saying anything of the sort - Obama knew that and all the rest of us did too.

Biden's exact quote, read out by Fox's Major Garrett at the presser was: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."

Clearly, Obama and his aides were unhappy about Biden's loose lips. On Friday, top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on CNN: "I don't know exactly about what that math was."

We're probably going to have to get used to Obama explaining "what Joe may have been suggesting". And Biden must be wondering if he's going to end up as a Dan Quayle figure.

Ms. Pelosi - It's All Yours

Politico reported this morning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Democrats in the House to dismiss the call for bipartisanship stating, " ..it is a process extraneous to passing a stimulus bill."

Yeah, we totally understand your arrogance Ms. Pelosi, you feel your party is running the show and if you exclude the minority voice who would care enough to stop you. That's why you ordered most house committee meetings to deny any motion by Republicans to move forward. I realized that long before yesterday that you had no intention for bipartisanship in your house. The only thing is Ms. Pelosi, the person calling for bipartisanship is the President of the United States. You should talk to him.

Every Republican out there understands that you have all the votes you need to pass any legislation that you want. No need for you to compromise, just do it. But understand that Republicans, like myself and over 58 million others, would we ever vote for an inexperienced senator as President of the United States, nor would we ever vote for someone with your values. So you better be sure you don't screw it up. If you do not have bipartisan support then this is your spending bill, your recession and your issue to be accountable for in the next election.

God speed Ms. Pelosi, 2010 is right around the corner.

Create or Save?

The great debate of the day is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka - The Economic Stimulus Bill. The catch phrase from the left is that this bill with create or save 3 to 4 million jobs in the next 2 years, though President Obama has, on occasion, lowered his rhetoric to 2.5 million jobs.

It's not just President Obama that is saying create or save phrase. Every democrat on Capitol Hill is saying the same thing and not surprising the media is repeating the democratic talking points. Not one person is actually looking at the words being used and providing any type of analysis on what they are really saying. Just me.

The analysis that the media provides always talk about job creation. Their assumption is that the ARRA is going create 3 million jobs, but this is not what Obama and his friends are saying. Look if Obama believed that his spending programs would create 3 million jobs he would simply say this bill creates 3 million jobs. Instead Obama adds these words "or save" to every one of his speeches. If we are going to spend $900 billion I want something qualifiable to measure against its success. How do you measure jobs saved? At the end of the day are we going to say that we spent over 2 trillion dollars to keep our unemployment rate at 7.6%? That's moronic.

Government spending does not buy us out of a recession. Sweden would be a world power if this was the case. If Government spending creates jobs then why has France’s unemployment rate been a steady 9% for thirty years?

Even if the $900 billion dollar spending bill is signed into law and it really does create 3 million jobs that means we spent $300,000 per new job. How does that make sense to anyone?

Pam Davis - Hero

If you ever doubted that one person can make a difference then the story of Pam Davis, CEO of Edward Hospital, will change your mind.

Last week, for the third time, the Illinois Health Facility Planning Board rejected Edward Hospital proposed full-service facility in Plainfield. Even though Plainfield and Will County has one of the state's fastest growing population base and one of the lowest hospital beds to population ratio in the state. Despite this setback the planning board did approve a facility that will provide emergency care and for this we can thank the vigilance and courage of Pam Davis.

In 2003 Edward Hospital first proposed a full service facility to be built in Plainfield, IL. Davis was told that she would only gain approval for the new facility if she used a specific contractor. Instead of playing Illinois' favorite game, pay for play, Davis decided to go to the FBI. For eight months she wore a wire and the information gathered by the recorded conversations exposed corruption on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board, leading to indictments of two of the four board members, Tony Rezko, and a corrupt governor.

In the state of Illinois, where turning your head and playing the game, is often easier than doing the right thing, Pam Davis shows us that when you stay true to your convictions change can happen. This is why ABC News named her Person of the Week and new Governor Pat Quinn appointed her to be on the Illinois Reform Commission. Thank you Pam Davis!

Here is the link to see the ABC News feature on Pam Davis.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6615027