Discussing issues that The United States face both foreign and domestic. A Non-partisan viewpoint where we believe in right and wrong not right and left, hopefully forming a more UNITED States of America.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

2010 Census

In Short: Texas gains 4 seats; Florida gains 2 seats; Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington gain 1 seat; Iowa, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania lose 1 seat; New York, Ohio lose 2 seats.

Notes: First Census ever since California has been a state that it did not gain any seats. Michigan is the only state to lose population since the last Census. National Growth rate this decade was 9.7% with a total population of 308,745,538.

This result is an advantage for the GOP, especially since the amount of House Legislatures they gained in the past election, and the growth of GOP stronghold states over more liberal progressive states.

From Yahoo News:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican-leaning states will gain at least a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nation's population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.
The Census Bureau announced Tuesday that the nation's population on April 1 was 308,745,538, up from 281.4 million a decade ago. The growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The nation's population grew by 13.2 percent from 1990 to 2000.
Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade. Nevada, with a 35 percent increase, was the fastest-growing state.
The new numbers are a boon for Republicans, with Texas leading the way among GOP-leaning states that will gain House seats, mostly at the Rust Belt's expense. Following each once-a-decade census, the nation must reapportion the House's 435 districts to make them roughly equal in population, with each state getting at least one seat.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

United States now holds a majority of its own Debt

Got this from a tweet, it's unbelievable via http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ponzi-scheme-the-top-holder-of-united-states-debt-is-now-the-united-states/

No, that’s not a joke. The monetization efforts by Ben Benanke and the Federal Reserve have resulted in the United States taxpayer edging out China as the largest holders of our own debt.
So how exactly can our country be indebted to itself? Easy. Our country prints more of its own currency, and then loans  that currency to itself. This would be the equivalent of you creating your own currency, printing up batches of that currency and then loaning it to yourself to pay your bills.
We, as individuals, can’t do that because it’s an absurd concept. The government, however, can do it because they’re the government and can print all the money they want. Which is why our money supply shouldn’t be controlled by the government.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Reflecting on Three Articles I wrote

When I first created my blog, I wanted to share my opinion on known issues, and not known issues that I felt America would have to fix in order to advance as a society. I also wanted to post articles I have written for newspapers so everyone could have the chance to read them. At first, at most I would get would be 10 viewers a day. I never thought it would become this popular (several hundred views a day now) and I hope it becomes more popular in the following months and years to come. I'm sorry I haven't posted many articles as I would like, however, I have been extremely busy with my Senior year in High School and applying to Colleges. I started writing before about politics before High School, and can't believe it has all ready been four years.

     The first article I want to talk about is the prediction on the 2010 elections. I don't want to brag, but, it appears I pretty much nailed the Senate and House predications, even closer than some media and polling predictions. For some odd reason, I get lucky in political predictions. My other "correct guesses" was I thought John Edwards would be the VP nominee in '04, and I guessed Sarah Palin would be the VP nominee in April of 2008.

While the elections are historic, and sent a message (to some, we learned how stubborn the other politicians are) to Washington and America about the legitimacy of Tea Party. This should be a "pat on the back" not a time for a celebration because we still have massive challenges that threaten our nation both foreign and domestic. In 2012 we still have a ton of work to do to replace the established politicians.

     Second article, was the first "professional" (third post) I ever wrote on this blog about the Drug War in Mexico and The War on Our Boarder. It's sad to see the Federal Government claim the southern boarder is the most secure it has ever been and to see the measures they are taken at our Airports, yet, leaving our "Southern Door" wide open and sue a state trying to fix the problem. It appears Texas is finally trying to do something because today Fox News published an article showing how Texas is using special forces to combat the Drug Cartels, calling this A WAR (the boarder is more dangerous than Iraq right now) and even called this America's Third War.

A year and half ago, I was labeled a "fear monger"and that was I saying "crazy stuff" that somehow this Drug War would spill into the United States. Now, signs in Arizona warning of Drug Cartels violence 80 MILES NORTH OF THE BOARDER. If the Federal Government doesn't send in the military into Mexico to fight the Cartels, maybe Boarder States will have to send in their national guard to protect its citizens. It sounds crazy now, and probably isn't legal, however, the current path has to change before it's a huge issue, and as it sounded crazy a year ago the Drug War would be on our side of the boarder, I bet this time next year, Boarder States will be discussing all options to stop the Drug War in Mexico and the Illegal aliens entering the country.

     The last article, is another recent one about the United States Monetizing Its Debt. This is arguably the greatest threat to our Country. With a massive debt (approximately 96% of our GDP), The Federal Reserve as pumped trillions of dollars (not backed by Gold or anything) to "stimulate" the economy and now is printing money to pay for our debt. Inflation was soon to come, and it all ready is. The UN warns food prices could rise 20% next year, and that Wheat and Corn have risen over 40%. Corn prices will have huge impacts on Gas Prices (Ethanol) and Meat/Dairy products (What the animals eat) let alone Corn itself for people to buy. Dairy prices have also risen by about 30% and a Wal-Mart secret poll indicates inflation is all ready here, and will continue to be a problem.

In addition to all of that, The Dollar will probably lose 20% or more of its value over the next few years.

What all of this means, is rough times are ahead. We have to be prepared, suffer the consequences, and make sure future generations (mine, and my children's generation) can at least prosper and learn to never make the same Progressive mistakes again. It's a great time of year with Thanksgiving and Christmas coming soon. Spend time with your family, and say a prayer for our country, because we need all the help we can get.



  1. http://www.harryscafedewheels.com.au/Files/Images/franchise/us_flag.jpg
  2. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/18/americas-war-texas-mounts-counterinsurgency-effort/
  3. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/300410
  4. http://www.bworldonline.com/main/content.php?id=20521

Friday, October 29, 2010

2010 Election Predictions

The 2010 elections seems to be one that will go down in history as one of the most significant, if not the most significant election in our lifetime. Up to 100 seats in the House of Representatives are in play, virtually all currently held by a democrat. I don't think Republicans will win all of them, however, at this point it's virtually a given that in late January 2011, the Speaker of the House will be Ohio Congressman John Boehner.

In the senate, it's a much more difficult predication. With the once "filibuster proof" majority Democrats had, (until Senator Brown from Massachusetts had a say in that) it still seemed nearly impossible Republicans could regain the Senate. It now appears they could reclaim the senate, and possibly gain 10 or more seats.

My Prediction:

In the House of Representatives, Republicans will gain 60-85 seats giving them roughly a 20-45 seat majority. John Boehner will be Speaker of the House. Since all seats in the house are in play (every two years they are) I won't make a prediction on who win's in a particular district, but, I do have some seats I will be watching on Tuesday evening, later in the article.

In the Senate, it's too close to call who will have the majority. The control will be within the range of 47-53 which means I predict at least 6 pickups for Republicans, and possibly up to 12, however, I have no idea who will be in charge of the Senate in late January. Democrats have the advantage in controlling the Senate, but, the GOP could control it too.

What Seats to Watch For On Tuesday:

In the Senate, here are the big races I'll be watching. Note: (*) indicate incumbents, (~) indicates seat held by that candidates party.

1.  Reid (D)* vs Angle (R) Nevada

Talk about a power shakeup. It would show the true power of the Tea Party Movement if the Tea Party endorsed, Sharron Angle, defeats the number 1 Democrat in the Senate. Also watch for voter fraud by SEIU and the voting machines. As I reported via twitter, SEIU controls the voter machines in Nevada.

2. Toomey (R) vs Sestak (D)~ PA,  Murray (D)* vs Rossi (R) WA, Manchin (D)~ vs Raese WV

The reason why all three of these races are tied for second place is because, if the GOP wants to have a chance to control the Senate, it needs to win all three of them. If they lose WV or PA early into the evening, then the Senate will probably be in Democratic control. If the GOP win these three, the next important race would be Boxer (D)* vs Fiorina (R) in California for the control of the Senate.

Best of the Rest: Miller (R)~ vs McAdams (D) vs Murkowski (Write In)*

On Wednesday, this seat will be won by a Republican, the question remains who? The fiscally conservative, and primary victorious Joe Miller, or the moderate Lisa Murkowski, who daddy gave the seat to her, and it appears she just can't give it up yet.

Honorable Mentions: Florida (another person couldn't stand to lose his control. Say hello to new Senator Rubio, he'll be a name to remember), Connecticut (probably will be won by Democrats), and Delaware (again, probably a Democratic victory).

House of Representatives:

1. Grijalva (D)* vs Mcclung (R) Arizona 7

If the long time progressive Congressman Raul Grijalva loses his seat to the young Ruth McClung, that would be interesting.

2. Frank (D)* vs Bielat (R) Massachusetts 4

It's going to be a really long night for Democrats, if the congressman who ruined the economy, yet, can blame it on everyone else loses his liberal district. Republicans may win over 100 seats if they win this one.

3. Perlmutter (D)* vs Frazier (R) Colorado 7

The fairly new district was originally held by a Republican, but has be in control by the Democrats since. This district surrounds Denver and goes East into Adams County. The district seems to mostly be however, Ryan Frazier is holding a slight lead. If Ryan wins, remember that name. He could be the "Marco Rubio" of the House.

Best of the Rest: I'll just quote Geroge F. Will's Article:
-South Carolina Rep. John Spratt [SC-5], second-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, is seeking a 15th term. Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton [D-MO 4], chairman of Armed Services, is seeking an 18th term. Texas Rep. Chet Edwards [TX-17], 13th-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, is seeking an 11th term. Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar [D-MN 8], chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is seeking a 19th term. In 2008, they won by 25, 32, 7 and 36 percentage points, respectively. In 2010, all are vulnerable, so voters in four districts could subtract 118 years of seniority.
-For 55 years, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) [15th District], 84, has occupied the seat his father held for 22 years before him. The son received 71 percent in 2008. His district includes Ann Arbor, which requires conservatives to leave town at sundown. (Just kidding. Sort of.) He beat his 2008 Republican opponent by 46 points. Dingell probably will win while setting the 2010 record for the largest shrinkage of a 2008 majority.
-Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) [4th District], who got 75 percent in 2008, voted against Obamacare and is the only Democrat who has signed the discharge petition that would allow the House to vote on repealing the law. He lost his house to Hurricane Katrina and may lose his quest for a 12th term.
-Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) [3rd District], whose younger brother was a Colorado senator before becoming interior secretary, won in 2008 by 22 points. In Congress, Salazar has opposed cap-and-trade and TARP and supports a one-year extension of all the Bush tax cuts. The National Rifle Association has endorsed him. Nevertheless, he may lose.
Note: Information within [brackets] was added by me.

Wild Card:

Don't forget, most politics is local, and with the 2010 Census, most, if not all districts will change by 2012, so local is just as important as national. The one "local" election I'll be watching will be the Gubernatorial election in Colorado.

Tom Tancredo, entered the race as a third party candidate (American Constitutional Party) claiming Republican Dan Maes, and John Hickenlooper were far too liberal. Tancredo almost guaranteed a Democratic victory because he started by polling with 13% voting, most being taken away from Maes. Now, Tancredo is in second with 42% of the vote, 5 points behind Hickenlooper at 47% (Maes at 5%) via Rasmussen.

Can another fiscally conservative candidate pull it off, or will it be another NY-23 from 2009?

Final Word:

These elections will send a clear message to Washington. We are tired of lies, bribes, massive debt, and false Hope and Change. I'm exactly 1 month shy of being eligible to vote this cycle, however, this is probably the most important mid-term election ever. Voter fraud is out of control, and people seem desperate to stay in power. Our country is at stake, and Republicans taking over will not solve the problem. We have to hold every politician accountable, if we are to restore the Republic.

Christian N.

Follow me on Twitter to get live results on the elections on Tuesday, and other political coverage.

  1. http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/7671/votingbooth.jpg
  2. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/colorado/election_2010_colorado_governor
  3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102905734.html
Note: Article edited on 10/31 at 11:30 pm to include other elections from George F Will's article

    Friday, October 22, 2010

    Juan Williams and NPR

    This week has been filled with controversy when NPR fired Juan Williams for comments he made on the O'reilly Factor:

    Then NPR President and CEO, Vivian Schiller, says Juan's comments should be between him and his Psychiatrist:

    NPR also basically claimed that he was fired for sharing his opinion, however, that was what he was hired to do for over the past ten years while working for NPR. Now NPR has NO African American Journalists, talk about racism, yet they accuse Mr. Williams of being a bigot. Fortunately, Juan Williams, now has an expanded role with Fox News.

    Almost everyone has said this was a horrible move by NPR, including Whoopi Goldberg. Clearly NPR wanted to get rid of Juan Williams because he sometimes appeared on Fox News. I disagree with Juan on most issues, however, respect him. He never personally attacked anyone, and he always wanted an honest conversation, which he was doing when sharing his opinion about flying with Muslims.

    NPR should lose its federal funding. Besides, George Soros is helping fund NPR anyway. It is sad that our country has gone to this "level" of political correctness, and if we are going to advance as a society, and solve major issues on a scale we have never scene, we need honest debates and discussions, not being politically correct to dodge the issues we face.

    Author Note: Sorry I have not posted on here recently, I have been busy in my Senior year in High School and applying for colleges. I will have another article out soon with my prediction for November 2.


    Thursday, August 12, 2010

    United States Monetizing Its Debt

    This could possibly be the scariest news in United States history as The Federal Reserve announced it would be monetizing its debt. What this means is that we are now buying our own debt. How can we do that? Essentially the United States treasury prints the money (because we don't have money, were in debt, AND the currency isn't backed by anything such as gold) and the Federal Reserve buys the Government debt with "Monopoly" Money.

    This Video helps explain the situation (go to 5:45):

    It has never worked in the past, why will it work now? It won't, and hyperinflation is bound to come from this. All you need to do is look up the Weimar Republic as they did the exact same thing as the Federal Reserve announced.  Here is what PBS says about Weimar Republic's Hyperinflation:
    Before World War I Germany was a prosperous country, with a gold-backed currency, expanding industry, and world leadership in optics, chemicals, and machinery. The German Mark, the British shilling, the French franc, and the Italian lira all had about equal value, and all were exchanged four or five to the dollar. That was in 1914. In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper. Most Germans were taken by surprise by the financial tornado.

    "My father was a lawyer," says Walter Levy, an internationally known German-born oil consultant in New York, "and he had taken out an insurance policy in 1903, and every month he had made the payments faithfully. It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread." The Berlin publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote that an American visitor tipped their cook one dollar. The family convened, and it was decided that a trust fund should be set up in a Berlin bank with the cook as beneficiary, the bank to administer and invest the dollar.

    In retrospect, you can trace the steps to hyperinflation, but some of the reasons remain cloudy. Germany abandoned the gold backing of its currency in 1914. The war was expected to be short, so it was financed by government borrowing, not by savings and taxation. In Germany prices doubled between 1914 and 1919.

    After four disastrous years Germany had lost the war. Under the Treaty of Versailles it was forced to make a reparations payment in gold-backed Marks, and it was due to lose part of the production of the Ruhr and of the province of Upper Silesia. The Weimar Republic was politically fragile.

    But the bourgeois habits were very strong. Ordinary citizens worked at their jobs, sent their children to school and worried about their grades, maneuvered for promotions and rejoiced when they got them, and generally expected things to get better. But the prices that had doubled from 1914 to 1919 doubled again during just five months in 1922. Milk went from 7 Marks per liter to 16; beer from 5.6 to 18. There were complaints about the high cost of living. Professors and civil servants complained of getting squeezed. Factory workers pressed for wage increases. An underground economy developed, aided by a desire to beat the tax collector.

    On June 24, 1922, right-wing fanatics assassinated Walter Rathenau, the moderate, able foreign minister. Rathenau was a charismatic figure, and the idea that a popular, wealthy, and glamorous government minister could be shot in a law-abiding society shattered the faith of the Germans, who wanted to believe that things were going to be all right. Rathenau's state funeral was a national trauma. The nervous citizens of the Ruhr were already getting their money out of the currency and into real goods -- diamonds, works of art, safe real estate. Now ordinary Germans began to get out of Marks and into real goods.

    Pianos, wrote the British historian Adam Fergusson, were bought even by unmusical families. Sellers held back because the Mark was worth less every day. As prices went up, the amounts of currency demanded were greater, and the German Central Bank responded to the demands. Yet the ruling authorities did not see anything wrong. A leading financial newspaper said that the amounts of money in circulation were not excessively high. Dr. Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (equivalent to the Federal Reserve) told an economics professor that he needed a new suit but wasn't going to buy one until prices came down.

    Why did the German government not act to halt the inflation? It was a shaky, fragile government, especially after the assassination. The vengeful French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations, and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. In 1919 Communists had tried to take over, and severe unemployment might give the Communists another chance. The great German industrial combines -- Krupp, Thyssen, Farben, Stinnes -- condoned the inflation and survived it well. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.

    So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."

    The presses of the Reichsbank could not keep up though they ran through the night. Individual cities and states began to issue their own money. Dr. Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank, did not get his new suit. A factory worker described payday, which was every day at 11:00 a.m.: "At 11:00 in the morning a siren sounded, and everybody gathered in the factory forecourt, where a five-ton lorry was drawn up loaded brimful with paper money. The chief cashier and his assistants climbed up on top. They read out names and just threw out bundles of notes. As soon as you had caught one you made a dash for the nearest shop and bought just anything that was going." Teachers, paid at 10:00 a.m., brought their money to the playground, where relatives took the bundles and hurried off with them. Banks closed at 11:00 a.m.; the harried clerks went on strike.

    The flight from currency that had begun with the buying of diamonds, gold, country houses, and antiques now extended to minor and almost useless items -- bric-a-brac, soap, hairpins. The law-abiding country crumbled into petty thievery. Copper pipes and brass armatures weren't safe. Gasoline was siphoned from cars. People bought things they didn't need and used them to barter -- a pair of shoes for a shirt, some crockery for coffee. Berlin had a "witches' Sabbath" atmosphere. Prostitutes of both sexes roamed the streets. Cocaine was the fashionable drug. In the cabarets the newly rich and their foreign friends could dance and spend money. Other reports noted that not all the young people had a bad time. Their parents had taught them to work and save, and that was clearly wrong, so they could spend money, enjoy themselves, and flout the old.

    The publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote: "People just didn't understand what was happening. All the economic theory they had been taught didn't provide for the phenomenon. There was a feeling of utter dependence on anonymous powers -- almost as a primitive people believed in magic -- that somebody must be in the know, and that this small group of 'somebodies' must be a conspiracy."

    When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. By November 1923, with one dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete. The currency had lost meaning.

    What happened immediately afterward is as fascinating as the Great Inflation itself. The tornado of the Mark inflation was succeeded by the "miracle of the Rentenmark." A new president took over the Reichsbank, Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht, who came by his first two names because of his father's admiration for an editor of the New York Tribune.The Rentenmark was not Schacht's idea, but he executed it, and as the Reichsbank president, he got the credit for it. For decades afterward he was able to maintain a reputation for financial wizardry. He became the architect of the financial prosperity brought by the Nazi party.

    Obviously, though the currency was worthless, Germany was still a rich country -- with mines, farms, factories, forests. The backing for the Rentenmark was mortgages on the land and bonds on the factories, but that backing was a fiction; the factories and land couldn't be turned into cash or used abroad. Nine zeros were struck from the currency; that is, one Rentenmark was equal to one billion old Marks. The Germans wanted desperately to believe in the Rentenmark, and so they did. "I remember," said one Frau Barten of East Prussia, "the feeling of having just one Rentenmark to spend. I bought a small tin bread bin. Just to buy something that had a price tag for one Mark was so exciting."

    All money is a matter of belief. Credit derives from Latin, credere, "to believe." Belief was there, the factories functioned, the farmers delivered their produce. The Central Bank kept the belief alive when it would not let even the government borrow further.

    But although the country functioned again, the savings were never restored, nor were the values of hard work and decency that had accompanied the savings. There was a different temper in the country, a temper that Hitler would later exploit with diabolical talent. Thomas Mann wrote: "The market woman who without batting an eyelash demanded 100 million for an egg lost the capacity for surprise. And nothing that has happened since has been insane or cruel enough to surprise her."

    With the currency went many of the lifetime plans of average citizens. It was the custom for the bride to bring some money to a marriage; many marriages were called off. Widows dependent on insurance found themselves destitute. People who had worked a lifetime found that their pensions would not buy one cup of coffee.

    Pearl Buck, the American writer who became famous for her novels of China, was in Germany in 1923. She wrote later: "The cities were still there, the houses not yet bombed and in ruins, but the victims were millions of people. They had lost their fortunes, their savings; they were dazed and inflation-shocked and did not understand how it had happened to them and who the foe was who had defeated them. Yet they had lost their self-assurance, their feeling that they themselves could be the masters of their own lives if only they worked hard enough; and lost, too, were the old values of morals, of ethics, of decency."

    The fledgling Nazi party, whose attempted coup had failed in 1923, won 32 seats legally in the next election. The right-wing Nationalist party won 106 seats, having promised 100 percent compensation to the victims of inflation and vengeance on the conspirators who had brought it.
    Copyright © 1981 by George J. W. Goodman. All rights reserved.


    This is what also happened in Zimbabwe (which I have a $50 billion Zimbabwe tender, it will not even buy you a soda in Zimbabwe) and it could be coming to America very soon, unless The Federal Reserve can remove all the "monopoly money" it uses to buy the debt, but odds of that happening are very slim if not nil.


    1. http://www.swifteconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/printing-money.jpg
    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FvqOg2M1L8&feature=player_embedded#!
    3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html

    Tuesday, June 29, 2010

    Why President Barack Obama hates England

    Today, we have learned why President Barack Obama hates the best ally the United States has ever had. President Obama has done some very strange things that an ally would not do to a friend. It first all started with Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill that was given as a gift to the United States after the attacks of 9/11. Many people were puzzled by this, and it did somewhat confuse our closest ally as well.

    Then, when Gordon Brown came over to the United States (the first time during the Obama Administration) he refused to have a joint press conference with him, and would not display British Flags during the meeting. Again, these are actions you simply do not do to an ally especially when hosting them in our country.

    When allies meet, it is known that they give a gift to each other to show their friendship and heritage. Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder made from the wood of the anti-slave ship HMS Gannet. Some of the wood of the sister ship of the Gannet, the HMS Resolute,  was made into a desk that is in the Oval Office, so Gordon Brown also gave a framed commission of the HMS Resolute. What does Prime Minister Gordon Brown get in return? A box of 25 DVD's that do not work in Europe, so essentially, they were useless. Michelle Obama also gave Marine One models for Brown's kids to have. Again, many people were puzzled by this.

    Then, when President Obama travels across the pond to Great Britain, he gives the Queen of England, an iPod, which included his favorite songs, video clips of himself, and video clips of Queen Elizabeth II. People on both sides of the pond we saying this is a disgrace to the relationship of the each nation's closest ally.

    Now, we finally know why this has ALL happened, just read this entire story from the Sunday Times written by Ben Macintyre and Paul Orengoh:

    Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect.
    Hussein Onyango Obama, Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after the war. He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency.
    “The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Hussein Onyango’s third wife, the woman Mr Obama refers to as “Granny Sarah”.
    Mrs Onyango, 87, described how “white soldiers” visited the prison every two or three days to carry out “disciplinary action” on the inmates suspected of subversive activities.
    “He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down,” she said The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly antiBritish. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained.”
    Mr Obama refers briefly to his grandfather’s imprisonment in his best-selling memoir, Dreams from My Father, but states that his grandfather was “found innocent” and held only for “more than six months”.
    Mr Onyango served with the British Army in Burma during the Second World War and, like many army veterans, he returned to Africa hoping to win greater freedoms from colonial rule. Although a member of the Luo tribe from western Kenya, he sympathised with the Kikuyu Central Association, the organisation leading an independence movement that would evolve into the bloody uprising known as the Mau Mau rebellion.
    “He did not like the way British soldiers and colonialists were treating Africans, especially members of the Kikuyu Central Association, who at the time were believed to be secretly taking oaths which included promises to kill the white settlers and colonialists,” Mrs Onyango said.
    In his book, Mr Obama implies that his grandfather was not directly involved in the anticolonial agitation, but his grandmother said that her husband had supplied information to the insurgents. “His job as cook to a British army officer made him a useful informer for the secret oathing movement which would later form the Mau Mau rebellion,” she said. The Mau Mau used oaths as part of their initiation ceremony.
    Mr Onyango was probably tried in a magistrates’ court on charges of political sedition or membership of a banned organisation, but the records do not survive because all such documentation was routinely destroyed in British colonies after six years.
    “To arrest a Luo ex-soldier, who must have been a senior figure in the community, is pretty serious. They must have had some damn good evidence,” said Professor David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford and an authority on the Mau Mau rebellion.
    The British responded to the Mau Mau uprising with draconian violence: at least 12,000 rebels were killed, most of them Kikuyu, but some historians believe that the overall death toll may have been more than 50,000. In total, just 32 European settlers were killed.
    There is more provided in the link, but now this all makes sense. British Colonists in Kenya tortured Barack Obama's grandfather, which explains why he has acted weird, and disrespectful to Great Britain and its Government, and possibly even British Petroleum in recent months because of the Gulf Oil Spill and forcing them to give $20 Billion to claims. He has disdain for what England has done to his family and he wants them to pay for their crimes. I can't necessarily blame him, but this is something that should have been brought up before the election, a failure on the mainstream media, and even bloggers, including myself.

    So what do you think of this information? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

    -Christian N.

    1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
    2. http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/uk.gif
    3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html
    4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html
    5. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/04/01/2009-04-01_president_obama_gives_queen_ipod_loaded_-1.html

    Wednesday, May 19, 2010

    India...The Next Superpower?

    In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, it mentions that India wants to increase its defense spending, especially technology from foreign companies. The article mentions that "on foreign direct investment in the defense sector, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recommends tripling India’s FDI cap to 74% (from 26%) if India wants to attract state of the art technology in defense." it also mentions that ". India is the 10th largest defense spender in the world, having spent $30 billion in 2008 but imports the majority of its arms because its three major defense equipment manufacturers – Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Mazagon Dock Ltd. – cannot match the country’s defense demands...and [India's current military states] only 15% of the equipment can be described as ’state-of-the-art’ and nearly 50% is suffering from obsolescence."

    I believe India is making the right choice in looking for more foreign investment into its military. This could really help the United States too because India will probably be looking into our technology which will help American jobs. In order to be a superpower, you must be able to have a strong defense (my last article mentions how China is expanding its military).

    There are some negatives for India in this as well. It is clear that India is making leaps and bounds, but, it appears their own defense companies cannot keep pace with the rest of improvements India is making in the economy. The United States, China, and even other countries such as Russia, are not dependent on foreign military technology for their own defense. In my opinion, this shows that as India looks for top military technology (instead of their own) they are becoming a powerful nation in the world, but, they are not quite a superpower yet because, they are dependent on other nations for a quality military instead of using their own technology. The United States would prefer a strong India. Although we do have to work with China, America is more comfortable when we work with democracies, so America would be more comfortable with India "spreading its sphere of influence" in Asia over China, and for India to be able to do that, they have to become a superpower.


    Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/05/18/will-defense-ministry-increase-the-fdi-limit/

    Image: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-IN476_idefen_D_20100518090707.jpg

    Note: Article written for school project.

    Tuesday, May 11, 2010

    The Sleeping Giant is Waking Up

    The May 8th edition of The Economist features two articles, one mostly on China’s system of government/economy and another on foreign policy but each article is connected to the other. In foreign policy, the article mentions the recent trip of North Korean leader, Kim Jong IL, where he visited China and “was expected to ask for more food and aid for his blighted, benighted country. China wants him in return to agree to re-enter negotiations with itself, America, South Korea, Japan and Russia about dismantling his nuclear programmes. (Economist).”

    I believe it is good for the United States, and the Eastern Asia that China is urging them to return to the six-party talks if they want more aid. If North Korea is going to work with the rest of the world, it must come to the six-party talks and work out their nuclear ambitions although recent news from Israel suggests that North Korea is shipping WMDs to Syria.

    The Economist article also mentions that “China dearly wishes Mr Kim would behave normally. If there is one country where it would like to promote a “China model” of development (see The Beijing Consensus is to Keep Quiet article), it is North Korea.” I personally think China views North Korea as an “annoying younger brother.” It may be a bit harsh, but China does like North Korea and they certainly want them to remain a communist country (as seen in the Korean War) but they do not want Kim Jong IL to be too powerful because they are afraid he could launch WMD’s at Japan and South Korea (possibly World War III) and China would be partially to blame for allowing Kim Jong IL to remain on power. They also, however, do not want the North Korean government to collapse because almost everyone from North Korea would seek refuge in China, which the Chinese do not want. China has to do a “balancing act” with North Korea where the Government is just strong enough to maintain order, but not too strong and take one of the more powerful militaries in the World and spark World War III.

    Another interesting article I found was from The Australian; about how China’s rapid expansion of their navy will spread their naval “sphere” of influence to Australia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, The US Navy has by far the most powerful navy, with the Pacific being a focus point because of our allies Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, etc. It appears our influence is being challenged as the article calls for Australia to improve its navy because “China is building up its fleet of nuclear submarines and has confirmed after more than a decade of planning that it will build aircraft carriers....The [report] warned that Australia needed to massively bolster its military capacity to deal with potential threats posed by both China's rise and the possible decline of American influence in the region.” The article also mentions “A senior US admiral has suggested that [Chinese Cargo Ships] are so crucial to China's economy that they could eventually be escorted to Australia by Beijing's submarines.”

    I find it very interesting that as China enters the status of “superpower” it is slowly starting to show its muscle to the world by attempting the lure North Korea back into Six-Party-Talks and that they could be the Naval Superpower in the region all the way to Australia. I also believe it is interesting that the Australian believes that Australia can no longer depend as much on the United States, and that China will fill the “gap” we are leaving in the region, which is why I consider China to be the sleeping giant that is waking up.


    Economist: Asia. "Annals of weird diplomacy." The Economist 8 May 2010: 42. Print.
    Artcile URL: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064302

    - - -. "The Beijing Consenus is to keep quiet." The Economist 8 May 2010: 41-42. Print.
    Article URL: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064302

    Sainsbury, Michael. "Beijing bolsters navy with eye on Pacific." The Australian 27 Apr. 2010: n. pag. Web. 11 May 2010. .

    Schrank, Peter. Dragon over New York city. "The Beijing consensus is to keep quiet." By Economist:
    Asia. The Economist 8 May 2010: 41. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2010. .

    Yahoo! News. "Israel says N.Korea shipping WMDs to Syria." Yahoo! N.p., 11 May 2010. Web. 11 May 2010. .

    Note: Article written for school project

    Saturday, May 1, 2010

    National Enquire Claims Obama Sex Scandal-Update

    National Enquire has revealed a developing story about President Obama and a sex scandal with Vera Baker in 2004. National Enquire has been known to be the first to report on stories such as the John Edwards and Tiger Woods sex scandals and many others. Here is their full story:

    "PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

    And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

    A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

    While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

    Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

    On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

    The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit.

    "But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

    The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds. Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

    "About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

    "My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

    A top DC source told The ENQUIRER exclusively that the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

    The ENQUIRER has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence.

    "Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided.

    "If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."


    This could be very costly in November and to his Presidency.  The President is innocent until proven guilty, but would the National Enquirer  be putting their reputation on the line, if they thought this story was not true?

    "The National Enquirer, which published a report this morning that “investigators are attempting to obtain a tape” that proved an illicit rendezvous between President Barack Obama and former US Senate campaign staffer Vera Baker, has updated their story this afternoon to retract the claim that there is video evidence of the affair with the alleged testimony of an anonymous chauffeur.
    Looks like the National Enquirer Obama sex scandal is unraveling rather quickly. The latest from the paper is that “An Enquirer reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account of the secret 2004 rendezvous.” The limo driver allegedly in the know about the affair is not a new piece of their puzzle– that claim was there last night– but in the absence of the video evidence of ambiguous age, which was the center of their report and would have been the one thing to lend them any credibility, the limo driver is the core of the story.
    This clarifies that they are trying to uncover a 6-year-old maybe-affair with a testimony from the same time period, and that, rather than having footage, they just have one first-hand account of someone driving Baker to a hotel, where the President may or may not have been. The Enquirer has not made clear the changes other than adding the word “update” to the body of the report.
    This also shifts the weight of the article from the story of the affair itself to the fact that, apparently, someone out there is “offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.” Why? If it indeed happened six years ago, and no one brought it up during Obama’s presidential campaign, what use is it now, halfway into his first term? The obvious go-to answer is that this could energize the far-right in time for the 2010 elections, but once it is revealed who perpetuated the rumors, true or not, about a story so aged, the tactic could easily backfire.
    Truth or not, the story proved to be the first major test for the tabloid since it accurately reported theJohn Edwards affair, which restored public faith in the tabloid and resulted in the reaction to the story we saw last night. The major publicity that they elicited from that proved their one powerful foray into journalism was enough for the media to react with slightly more respect this time around given the subject at hand, and that was the reason the report surfaced here– not that the Enquirerpublished it, but that it had the journalistic capital, so to speak, for such a wild story to demand attention. As a news and media analyzer and curator, its our mission to report stories that are being reported. A story with this type of dubious, paper-thin accusation wouldn’t normally make the cut, but when a newly respected gossip forum reports it– and the story is reported solely because of the tabloid’s new reputation– it’s news in the media industry.
    Unless they can pull out the kind of irrefutable evidence they found for the Edwards case, theEnquirer will return to their previous reputation as a salacious provider of specious rumor and innuendo, a stark difference from their recent placement alongside titles considered for a Pulitzer." 



    1. National Enquirer Article: Link
    2. Splash News Online Photo: Link
    3. Mediaite: Link

    Saturday, February 13, 2010

    Where has Common Sense gone in America?

    This month, public school's "zero tolerance" policy fails once again. On February 1, 2010, twelve year old Queens student, Alexa Gonzalez, was arrested for...doodling her name on her desk in erasable marker. Alexa wrote, "I love my friends Abby and Faith," and added the phrases "Lex was here. 2/1/10" with a smiley face. 

    As the New York Daily News Reports: "Instead of simply cleaning off the doodles after class, Alexa landed in some adult-sized trouble for using her lime-green magic marker. She was led out of school handcuffed behind her back and was escorted to the precinct across the street, where she was detained for several hours."

    Alexa, who had a stellar attendance record said, "I just thought I'd get a detention. I thought maybe I would have to clean [the desk]."

    Alexa would be sentenced to eight hours of community service, a book report, and an essay on what she learned from the experience. She was suspended from school, but the suspension has been dropped.

    School officials would say that her Spanish teacher reported Alexa to an assistant principal, who the assistant principle claims she was required to place a call to cops.

    It is no wonder why our public schools are a mess. If they cannot handle a simple incident such as this, how are they supposed to teach? All they would have to do is tell her to clean the desk, and maybe some other janitorial work, not sending her off to jail.

    Tuesday, January 19, 2010

    What a Difference a Year Makes

    What a difference a year makes. On this day last year, Barack Obama was sworn into Office as the 44th President of the United States, with an approval rating above 70%. He took the nation by storm, and most thought he would bring Hope and Change to the country. This time, a year later, his approval ratings are around/below 50% with an index of -11 approval. It appears Obama realizes that campaigning is a ton easier that running a nation. The rest of the article will look at Obama's policies and actions, along with the impact they had to the country. First we will look at the positives.

    The most positive impact President Obama had during his first term, which he deserves full credit for, is the handling of the Somali-Pirate situation with Americans. With the depolyment of US Navy Ships and SEALs, the Maersk Alabama's Captain held hostage by the pirates in a lifeboat was saved by snipers who eliminated the pirates. No one was killed/injured besides the pirates, and this is President Obama's finest moment in his first year as President.

    His second finest moment, was his speech after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. While there may be some questions on why he got it in his first year as President, because he had to be nominated for the Prize, just days after being President, he handled it very well with his speech. He realized what the award meant to so many people around the World, and even said he wasn't sure if he deserved it. He also donated all the money that came with the prize to charity. The speech can be found here.

    Another good moment was when President Obama signed the Reagan Centennial Bill into law.

    Now on to the major negatives of his administration during the past year including January 19, 2010. This could get long.

    Lets start off to a promise he has broken for every bill he has signed; waiting 5 days before he signed the bill into law so the American people would have time to view the bill, and give their opinion on it. Sadly, he has not kept that promise for any bill, which hurts our nation, and his credibility.

    What started under the last few months under the Bush Administration, was quickly expanded by President Obama, Government Takeovers of companies. The Financial Industry, is now largely under control of our Government, 2 out of 3 major car companies are now controlled by the government, and now President Obama is about to nationalize the student lending program for kids to pay their way through college. When the government gets involved, things head for the worst in the company. Not ONE company/organization controlled by the United States, is profitable, including the postal service.

    With Government bailouts, came large spending, here is a list of some of the bills that have been passed under Obama:

    • TARP: $700 Billion
    • Federal Stimulus Package: $1.2 Trillion
    • Federal Reserve Bailout: $6.4 Trillion
    In his first year alone, President Obama has spent more than every other President of the United States, COMBINED. All these programs have to show for, is increase in taxes, controlling wages, and higher unemployment rates. Over 10% of this nation is unemployed with an additional 8% underemployed, essentially making 18% (or almost 1 out of 5 people) in the workforce looking for a job.

    Cash for Clunkers spent over $3 Billion Dollars, and most auto dealers HAVE NOT received the money for the car trade ins, and supplies have run short because salvageable parts that could have been taken from the cars were destroyed.

    Our current national debt is above 12 Trillion Dollars.

    Clearly when it comes to the economy and the free market, Obama has failed miserably.

    During the campaign, Obama was considered a man who was most prepared to improve our foreign relations, and wouldn't be the "Cowboy" President Bush was. Obama's first year with foreign relations includes:

    • First Interview as President with a Muslim News Channel
    • Appeases to Middle East with a Speech in Cairo
    • RETURNS a gift from Great Britain GIVEN TO US AFTER 9/11
    • Gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown, DVD's THAT DO NOT WORK in Europe.
    • Gives the Queen of England an I-Pod with his favorite songs, and pictures of himself.
    If that is not an embarrassment to this nation, and our greatest ally, nothing is. Failure

    Another area in the foreign relations department Obama has struggled in is Copenhagen...twice. First was the Olympics for Chicago, where he goes there and gives the "I, I, I, Me, Me, Me, Please Pick Chicago For 2016" Speech, that caused Chicago to be eliminated in the first round of voting. The second time was when he went there for the Global Warming Conference, which all they were able to do, is agree to meet at some point in the future...some crisis they dealt with. Which leads to another part of his agenda, Cap & Trade (or Cap and Tax). Just pending approval from the Senate is a bill that would take massive amounts of money from companies because of the amount of CO2 they release into the environment. Lets hope that fails reaching his desk.

    The next area is Homeland Security. President Bush kept us safe since 9/11. Obama failed within his first year. Ft. Hood Shooting was committed by a Muslim Terrorist who happened to be in the US Military. We have been very lucky to not have a larger attack hit us yet, such as the failed attempt to blow up a passenger jet airliner over Detroit on Christmas. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano think it's the job of the department to respond to a terrorist attack essentially as a clean up crew, not to PREVENT terrorist attacks from happening.

    The other area Obama has threatened Liberty is his appointment of "czars" that "control" a certain area without the approval of Congress, and take orders directly from Obama. That sounds like tyranny. There are at least 32 Czars in his administration, more than Russia ever had. Full List Here.

    Another part of the economy the Obama Administration wants is our healthcare. The health care industry is 1/6 of our economy. A bill over 1,500 pages long, no transparency, back-room deals, and a plan that will destroy our health care system. While health care could improve in this country, Obama wants to destroy it. Lets pray no healthcare bill ever reaches his desk.

    The last area we will criticize President Obama is his handling on the War in Afghanistan. It took over 94 days for Obama to come to a decision, when innocent men and women were killed during his decision time. He met with the commanding General of the fight (who Obama appointed) for 20 minutes while in Europe. The decision he makes is political. Send in a a descent number of troops for a surge, but not too many to make your anti-war supporters furious. He did not meet the minimum the General requested. Frankly you fight to win wars, not make political decisions based on them. Either go "all in" or fold is a better decision than this President Obama.

    After one year, what do Americans think of these changes? A great "litmus test" is to look at elections. 4 major elections happened during his first year:

    • Virginia
    • New Jersey Governor
    • New York 23rd District
    • Massachusetts Senate Seat
    On November 3, Republicans won by 20 points for the Governor, and won the Lieutenant-Governor and Attorney General positions. The first time one party took all 3 seats in Virginia's history.

    In New Jersey, a heavily democratic state, Republican candidate Chris Christie beat the incumbent Jon Corzine for the governorship.

    In the New York 23rd district, independent candidate Doug Hoffman (Tea-Party/Conservative) narrowly lost to the democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman crushed the liberal-republican candidate and almost beat the 2 party system. Look for him to run again in 2010.

    In Massachusetts, this election takes the bacon. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union, and had a special election to fill the seat of the most liberal Senator Ted Kennedy. The Republican candidate, Scott Brown, defeated the democrat Martha Coakley by 5 percentage points 52-47. If this doesn't scare democrats, nothing will.

    It appears Obama's policies are not that favorable to the American people, and Obama has lost a ton of support. If he does not change in 2010, expect landslide victories for the GOP in November, IF the party nominates fiscally responsible candidates who will control spending, taxes, and reduce government control on the free market. If that is the party's message, they will probably take a majority in the House, and be a small minority in the Senate.


    Sunday, January 17, 2010

    Turkey & Israel

    In an article called "Turkey and Israel share interests" by Yaakov Katz at the Jerusalem Post it mentions; the defense ministers of each nation held a press conference and that they would "remain strategic allies." The article also goes on to mention, "We are living in the same area although we do not have the same borders, we have the same interests."

    In order to have peace in the Middle East, Turkey and Israel need to be allies. Having personally traveled to Turkey in the summer of 2008, it is a beautiful country, and a powerhouse in the region. It could be considered America's "dream" for the rest of the Middle East, which is a stable Muslim democracy. The United States considers both nations key allies, since Turkey is the second largest military force in N.A.TO. and Israel has always been an ally since the 1940s. It is reassuring from the article that the two nations want to be allies because recently there has been tension from the two sides.

    Last year, an article by the Economist goes into great detail about how Turkey has been shifting from working closely to the European Union and "western" nations, (while Turkey has struggled to enter the E.U.) to focusing more on the Middle East nations not as friendly to the West such as Syria and Iran. One major point was when they denied US military access to invade Iraq in 2003. It also mentions how public opinion "has turned increasingly hostile to Israel" in Turkey.

    In the article by Katz, it also talks about recent tensions between the two nations such as when: "Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned Turkish Ambassador Ahemt Oguz Celikkol to complain about an anti-Israeli TV show. The ambassador was forced to sit on a low sofa without a handshake, while Ayalon explained to local TV stations that the humiliation was intentional. Outraged, Turkey threatened to recall the ambassador, forcing Ayalon to apologize."

    I think the real reason why Turkey and Israel has shown tensions recently is because of the situation between Israel and Gaza and no peace plan has been brokered. Another Jerusalem Post article mentions that "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was mediating indirect talks between Israel and Syria, felt personally betrayed" after Israel used military force in Gaza last winter.

    The Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems to be creating tension between Israel and Turkey. I am glad the original article says they want to continue to be allies, but unless a peace deal is brokered between Israel and Gaza, Turkey could align with the rest of the Middle East. If they do, Israel's relationship with Turkey would be in jeopardy and they could lose a huge ally in the region. It would also create a ton of controversy with the rest of N.A.T.O and the European Union, which I am sure the Obama Administration does not want. President Obama needs to make sure a peace plan is created between Israel and Palestine, (which all of his predecessors have failed), to ensure there is peace in the region, and continue our strong relationships with Turkey and Israel, which would also allow Turkey and Israel to continue their relationship, and be prosperous superpowers of the region.

    Note: Article created for a school assignment.