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.

Sources:


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.

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.

Sources:

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

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."

DEVELOPING STORY"
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589

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?

---UPDATE TO ORIGINAL STORY VIA MEDIAITE. SCANDAL APPEARS TO BE FAKE:

"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." 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/national-enquirer-obama-story-update-retracts-hotel-surveillance-claim/

CREN

Sources:

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

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.

Sources:

1.  http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/02/05/2010-02-05_cuffed_for_doodling_on_a_desk.html#ixzz0fOdrTWPd
2. http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/strange/12-year-old-arrested-for-marking-desk-_3226204
3. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/02/06/2010-02-06_cuffed_student_wont_draw_suspension.html

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.

CREN