Why VP may not be for Hilary

The former Democrat Nominee, Hilary Clinton, would be a wise choice for Obama but would she accept?

It only seems right for the now Presidential Candidate Barack Obama to choose his defeated rival Hilary Clinton in the aim of sportsmanship. Clinton would be a great choice for the Obama Camp who seem to be losing the devoted white, middle class voters of Clinton. It is certain that Obama is a very polished candidate, and he does appeal to the upper class and younger voters. However, Obama is known for being very toward the Left of the party and some have even called him the most left wing senator in the Senate. Obama needs to shift more toward the right to win this election, and we're beginning to see this, note another article further down the page.
An Obama-Clinton ticket has its positives. The two would be able to bring together the African-American community, the young, the poor, the rich but most importantly those voters who McCain and Obama are currently targetting- the Hispanic vote.

Obama did not receive a very large vote in the Democratic Primary with Clinton obliterating him in all states with large Hispanic voters (California, Florida). The Clintons have a great record with the Hispanic community and its something that these voters will not forget. During his presidency, Bill Clinton made huge reforms into relations with Hispanic nations and providing easier entry for asylum to the US.

This 'dream ticket' may not be what Hilary wants however. Now 62, Clinton would be 70 by the time the next election comes around (provided its a 2 term presidency). Clinton has other options other than joining the Obama campaign. Hilary is a Senator who now holds more weight than others. With Sen. Edward Kennedy most likely to resign, as a result of illness, Hilary would be left as one of the most influential Democrat Party members. This isn't something to be brushed aside as it would hand her great control over bills and decision making for the next President. In some ways, this would be more exciting for Clinton as Senate lobbying deals with argument, diplomacy and tactics all of which she possesses.
The move to stay in the senate would enable Clinton- a Senator of only 4 years- to develop relationships with others and influence support for a future run for president.
There have also been talks of Clinton becoming Chief Justice.

Clinton's ambition to become President may cause her to stay in the Senate- a tactical move to strengthen support- however it would be unlikely that she would accept, if chosen, a VP spot and have future ambitions of running for President.
To be chosen Clinton, out of personal pride may not accept the ticket for the party, to not play second fiddle to a former rival. However she may, in an attempt for her party to win office. Which do you think?

Why war with Iran may be necessary

Nine missiles fired by Iran in testing

Well this isn't the first time the Iranian Regime has tested missiles which have the capability to reach Israel. It seems to be another step by Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejed toward all out war with the west.

Background

In 2005 Ahmadinejed delivered a speech titled, "The World Without Zionism" in which he declared that Israel "must be wiped off the map" adding that Iran "will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world". Since that speech he has been a strong critic of Israel and a Holocaust denier.
Such comments were sure to cause furor amongst other nations and it did. Israel's President Olmert and George Bush strongly opposed the statements.

Iran operates as an Islamic state which means that government policy and leadership is taken from the teachings and authority of Islam. The Ayatollah Khomeini, the highest authority of religious law in Iran and with more authority than the president, stated after this that he believed that President Ahmadinejed was wrong to deny the Holocaust.

But what do the Iranians think? Most Iranians disagree with Ahmadinejed's radical beliefs. In recent council elections in April the results clearly showed a swing away from the current president. The opposition is aiming to a more peaceful, democratic and less revolutionary-like leader and the Iranians are following. Earlier in the year, opposition parties in Iran attempted to form an alliance government so that all needs could be met. They felt that Ahmadinejed was moving Iran down the road to fascism and that he is now a great threat to peace.

What the West must deal with now is, is this all just rhetoric from a 'mad man' or is Ahmadinejed an actual threat to Israel?

Simple threats?

In the 1930s the world faced a similar problem with many brushing off remarks by Chancellor Adolf Hitler as rash but nothing new. For years before and years after WWII Europe dealt with huge pogroms so anti-semitism was not a new term in their vocabulary. It was when Hitler actually acted on these beliefs in mass genocide, that Europe and the rest of the world saw the horrors of their inaction.

Today we face a similar problem. History teaches us to learn from our mistakes, and there has been no greater mistake in the last century which must be avoided at all costs- that of another Holocaust. It is clear in the most part that diplomacy simply does not work with Ahmadinejed. The UN has tried and failed to demanded Iran to stop uranium testing countless times over the last few years.

We can 'brush off' Ahmadinejed's comments or we can act. If we act, we run the risk of much of the Middle East allying themselves with Iran, seeing the destruction of Israel certain rather than a possibility. We also risk fighting a battle on the grounds as those Iraq were fought on, simply invading a nation for claiming to do something.
If America does not invade, the task of finding a solution to the crisis is left to American and Israeli diplomacy. If we do not invade those promises and 'off the cuff remarks' may turn into something quite catastrophic.

Temporary measures must be taken. Iran is operating outside the wishes of the UN and, with no power to stop the testing, it is left to the job of Israel to decide on what to do.

For now it seems, all we can do is wait and hope that the worst is averted.

Obama moves closer to the Right

Well this is no new thing for elections. Democrat candidates have constantly attempted to align themselves more to the Center because this is where the elections are won. Over on the McCain camp we see much the same, with their candidate moving to the left- moving away from earlier stringent backing of the War in Iraq.

On Wednesday Obama voted for a Senate Bill to give legal immunity to phone companies that took part in warrantless wiretapping after the Sept. 11 attacks. This went against many of his colleagues including Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Over at Fox News, the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity are reveling at this news, claiming that Obama is 'wishy-washy'. The call doesn't really stick, because the moving away from the radical sides of your party is something which happens every election.

For Obama moves like this are 'Public Relations 101'- which not only show a broadening appeal among the voters but a recognition that the candidate is willing to shift policy when wrong, and a strength to go against party policy.

Global Warming, help!

Global Warming is the modern day religion, but what about its atheists?

In my view, all this global warming business has just turned into a furfy of those for and those against. Global Warming is the new religion but absent from any atheists. I personally am very skeptical about this whole business and really don't think that the projected forecast by Al Gore- an apocalypse- is very likely to happen.

Past Changes

And I'm not just being rebellious or ignorant, in fact I've looked and the science and it basically agrees with my thesis: world temperatures continually fluctuate and have done so for our whole existence. In medieval times, we went through the Medieval Climate Optimum, a period of mass heat which helped fuel the disease of the plague. In Dickens' time people were skating on the Thames (in London).

The chart below shows what I'm trying to say:
As you can see the graph shows how great the temperature changes have been over the past 450 00 years and temperatures have clearly driven high above the base line in the past.

The Greenhouse Effect

This is not the only argument against Global Warming. The Greenhouse Effect, a scientific theory, is always used as evidence by those who believe in Global Warming. For those who don't know, the theory states that these particular gases float around in our atmosphere and when the suns rays hit them they heat up and retain this heat, warming the world below.

I agree, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have grown tremendously, its a fact I can't escape and is a result of the Industrial Revolution- all i ask is, who cares?
CO2 only forms a small part of this Greenhouse Effect, only about 9-14%. It is water vapor which causes up to 70% of the effect. Water vapor! Thats the stuff which rises from water bodys when the sun hits them. Its the stuff that churns out of your kettle... its just plain old steam!!

So, if global warming really is happening, and if the Greenhouse Effect really is causing a detrimental effect to the atmosphere, then why do these supporters never take into account the actual scientific data. the problem is, these people who operate under a so-called 'science' are only operating under a theory. Global Warming, like most things in science, has not been completely proven, its still only a theory. It's in grade 7 textbooks, ' a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.' Karl Popper once said that, but under the banner of science, the Global Warming supporters don't allow for any differring opinion, they simply block it out and say 'this is the way it is and all those opposing it are either mad or stupid.' Here, they have completely contradicted all that skeptics say. I'd ask you to comment and answer some of these questions because I simply cannot find any data which backs up the hysteria.

There is no data to show that the lower tropospheric temperature levels have risen. This area of our atmosphere is where these greenhouse gases lie and would be the first area to show signs of heat. This begs the question, in the name of science why are scientists collecting data from land based stations which may be effected by urban development?

Ice Caps

The other debate of believers is that the Arctic ice caps are melting. But what about the Antarctic ice caps? These are actually increasing. This is taken from the University of Illinois' website,

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. (meaning it has not been tracked as long as the North Pole) Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice edge were sporadic.

More than 17,000 scientists have already signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” It is these scientists that Global Warming believers continually attempt to silence.

So what is happening?

I think what is happening is that our temperature is being greatly influenced by solar activity. This would explain why the Earth is heating. In this theory my belief is, that solar activity increases proportionally with temperature levels. The theory would state that as the suns rays become stronger, the oceans get warmer creating condensation. This condensation rises in the form of water vapor and floats in the atmosphere. This would support the Greenhouse Effect theory as temperatures therefore get warmer as more water vapor is added to the atmosphere. This would also support the current theory that greenhouse gases are rising.

This is backed by data shown in the documentary, the Great Global Warming Swindle:


I believe that mankind has a great responsibility to protect the earth but through the CO2 model, the gas is simply not strong enough to be a major contributor to the Greenhouse Effect.