tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62202991658068668552024-03-13T05:50:12.440-07:00The Obama WatchLet us see. how Obama will keep all these promises.Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-91910610106399354502010-03-06T03:44:00.000-08:002010-03-12T10:12:47.813-08:00The Perfect Storm - America in deep crisis<span style="font-family:georgia;"><strong><em>I hold both the US and my original Swiss Citizenship, albeit, I consider myself as American, deeply loving my country.</em></strong></span>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Having said that, I left CA after 15 years, due to the dramatic economical situation, massively aggravated by the recent politics. Some may call me a culture pessimist, some will call me a brutal realist and I tell you why:</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6600;">America finds herself in the middle of The Perfect Storm. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#33cc00;"><strong><em>1. A Recession or correction of various markets, as they periodically occur
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>2. The Consequences of fundamental, structural design flaws of the American Society
<br /></em></strong>
<br /></span><strong><em><span style="color:#33cc00;">3. An ideology-driven President/Administration aggravating the already catastrophic situation with policies/initiatives dooming the country
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6600;">I. THE PERFECT STORM -
<br /></span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff6600;">Structural Design Flaws of the American Society</span>
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">1.1. Energy and Transportation</span></em></strong>
<br />
<br /></span><strong><em>During the last century, America has developed a terrible addiction/dependence to/on fossil fuels.</em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>The domestic infrastructure is based upon streets, roads and trucks, while the development of a public transportation system of note, has utterly been neglected, due to a formerly strong automotive industry with the respective lobby in Washington, combined with a seemingly endless suply of domestic fossil fuels.
<br /> </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>The Europeans, forced by lack of such abundant resources, developed during that period a railway and public transportation system, which I can only describe as breathtaking. You can get from one village in the most remote location to yet another efficiently, without ever having to walk for more than 30 minutes, all schedules and times conveniently accessible via internet and mobile smart phones. Millions of people come to and get from work easily and efficiently, whereas in Los Angeles for instance, traffic on 12 lanes is subject to congestion, bordering complete collapses of the system at times.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">More importantly, transportation of goods (distribution) makes up a significant percentage of the cost of doing business</span>, as all business experts know. In Europe goods are being moved easy, fast and efficiently, whereas in America, the corresponding cost is directly dependant on (rising) prices for (imported) gas and oil. </em></strong><strong><em>Transportation, as history clearly demonstrated, is one of the key engines of the economy. Moving people and goods cost-efficiently is fundamental prerequisite for growing (healthy) economies.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Logically derived, cheap energy in abundance is therefore mission -critical. In America's case, due to its one-dimensional dependance on fossil fuels, that supply chain has furthermore become a matter of National Security with all related necessary cost in terms of military presence, bases and other costly engagements in order to secure supply, stabilize volatile regions and enforce peace. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In Europe outright "Energy Portfolios" have been developed, a diversified supply of energy, generated by all available sources, spanning nuclear power plants, water, thermic, solar, tide to fossil fuels, never allowing for just one variety to become a sole source. Even, when sourcing fossil fuels, multiple vendors/regions/suppliers are selected, so no one regime or country could blackmail or paralyze the customer, or force it into any desired action. (Exception: Germany and its dangerously growing dependence on RU).
<br />
<br />The result is self-evident. My current electricity bill in Switzerland (One of the countries with the highest cost of living after all) is 1/3 of what I used to pay for an intermittent supply in California.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">America's dependence on fossil fuels is truly catastrophic</span>, as on one hand exploration and further development of its own reserves, which would quite actually be significant, are hampered in every conceivable way by the current administration, while on the other hand the cost of aggressively expanding the public transportation network today has become pretty much cost prohibitive (consider also the current debth situation). While the systems in Europe grew organically, America's network stagnated or shrunk and investments were marginal at best. The cost of implementation of a comparable system would by now require a national effort of historical proportions, not likely possible, the current national debth considered.</em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Develoment of alternative sources is not being considered as mission-critical,</span> proven by the recent lip service given by the Obama Admin (30 years for a handful of Nuclear Plants and ludicrouos little funds being allocated to this effort, even though promised by Obama, when talking about "Energy Independence").</em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>The US still import 40% of their oil from chronically conflict-laden regions (Kuweit, Saudi Arabia etc.), thus being forced to maintain costly engagements in these regions in order to stabilize them and to prevent the supply chain from being interrupted. Therefore, cost of energy is continuously rising, further damaging the economy and prolonging an otherwise short, normal downturn or recession unnecessarily - with tragic consequences on so many levels.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">On this dimension America has clearly become the victim of a vicious circle, out of which there seems to be no escape.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>
<br />The energy industry, which could be one of the few remaining possible generators for jobs, is being handcuffed, even though this one sector alone could produce an outright boom, if allowed for instance to develop shale oil reserves in areas like Dakota or Wyoming. From off-shore reserves in Florida to Alaska, ample supply of oil and gas has already been explored, albeit the energy sector is not empowered to take advantage of them, whilst foreign countries are drilling off-shore America.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">With a consequent, aggressive and environmentally conscious development of those resources, good for 100 years at current consumption rates after all, a painless transition to alternative fuels could be accomplished,</span> <span style="color:#ff9900;">but the Obama Admin seems to have utterly diffrent priorities.
<br /></span>
<br /></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><strong><em>The consequences are dire on, alas, so many levels and dimensions of the economy. The more the energy cost go up, the higher the prices for goods will rise, which in turn will again significantly impact the unemployment situation and the economy overall. <span style="color:#ff9900;">Did I mention the impact on our debth and the danger of hyperinflation?</span> Further costly longterm engagements in the chronically unstable middle east for instance will further contribute to the deficit, and with 40 % of our ne<img class="gl_color_fg" border="0" alt="Text Color" src="http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif" />ed imported every single year, with a logically increasing price per barrel, due to dwindling resources there as well, <span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">those 700B per year we hand over to the Saudis et al will soon become >1TR.
<br /></span>
<br /> Not only could America eliminate that transfer of funds and at the same time reduce costly (military) engagements, but quite actually jobs on a massive scale coul dbe generated and, heck, energy could be exported and thus domestic wealth could be generated - wealth we could use to balancing the strained budget, which is at present at a surreal level of - 1.4 TR, any further planned spending increases, such as HC or the Jobs Bill not even considered.
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Due to rising prices for domestically produced goods, increasingly, cheap Chinese products swamp the market, as anyone may have observed already, when shopping for instance at Walmart. Since China does not adhere to the same frame conditions in terms of labor, unions, environment, safety and quality, thus their cost of production is significantly lower than the US competition's, which is forced to produce within a stringent quality, safety andf regulatory environment, even imported consumer goods are being sold to the US consumer at a fraction of the price any domestic manufacturer can manage. Caught in the brutal mechanism of a causal chain, the <span style="color:#ff9900;">resulting shift of entire industries to Asia leads to further contraction of the ecomomy, rising unemployment rates and a consumer market, forced even more to shop, considering price alone, hence more of exaxctly those goods are sold, which in turn again erode the local economy</span>.... and the vicious circle continues.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">The US has an >1TR trade deficit with China alone</span> (over 5 years) creating an outright economical boom there, while in the US entire industries go the way of extinction, adding once again to the problem of unemployment which by now, all aspects considered ( longterm, undocumented etc.) <span style="color:#ff0000;">hovers around effective 16% nationwide and 20% in states, such as Michigan or California - The highest real unemployment rate since the great depression and a desaster of catastrophic proportions, further aggravated by the fact that the Obama Admin until recently failed to acknowledge it, let alone tried to address with urgency.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>And yes, the vicious circle also has dire consequences on our debth, the interest alone soon exceeding the yearly budget for national security, burdening every single citizen with 400k per individual.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em>1.2. Structural Design Flaws -
<br />Education and Apprenticeship</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span></span>
<br /><strong><em>America's education problems are not primarily based upon its admittedly imperfect school system, which is fragmented, heterogenouos and providing the children with differing levels of quality, depending on the region or town. While its elementary school system offers in fact much room for improvement, America still leads the pack in terms of its universities, producing leading academics and the single most amount of filed patents and Nobel price winners year after year.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>
<br />Where however America severely lags behind, is the area of professional education, due to an inexisting apprenticeship system. The average industrial worker is provided with a few weeks of "on-the-job-training" at best. The labor force hence can objectively no longer be considered as that much more qualifed, as the one found in until recently antiquated Chinese factories and any conceivable headstart is dwindling fast. In America the quality of workmanship is utterly left to the initiative of the individual or the business in particular.
<br />
<br /></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">While America's society is indeed founded upon free markets and minimal interference by the government, here's an area, where indeed federal standards and regulations could positively impact the quality and output of its workforce.
<br /></span>
<br />Compare quality of workmanship and productivity in almost all professions with Europe, and you will be appaled by the findings. Not really that astounding, if one considers that any baker, hairdresser, mason, carpenter, welder, machinist et al in Europe has to go through a standardized 4 years of professional education, justifying a higher cost of labor due to added value in quality and superior productivity per hour, in turn allowing for lesser work week hours and more holidays and vacations.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The gap is not manifested in the sector of higher (college) education, it lays in the training of the workforce. While Obama talks about higher teacher's salaries and strengthens the corresponding unions and clamors about the public school system, the priority should lay upon the implementation of professional education, as practized for instance in Switzerland.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Aggravating this structural design flaw, fair competition, a cornerstone of the American Dream, is further compromised by</em></strong><strong><em> stringent domestic, self-imposed legislation with regard to environment, safety, quality and health in combination with at times artificially inflated (unions) cost of labor, as seen in the automotive sector, to name one example.
<br />
<br />In low production cost countries, such as China, India or Mexico, few such limiting frame conditions and cost increasing hurdles exist or are being adhered to, which is why <span style="color:#ff9900;">entire industries out of the consumer goods sector (textile, shoes, socks, ceramics, kitchenware eg) have in the meantime gone the way of extinction in the US.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span></em></strong><strong><em>
<br />This problem has various dimensions and consequences. China's economy booms at the cost of enviromental and societal catastropies within, while <span style="color:#ff9900;">the US economy contracts, joyfully financing the rise of yet another totalitary, collectivistic system to an economical powerhouse. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Instead of displaying a minimum level of self-confidence and an honest effort to insist on "fair" competition up to, and not limited to trade barriers, Kotaus and bending to the will of the new bully are the rule, who understandably acts empowered and with the corresponding arrogance. It was after all China, who single-handedly brought down the Kopenhagen Summit and keeps on preventing the already paralyzed UN from enacting any meaningful sanctions vs, IRAN's nuclear ambitions.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Clamoring defeatedly about the Chinese "holding much of our debth", American politicians neglect to see the symbiotic relationship with this country. Without our consumer market, purchasing their products, its economy would collapse like a house of cards. The Chinese after all do not export one single truly important product, such as food, energy or key resources, but only cheap consumer goods.
<br />
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;">Ironically and sadly, it is in fact us, who finance and support a regime bent on undermining the American way of life. Even more deplorable, the current Administration bends over and bows to exactly the ones bleeding us economically dry. Almost Christian and funny, if it wasn't so tragic.</span></em></strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">
<br /></em></strong>
<br /></span><strong><em>The Chinese historically think and plan in generations. While China is improving their manufacturing infrastructure and is, financed mainly by the US consumer, aggressively modernizing its industrial production, America loses further ground, as in fact the quality of its labor force becomes less and less superior in lieu of any form of an apprenticeship system of the likes of Switzerland.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">This deplorable trend makes it for American manufacturers increasingly difficult to compete, using the selling argument of "added value" and "quality of production".</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">Have you ever asked yourself, why the Swiss can sell an Army Knife for 136$ and do so successfully?
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The Swiss with its federally mandated, standardized, legislated and supervised apprenticeship system became able offer goods of consistently high quality, establishing not only the corresponding image, but confirming it year after year.
<br />
<br /></span>Every single individual pursuing a blue color profession, has to undergo 4 years of industry specific, professional education, resulting in (example transposed to the US) the fact, that a mason out of deep south Alabama will deliver the very same highest quality work, as a mason out of New York state. The resulting high standard of quality of workmanship, available to the same extent in every single corner of the country, justifies the higher price to the end-user. The resulting exceptional productivity per worker allows the corporations to compensate the force accordingly and still operate on sound financials.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Modern marketing has proven that for most customer's buying decisions, the price/performance relationship, meaning true added value, is as important and successful as the selling argument of price alone. In other words, customer will buy a more expensive product/service, if the value corresponds to its price.
<br /></span>
<br />By the way - the Swiss - this very year of worldwide crisis - posted a budget surplus and at present manifest an unemployment rate of 4.4% with a strong going industrial manufacturing/export sector, compared to the ailing US export domain, which ironically would be strongly assisted by the lowest Dollar value in history, making US exports as cheap as never before. In fact, many efforts can be monitored to make the Euro the currency of choice, which would yet again result in severe impacts to the American economy.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">There is no reason, why the US export industry should at present suffer, yet it contracts nevertheless in context and in parallel to the overall economy. Why?</span></em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>Since the Chinese ( and Indians) are quick learning and modernize aggressively, financed mainly by the US consumer market, America is rapidly losing the argument and market share, due to higher prices for comparable goods. As the consumer technology sector has shown, the Asians move fast with booming domestic manufacturing, while the domestic productive sector shrinks and unemplyment rates rise.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>To mention another dimension and cause of this downwards trend under the current administration, <span style="color:#ff9900;">Trade Unions enjoy massive protection</span>, resulting in even more difficult competitive positions, as for instance manifested in the automotive industry.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br />Example:
<br /><strong><em>GM labor, unionized, costs still around $70/hour, while domestically at Hyundai or Toyota non-unionized workers earn about half the wage. An "impossible" competitive situation for GM is the logical consequence, as these manufacturers are - due to sheer market pressure - forced to offer the same price levels for comparable cars, while at the same time incurring significantly higher cost of production, due to double the labor cost. While liberals and Democrats pointed fingers at "bad management", the root cause for the downwards spirale of this industry must predominatly be attributed to inflated cost of labor.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">60B of our tax Dollars later, the issue has not been addressed by the current administration and GM is as bancrupt as before.</span>
<br />
<br />You might as well have thrown all this money out the window, Mr. Obama, since symptom fighting and buying of time seems to be more important to you, than addressing the root cause of the problem. God help us, once, the Chinese and Indians, as foreseeable and planned, will enter the US market with their own automobiles....
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">the demise of yet another US key industry will be an unavoidable consequence, accompanied by yet another explosion of the unemployed rate, to name just one painful aspect.</span></em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>America will thus lose yet another engine of innovation, technology and job creation - another historical pillar of our economy will have gone for good.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In conclusion to this chapter, the lack of any federally mandated and regulated apprenticeship system and professional education will undoubtedly further undermine the domestic economy's ability to successfully compete with low labor cost markets.</span> </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Industrial manufacturing has historically been one of the motors of America's prosperity, albeit, the country, assisted by current political ideology and policy, is rapidly transforming itself (or is being forcefully transformed by an interventionistic domestic policy) into a third sector country (services, entertainment, tourism, banking, insurances etc.), but, as opposed to mentioned Switzerland, America is not designed on any dimension of its society to successfully migrate to such a system. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">America is not Europe, but socio-demographically built and founded to be a hotbed for innovation, ingenuity, technology, competitition, free markets, and free spirit. The eroding outlet of a manufacturing sector will prove to be fatal.</span></em></strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">1.3. Structural Design Flaws - Immigration and Assimilatio</span>n</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span></span>
<br /><strong><em>Why invent the wheel from scratch, if there are templates of successful immigration and assimilation models available?
<br />
<br />Look again at Switzerland:</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>This country, modelled in many ways according to the principles of the American Constitution and the same societal system our Founding Fathers envisioned, can serve as a great example of successful nation building in spite of exceptionally high percentages of immigrants and foreigners.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Switzerland has per capita the highest percentage of aliens and minorities exceeding 25% of the population overall.</span> </em></strong>
<br /></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Albeit, there are no ghettos in the cities, whole city blocks of Chinese, Vietnamese, or Hispanics, to name some examples, where oftentimes the national language is neither spoken, nor understood anymore. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>There is no excessive catering to minorities, like for instance shooling children in elementary school in their native language, then at College levels suddenly demanding the national language to be the standard and thus creating consequently a 2 class society by literally preventing minorities from achieving a higher education. There are no whole city blocks with street signs in different languages, in effect entire enclaves of foreign cultures and societies, at any given time and cause ready to erupt in racial riots and conflict. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>25% foreigners and aliens live peacefully and highly integrated in this country, as opposed to the fractured society in America, where oftentimes entire subcultures have lost any sense of an American national identity.</em></strong></span>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In Switzerland all aliens will initially for a short period of time be given assistance to learn one of the declared national languages, but after that, one speaks and teaches in that one language all the way to university.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">There is a clear legal obligation to assimilate </span>and observe the local rules, traditions and conduct. No exceptions. You come to Switzerland, you must adapt. There are no Muslim or Jewish Holidays, but only the ones, in place for centuries, based upon the prevalent tradition of its judeo-christian history. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>If you come to America, you can remain a "foreigner" and live in your own little enclave, never to be forced to learn a word of English. Once any minority passes the treshold of sufficient numbers, yet another enclave can be formed. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>A visitor to New York from Boise, Idaho, may very well feel as foreign there, as if he visited China itself. You visit Koreatown in LA, you'll be hard pressed to find a person speaking English.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Does this lend itself to forming a national identity and a homogenous society?</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In Switzerland an undocumented alien would never be eligible to obtain a driver's license or a soc sec number. Bad behavior, such as entering the country illegally, is not rewarded with amnesties and appeasement, but is prosecuted as a criminal offense with subsequent deportation, unless proven harmful for the individual. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In America, rewarding bad behavior seems to have become the norm with a society more and more dominated by Moral Relativism.</span>
<br />
<br />Breaking immigration laws is nowadays a commonly accepted minor offense. If you just wait long enough, you will surely get an amnesty, driven home by liberal organisations like the ACLU and special interest groups, increasingly dominating the efforts to implement and enforce much of existing and planned leglislation.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In conclusion to this chapter, why invent the wheel anew? Why not follow feasible and proven templates in terms of immigration and structure of the society</em></strong><strong><em>, resulting in much less fragmentation and a much higher level of homogenity and be enabled to focus on other critical issues instead? </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">If the American People want to institute Spanish as second US national language, by all means, but let it be done legally by way of a constitutional amendment, not beneath the radar of the law and simply due to sheer pressure or facts of demography.</span> </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>The design flaw is manifested in the fact, that there are existing laws, procedures and legal processes for immigration, yet the government's will to enforce them seems to be absent, politicians bowing to interest groups and minorities. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In the US we reward bad behaviour and then act astonished, when more of it is happening.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>As an immigrant who went through the entire legal process of naturalization, lasting 12 years and costing a lot of money, time and paperwork, one can not help, but feel stupid, cheated and disenfranchised. Is it therefore really that surprising to see moral relativism on the rise throughout the fabric of society? </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>Evidently, in once noble America, it has become acceptable to ignore all the traditional rules of conduct in terms of ethics, honesty, respect, patriotism and morality. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /></span><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">1.4 Structural design flaws - The decay of fundamental principles of the constitution - The 1st Amendment</span>
<br />
<br />While the Founding Fathers clearly intended to secure all minorities, sects and cults the right to exercise their religion freely without ever being persecuted, especially , since the majority of the 19th century immigrants escaped various degrees of oppression in Europe, <span style="color:#ff9900;">it was - a very little known fact - their intention to base the American Society upon a fundament of the lowest common denominator of the <span style="color:#ff0000;">Judeo-Christian</span> belief system. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Enlightened, as they were, they were acutely aware of the fact, that the American Vision could only come true, if basic principles of morale and conduct, like for instance the Ten Commandments, which are in one way or another part of all Christian denominations, became the moral compass for life in America. It also explains a much higher importance of religion in America up to this day compared to Europe. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">The Founding Fathers envisioned a free society, based upon the fundamental basic principles of Judeo-Christianity - simple rules of conduct, common sense, ethics, law and behaviour, all <span style="color:#ff0000;">Christian</span> denominations could easily agree upon.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>As much, as the ACLU for instance may protest, <span style="color:#ff9900;">The Founding Fathers <span style="color:#ff0000;">did not</span> intend to create a secular society with the absence of any such standards and rules of conduct, but instead believed strongly in a deep penetration of those moral principles of Christianity throughout the fabric of the American society as a backbone of expansion and prosperity, while guaranteeing any other religion, such as Islam, the right to exist without fear of oppression. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Having said that, it was never the intention of the authors of our consitution to see Freedom of Religion being perverted by organizatons, such as the ACLU, which with its fanatical, almost sectarian atheistic ideology, strives to eliminate all references to basic common sense principles out of any manifestation, which could remotely be attributed to the government (Dollar Bill, Pledge of Allegiance, Crosses in the landscape, 10 Commandments in Court Houses etc.) </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In fact, the Founding Fathers promoted the teachings of the principles of basic Judeo-Christian morality in elementary school, and for some time, during the longest periods of prosperity and expansion, it became common rule of raising children with the noble intention to equip them from childhood on with a moral compass of decency, morality and fairness.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Nowadays, due to (ludicrous and frivolous) lawsuits, brought about by minorities, sects and "liberal"organizations like the ACLU, successfully mis-interpreting the intents of our constitution and using the First Amendment as a "legal weapon", the resulting deficit of any such education has eroded the very fabric, this once so noble country was founded upon.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The aforementioned moral relativism has thus taken hold throughout almost all aspects of public life (Government, Politics, Media down to the behaviour of the common man.)</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Egotism, cheating, backstabbing, slandering, smearing, lying, corruption on every level has become the accepted, tolerated behaviour. The surrealism of this trend has gone so far, that for instance Dr. Dobson's "Character Counts" initiatives are being depicted and slandered as right wing conservative, and lawsuits are being filed to prevent adverts and commercials, promoting those very basic principles, </em></strong><strong><em>claiming them to be "discriminatory" or undermining the constitution and separation of church and state with a religious undertone.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>reading Paul Johnson's History of the American People, Freedom of Religion was meant to be Freedom from persecution and oppression, not a secular society and the right to force it to adapt to and adopting of the habits, culture or religion of any exotic sect or ideology.</em></strong>
<br /></span>
<br /><strong><em>Here again, using Switzerland as an example, the Swiss recently, "politically incorrectly" rose up, used their tools of direct democracy (People's Referendum) and voted any such effort down (Minarette Initiative) - something the American People are not empowered or used to do.
<br />
<br />While the texst of the initiative (proposition) was redundant and irrelevant, ridiculed by the intelligentsia domestic and foreign, the Swiss stood their ground against a cultural and societal foreign minority (Muslims), which was indeed trying to change the country from within, which is, by the way, an openly declared strategy of all islamists.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">1.5. Structural design flaws - leading by example or
<br />teaching bad behaviour</span> </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span></span>
<br /><strong><em>Yet another structural design flaw of the American Society is its immediate gratification, consumer mentality, nurtured by governments and administrations leading the charge.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">If it is acceptable for the government to incur unsustainable debths and behave irresponsibly, why should the populus believe and act differently? </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span>Common sense evidently left the building, when companies go broke, then will be bailed out, individuals buy property they can never afford, then deflect responsibility, when being indebthed is no longer a stigma, but becomes the norm, when market forces are no longer enabled to balance out the swings, and the gov will interfere on every level and dimension, thus aggravating an already disastrous situation.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">One only needs to study the comparably short American History to ascertain, that big government, big spending, government intervensionism a la Keynes, social engineering and redistribution of wealth have always proven to be disastrous for the American Way of Life.</span> </em></strong>
<br /></span></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Whenever markets were allowed to operate freely, regulate themselves, and administrations pursued a course of fiscal responsibility and frugality with minimum interference, <span style="color:#ff0000;">exactly as our Founding Fathers envisioned</span>, America experienced the longest periods of prosperity and domestic stability.
<br />
<br />The duration of The Great Depression, sorry Mr. Roosevelt, was a result of such policies, which prolonged an otherwise bearable downturn of the economy and caused it to develop into the aforementioned 10 year depression.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>But, instead of learning from failed experiments of the past, the very experiments, which have proven in America, as in most European countries to be contra-productive, are being repeated.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Sadly the definition of "dumb", where one tries the same thing again and again and expects a different outcome every time, comes to mind.
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">America has become a society of moral relativists</span>, where news reporting is slandering and spinning, where 70% of the population is obese, where 50% carry a credit card debth of several thousand Dollars at any given month, and where 70% of students freely admit to cheat. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Have you ever watched reality TV of the likes of Big Brother, Survivor and The Apprentice? Have you paid attention to the fact, that winners of the game in the vast majority were never honest, ethical and true to their word? As yet another symptom of the illness of our society, </em></strong><strong><em>Reality TV with millions of viewers teaches the next generation obviously, that only by cheating, backstabbing, lying, the breaking of words of honor and promises the "game can be won". The most dishonest, unethical backstabbing individuals - the ugly American - is being shamelessly celebrated and rewarded. What a contrast to Australian shows, where nice guys do not finish last and traditional anglo-saxon principles of fairness, respect and politeness still govern. Few people and personalities seem to grasp how America thus raises a generation of morally corrupt individuals.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">America has also become a country of lawyers</span> and ludicrous law suits, where a company can be frivolously sued for too hot coffee, where Doctors have to carry a 200k/year liability insurance, where money is wasted in lawsuits to eliminate "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, where the rich get off, when committing capital crimes, where nowadays reverse discrimination (African Americans demanding to be treated differently from other workers) is the norm, where murderers get off due to "technicalities", where terrorists are being granted show trials, where a generation of weak politicians without any vision for the future has risen to power.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Has America become a country, deeply bancrupt morally, as well as financially?</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Who ever watched Olbermann rant and throw expletives at former Presidents on primetime MSNBC, may well come to this conclusion. Governors admitting to drugs and hookers, are still in office. Role models deeply entangled in corruption and etics standards violations, the selling of senate seats, pork barrel spending and special interests seemingly dominating the political process, Voter law violations commited by "community organizers" like ACORN, Comedians in the Senate like Franken, fanatic neo-fashist priests ranting on TV, calling for class warfare, a society where one has to use a different language for blacks than for whites to avoid allegations of racial discrimination and scandal after scandal within a seemingly utterly disconnected political elite in Washington.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">This is not, what the founding fathers envisioned. This is corruption of all their values, ethics and principles. A deep seated form of decay, which may well prove to contribute to the end of the American Dream.</span></em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>DC has become a swamp of special interests, corruption and pork. Votes are being "bought" and, as the current Healh Care debate demonstrates, <span style="color:#ff9900;">the voice of the people is no longer being represented by its representatives.</span> It is okay to bend the law or interprete the constitution according to any policial viewpoint. Since the government leads the charge of bad examples, how can one expect the American People to apply basic comon sense? If DC tries to spend itself out of debth, how can one expect the normal citizen to behave responsibly? If politicians, heck our current President, bearer of so much hope, lie outright (transparency, bipartisanship, taxes, energy, to name just a few areas) why should it not be opportun for Joe Blow to behave in the same manner?</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">The mainstream media is a heavy contributor to the deplorable Moral Relativism, prevalent in todays American Society.
<br />
<br /></span>Hard news reporting has morphed into opinion making. News anchors get "tingely feelings up the leg" (Mathews MSNBC), slam former Presidents without a slither of class and respect (Olbermann MSNBC, Hannity, Fox), basic politeness has become a foreign notion, and the media nowadays makes news, spins news and promotes ideology, abandoned even the impression and intent of informing people of the news in a fair, unbiased and objective manner. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Formerly reputable Newsorgs like CNN have become blatantly biased towards one party agenda, and even comedians like Letterman, Steward or Colbert seem to promote a specific ideology and agenda.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The anglo-saxon principle of fairness and balance, once so prevalent in this country, is completely out the window.</span>
<br />
<br />Having watched the "Daily Show" over a period of 10 weeks, 90% of the jokes were at the expense of conservatives, Republicans or Palin. This can no longer be considered as humor, comedy, satyre or entertainment.... but must objectively be qualified as indoctrination in its most subtle and heinous form, as it sneaks up on you from behind a mantle of harmless laughter.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Heck, I myself consider Mrs. Palin as a political and intellectual lightweight, never in a million years suited to perform the duties of our Commander In Chief. But the degree of ridicule, slander and smearing, this woman had to endure from the media in utter disrespect of her factual achievements, is appaling, if not disgusting.
<br />
<br />Is it really so surprising that more and more people are asking for a "Fairness Doctrine"? Apart from the fact that this would raise the Freedom Of Press and Speech Defenders, hence be a dead issue from the get go, it constitutes a sad testimony to the low levels of class, America has lowered itself.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Does this political, cultural and medial environment lend itself to forming an educated, morally sound next generation, or are people being taught to follow bad behaviour? </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>You be the judge.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff0000;">1.6. Structural Design Flaws - The Financial Market Crash
<br /></span>
<br />While we in general promote a philosophy of free markets, de-regulation, minimal government interference and competition, all of which have proven to improve products, services and prices for the consumer, and provided for the longest periods of prosperity and a stable, healthy domestic economy, abforementioned decay of morale and lack of "intelligent", common sense guided regulation and oversight over the financial markets, such as for instance instituted successfully in Switzerland, have led to the current crisis and initiated the present recession.
<br />
<br />Here again, the US only needed to look back at their own history to realize, how overheated speculation, corporate greed and inflated projections, combined with the mentioned immediate gratification, irresponsible consumer mentality, always ended up in stock exchange panics, recessions and at times brutal market corrections and contractions.
<br />
<br />In Switzerland credit is based upon lack of debth and a carefully examined ability to repay any loan within a reasonable period, while in the US, the more debth one carries, the better the credit rating gets, as long as minimum payments are made. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>That's a fundamental system flaw, defying any common sense. In the private sector, e.g the housing market, it led to the surreal situation, where the commoner became by banks and lending firms empowered and aggressively assisted (marketing) to overburden the individual private household with real estate and credit card debth. Not uncommon, mortgage payments at ideal prime rate/interest conditions could easily amount to 80% of the household income.</em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>Not surpsingly a 1/2 point prime rate increase would immediately result in bancruptcies on a scale unheard of in American history.
<br />
<br /></em></strong><strong><em>Once again using Switzerland, as a template for intelligent lending regulation, a private household cannot incur a real estate burden of over 30% of the household income and must be able to make on average a 25% downpayment on the overall loan. Thus any unforeseeable change, such as an energy crisis or interest increase will not immediately result in a collapse of the housing market. </em></strong>
<br /></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In America the combination of ignoring basic financial system regulation with the irresponsible behavior of the commoner, incurring huge amounts of private debth - then the aggravation of this situation by the almost logical correction of an over-heated market, combined with a recession, as they periodically occur, the bubble simply had to burst, resulting in a massive contraction/correction of the finance sector with a catastrophic impact on the overall economy.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Both the Republicans as well as Democrats would have to share the responsibility for the implosion. It would be too simplistic to just point fingers at the traditional conservative position of de-regulating markets, as for instance in 2006 republican efforts to implement tighter oversight, was voted down by a democrat dominated congress. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were (failed) liberal social engineering initiatives, while conservative platforms over decades most definitely must be held accountable too for corporate greed and irresponsibility in this backbone sector for the domestic economy.
<br />
<br />Examining campaign contributions by banks and financial institutions, amongst the top ten recipients of these funds, several high ranking democrats would be found (Obama, Clinton, Reid, Dodd, Kerry and heck - even Kennedy). The outrage by exactly those politicians about "corporate greed", boni for executives and the making of corporate profit, seems hyppocritical at best.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">De-regulation in the vast majority of sectors and industries has led to competition, decreasing prices and better service. That's a fact.</span>
<br />
<br />Whereas I used to pay 380$ per month in telephone bills, I nowadays call worldwide for $30 per month, car insurance, formerly at $1000/6months, can be procured nowadays for 200$ - in most sectors, where competition and free markets were allowed to function, prices came down or remained at a low level, while service levels improved. And - these corporations still made profit.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Hence, the current admin's efforts to villifying making profit and being successful is not only fundamentally unamerican, they are unjustified and driven by a socialist ideology. The liberals in the white house and in congress cynically created a new 'enemy", called corporate greed and "big business" in utter negligence of the fact , how overall the policies of minimal interference, de-regulation and free markets have clearly proven to be the right recipe for the American society and economy. Under-regulating one admittedly important industry with subsequent catastrophic consequences, does not warrant hammering the entire productive private sector into the ground.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Have we all forgotten, that this country was propelled to become the 20th century super power by leaders, such as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegy, Thompson, its inventors, such as Morse, Edison, Franklyn and finally the free, unhampered spirit and ingenuity of its citizens?
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Because visionary admins and political leaders refrained from interfering on a massive scale into the dealings and businesses of the American people, but provided for a government as intended by our Founding Fathers, channeling the immens energy of the "melting pot" of pioneers, rather than preventing it from leaping forward freely, this exceptional nation prospered on every dimension, culturally, economically, philosophically and politically.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>America came to be after all because of a deep-rooted aversion against central government, monarchies, rigid structures, oppression and classes. Escaping European style systems and societies, why in the Name of God would the 21th century generation want to abandon the principles of meritocracy and adopt ideas from failed experiments from Germany to Russia?</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Why, Mr. Obama is it so hard for you to acknowledge the American Exceptionalism?
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">In its truest sense of the expression, it does not mean that we are better than others or should display arrogance. It means that we are unique in terms of our making of the society and the values the nation was built upon.</span> </em></strong>
<br /></em></strong><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>There is no shame in the expression, but we ought to be proud of it and build upon it.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">II. The Perfect Storm -
<br />The current Administration - The great Depression II</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /></span><strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">2.1 President Obama
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Our president does not seem to accept and acknowledge factual public opinion, but in all due respect seems to consider his people as dumb. The current HC Reform debate examplifies the above tragic statement and is evidenced by his openly communicated conclusion - typical for ideologues - that it is not the message being wrong, but that his explanation of it to the people was insufficient.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>How many more explanations and speeches will it take for him to understand, that The American People very much understood the message?
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In a way genuine, albeit misguided, he truly believes that he hasn't lectured enough instead of considering, that maybe, just maybe, the sovereign may not share his views. As the most revealing example shows, 17% in the majority the people disagree with him on Health Care, and he still is convinced, its the packaging of the message and not the message itself. Please, Mr. Obama, give your sovereign some credit and respect to listen and act according to the people's will.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">The result of the above is utter disenfranchisment of the people with the political process.</span> Where once the people were engaged, uplifted, motivated to partake in the political process to a way higher extent, than usually found in old Europe, they nowadays walk away from it in masses and in disgust.
<br />
<br />Can anyone blame them? </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>During a radio talk show, the listeners were asked, what they considered as being key to being a great communicator, why Reagan was considered as such and , if Obama should be qualified the same way.
<br /></em></strong></span>
<br /><strong><em>Well, communication skills are in the business world considered as integral part of leadership skills. As elementary part of every job interview for executives, these abilities are usually thoroughly examined. Common conclusion shows, that communication skills are not only comprised of the ability to framing ideas and speaking eloquently to them, <span style="color:#ff9900;">but must be qualified as a two-way process with listening as at least as important as talking.</span>
<br />
<br />Reagan hence, all things considered, was undoubtedly a great communicator. Excellent rethorical abilities, combined with obvious listening skills, talking to, and not down to people, using a straight forward language, as opposed to sophisticated lawyer terminology with disclaimers at the end of every statement, Reagan never appeared to be lecturing from a pedestal, but, utilizing a fair amount of self-depreciating humor, came across as humble and "one of us" in almost every response to critical questions of the American People at the time. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Having said that, he would never shy away to make himself very clear, when needed, even, if that meant an outcry of protest from the opposition (e.g. evil empire) at times.</em></strong> <strong><em>The American People appreciated him calling a spade a spade and being a so called "straight shooter". We understood the man, and he seemed to understand us.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama in comparison undoubtedly must be qualified as a gifted speaker in the tradition of the many great black tele evangelists. He is possibly the greatest campaigner of all times and a lecturer of professorial stature. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>But, as opposed to Reagan, he oftentimes talks much without saying anything of substance and consequence. He is an attorney and it shows in his speaking style and vocabulary. Since lawyers rarely use absolute statements, which is why the language of contracts and legal documents is so difficult to understand, Obama finds himself often having difficulties communicating with the commoner.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>Haven't we all experienced after one of those beautifully crafted , perfectly delivered long sentences, that one has to take a minute to ponder what the man actually said and meant? </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span>
<br /><strong><em>Vis-a-vis the people he thus comes across as somewhat elitist, if not outright arrogant. Typical for attorneys, his comments and speeches are usually accompanied by the ever present disclaimer. Thus, the message is oftentimes perceived as unclear, hesitative and professorial in its "consideration" of any possible angle and viewpoint, is therefore difficult to understand and literally overwhelms the average listener.
<br />
<br />Whilst the liberals and mainstram media spin his manner of communicating as moderate, considerate, sophisticated and even-handed, it could well be interpreted as a manifestation of lack of will and courage to take a clear stand. The perception of "mixed signals and messages" also irritates and infuriates political allies and foes alike, ever allowing for interpretation (Iran, China, RU, NK etc.) whereas a clear message would lead to an image of strength and conviction as basis for any successful foreign policy and diplomacy.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>In other words, if one can extrapolate and foresee, how the US President will react to any given circumstances, no regime or tyrant will continuously try to "push the envelope", as demonstrated by IRAN during the recent past. Where consequences are clearly communicated, experiments and dangerous developments are usually avoided. With people like Reagan in power, friends and foes alike knew at all times, what to expect.</em></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><em>History has proven, that, if rogue regimes are not being given clear messages and signals, they historically pushed forward with often tragic consequences, as the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich demonstrated. Appeasement and mixed signals, nobly intended to avoid conflicts and war, in the end usually resulted in much bigger catastrophies, confirming the foreign policy rule of "unintended consequences".
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">The art of diplomacy is not to promise everyone everything and sending out mixed signals, but to offer clear stands, vision and causal chains of consequences to be expected with any given route of action - it is called Predicability.
<br />Lack of predictability leads to confusion, chaos and conflict. Lack of predictability leads to adventures, war and suffering. Lack of predictability leads to a perception of weakness and indecisiveness and lack of predictability oftentimes resulted in unintended consequences.
<br />
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff0000;">Fact : Lack of predictability led to WWII and 50 Mio deaths.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Communication means listening.</span> Nowadays, with all those opinion polls available, one would think that the politicians were aware of the mood of the people at any given time. One would assume that this would facilitate them representing their constituency. Alas, As HC reform demonstrates yet again, where a significant majority of the people do not want the government to take over/overregulate yet another so far healthy, job creating industry, current consideration of ramming this huge, huge package down the people's throats by means of reconciliation and single majority, proves the disconnect and arrogance of our leaders.
<br />
<br />It is behavior, dictated by the purest definition of Fanaticism and Ideology. When leaders patronize us, tell us, what we want, instead of asking us, what we want, society steps upon a slippery slope.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Those increasingly precise polls allow the 21th century politician to know exactly, how we feel, albeit it seems they decide to ignore the souvereign's will blatantly nevertheless. In fact, most of us want a common sense reform, consisting of a combination of ideas from both the democratic and republican side. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>First, as within the private sector provenly successful, when trying to turn around a marode enterprise, <span style="color:#ff9900;">we want to streamline and optimize the current system and first take advantage of all cost reduction opportunities,</span> of which there are many. Then, and only then should we consider any kind of expansion and cost increases. What makes sense with any standard business turn -around strategy, seems to be ignored by the current administration, which intends to instituting "reform" and propping up spending on top of an already fundamentally flawed system.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>There would be ample room for savings and improvement with ideas from both the Democrats, as well as Republicans. We would support competition across state lines, but we wanted an end to these ridiculous lawsuits too, which add every year Billions of Dollars to the cost of HC. Eliminating fraud, implementing a strong Tort reform, competition, streamlining FDA, thus reducing the cost of medication - all of these measures would improve the overall system massively, reduce significant cost and eliminate the "need" for a government managed HC, which after all is an experiment, which has been tried by several European countries in the past - all with apalling results. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>First, cut the cost by taking advantage of all aforementioned areas of improvement, then let's talk about expanded services... not the other way around. Show me one single government managed sector, and I show you inefficiency, bureaucracy, sky-rocketing cost and crappy service. Why then repeat the mistakes from the past?</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /></span><strong><em>Obama is still campaigning and has forgotten, that at some point one must lead. One year after his election victory based upon change and hope, not one substantial achievement has been accomplished. During the first year of a hyped presidency with a super majority at his disposal, nothing, absolutely nothing got done. His free fall popularity ratings prove that the American People just about had enough of empty promises and speeches, but want to see some action and results.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>History has shown, how Kenyesian interventionism and social engineering has severly impacted the health and prosperity of the country negatively, for instance resulting in prolonging of the great depression to almost 10 years.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Whenever Presidents abandoned the principles of free market forces, competition, innovation and ingenuity, expanded government, over-regulated and abandoned fiscal responsibility, the American economy contracted. Why these lessons are now being ignored yet again, can only baffle the objective observer. The Mandchurian Candidate conspiracy theory comes to mind with Obama being an enemy of the state, placed as sleeper agent by a foreign country. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">A true enemy of America, placed in the White House could not have done more damage to the nation than what is already in process. In many ways his actions and intentions would then at least follow some sort of logic.</span></em></strong> <span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span>
<br /><strong><em>During the first year of the Obama Admin the vast majority of the "Stimulus" money has been alllocated to the unproductive sector of the nation's economy. Companies like GM, by now having received 60B in Tax money, are as broke as ever, since the underlying root cause (labor cost) has not been addressed in any way. That money is lost and the American automotive industry is going to collapse, once Toyota recovered from their stumble, and the Chinese and Indians enter the market with 10k Cars.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>With regard to Energy, all we got so far, is lip service and a few preliminary plans for additional nuclear power with impact on a dismal situation in 30 years at best... In every sense conceivable, energy companies have been villified and handcuffed by this administration, as if profit would be something to be ashamed about.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Urgently needed exploration and development of existing resources seem to be impossible under this administration. While industrial manufacturing is contracting or shifting to China, aggravated by terrible ideas , such as Cap n' Trade, the energy industry could absorb some of the many unemployed, if allowed to expand and invest and prosper.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>By now, with 16% unemployed (offical statistics of the ones applying for or receiving benefits plus estimates of longterm and undocumented aliens), Obama focused most of his first year on HC reform, a doomed social engineering initiative, which will further explode an already unsustainable debth situation.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff0000;">Bloomberg reported this week that the debth has risen to 1.4TR. Never before has a nation burdened itself to this extent, albeit further spending is currently promoted. This is no longer just a catastrophy- it is suicide on a nationwide scale with misery of proportions to follow, the great depression will pale in comparison.
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In conclusion to this chapter, Obama evidently has a different set of priorities than the American people</span>. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Instead of focusing his efforts on the economy, basis for all progress after all, he engaged in social engineering initiatives, expanding the government and strengthening the unproductive sector of the society. The national debth is at an outrageous level (HC not considered) , which generations of Americans will not be able to balance. Instead of a national effort instituting a true strategy towards energy independence as promised after all, only fractions of the "stimulus" have actually been allocated towards it. With Kotau after Kotau vs. the Chinese for instance, while until very recently considering unemployment as side issue, <span style="color:#ff9900;">he would have to create during 8 years of tenure 400k jobs per month,</span> to balance out the current unemployment. Burdening US businesses to the brink of collapse with a variety of (hidden) taxes, hence furthering the contraction of one sector after another, where can these masses of unemployed possibly be absorbed?</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>The unemployment will according to the vicious circle consequently lead to further tax increases, in order to finance the outrageous spending initiatives - heck to keep the country afloat, and still a majority of the media sits tightly and snugly in the Obama tank, clamoring about the Republicans, the party of NO, while neglecting to mention the tiny fact, that the President has a waterproof majority in Congress and nevertheless was unable to accomplish anything of note. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Other than massive debth increases with a foreseeable high inflation rate, we have not seen anything substantive so far. Even though the people seem to slowly grasp the level of incompetence of this inexperienced man and his fanatical ideological plutocracy of Pelosis, Reids, Boxers and Dodds, we have lost precious time already - time the Chinese and Russians are using efficiently to strengthen their positions in terms of economy as well as politically. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">All in all, this administration and its unamerican policies have already thrown the country back - potentially irreversibly.
<br />
<br /></span> Instead of an aggressive Strategic National Energy Initiative, focus on the economy and unemployment, the nation and its administration lost precious time, palavering about Health Care, the treatment of enemy combattants and further spending. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Due to the lack of any vision and perspective in terms of our dire energy situation, America will be forced to remain in force at a high cost in the already volatile Middle East. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Dilettantic policy vs IRAN will further destabilize the Middle East, and, if Israel will, as foreseeable, be forced to unleish a preventive strike, more and more the seemingly last resort to avoid national suicide, America will subsequently be drawn into an even more costly engagement, if only in order to protect its life line of fossil fuels and corresponding supply chain.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Or does anyone even remotely doubt by now, that Achmadinejaad would not proliferate a nuke to Hamas or Hezbollah, who in turn without hesitation will use it?</span></em></strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /><strong><em></em></strong></span>
<br /><strong><em>Neither domestically, nor in terms of foreign policy had the current administration anything to offer so far, but words, promises and speeches. No substance, only form. <span style="color:#ff9900;">That in itself is unamerican</span>. Being currently in Europe, allow me to state, that there still is as much anti-americanism as before. Nobody takes Obama seriously, but many appreciate his rockstar image. Can you blame them? Compared to Putin, a politician of brutal macchiavellism, smarts and intelligence, Obama is perceived as a political lightweight.
<br />As the recent rhetoric out of China proves, the very same sentiment is shared there too.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">All things considered - we find ourselves in the middle of The Perfect Storm - will the ship survive?</span>
<br />
<br />The results and symptoms are obvious and scary.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>With a friend in the White House, who takes this great country this close to the abyss, who needs enemies. Extrapolating from the very first year in office, I dread the balance of 4 entire years. Even a Republican landslide in November may not be enough to mitigate the damage this president has already done to our economy and our never before so polarized society.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6600;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">III - How to survive The Perfect Storm - some rough ideas</span>
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>What we would need is a visonary of the caliber of Churchill, willing to do the right thing, even when nobody looks, an inspiring individual, willing and courageous enough to tell us the truth and demand from us all severe sacrifice.
<br />A Man who takes a stand and sticks to his guns. A man who talks less and does more. We do not need a lecturer, but a listener, as the people are much more educated, than we are being given credit for. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">We need a fundamental reversal of the current trend toward socialism, interventionism, big government and social engineering. And we would need it yesterday.</span>
<br />
<br />We must immediately turn back towards fiscal responsibilty, entrepreneurship, self-responsibility and accountability and allow the markets to recover freely, as done so successfully in the past. We do need to find another Reagan, able to inspire us , move us and identify with him and his goals and vision for a once proud nation. We need a partner in the White House, not a teacher. Most of all, it is time to find a leader, who has the background, experience, professional competency and resume to speak to key issues clearly and with profound knowledge of vital issues.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>As for myself, I'd rather have a not so good looking, not so good speaking, grumpy old guy like Gingrich there, than a fluffy tele-evangelist. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">Give me substance - I just about had enough of style.
<br /></span>
<br />Like during the 60s, we, as Americans, need to be given a vision again, behind which we can unite. As the country united behind a president and a race to the moon, now a Strategic Energy Initiative, a true effort towards real independence from foreign sources, could become the common goal and mission. </em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>We must incentivize and stimulate the private sector, instrad of hammering it into the ground, instituting tax decreases, which can be felt by all businesses thence stimulate job growth.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Instead of importing 700B/year of foreign oil, requiring the country to maintain expensive military presences in volatile regions, we should aggressively develop our own resources, while pushing alternative sources in any way shape or form possible. In this area alone we could save Billions on one end and make Billions on the other. It would be a win-win situation. Expanding the resources for electricity gneration aggressively (Nuklear Power e.g), we would be enabled within a foreseeable future to shift further fossile fuel consumption from manufacturing to transport, until a parallel effort to bring the public transportation system into the 21th century takes hold.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>All the above would enable the productive sector to recover and generate jobs.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>The above would also allow for additional revenue streams and balancing the budget. Thus rebooting the engines of the American economy, the foundation for renewed prosperity could be laid.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>We must stop the government to take over entire industries, or support ailing sectors without prior addressing of the root causes.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>We must as soon as possible implement a federally mandated and regulated apprenticeship system, enabling us to compete successfully with low labor cost countries.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>We must find again a sense of self-confidence in our relations with countries, such as China. Up to and not limited to trade barriers, this country particularily must be "motivated" to cooperate in reducing a ludicrous trade deficit and estabilshing of Free but fair trade, which is the only basis for prosperity of both trade partners.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>On the domestic side, a visionary leadership could again work towards a national identity by adopting smart immigration policies and supporting strong assimilation and integration efforts.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>The very same leadership, leading again by example by instituting and enforcing stringent ethics standards, implementing full transparency in terms of proposed legislation, spending & budgets, special interests, lobby activities and pork barrel spending, implementing a fairness doctrine for the media and promoting the in the constitution envisioned moral values of Judeo-Christianity, abandoning the bowing to secular fanatics, could further stop the vicious circle of moral relativism and further decay of the fabric this noble - and yes, exceptional - society was attributed with.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">All we needed to to in order to survive the perfect storm is to look back at our own history and its great leaders, inventors, entrepreneurs and thinkers.</span>
<br />
<br />We would not need to repeat the mistakes of other countries. By objectively accepting across party lines, what worked in the past so beautifully, acknowledging our history, written by a bunch of oppressed immigrants, adventurers and free spirits with a Christian background and prospering on basic principles of these belief systems, we would without a doubt come to the realization that America is neither Russia, nor Europe, not a society, where socialism and social engineering works, but a nation, where prosperity is based upon its individuals, not its government.
<br /></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>All we needed to do, is to revert back to the principles of our constitution and the vision of our Founding Fathers, be frugal, reasonable, guided by morale and common sense and most of all, be free to pursue happiness with the minimum amount of central government. I will admit, Ron Paul makes many strong arguments.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">With the right leadership, initiating a "Third Enlightment", uniting the people behind a common goal and vision, The American People would surely buy into an upcoming very painful period of sacrifice, tightening the belt and righting this ship, as we could believe that our best days lay still ahead.</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Without such a vision personified and carried by gifted and inspiring leaders in Washington, able to get the best out of us, this great, exceptional, noble society, which was built by its Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Morgans and Rockefellers, not by Presidents of the likes of Cleveland, Buchanans or Roosevelt, will implode in itself and fade into history as yet another failed experiment.</em></strong>
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em>Am I a culture pessimist or a realist? </em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></em></strong><p><strong><em></em></strong></p><p><strong><em></em></strong></p>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><em></em></strong>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-35132545515135833192009-09-02T14:23:00.001-07:002009-09-14T13:19:02.394-07:00Where have all the jobs gone? - Real Life Stories for real people<span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6600;"><strong>How gullible are we as a people?</strong></span><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">One single speech by Obama later, the US people drank the Koolaid again.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">Did you guys actually listen? Obama wants to reform the health care system and actually not pay a dime for it? Cost savings alone to pay for all the lofty programs, commissions and government agencies?</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">How stupid can one possibly be? Don't you see that even the CBO considers this as impossible? Don't you see that Obama dismissed exactly those (by Republicans proposed) ideas, which could have in fact saved Billions of Dollars, namely the option to have insurance companies compete nationwide and aggressively addressing those frivolous Lawsuits, which force the medical professionals to buy exorbitant malpractice insurance and otherwise practice defensive medicine.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">That's 300B right there and then.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">These would have been tangible cost savings, but since the trial lawyers are a powerful Obama lobby, Obama does not want to take on, he window dressed the issue with some test studies which wil take years and were already proposed by Bush and killed by a Democratic Congress. So in reality, Obama is once again ramming a leftist agenda down our throats with a solution which in so many other countries has proven to be disastrous and bancrupting the countries. And he sells it as bipartisan approach?? You gotta be kidding me.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">He talked about inheriting a TR in deficit. He did not talk about himself blowing this deficit up to 10 TR!! He talked about listening to good ideas - infact he dismisses the really great ones like TORT reform or nationwide competing. He talked about bi-partisanship, but in fact snubbed the Reps on several occasions.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">While that congressman who screamed "lyer" certainly did not behave according to decorum, he in fact was right. As a minimum the speech was once again as misleading and disingenuous, as all those many campaign speeches, where he promised us drilling, nuclear powerplants, an aggressive push towards independence from foreign oil, eliminating the pork barrel corruption in DC and so many other promises he since has broken.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">Do you know one single Government controlled program which works? History has shown that the government has no track record in that regard. All we get is another dozens of inefficent, expensive gov agencies and a consequent cut in medicare. Our defizit will raise to 10 Trillion Dollars, while they continue to earmark Billions for Turtle research in Hawaii.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">What I find so incredible is the fact that within one week public opinion had been swayed once again just by one (admittedly good) speech without any substance.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">Yet another ( at present profitable) indusrty is being hand-cuffed and lay-offs will be the result, if the Gov unfairly competes with the private sector. Obama again will prolong the misery on the job market, as Roosevelt had prolonged the depression.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">Yes - there is a huge amount of wasted money one could save. Tackle those goddarn earmarks finally as promised, would be one of my suggestions. Tackle in fact the waste in healthcare and allow for import of medicine and overall competition. That has proven to lower cost and improve offering.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">As long, as the American People remain so gullible and seeminlgy unwilling to read (listen) between the lines, and Obama can change their opinion by just giving one speech, we must accept the fact that we are a stupid, naive, TV made people. We just encourage the Admin to take further advantage of us and demolish every last sound, common sense principle of the constitution. Let us spend ( waste) now and let another generation of politicians deal with the 10 TRillion deficit and the resulting hyperinflation, seems to be the credo now.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">I call upon all readers to educate themselves, try to read the legislation, as hard to understand it may be and as opposed to our congress members who are too lazy to do their jobs. Listen to both sides of the aisle, especially, when those cost savings are concerned. Read between the lines and most of all forget the propaganda, as for instance presented on MSNBC, where never both sides get their say.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">Since especially MSNBC has painted Fox (O'Reilly) into a red corner, I invite you to actually watch the Factor yourself and make up your own mind. While Olbermann is ranting until the spit runs down his chin, O'Reilly is calm, allows usually other opinions to debate and most of all remains constraint. He never retaliates against Olbermann or Maddows, which is smart, as their hatred, bitterness, acryd zynicism becomes so tiring and is likely the reason for their low numbers of people watching. Of course, if 80% of the media are way left, a centrist medium like Fox is understood as right wing. I do not try to convince you - I simply ask you to make up your own informed mind and not listen to Propaganda TV.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">Have you actually paid attention to the fact that Van JOnes was not even mentioned other than at Fox? The leftist media does not want you to know about those radical people Obama surrounds himself with. Have you heard about ACORN and the shocking undercover videos, published by Glen Beck? Have you heard on any other news network, that the Gov had to sever ties with organization, which was earmarked for Millions of Dollars by the Obama Admin?.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">The very same applies to Healthcare reform. If you watch ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN or read the print media, you will likely not get the full picture, as lying by omission is the rule.If Obama holds a speech in a classroom, he will be covered. If his green jobs zcar turns out to be about as crazy and left radical as Reverend Wright, gets caught and has to go, it is hardly mentioned - not even by CNN.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">I call upon you independents to get the full picture, then make up your minds.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;">That is all I ask.</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6600;">Now about the Job Situation</span></strong><br />My closest friend is a former VP Sales/Marketing with reuptable companies such as Boeing or Unilever. He is highly skilled, enormously motivated, offers impeccable references and a proven track record of success in a variety of industries.<br /><br />Due to the finance sector crisis, he became unemployed last year and 900 job applications later, he still was not able to secure employment. He is a sales and marketing guru, an inspiring leader with 15 years of top notch experience, always willing to contribute. He always paid his taxes, worked 80h/week and never asked for any handout by any government agency. he is more than willing to accept 50% cut in compensation, relocate to any place in the US, travel extensively and otherwise do anything, just to be able to contribute again.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>So - what happened? Why is a top notch senior level manager not able to secure employment here in the US?<br /></strong></span><br />According to the media, tmany have given up searching or are otherwise disabled to conduct a jobsearch. This segment is not reflected in the overall job statistics or unemployment quote. <span style="color:#ff6600;">What the media and our government do not tell us, is that the single largest sement of unemployed which are not contained in the official statistics are exactly those longterm unemployed middle to senior managers, where a job search takes in any normal condition already a few months.</span><br /><br />After only 7-10 months, such people do no longer qualify for the ridiculous jobless benefits (best case $700/month, which does not even pay for the rent of an appartment, let alone for insurance or healthcare etc.) and therefore they are not reflected in the official number of unemployed, which is here in SoCal closer to 20% than to the 11 officially recognized 11%.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">This is a whole bunch of proud, willing, ambitiouos, energetic and highly skilled managers who have not given up, but spend 8h a day scouring the internet for any possible job to provide for their families and themselves on a minimum level. My friend sent out over 1000 applications.</span></strong><br /><br />My friend is close to being evicted, has used up all his savings just to survive and still every single day sits down with optimism and applies for any possible job within his realm of experience. if he applies for a 40k job, he will be laughed out the building or comes across as overqualifed or 'desperate". For the few decent positions out there, he was told that he comnpetes with up to 5000 resumes, making the search almost a lottery.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">He was told by headhunters to padd or "custom-tailor" his resume</span>. He was told to lie. Just to secure an interview. He however is old-fashioned, believing that one should at all times show integrity, honesty and submit an honest, real resume to any employer.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>His experiences during this last depression were outright disgusting.</strong></span> This situation has brought out the worst in people and companies.<br /><br />Some companies use the cheap way of posting for instance a VP Sales/Marketing job to acquire free marketing consulting. One Company in Santa Barbara, selling to the music industry, asked their candidates to submit an extensive questionnaire asking them for instance to comment on their website or adverts, provide a P/L analysis etc. My friend, who accepted the "challenge", provided them with a professional 19 page white paper, <strong>whithout ever even getting an acknowledgment or any response.</strong> He even called to find out, but was brushed off. For 8 months this specific job was posted without ever having been filled. I assume they gathered about 100k of free marketing and sales consulting.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">The job boards are full of such 'imaginary" positions, where companies take icecold advantage of the willing. Where has the American feel for fairness, ethics gone?</span><br /><br />The next example is even more tragic. My friend applied for the position of Director Intl. Sales with Gibson Overseas in Los Angeles and was, due to his international business experience hired on the spot.<br />The President of the company gave him right there and then, during the very first interview a hand shake, stating that he was hired at 95K (about 50k below the level he made during his last tenure.). My friend nevertheless asked for a formal written job offer, which he received via e-mail, signed and filed and , upon which he cancelled his job search and, since he had two more interviews already lined up,politely declined the latter and cancelled all ongoing applications.<br /><br />One week later, out of the blue the job offer was rescinded for no cause other than " we have second thoughts" and a new offer for 80k was issued, due to the fact that my friend lived 80miles away and the company wanted to incentive him to move closer, upon which he would be raised back again to the initially promised 90k.<br /><br />Apart from the fact, that several staff commuted from San Diego to LA !!!!, that this must be seen as an unconstitutional effort into his own privacy , my friend who already had commited to this job, had no other choice than to address the "concern" by stating his willingness to weekly commute and live during the week in a motel nearby.<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">Did this address the concern's of Gibson satisfactorily? One should think so. but it got even better. </span></strong><br /><br />Upon addressing the concern in terms of commute by spending 800$ a month for a Motelroom, the president issued 1 day before the official start of the tenure a 3rd job offer at 85K. The culmination of lack of ethics, professionalism or integrity. My friend was treated like in a turkish carpet bazaar, where the rules change at the whim of the employer. Needless to state, that my friend accepted even this travesty, since had lost already crucial months and weeks of job search.<br /><br />Six weeks into his tenure with this company offering pre-industrial age working conditions, where the staff is motivated by fear, working 7days a week, 90h, getting every single week written recognitions by his president, leading him to believe that he was 'on track", my friend was let go without any cause other than" we changed our mind and you did nothing wrong".<br /><br />Were there any legal options? Nope. A work attorney told my friend, that he had absolutely no legal options, that any company can pretty much do with any employee, whatever they wanted.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">Above examples demonstrate several terrible trends in the current economy.</span></strong><br />The job seeker is at the bottom end of the totem pole, has no rights, no protection and no recourse. And, we are not talking low level menial work here - wer are talking about higly skilled managers, willing to invest their very best, if given a chance.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>Above example also demnonstrates, how the job market, especially in the US manufacturing industry, came about.<br /><br /></strong></span>It will not surprise you, that incidentally Gibson is one of the largest importers of ceramics, dinnerware, table and cookware out of China, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia. They sell <strong><span style="font-size:180%;">$55M </span></strong>of cheap merchandise to <strong>Wal-Mart</strong> alone, heck they maintain a WM-specific showroom in New York for this single largest client alone. Even the nice and shiny packaging is produced in China, where, according to several internal factory videos, my friend showed me, underaged or seniors, working for 1$ a day, labor under disgusting pre-industrial age conditions.<br />What you can purchase here at Walmart, 16 piece shiny dinnerware sets for 24$, is the result of slave labor and environmental poisoning, supported by a Chinese Government under no environmental restrictions and workers without any minimal protection.<br /><br />Quality Assurance? Is a joke. If you let a sauce stand in one of those dishes, the bowl will eventually absorb the stuff and discolor. FDA oversight? practically inexistent. regulations? Nope.<br /><br />Who is the customer? All those many hispanic and uneducated customers who look at shiny packaging and cheap prices, but either have no idea about the actual product or never read the small print.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">How can possibly any US manufacturer, bound by QA restrictions or labor laws, handcuffed by domestic salaries, where even minimal wage is still 100% higher than practised in these third world countries compete?</span></strong><br /><br />They can't and so the tableware, sock, textile, sneaker, heck even some high tech manufacturing has simply been offshored. Entire manufacturing industries simply move out, as it is so much more profitable to produce crap in China. The government is not inclined to intervene, as the Chinese profit to such an extent ,that they are able to buy our debth. As long as they do so, no US Government will ever protect the domestic workforce by implementing some minimum barriers.<br />Please do not misunderstand us here: we do not promote protectionism or unfair trade practises. <strong>We do promote fair competition however and a trade deficit of >300B with China alone (2008 Census) warrants as a minimum some pressure towards fair competition. </strong><br /><br />Fact is, that, while these jobs will never come back and we do operate in a global environment, the domestic manufacturing industry must get a fair deal and a fair chance to compete. It is not only about the labor force, but also the middle class of managers and supervisors who in the course of the annihilation of entire industries loose their jobs as well. it is that middle class with former buying power which was the engine of our domestic economy. These were also tax payers and consumers. Can you blame any company which rather hires an entire software development group in India than hire one local higly skilled programmer for 100k a year?<br /><br />There are only so many pizza delivery jobs out there. We need huge containers for the laid off workforce. Containers, our own local energy industry could provide, if the Obama Admin allowed them to expand, build nuclear power plants, drill for oil, explore our shale oil reserves, while at the same time saving Billions of $ importing foreign oil and protecting middle east powder barrels, just to secure our supply.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">The many unemployed are being abandoned and let down.</span></strong><br /><br />By companies who, like Gibson, swamp the US market with cheap, low quality merchandise, which is borderline unhealthy, if the FDA bothered to look a bit closer. But they simnpley take advantage of the loopholes and the leverage China currently enjoys due to the debth.<br />Greed and political Macchiavelism.<br /><br />They are being let down by the mass retailers like Wal-Mart, almost uniquely selling this low cost merchandise with no consideration to Quality, Made IN USA, or our domestic workforce.<br />Greed.<br /><br />They are being let down by uneducated consumers who actually buy this crap without any consideration of origin and the notion that buying "Made IN America" would actually in the long term secure their own future. These Teaparties should promote buying American goods.<br /><br />Lastly they are being let down by our own government, which either spends a majority of "stimulus" money towards the unproductive sector of the economy and rather pressures mid-sized and small businesses with additional taxes and restrictions than help them grow and expand. A government, which does not recognize that in the long term our entire manufacturing industry is threatened, if it does not counteract the trade deficit with the low cost countries to at least a fair level. A Government which does not recognize our areas, where we actually could generate millions of jobs, wealth, national security and extricate ourselves from chronical war zones. We have the energy right here, a workforce willing to dig in, but the Gov puts the handcuffs on the energy industry and prevents any outright possible boom. So, on one end, the Gov hurts us by doing nothing, as far as unfair trade practises are concerned, on the other end it limits the productive sector, one the third, it spends whith no impact on the job situation so ever.<br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">This Admin had successfully managed to "change the subject". </span>Unemployment has become almost the Elephant in the room, nobody talks about. Every time, the newest sad unemployment statistics come out, Obama has either a talk to children or moves the topic over to Afghanistan or health care reform. Congress? Not even the Republicans seem to be willing to talk about it, as it traditionally is a democratic topic and they traditionally stand against any government interference in the job market - even, if for once it would be warranted. The result is that the many unemployed, willing to work hard and contribute are completely abandoned.<br /><br />Finally on Rasmussen today, it was mentioned how this admin hurts above all the small and medium size businesses, which are predominantly responsible for creating jobs. Whereas the large corporations are leaner and will get back to profitability sooner while not hiring, the small businesses have gone under by the thousands. And more will follow, since there is no intervention by the administration in terms of lowering the burden, taxes, incentivizing start ups to hire and expand. On the contrary. The outlook is higher taxes, more burden and more bancruptcies. Where is the bailout for the silent majority? For the unemployed? <span style="color:#ff6600;">Where is the bailout for small business?</span> Where is that promised legislation to allow them to liquidate their 401ks without penalties, just to survive and pay rent, until some businesses hire again?<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Well - it does not stop there:</span><br /></strong></span><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">Obama wants to spend in education? Okay - but if you do so, do it right and implement a federally regulated and mandated apprenticeship model, which so well works in Switzerland.</span><br /><br />Have you ever wondered, why the Swiss can sell a Victorinox Army Knife for $135? And do so successfully? Well it's the quality, stupid. In Switzerland, every single butcher, welder, machinist, painter, hair-dresser, baker, mason, carpenter goes through a 4 year federally regulated education, called apprenticeship, guaranteeing the same high standard of work in Alabama or Oregon. Swiss Made means quality and trust, as the customer's know that any product is made by people who as a minimum went trough the needed and required apprenticeship. to come back to the example of the Army Knife, such a product comes with a lifetime warranty and actually lasts a lifetime.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">This is why the Swiss manufacturing industry, having to compete with so many lower cost countries was not only able to survive, but to actually flourish.<br /></span></strong><br />America is now in the very same situation, as a 3 month's on the job training simply does not suffice anymore to justify higher prices and compete successfully, while making 70$ an hour. American workers are - to state a sad truth - not that much better educated than their Chinese counterparts. But their products sell for a lot higher prices. Yes, better factories, equipment and quality assurance results in still better product, but the Chinese are in fact catching up and, if in the US we do not invest into true added value creation, more industries will be lost to the East.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">Here is an area, Obama should and can invest into a future, where Made In America means a true added value in comparison to the cheap crap we import from Asia.</span></strong><br /><br />There are proven and functioning templates like Switzerland out there. All we needed to do is copying a successful model. But there is no plan in that regard out there and so our recession will soon consolidate with the aforementioned structural flaw and a rapidly improving manufacturing industry far east, combined with cheap laobor we never will be able to compete with.<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">Creating new jobs in new technologies? Sounds great, but where are these new industries?</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">With a pledged investment of just about $15B into new energy, Obama was willing to focus just about 1% of the so called stimulus towards this area, where truly new jobs could be created.</span><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">America sits on the single largest Oil reserves in the world, good for another 70 years at current consumption levels.<br /></span></strong><br />America has the technology and a high tech workforce. 70% of the people supported drilling, nuclear and an all the above approach, the Obama Admin seems to have utterly abandoned, even though he campaigned on it and broke yet another promise. A tiny percentage of the "stimulus" went into Energy, and with Cap n' trade the entire industry will be handcuffed. But no - we rather spend hundreds of Billions on a military presence in the middle east, trying desperately to keep the boiling pot from exploding, imp-ort still 40% of our oil from the Saudis, while we would have an opportunity to create jobs, save money and lives, pay down our debth and economically recover.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">A strategic energy initiative, a real vision, Plan and roadmap to get us aggressively towards full independence from foreign energy could have been the single greatest legacy project, Obama would have been remembered as on of the greats.<br /></span></strong><br />Gas pipelines from Alaska, water aqueducts from the north to supply the south, nuclear power, heavy incentives to roll out Solar technology in the south, exploration of shale oil in the Dakotas or Wyoming, secondary oil exploration off shore, revamping the power grid for aggressive rollout of hybrid cars, tax incentives for the supporting industries, spending , where the real productive sector could have started to grow again.<br /><br />Instead of above - health care reform, union support where 70% of the people do not consider unions as strenghtening the economy, bail outs in form of symptom fighting, only prolonging the misery instead of addressing the root cause. Or does anyonoe really believe that the US automotive industry will be competitive, if a GM worker still makes $65, and a Hyundai worker makes $35 per hour? As labor cost drives any business, the gov owned companies simply do not stand a chance in the long run and further bail outs will only be the consequence.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">Wait for companies like Boeing, until they off shore their manufacturing to Indonesia or India.</span> As the third world countries - truly emerging areas - improve their workforce and supply chain, America stagnates. India has already caught up in IT, programming, Software development. Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary to name other examples produce in the meantime a lot of programming too - for a fraction of the cost.<br /><br />Other than that, no nuclear power plants, which would create top paying jobs, while decreasing the cost of electricity. No tax incentive for Solar Panels in the southern states, where single family homes would be self -sufficient in terms of electricity and save every single month real money, while decreasing the burden on the traditional power grid. No aggressive exploration of our own oil reserves, which would result in immediate jobs, while immediately reducing our need of expensive foreign oil and military engagement to keep these chronically unstable regions quiet and losing Billions and Lives in the process.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">Where is the vision of this president? The legacy project? Building a water pipeline from Washington State south to CA, a 10 year Strategic Energy Initiative a la JFK's road to the moon, encompassing an aggressive pusuit on all fronts and levels towards true energy independence, where the US People would not mind spending a few hundred Billions, as this would have resulted in a real stimulus.?<br /></span><br />Nope - Nada Zilch. The current admin neglects the single largest economy problem - Unemployment, by spending 80% of any stimulus money on the unproductive sector and engaging in costly, half baked health care initiatives. Put us back to work first, then the American People will be more than willing to share with the less fortunate. First we need to be productive again, create wealth. Then let's talk about social programs and spending.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">Obama promised us 100k jobs within 90 days. He just forgot to mention, that during this period, we lost 70k jobs every single week. While China is swamping the US with cheap product, American Manufacturers, responsible for job creation went broke or are taxed and burdened to the level of having to lay off even more people.<br /><br /></span>Stop using the word Stimulus for Government spending into unprodoctive areas of the economy.<br />Stimulus means incentivizing business to invest and expand. Stimulus means protecting our own workers from unfair competition. 20% of our current workforce is at present unemployed! Not productive, not tax paying, not buying, not consuming. Small and medium size businesses going down by the thousands. Our own manufacturing industry eroding before our eyes.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">To use an analogy: If you pay your son $50 to mow the lawn, do you create wealth for your family or an additional revenue stream? Nope.<br /></span></strong><br />You just shift some funds from one part of your family to another and do not improve the financial health for the whole family. When such a family is in financial trouble - what does it do? It streamlines, saves cost, reduces spending and/or looks for a second job or another additional revenue stream. The son looks for work outside and mows the lawn for free.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">What is so self-evident for a single family, is common sense to all of us, can and should apply for the America. </span></strong><br /><br />We need to cut cost, create new revenue, and not shift wealth around from one member to another. New revenue can be created by strengthening the domestic economy, allowing them to compete on an even playfield with the low cost competition. New revenue can be created by investing and incentivizing areas with growth potential, such as the energy industry, while at the same time cutting cost by reducing our military presence abroad and reducing costly imports. Every single family would feel relief, if the monthly energy bill is lower for gas, fuel and electricity. What would be tangible to every singe one of us is sales tax relief, reduction of the monthly bills and the cost of driving to work.<br />Even healthcare reform to some extent, for instance legislation regarding those frivolous malpractice lawsuits which blow up the cost so much would be helpful.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">We would not need to oeverhaul the entire system, but address the root cause for exploding health care bills.</span></strong><br /><br />But no - as the lawyers are huge supporters of Obama, such reform is of course out of the question. But true bi-partisanship, as once again promised to us by Obama and never followed through ( What a surprise!) is not an option - it would be the state of our country considered - mandatory.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">It is time that this administration focuses on the single most important problem first and foremost. <span style="font-size:180%;">Unemployment.</span></span></strong><span style="font-size:180%;"> </span><br /><br />Once the workforce is on the job again, the rest falls into place, including health care. But for right now, businesses must be helped with tax reductions, incentives to hire, protection to be competitive again, trade barriers, where other countries take advantage of us and/or the deficit is blatant. For the mid-longterm, America needs an apprenticeship program implemented, setting standards and improving our competitiveness, as Switzerland has proven that it is possible to compete, even when the cost of doing business is so much higher. Made In America must mean something again.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">We, the American People have to do our part too and buy American Products, rather than just considering the price. By consuming and procuring cheap Asian Goods, we damage the future of our own children. Free trade and markets - but with a fairness treshold.<br /></span><br />Unless this administration does not aggressively attack the situation, the vicious circle will only result in an increase of misery. Aformentioned ugly examples of companies without any honor, respect and consideration for the US workforce will become the norm and more highly educated and qualified professionals like my friend will end up becoming a burden instead of productive members of our once so great society.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">I call upon the government</span></strong> to stop the bla bla about torture, Guantanamo, healthcare and techer's salaries and do its main job of helping to put the people back to work. Spend, where it has an immediate impact on unemployment. Spend, where it helps to make America competitive again. But do not waste time and money on projectors in universities and propaganda and address the real cold hard facts : 20% Unemployment.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>I call upon Obama</strong></span>, to show a slither of greatness by accepting the fact the the American People do not want a complete health care overhaul at present and focus on what we truly need - addressing unemployment aggressively and giving us a vision and a plan. Take us - agressively and as promised - to energy independence. Strengthen our job market and our competitive position and see the energy sector finally as the one great potential for a true legacy project.<br />Do not try to be fancy or to proud to copy great templates from other countries. Copying failed health care systems or copying an apprenticeship model which has a track record of success? It is a no-brainer. Invest in education - by all means - but do it right, not just throw money at the problem. <strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">Made in America could become a trademark like made in Switzerland</span>.</strong> It would be a long-term plan with long-term effect - but would be a legacy project nevertheless. Traditional democratic principles could actually help this country in that regard. Help small business to become the engine for growth again. Have the greatness to adopt a great (Republican) Plan of aggressively and tangibly get us to energy independence. Heck - by all means reform health care by cutting cost, adopting the pragmatic approach of blue dogs or the repubs, focusing on Tort reform, competition, reducing bureaucracy, but not introduce 1500 pages of Chinese, basically hiding the fact that you want to adopt failed health care models, other countries have long since given up. Do you realize that we need true bipartisanship, pragmatism, focus, not speeches? Do you realize that the American People are still centrist, slightly left off center and not ideologues or radicals?.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">I call on the American businesses</span></strong> to behave ethically and professionally and treat job seekers with the respect they deserve. Do not dangle VP jobs out there, just to acquire fee consulting and save a few bucks. Honor a handshake and hard and honest work.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>I call upon WalMart, Target, Bed, Bath and Beyond</strong></span> to sell us Made in America Products at a fair price and not just cheap Asian crap. Please consider the longterm damage you cause your own country.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">I call upon my fellow Republicans</span></strong> to take up the cause. Do not let Obama change the subject. Revitalize John McCains Energy plan and Romneys 10 year vision. This is the sector which can turn our entire country around. We still have a window of opportunity, until the East catches up.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">I call upon the American People</span></strong> - the single largest consumer market still - to <span style="color:#ff6600;">buy American</span> and support the American Workforce. Read the small print, buy less, but quality and put American workers back to work. By the time your sons and daughters enter the labor market, many more indstries will have gone for ever, if we do not demonstrate some level of solidarity now. Support the Strategic Energy Initiative - a true effort to make us independent from foreign oil in form of a 10 year Plan, like JFK gave us the vision of a man on the moon and followed it through. This will create jobs, will save money, and most of all will allow us to extricate ourselves from costly conflicts in lives and Dollars. We need a public outcry for jobs - not health care or any other distracting entitlement program. We need a doer in the white house who focuses on the real problems of our economy.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">We need action - not ideology.</span></strong><br /><br />It may be too late for my friend and so many who simply can not find employment, no matter how hard they try. But at least they crash and burn in the knowledge that someone took up their cause.Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-78133167246761016972009-03-31T13:05:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:05:41.707-07:0060 Days of the Obama Admin<strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Just replace the name Gordon Brown with Barack Obama and you have a great synopsis of the Obama Agenda.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/94lW6Y4tBXs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/94lW6Y4tBXs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">In a Nutshell: The nightmare is coming true.</span>
<br />We have entered into an unheard of spending spree by Washington. The Gov has taken over entire industries. 200000 Jobs are already being created in Gov. The unproductive area of our economy is being engorged, while the productive sector is contracting due to taxes and burdens on businesses.Unemployment rate has exploded from 4% during the Bush years to 11% now with an enormous rate of outsourcing and off-shoring by the remaining businesses. We are in the process of a unprecedented re-distribution of wealth and shift to the left. Promises of eliminating Pork and Earmarks are broken. The Admin stacked with former lobbyists and representatives of exactly those institutions which ran oour country into the ground ( Fannie, Freddy, AIG, Lehman and the likes). 17B were oured into the automotive sector with a 12B monthly burn rate....while the Unions, the main culprits of the crisis were not touched - hence the hands of management are cuffed behind their backs. Within 10 years, every American child will be born with a 200,000$ debth. Within 60 days we have seen gaffes in staffing, the treasury department at present still not yet fully staffed. Clinton, a gifted person, was assigned as Sec State, albeit, in reality it is Biden and special Envoys reporting directly to Obama who make the policy to the extent that nowadays we do not know any longer, who is in charge of Foreign Policy. Guantanamo will be closed, albeit - no one produced any solid ideas as to what to do with the prisoners. War on Terror no longer - Man Made Disasters..... Open hands to Iran and a slap in the face in return. Open hands to Putin - no results in Georgia and a key base in Kirgistan closed. Signals of appeasement - NK announces a Rocket test.</span></strong>
<br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">On every dimension - every aspect we see hectic activity, PR conference after conference, late night talk show appearances, talk, talk , talk - Yet no action and any tangible result.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Wallstreet - historically always right on the mark in its prognosis and forecast - does not trust Obama. Trillions of wealth already wiped out.</p>
<br />9000 Earmarks in just the latest legislation - where is the promised line by line review
<br /></span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766.html"><strong>The Fierce Urgency of Pork, by C. Krauthammar</strong></a>
<br />
<br /></span></strong><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/26/AR2009022602908.html">The Obamaist Manifesto</a></span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">15B into Energys sector in comparison to 500B into entitlement programs such as education health care and similar... ( non-productive area of the economy)
<br /></span></strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/05/AR2009030502951.html"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Great Non Sequitur</span></strong></a>
<br /><strong>The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's</strong> Agenda
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Operational hectic in foreign policy and economy with legislators not even reading their own legislation, resulting in the AIG Bonus Debacle.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Appeasement vs Iran and new politically correct expressions - War on Terror now called outside contingency Operations and Terror is now called : Man Made Disasters....</span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021902579.html">Obama's Supine Diplomacy</a></span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama still campaigning, running from Newsoutlet to Talkshow, from Internet townhall meeting to press conference....
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama stating that the fundamentals of our economy are strong- - where have we heard this before and who got slammed by whom for daring to state this fact?
<br /></span></strong></p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5319451202079328002" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 296px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SdJ8r0P2hwI/AAAAAAAAANw/5tnpa5w3ADY/s400/Chart.jpg" border="0" /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span></strong>
<br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">America is in the process of the most massive shift towards a socialist regime with buraucrats in the process of running entire industries instead of leaving this to subject matter experts.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">What has been sold to us as stimulus is to its greatest extent an exploding entitelement arena, such as health care, education and social security. A massively blown up goverment is the consequence.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Businesses are in the process of being further taxed and burdened, are in the process of further outsourcing production capacity abroad and here in the US the unemployment rate at (officially) 11% reflects that trend of a contracting economy. Roosevelt's policies drew the crisis out for over 10 years and Obama is in the process of repeating exactly this mistake. You can not spend yourself out of a crisis, you cannot borrow yourself out of debth. The only way to stimulate job growth is lowering the burden on businesses, stimulating them to expand and invest. Obamas policy burdens the private sector further and in the process indebths America for generations.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Look at the car industry. Obama rightfully points out some of the management errors. But he forgets to mention to the American People that the biggest cost factor in any industgry and any business is the labor cost. How can a company be competititve, if GM for instance pays its UAW workers 78$/hour and Toyota its non unionized workforce 35$? No way in hell can GM ever successfully compete. Obama knew that fact and now while removing management, he never finds fault with the Unions who are at least as responsible in running the industry to the ground.He knew it before he shelled out 17B and now fakes outrage...before further throwing good money after bad. Once again, operational hectic, naivety or plain ideology. But then again - the unions are of course his biggest supporters.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Where is the strategic energy initiative which could save us all? Including drilling, shale oil exploration, off-shore, nuclear power plants, all of which 70% of the Americans supported? It would create top paying jobs, reduce our capital outflow to Saudi Arabia and Kuweit, where we still procure 40% of our oil, create new wealth and revenue streams iin the US and reduce the need and cost to engage in chronically unstable regions in the world. Obama stopped any effort in terms of oil and nuclear energy and put just about 15B into his energy independence initiative. Compared to hundreds of Billons of Dollars for just AIG or the promises in terms of education and health care, that amount is a joke.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">So far, the results of the first periode of the hectic Obama Admin are more than discouraging. Naivety, arrogance or stupidity are qualifications which come to mind. No bipartisanship so ever, ideology over pragmatism is the rule. One is reminded of the Carter Admin. While the man is still enjoying the hype of the newcomer, he pushes his left agenda through, while he still owns a bit of popularity. A message of doom and gloom, blaming the Bush Admin for everything is the rule. Up to this day the man still campaigns - builds a garage rather than acknowledging that the house is on fire. An admin full of special interest lobbyists and social democrats, supported by moveon and still a majority of the media.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The American People do not want some bureaucrats deciding life altering decisions in terms of health. The American people do not want DC to run entire industries. America is not founded upon the notion that the government is running every single aspect of our lives. Most of all we do not want to run up a debth of 200k per child. We could care less about semantics in terms of war on terror or man-made disasters.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We want a government and most of all a congress which does its job of creating, discussing and passing of intelligent legislature, not morons who do not even read their own bills and spike them with 9000 Earmarks. We want transparency - Hell yes!. We want to know which senator or representative is amending what legisalture with pork, so we can fire them the next time around. But ironically, while Obama promotes transparency and runs from one news outlet to another selling his ideology, nowhere are we able to find exactly that info. Where is our money going? For what purpose? Who introduced an earmark. For what? If we had this info at our fingertips, I guarantee you, heads would roll the next time around. Hence the Obama admin does exactly in the mission-critical area not offer any transparency, as it would lead to an electoral desaster.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">I call upon the American people to state an example and fire the entire congress in 2 years, starting with Pelosi, Barney, Dodd, Kerry, Reid, Franks, including every single Republican who dared to insert an Earmark in the latest budget or got campaign contributions from AIG, Fannie and the likes. Evidently it is upon us to clean up Washington , as Obama shows no inclination to do so. The swamp has gotten deeper and nastier.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">We said it before - be careful what you wish for, as you may get it. An inexperienced president of radical left origin with a far left agenda. A shift to wealth re-distribution and socialism, making the exact same mistakes the Europeans long since have come to realize.</span></strong></p><p></p><p>
<br /></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-49601298115592837802008-11-10T08:38:00.000-08:002008-11-10T10:26:09.839-08:00Ideas from an Independent Viewpoint - Open Letter to Obama<em><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Dear President Obama, </span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">I was one of those, who did not vote for you. We lost one of the most lopsided elections in my lifetime - lopsided, as all the advantages were on your side.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">I applaude your intelligence to take advantage of all these things ( Media, Money, Economy, Bush) and without comitting a mistake, cruise to the presidency. I applaude your ability to move and motivate the emotions of so many people, desperately hoping for change and improving conditions. So desperate in fact that all caution and factors usually important during an Election were thrown overboard and voting happened on an emotional level. Now what?</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>I for indstance decided to think country first and will support you in any way I can. I decided to see the glass half full and offer constructive ideas to help this country I love so much. I want you to become the single most successful president in recent history. I hope that I was wrong in all my assessments of your policy platform and my fears in terms of your associations and Chicago background.</strong></span></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">My first suggestion is to you to focus on the economy. With a strong economy, most things can happen. Without - nothing is possible, It is the fundament for any success you may enjoy.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em>First, I implore you not to raise taxes on businesses. Companies, responsible to create jobs again and expand, should never be taxed during a recession. I hope yu will not create a business unfriendly environment which will result in higher prices and even more layoffs. Those few hundred dollars in private tax cuts would so be offset by a mile with higher cost of living, more monthly burden on the citizen.<br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">If you aggressively supported the three pillars of short-term energy production, where America has huge possibilities and reserves, you may be able to kill several flies with one stone. let me explain:</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em></span><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;">America has the largest Coal and Shale Oil reseves in the world. America has the technology to rapidly roll out additional nuclear powerplants. By taking advantage of these conventional pillars of energy production fast, you will achieve several strategic objectives:</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br />1.You can help generating millions of new jobs here in the US>>> economy stimulation<br />2. You can fast reduce our energy cost >>>>> stimulation of our economy.<br />3. You can fast mitigate our dependency from foreign oil>>>>>reduction of deficit<br /><br />3.1 Reduce the need for military engagement in conflict laden regions<br />3.2. reduce the cost to support these efforts<br />3.3. gain huge popular support worldwide<br />3.4 Pay down the deficit much sooner<br />3.5. Create jobs in the US, revenue by the US, for the US<br /><br />4. Buy time until your alternative push has an effect and such technology is rolled out.<br /><br /><em>An aggressive Energy Plan along the line of the Apollo Program, One single strategic initiative, will serve a variety of objectives. it would have a gave impact on our economy in terms of job creation, alleviate the burden on all Americans, get us in the right direction of a 'greener" economy without killing the people in the process, reduce on a Foreign Policy dimension areas of potential conflict, hence allow you to reduce cost on maintaining troops and bases in foreign countries, will give you thus bargaining chips with Russia and other "difficult" countries to obtain soon deals and agreements and hence results, which will boost your popularity domestically thus granting you more leeway and strength to implement programs which may either not be too popular with either the people or ultra-left wings of your own party.<br /><br /><br />In Marketing and Business, we call such a strategy a <span style="color:#ff6600;">" free WoolMilkPigChicken</span>". </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>With one focused initiative you can help the economy by gaining revenue and creating jobs, while lowering cost, thus help the people, resolve many foreign policy issues and potential conflict areas. All of aforementioned resources can be tapped in an environment conscient manner.<br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">This initiative I would call the <strong>Strategic Energy & Economy Revolution</strong>, an initiative to be energy independent within 10 years and basing on a green economy within 20, could become your lasting legacy.<br /></span><br />While you at first will be bogged down with symptom fighting (bailouts for various industries) just to keep us afloat for ths short term, <span style="color:#ff6600;">The American People need a factual vision beyond "Hope", "Change" and fluffy slogans,</span> as honeymoons fade fast. As sarcastic, as it may sound, this nation is a nation of immediate gratification with an impatient people. Presidencies, as the Bush Admin has proven, are as much PR, as they are effective government. People need a vision they can buy in and in cases even makes them willing to sacrifice.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>History has shown, that the first 100 days are crucial. You need some fast successes or results. You will need to earn some credit quick.</strong><br /></span><br />On Foreign Policy, you can win some quick points, as you have a unique opportunity due to your background and status as a newby. For sheer pragmatic reasons, mainly based on dwindling economies and a networked global economy, Russia will be willing to talk and negotiate. if you play your cards right, you should be able to get them on board with a mutual defense shield, stroking their egos a bit in terms of importance. They are forced to come to terms with you and with you they can do so without losing face. Some deal could be made in terms of Georgia, Afghanistan, as they themselves have a vital interest to keep fanatic islamism in check , due to their own minorities. In other words, the current problems force all major players to compromise. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em><span style="color:#ff6600;">With Obama they can do so without losing face</span>. Just finding constructive, partnership oriented common ground with Russia alone, can bring your administration many brownie points with the people. And soon. It will allow you to put some (non-military pressure on IRAN to abandon their plans for a nuclear program. Without support from Russia and North Korea, such plans should be delayed tremendously, especially if one considers, that IRAN as well suffers hugely from the current economy crisis, hence would possibly be open to economic stimulation or pressure. You can win some quick points with our allies in Europe, if you support any Kyoto type agreement and signal a more conciliant position towards Russia, abandoning for instance some ineffective plans (shield in former Eastern Republics), while getting some compromise for Georgia, Afghanistan and Iran in turn.<br /><br />Dear Mr. President,<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">If you focus on just the Economy for the moment, acting reasonably in terms of the tactical approach to bailouts and immediate stimulation, postpone tax hikes, and at the same time lay out the aforementioned Strategic Energy & Economy Initiative, while getting some quick results in Foreign Policy, you will get the Obama Presidency from the get go on an historic track.</span></strong><br /><br />You can not keep alll the promises you made. Nobody could. You will finbd yourself in opposition to either some ultra-left wingers or the mainstream at some point.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">Fact however is, if you manage to unite the country behind one focused strategic vision and get results in terms of our well-being as a nation, get us jobs and a sound basis again, you will get so much credit, that during a second term you can aggressively tackle your plans for health care or education.</span></em><br /><em><span style="color:#ff6600;"></span></em><br /><em> In other words, if you can get the people behind you for a sound feasible short and long term economic recovery, based upon Jobs in America for America and By Americans, creating new revenue streams for America, as we at some point my abe able to even export some to our allies - all of which can be generated with aforementioned Energy plan, there will not be a "Read My Lips" backlash, just because you were not able to keep all the promises. You may lose some disgruntled liberals, <span style="color:#ff6600;">but you will win the centre by a landslide</span>.<br /><br />If you do not only react to the economy (bailouts etc.) wisely, but initiate the wollmilkpig, which is even in line with 70% of the American People, you will unite the country, create jobs, if not even an outright boom, keep cost low, boost the economy, reduce our dependence and need for engagement abroad, create a ton of goodwill, in other words<span style="color:#ff6600;"> - you can have it all.</span> And you can achieve that fast, as emotion is a strong driving force and you are a master of channeling emotion.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;"><strong>This leads me to another advice - on a leadership style dimension.<br /></strong></span><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">All of the popular presidents of recent history, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, JFK, were masters of communication. </span></em><br /><em></em><br /><em>They allowed the people to participate. They involved the people in their decision making process. They were not far removed from the people, talkiing down to them, they came close to the basis, explained their plans, communicated. In PR we say, where info is missing rumors grow. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>I invite you to follow these great examples and not commit the biggrest BUSH mistake, tight, secret, unilateral actions, control of the message to the extent of rumor milling by the media. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em><span style="color:#ff6600;">Open your administration up, Sir - discuss and communicate as often as possible. be transparent and allow the people to understand the challenges. Be as Clinton was in touch with the normal Joe Blow and his concerns and fears. Be humble and contradict all those who called you arrogant and elitist. Come across as self-depreceating, as Reagan so successfully did. This endears you to the people. Arrogance - even percieved - will push them away.<br /></span><br />If the people are thus enabled to understand your struggles and challenges - understand your thinking process, they will buy into even tough decisions so much easier.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6600;">I strongly advise you to prove me wrong in terms of bi-parttisanship. </span></em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Other countries in such circumstances know the term of Grand Coalition. Governing from the centre, involving some of the top Republican business professionals, even bring in great figures such as Condoleeza-Rice, Powell, McCain into such a coalition of national unity, creating bi-partisan think tanks for economy, energy, foreign policy, involving publicly some of the great former secrtetaries of state for instance, letting these think tanks or tiger teams advise you in a transparent manner <span style="color:#ff6600;">- all of this will truly create a "Grand Coalition" - unity.</span> </em><br /><em></em><br /><em><strong><span style="color:#ff6600;">You have a chance to take unbelievable new avenues - it is almost expected. Here you can prove those expectations right and win huge credit.<br /></span></strong><br />We independents are certainly willing to give you an honest chance to unite this country behind a vision. I pray for you and that you have to courage to do what's right for this great country.<br /><br />If you do, you will have our support for future programs we would have never entertained.<br />If you get us out of the mess now, we will be with you, when grand social ideas come to the table.<br />If you are pragmatic now, we will be idealistic with you later.<br /><br />With much respect<br /><br />Michel C. Zala<br /></em><br /><br /><br /><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><br /><em><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span></em>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-37055568005307139672008-10-30T08:54:00.000-07:002008-11-06T10:48:18.403-08:00Congratulations to America<span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Wer lost. Congrats to President Obama.</em></span>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">I will leave some of our posts on the blog and we will find out, if our rather pessimistic outlook will come true or not.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We renamed our Blog now to The Obama Watch.
<br />
<br />I hope that we are wrong and Obama proves to be up to the enormous task.
<br />We hope that America will unite behind the man.
<br />
<br />We also congratulate John McCain to to his gracious way of losing. He never stood a real chance. He is one of the very last true heros who would have under any normal circumstance deserved to be our next president. If anyone deserved it - he truly did.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">John, I salute you with appreciation, devotion and respect. The hangover is here and the fingerpointing started already. Let me tell you that you came astonishngly close to winning these elections, if one considers the many handicaps you had to deal with.</span></em>
<br /><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The media did not want you, 95% of the blacks voted for Obama, you had a massive money and marketing disadvantage and yet, you managed to keep it close, until Lehman collapsed and in the course our entire economy. You deserve to be proud of this achievement. You were fighting a phenomenon, a movement on a dimension of emotion - something which can not be countered easily with pragmatic arguments, especially, when the people wo are given special constitutional consideration ( The Press) fall into the trap of emotion themselves and do no longer fulfill their given duty to inform The American People in an objective manner.</p></span></em>You became the victim of an opportunistic demagogue of global magnitude and history will prove that you had the right platform and would have been the right president during these difficult times.
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Farewell, John, and know that history will justify you, inasmuch, as history will treat Bush much kinder than currently perceived.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We do not wish Obama ill. We hope that we were fundamentally wrong and the country will recover. But we are pessimistic. This is not the time for Kumbajah and pacifism. America is the last free western country with the ability to defend itself and its allies. a hasty withdrawal out of IRAQ, something Obama is almost forced to do now, if he wants to keep one of his main promises, will leave the entire region vulnerable to volatility and unrest with brutal consequences on us (gas prices.)
<br />Please keep an eye on IRAN, as Israel may be forced to a preventive war, if we do not issue a declaration of deterrence vs IRAN or factually prvent them from obtaining nuclear weaponry. Warm words will not suffice here, or we may be drawn against our will into a black hole there.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Raising taxes on businesses will destroy our economy and kill even more jobs. We hope that Obama will be reasonable with those businesses and allow them to create jobs, expand, re-invent themselves. Listen to good economic advisors and not just ideologues.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">His energy plan, which abandons drilling, nuclear and clean coal - three main pillars to getting soon independent from foreign oil, create soon many new jobs, help pay down sooner the deficit while keeping prices low until alternative energy is rolled out widely, which would eliminate the need to remain in unstable regions and incur the cost of it needs to be revised. Hear the Amerivcan People, Obama, where a majority is for exploiting our own huge resources and pay down the debth so much sooner.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">After all, it would be in your interest, as the revenue generated would pay for your huge plans and programs and most of all help to balance the budget again.
<br /></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We wish President Obama much luck and hope that he will prove these many hyped voters and people of the world right and us wrong.
<br />
<br />For the very first time we so much hope that everybody else is right. We will watch with an open mind but a critical eye. We will comment respectfully and always try to remain fair.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br />
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br />
<br /></span></em></span></span></em></span></span></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>
<br />Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-49510270093625275882008-10-04T11:25:00.000-07:002008-10-22T10:31:38.269-07:00The Decision Making Process - 500 pages consolidatet into one thread<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">How to eat an Elephant with a teaspoon?
<br />Piece by Piece.
<br /></span>My Decision Making Process in brief -
<br />500 pages, 2h of Video, 200h of Newsanalysis condensed into one thread.
<br />
<br />________________________________</strong>
<br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Biden - Obama will be tested
<br /></span>October 22, 2008</strong></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>As I have mentioned several times in the past, if Obama will be elected, there is a significant chance that some despot, terrorist or regime may try to find out, how far they can go with this unknown quantity - hence the probability for conflict is much higher, if Obama is President.(See below older posts)Senator Biden now , providing his newest gaffe, just confirmed my statements to this matter. (See video).
<br />
<br /></em><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IpiNfuG8YY8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IpiNfuG8YY8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<br /><em><strong>We will not qualify Obama at this time. He may be up to the task, or he may be not. <span style="color:#ff9900;">But that is not the relevant quastion to ask. </span></strong></em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">The real question is for us voters: Why even go there?
<br /></span>
<br /><em>Why even experience a "generated" crisis or conflict? Don't we have enough to cope with at present? Can we afford another (unnecessary) conflict, just because we have an inexperienced President?</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Already the Obama campaign is trying to open up the backdoors, shoring up influencial leaders for that case that the public opinion will be against Obama very soon. They obviously foresee that those many promises can never be kept and the polls will swing soon, the honeymoon coming to an aprupt end.</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><strong><em>I ask again: why even go there? Why do we have to first land brutally hard, before we acknowledge that he is not the right President for these harsh times?</em></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Obama will (be forced to ) abandon most of his lofty promises. He will raise taxes. He will move away from drilling and nuclear power. he can never follow through on his domestic almost socialistic plans. He will have to go back on Iraq. he will have to go back on Pakistan. He will not keep his promises and at some point the American People will feel massively misled, when the consequences kick in.Why not do the right thing right now and prove the media and pollsters wrong?</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;">We are a fundamentally fair people.</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">Is it fair to have a 20:1 Marketing Money advantage and swamp the field with adverts?</span></em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><em>Is it fair to see 57: 16 of the leading Newspapers in the Obama tank?</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Is it fair that 8:1 of the TV networks support Obama?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to blame the GOP and most of all Bush for an economy crisis which had been 40 years in the making?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to completely overlook Pelosi and co. who dominated congress during the last 2 years, killing legislation which could have averted the collapse?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to speak of tax cuts but in effect raise taxes, hence mislead the American People?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to link McCain to Bush?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to woreship a candidate, who is a lawyer, trained to never say anything of substance but stay ambivalent?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to completely overlook the qualifications for the most important job in the world?
<br />
<br />Is it fair to overlook the kind of people Obama surrounds and surrounded himself with? (Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Farrakhan just don't matter?)
<br />
<br />Is it fair to see an election decided by a huge ground operation dominated by strange organizations such as ACORN, investigated by the FBI in more than 14 states?</span></em>
<br />
<br /><em><strong>We once again call on the American People to be fair and check and balance a hugely liberal congress with a solid centrist candidate.
<br />Go with the underdog and prove those media pollsters and opinion makers wrong. Exercise sound judgment instead of emotion.
<br />If Obama will be elected, America will see a shift to the left of unmatched historical magnitude. Free reign for Pelosi, Reid and radical socialist politicians? No Checks and Balances. Heck to all of you craving for change we loudly say: be careful, what you wish for, as you may get it. This change may well break our back and lead us into a deep, deep depression.</strong></em></span></p><p><strong>________________________________</p></strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">I am the typical average white caucasion independent, moderate Reagan Democrat.
<br />This year, I felt like so many, that the USA is in fact facing many grave challenges which require an outright turn around strategy, as far as economy, environment, energy, education, infrastructure are concerned and at the same time serious leadership with regard to foreign policy challenges, such as Russia, Iran, The Middle East and global Islamism.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />This time around, I felt, the choice was not irrelevant, as in the past, when I used to think that it does not matter, as nothing will change. This time around, I felt, the choice we make , will have consequences.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">So I approached my own decision making process with a business type approach.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />I looked at the current situation, sliced up the whole animal into topics I consider as important dimensions, gathered material (videos, articles, arguments, facts), placed them into the corresponding areas and then derived my own personal conclusion in each of those topics. Only after that,a did I name our blog and added in my personal thoughts to each of the topics</span></em>.
<br />
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">The Areas I personally
<br /></span>(others may well see other or additional areas of importance) </span></strong>
<br /></span></em><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em><span style="font-size:130%;">considered as key topics of importance for the current election are:
<br /></span></em>
<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;">1. Economy
<br /></span></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">2. Energy </span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">3. Resume&Track Record
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">4. Leadership</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">5. Foreign Policy</span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">
<br />6. National Security
<br />
<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;"></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">7. Character</span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;"></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">8. Uniting a deeply polarized country
<br />
<br />9. Immigration</span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;"></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">10. Experience & Change
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;">All of the above addressed with a comprehensible, feasible vision for this country, with America in the center and not any individual</span></strong></span>
<br /><strong>__________________
<br /></strong>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">1. Economy</span>
<br />____________________ </span></strong></span></em>
<br />
<br /></strong><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><strong>Sept.27, 2008
<br />A few remarks to the first debate.</strong></span></em></p><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"></span><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Tax cuts for 95% of the people
<br /></span>Sounds good, right? Did he mention that he will massively raise taxes on businesses which in turn will result in entire corporations relocating to places abroad which offer so much better business environments?
<br />Did he mention, what that in effect would mean to the American People, job losses, higher prices, lesser insurance coverage provided by the companies? Did he mention that his "indirect" tax increases would in effect result in less money remaining for you every single month?
<br />______________________
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The Wall Street Journal
<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html"><span style="color:#3366ff;">Obama's 95% Illusion</span> </a></span></span></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">>>>> One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
<br />AP
<br />It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut.">>>>>
<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>_____________________
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Drilling and Nuclear Power</span>
<br /></strong>All of a sudden Obama promotes additional oil exploration and nuclear power? He just forgot to mention the small print of both legislations. On Drilling he restricts it to such extent, that it becomes a lipstick issue.
<br />On Nuclear power, he is "for" it, yet he prevents and opposes storage of waste, hence makes this another populist argument, which sounds good, yet never will happen..
<br />
<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Meeting foreign leaders such as Iran or Cuba without preconditions
<br /></strong></span>All of a sudden, they are in advance prepared?
<br />
<br />Obama came across as smooth and slippery. He sounds as if he is on our side. He certainly knows his history and facts. He is a lawyer after all always with the right sentence at the right time and always with the media at and on his side. Does anyone actually care about the tiny little fact that for nothing he now takes credit for, he actually can provide solid hard cold facts and a track record?
<br />
<br />We saw substance and we saw style. We saw a true Manchurian Candidate who will, if we let him, run this country into the abyss.
<br /><strong>__________________________</strong></span></span></em><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>
<br />
<br /></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Sept.17. 2008, A few remarks to the credit Crisis
<br /></span>
<br /></strong></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;">As with the energy situation a long overdue baloon finally exploded. Very unfortunate, that this should happen during an election campaign, where such will be exploited as just another Bush economy failure.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Here in brief, what I examinne in much more detail in the specific Thread, "Economy":</span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />People, this is not - hard to believe - an economy crisis. This is a finance sector crisis, which was long overdue. It has a lot to do with another one of those structural design flaws of our economy. It has a lot to do with the lending market, which went totally overboard in competing for clients. No downpayment, no interest mortgages and loans combined with spending and consumer habits of the American People who are by design much more risky than other societies. A lack of regulative oversight allowed these firms to take risks no normal business usually would.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? </span><span style="color:#ffff00;">But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. </span></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>That’s called subprime lending.</strong></span><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong> It lies at the root of our current calamity.</strong>
<br />
<br /></span>As opposed to one classical and reputable country of banks and finance institutes, Switzerland, here in the USA one can apply for a loan, when one has a ton of debt already. Only then can the consumer establish, what we call here "Credit". There is something totally wrong with that system. <span style="color:#ff9900;">If a client does not have any credit cards, does not show a car or other payment, he/she will not get a loan.</span> in recent years, credit cards were being distrinbuted like candy without any regulation or oversight and the whole thing by means of a terrific marketing pressure, the whole ting with a ton of small print, leaving the clients with double digit % interest after a few months.
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The American consumer could not resists and hence incurred huge private debts.</span>
<br />All it takes in such situations, is for instance a real estate correction, a 1 % prime rate interest hike, caused by things like terror attacks or natural desasters, or a bancrptcy of a large firm, <span style="color:#ff9900;">and millions of overstretched customers go broke.
<br /></span>
<br />In Switzerland, one has to show that one does not have debt, car payments etc., while having a solid income. If the debt to income ratio exceeds the capabilities of the client, loans and most of all mortgages are not being granted. They ask for a significant downpayment and grant never loans without any interest. From day one, as opposed to the USA one has to calculate hard and make true payments including paying down the capital.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">As with Energy, the chicken have finally come home to roost also in the finance sector.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">This is neither Bush's fault, nor can it be attributed to any individual congress or administration</span>. It is a long term structural design flaw. Nothing much a president or a government can do about it, other than instituting a much tighter oversight in terms of lending. Legislation could be passed which require all lenders to follow basic business and risk assessment principles, as for instance practised in Switzerland.
<br />Appropriate legislation is a duty of Democrats and Republicans alike.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Are the fundamentals of the US economy really strong?
<br /></span></strong>
<br />We believe that they indeed are.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">GDP, Economy growth, Job Creation, Unemployment, Productivity, Inflation are all factors for measuring the state of the economy. </span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span></strong>In all these aspects the state of the ecomomy in comparison to similar economies such as Japan, Germany, France, England, Italy etc., our economy is in about the same average to stagnating, <span style="color:#ff9900;">but basically stable state.</span>
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Certainly not in a state of catastrophy, as the Obama team, which desperately tries to change the subject toards to same old lame McCain=Bush=responsible for all pain message of doom.</span> </strong>
<br /><strong></strong>
<br /><strong>Do they really want us to examine the 2 years of a Democratic House?
<br />
<br /></p></strong></em><strong></strong></span><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247459213167507794" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SNK4WiYzOVI/AAAAAAAAALA/hBYI2u5OTfw/s400/untitled.bmp" border="0" />
<br /></strong><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Most of all the situation is not reason for panic.</span></strong> We have an Energy crisis and we do have a finance sector crisis, <span style="color:#ff9900;">all of which can be addressed in the short term by a courageous administration</span> of business leaders and executives. </p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama blames Mccain for being the original ".De-Regulator".</span></strong>
<br />Well, thank you for that. </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;">Deregulation lowers prices to the consumer, as for instance in the telecom industry.</span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;">Deregulation is good, decreases government size, as no large gencies are needed to supervise various industries. </span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;">Deregulation increses competition and hence leads to a lower burden on the consumer.</span> </p><p>The trick is however to find the right middle ground and have regulation and oversight, where it in fact does make sense, as for instance in the financial sector. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain proposes exactly that</span></strong>, <span style="color:#33ff33;">while not buying into the panic message of doom</span> and gloom and abandoning the fundamentally right idea of deregulation.</p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">Are the fundamentals strong or weak? You be the judge.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />The fact that even the mainstyream media has jumped upon the bandwagon of doom, was beautifully demonstrated just yesterday by CNN. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">(Regarding Liberal Media Bias, see evidence presented in thread "Media Bias").
<br />
<br /></span></strong>I watched all day the CNN news cast, and all day long, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain was outright mocked by Blitzer, Campbell, Cooper and the likes for his statement that he believed the fundamentals of our economy to be strong.</span></strong>
<br />At times, like in a cheap YouTube Video, this statement was mockingly repeated 3 times....
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">This is just another proof for even CNN having abandoned any principle of neutrality or balanced reporting. </span></strong><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br />Not only are its viewers to 65% Democrats, their reporters are to 80%.
<br /></span></strong>The Bias towards Obama became so evident, that whole Obama speeches t the subject were presented, while McCain got nothing but his aforementioned statement repeated again and again. They harped on it time and again to a disgusting level.
<br />Evidently the liberal Media sees an opening after the staggering turnaround in the polls speaking to the appeal of the McCain/Palin ticket. The rest of the day was spent in talking about Palin's Troopergate...... </p><p>I'leave it at that, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">but invite all readers to exercise much caution, when comsuming CNN analysis.
<br /></span></strong>______________________
<br /></span></em></p><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The downturn, while to a certain extent subject to a natural ebb and flow in economics, as we experienced in the past no matter the incumbent administration, is real and felt by many amongst us. Addressing the challenges in a manner any business exec would, or any family has to, when finances get tight, it does not take a nuclear physicist to understand the following<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> basic business principles</span></strong>, when a <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">turn around strategy</span></strong> is required.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>1. Cut spending</strong>
<br /><strong>2. Reduce the overhead, eliminate the fat.</strong>
<br /><strong>3. Streamline Management and organizational structures</strong>
<br /><strong>4. Create additional (new) revenue streams</strong>
<br /><strong>5. Improve competitiveness, re-invent yourself, invest in innovation</strong>
<br /><strong>6. Motivate your workforce to work harder and smarter</strong>
<br /><strong>7. Stimulate your consumers and customers, not burden them.</strong>
<br /></span></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>Taxes</strong> </span></span>
<br />When an economy is in a downturn, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">raising taxes directly and indirectly would be devastating.
<br />
<br /></span></strong>It demotivates the consumer and hampers the economy. Both candidates will lower taxes for the individual,<span style="color:#ff9900;"> but Obama will raise taxes on businesses significantly (corporate, payroll, capital gains, profit etc.)</span> , which will naturally<span style="color:#ff9900;"> trickle down to the individual i</span>n form of higher prices and/or higher deductions on their paycheck with lesser support in terms of insurance).</span></em>
<br /><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama's platform is a very well hidden Tax hike,</span><span style="color:#ff9900;"> we call indirect tax increase.</span> </span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Quite actually even logical, as somehow he must be able to finance a bigger government and his lofty plans domestically. </span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">He will raise taxes on investment gains, hence hamper the will of American businesses to invest (new jobs, new technologies etc.) while the individual will also less invest in stocks and other vessels.</span></span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">He will raise the death tax and overall increase the burden on American Corporations.</span> </span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Can anyone possibly believe that that leads to a climate of growing economy, job creation or lower prices of products and services to the consumer?</span> </span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;">It will rather lead to a capital outfolw from the USA to other more investment friendly countries. American Work will become more expensive, less competitive, hence we will lose additional industries to low paying countries.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Hence Obama does in fact stand for taxing the US People and the additional burden on the individual and his claim of only rasising taxes on only 5% of the people <span style="color:#ffff00;">is very much misleading, if not outright distorting the truth.
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Semantic Problem:</span> </span></span></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">If you use the word TAX in it's defined meaning, then Obama speaks the truth. </span></span></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">If you use the word as taxing the people, meaning burdening them, in effect lowering their quality of life, then Obvama is misleading, as his program, projects and tax policy will lead to higher prices on oil and consumer products, less investment, lower new job creation and overall a burden on the economy - certainly not a stimulation.
<br /></span>
<br />Ironically - this is what one means when talking about
<br />" putting lipstick on a pig". Cutting through all the crap, the voter wants to know, if he will have less or more money available each month. </span></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Under Obama, it will be definitely less, lipstick it any way you like it.
<br /></span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">McCain wins the point.
<br /></span>
<br /></em><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Government Size</span>
<br /></span>
<br /></strong>In times like these with a growing debt, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">the last thing we need is an increased gov size.</span></strong> Does any company with a capable CEO hire additional overhead during a turn-around strategy? Most definitely not.
<br />
<br />We do not need additional programs, organizations and management.
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We do need a smaller, more efficient, streamlined government and consolidiation of departments.</span></strong>
<br />Tradionally Democrats stand for big Government and the GOP for less. </em></span></p><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><p>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong>McCain made this topic a key element of his platform, hence he wins that point.
<br /></strong>
<br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Spending </span>
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama proposes huge spending increases</span></strong> (education, health care plans, social security initiatives) which no economist can possibly argue are realistic.
<br />For instance, Obama sponsored a bill to allocate $800B to foreign aide. While that bill may not pass, it most definitely speaks to the kind of spending philosophy, this candidate would promote.</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>He himself took 900 M in pork barrel funding, whereas McCain didn't take a dime. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain's key argument is targeted at spending and eliminating pork barrel and lobbies.</span></strong>
<br /></em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama promotes Universal Health Care.</span></strong> While the intention is certainly good, he tries to do what many European Countries have in the meantime abandoned, as it drove them to <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">near bancruptcy. </span></strong></em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span></strong>Most economists concur that Obama has yet to come up with a plausible way to finance this black hole in term of budget. McCain's plans regarding health care or education base upon competition, choice for the individual and financial incentives.
<br />While they are conservative and nothing flashy, they are doable and most of all do not require massive (expansive) Govermment organizations, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">but can actually alleviate the pain without going broke in the process.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong>On Spending, McCain clearly wins the point.
<br /></strong>
<br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;">New Revenue Streams</span>
<br /></span>
<br /></strong>McCain's energy platform, which <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">includes</span></strong> short term oil exploration, nuclear power combined with a longterm strategy towards alternative energy, alone will create an industrial boom in the US and in regions so far almost neglected (eg MOntana, shale oil exploration). </em></span>
<br /></span></strong></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>While they both pursue an aggressive push towards alternative sources and independence from foreign oil, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain allows for additional drilling and Nuclear Power, </span></strong>which will alleviate the short term pain on the consumer, create new jobs in the short term, gets us faster to independence, hence reduces the huge transfer of wealth from the USA to the middle east faster and thus frees up big budget for USA based projects. </em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama's plans will get us there too, but in the meantime, we will suffer hugely</span></strong>. </em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>The McCain energy platform is by far superior to Obama's, as it does not only kick in faster, but will result in an economic upturn and much lower pain<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> in the short term.
<br /></span></strong>McCain stands in contrast to Obama for Free Trade. No ifs and buts. </em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Democratic type Trade sanctions, regulations, subventions not only increase spending and the corresponding management, they result in trade wars which can not be "won". Free Trade puts an emphasis on comptetitiveness and innovation instead of protection.
<br />
<br /><strong>With McCain's energy plan alone we should see a short term impact on new jobs, new technology, if not an outright boom in certain areas of the US. We would also see price stability on oil based products, as futures speculation will for once work in our favor, if we allow for additional drilling and secondary oil exploration as well as immediate expansion of Nuclear Power Plant construction. In terms of new revenue generation, McCain wins the point clearly.
<br /></strong>
<br /></em></span><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion:</span>
<br /></strong>
<br /></em></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;">Even though the Obama team tries to link McCain to Bush, hence try to create the impression of McCain resulting in more of the same, on closer analysis, McCain promotes a much sounder economy platform which should eventually resonate with the American People, as they themselves must use some of his principles, when finances get tight, hence see the logic of his proposals. Combined with a proven track record of reform, being a maverick and bipartisan one comes to the conclusioon that in fact McCain should win the economy topic.
<br /></span></strong>______________
<br /></em></span>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">2. Energy</span></strong>
<br />
<br />This topic is closely linked to Economy and Foreign Policy. Evidently the lack of foresight of administrations going back 90 years must be corrected. The pain for the individual has reached unheard of levels. As mentioned above, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain proposes an "all-of-the-above strategy" geared towards Independence from foreign Sources within 20 years,</span></strong> whereas Obama proposes a "fast tracking" of alternative energies, while opposing additional Oil exploration and nuclear power.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Until Obama's plan has an effect, the American Consumer will suffer brutally</span></strong> and the US will continue for a much longer time to have a strategic need to stabilize regions in the middle east, which in effect <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">will result in higher spending</span></strong> needs.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We believe that we can do it all, in an environmentally conscient manner</span></strong>. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Why not tap into our huge existing oil reserves for the short term, when China is drilling on our own coast? Why not tap the <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">largest shale oil reserves in the world</span></strong> and maybe even export some to our European Allies at some point, thus reducing their dependence from Russia. while <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">generating huge revenues</span></strong> towards a balanced budget and important projects (streets, education, health care, social security) within the US? </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Why not build Nuclear Power Plants</span></strong> in the same safe manner France is doing it for 70% of their energy needs?
<br />The electricity generated by these plants which can be built within a short time frame, will allow to redirect oil towards transportation until such time, as new technlogy, which McCain wants to invest heavily into, becomes available.
<br />
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion:</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong>McCains Plan is hugely superior, as it has short and mid term impact on jobs, budget, debt and revenue, heck on national Security, while keeping for the mid term prices for oil stable. With Palin they get a solid background in terms of Energy. He most definitely wins the energy argument by a landslide.</strong></span>
<br />_________________
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;">3. Resume and Track Record</span></strong>
<br /></span>
<br />This topic is a no-brainer. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">On resume and track record, Mccain wins by a landslide.
<br /></span></strong>Executive experience, meaning actual leading of organizations, McCain /Palin own a <strong>huge advantage over Obama</strong>, who is a law professor and community organizer, then legislator, whereas McCain led in the military, then led in several key senate sub commitees and Plain led as governor.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain wins also the argument of a record in terms of change, bi-partisanship and reform,</span></strong> as he autored over 250 bills, of which 30 actually got passed, whereas Obama has zilch to show for, quite actually owns a record in voting present or non voting. Palin offers in adddition to that<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> a record of reform and anti-corruption legislation in an executive function.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />McCain <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">I S</span></strong> the original Maverick who never shied away to aggressively disagree with his own party or even Ronald Reagan, his hero, for that matter. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">He <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">H A S</span></strong> a proven track record of working successfully with Democrats to get the job done. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">It is not by accident, that for the first time in history a prominent Democrat, Joe Lieberman, who eight years ago was on the Dem Ticket for Presidency of the USA, spoke in favor of a Republican Candidate.</span></strong> </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">That is proof to me of <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">actual practised</span></strong> Bi-Partisanship up to this day. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama, who did <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">never once</span></strong> vote with the republicans, can not provide any credible proof for his ability to reach across party lines.
<br />
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion</span>
<br />
<br />On resume, track record, results and accomplishments, McCain most definitely wins the topic clearly. When we hire executives, they must demonstrate that they in the past managed to successfully implement their vision, so we can believe that they will do so again in the future.
<br />Obama has a very well articulated vision alright, but he can not provide any proof or record to lead us to believe that he could deliver. McCain most definitely delivered in the past and hence owns much more credibility, when he promises to change the way things are done in Washington.
<br /></strong></span>_____________________
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">4. Leadership</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Nobody can deny, that we live in a time of grave challenges on every dimension and area.
<br /></span></strong>A reactionary nationalistic Russia, as proven recently with the invasion in Georgia, Iran with nuclear ambitions which may well result in a (nuclear) confrontation with Israel, China, slowly but surely competing with the USAon every level and not always with fair practises (trade defizit), global islamism with its fanatic (terrorist) arm threatening the entire Western Way Of Life, an outright industrial revolution required to overhaul our domestic energy situation, a sagging economy and lastly a divided polarized country <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">require one hell of a caliber of President in terms of leadership.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />This president will have to take hard decisions, may well have to go against opinion polls and the mainstream media. He will have to call upon us all to service. He will have to reach out to allies and members of the other party alike to get things done. The president will have to deal with a fairly undisciplined democratic congress who rather takes a vacation than a vote on drilling. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />The future President will have to deal with politicians in Washington who have entrenched special interests, with lobbies and powerful industries.
<br />
<br />This president will have to clean house in terms of corruption and pork barrel spending.
<br />
<br />This president will make himself a lot of enemies, if he wants to truly serve the American People.
<br />
<br />This president will have to be tough as nails, needs tenacity, work ethics and moral strength.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">The next president will have to be a true Leader.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />Once again one must, when evaluating the candidates in terms of leadership, contemplate their history, record and accomplishments, in order to derive who will be the better leader in the future, as we deem it to be very risky to just base our decision on their vision for the future and their promises alone.
<br />
<br />We asked ourselves, who in fact actually led in the past, who in fact led by example in terms of serving the country and even suffering for it, who has in the past shown tenacity and independence, who in fact has in the past fought against corruption and for reform.
<br />Who has the courage and conviction to give direct and clear answers, instead of waffling around for 10 minutes per question?
<br />Who's shown humility, an integral part of leadership skills, and who is arrogantly lecturing from a pulpit.
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We believe that true, longlasting inspiration is based upon humilty and not arrogance or great speeches. </span></strong>
<br />Talk the talk and walk the walk. Leading by example rather than lecturing and give admittedly great lecttures.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Devotion, based upon celeb status and worshipping can fade quickly.</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Devotion, based upon being able to identify oneself with a humble man of integrity is permanent.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>While Obama most definitely is a charismatic, eloquent, intelligent, likeable candidate, he lacks any record of leadership.</strong> </span>
<br />He does demonstrate charisma and likeability, he does have intelligence and may well after proving himself in the senate for a few more years grow into a true leader.
<br />
<br />At present however, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">he presents the informed voter with too much of a risk</span></strong>, as there is simply no track record leading us to believe that he can take tough decisions, sometimes against the grain or opinion polls.
<br />Obama has flipped his position too many times just during the election period, sent mixed signals to foreign leaders, simply is too much of an <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">unknown quantity.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain on the other hand has proven leadership skills.</span></strong>
<br />We know what he did, we know, what he stands for, he gives clear and direct answers everybody can understand. He does not send out mixed signals and he has the courage to think way outside of the box (e.g.Palin selection)
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">He has a vision and a plan and the proven and tested courage to follow through.</span></strong>
<br />Not only is he a war hero, but a much more important conclusion of his war record is, that it is <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">living proof of his strength, courage, tenacity, defiance in the face of adversity.</span></strong> Every single bone broken in his body and the man would not give up. Everybody counting him out after his surge promotion, yet he'd rather lose an election than a war. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">During a crisis, whom would you rather see in the White House making decisions?
<br />A tested, proven, scarred leader or someone, you simply can not know the stuff the man is made of (yet)?
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Are we really willing to bet the country on an unknown quantity?
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span></em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion</span>
<br /></strong>
<br /></span></em></span><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;">McCain wins the topic by a landslide.
<br />Both candiates can be considered as leaders in their own right. But only one candidate has a proven track record of true leadership.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />________________________
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">5. Foreign Policy</span>
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">In light of terrible (communication) mistakes committed by the Bush Administration, combined with an unilateral approach, the resulting damage our image took on a worldwide scale and the grave challenges, as mentioned above, it becomes mission-critical to select the right candidate to address them.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />I asked myself, who was the candidate who has a worldwide reputation and respect already, hence can hit the ground running. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Who had the experience in foreign relations and diplomacy, and who had actually travelled most of the conflict laden regions repeatedly.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">I asked myself, who was more credible in his promise to prevent war and military conflict. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Who had sent out mixed signals to foreign leaders, who would more likely be tested by despots and autokrats. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Of course, when evaluating the candidates in terms of this topic, track record and experience matter to me.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />Obama opposed the Irak war. McCain was for eliminating Saddam Hussein.
<br />While I understand, that rightfully many people condemn Bush for delivering a false motivation (WMD), in effect, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">the USA did the right thing, even, if for the wrong given reasons.
<br /></span></strong>Importing 40 % of our domestic oil needs from this region, it would have been devastating for sheer pragmatic reasons to allow a despot like Saddam to destabilize the region further.
<br />For humanitarian reasons alone, it was the right thing to do, if one considers that he killed for instance 250000 Kurds in Halabscha by means of chemical weapons, to name just one of many terrible acts of mass murder the man committed.
<br /><strong></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><strong>No matter what, we must accept both positions on the war itself as acceptable. Valuable arguments can be made for as well as against it.
<br /></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">However, when the time came to revise the strategy against all opinion polls and against the incumbent president, and send even more troops into the war zone, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain was the only lone ranger to support and promote it</span>, </strong>and he is now the only one to be proven right. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">His judgement was correct, Obama's was wrong.</span></strong> The same applies to Georgia, where it took Obama 3 days to issue a similar statement as McCain's. Mccain was also the only one, who responded to Bush's "I saw his soul" (meaning Putin) with " I see 3 letters, K G B." </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Once again, when everybody applauded Russia's trend towards democracy,<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> McCain was later proven right in his judgment.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />Obama stated to be willing to invade Pakistan, if needed. Obama stated to be willing to negotiate with all despots of the world <span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>without preconditions</strong>.</span>
<br />Obama stated in Israel that Jerusalem can never be divided, and the very next day he switched position, when talking to representatives of the Palestinian Hamas.
<br />Obama wants to witdhdraw from Irak with timelines and regardless of the situation.
<br />
<br />We consider this as reckless, as any insurgency only neededc to wait out the timeline to resume their activities. In addition to that, we consider a buffer of at least some US military presence in Irak between them and Israel, as probably the last remaining tool to deter the Iranians from any adventures. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama wants to cut funding to our military, while we deem a strong defense force as more needed than ever in order to preserve peace.</span></strong>
<br />He disguises it as modernizing, but in effect and on closer examination, he will reduce our abilities and its size, hence significantly hamper our options further.
<br />
<br />As far as Biden is concerned, he suggested to divide Irak into 3 pieces!!!
<br />Thats a notion not only ridiculous , but against any principles of international diplomacy. Examining Biden's record in terms of foreign policy, he favored almost radical views and a gap between feasibility and effective policy is evident.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We believe that some of Obama's Foreign Policy stands are naive and an example of his lack of experience in intl. diplomacy</span></strong>. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Both candidates promote luckily a more multilateral approach, involving our partners and allies more in the decision making process. Both candidates are much more agreeable in terms of environment and global warming, which is a key issue for instance in Europe. No matter who will be elected, America will restore its reputation and image, by the use of improved language and communication.
<br />Obama's problems with Free Trade however may prove to become an obstacle to improving our international relations, as no one likes trade restrictions, protective measures and trade wars. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />McCain's approach of believing in the competitiveness of US production and Trade and incentivizing domestic production rather than clinging to industries which will no matter what disappear (Sock industry went to China and will never come back), his policy of re-inventing America as High tech country with a ton of new industries and jobs, has a positive effect not only on the economy, but also on our Foreign Relations.
<br />
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion</span>
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;">Without a doubt, McCain wins the point in regard to Foreign Policy.
<br />He again is the o\ne candidate with a proven track record of sound judgment (Georgia, Russia, Surge).
<br />He wins on experience and international reputation.
<br />He further wins on a clear message, leading to predictability as cornerstone of any successful international diplomacy, where mixed signals lead to tests and adventures.
<br />His foreign policy platform is straight forward and does not leave any room for interpretation.
<br />As individual, who has seen the horror of war up close and personal, he certainly has earned the credibility (the hard way) to avoid war at all cost or engage over a rumor or faulty intelligence, while never shying away from it - but only for the right reasons and serving America.
<br />
<br />A McCain Administration to our opinion has better odds in terms of avoidance of any military conflict, as we do believe that some despots in lack of a clear message might very well try to find out with Obama, how far his elasticicy stretches.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />__________________________</span></em>
<br />
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">6. National Security</span></strong>
<br /></span>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">8 years of no Terror Attack on domestic soil speaks to the lone achievement of the Bush Administration.</span></strong> </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">It is easy to take safety and security for granted, especially after such a long time of relative calm. The multilateral War On Terror, waged on all dimensions and levels evidently had shown results. Al Khaeda is hunkered down in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
<br />
<br />No question that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush admin went too far at times. (Guantanamo, Torture, Civil Liberties). Obama denies the success across the board and pledges to revise much of the Patriots Act. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain, going against public opinion once again, has the courage to acknowledge Bush's result in that regard</span></strong>, while disagreeing on several excesses and promising to correct those, while maintaining the general direction of a successful initiative.
<br />
<br />Both candidates promise to intensify the hunt for Bin Laden and eradicate Al Khaeda. Both candidates promise to intensify the war in Afghanistan and bring it to a successful ending.
<br />Only McCain sees an improved border control as cornerstone.
<br />Only McCain to a light extent wants to tighten immigration legislation.
<br />In general I came to the result that both candidates seem to be equally committed in their efforts to prevent any further attacks.
<br />However, if McCain promises to follow Bin Laden to the last cave and bring him down. His track record of tenacity and follow through and <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">his (unpopular) willingness to acknowledge the one area of success by the Bush Admin, lends him in our eyes more credibility.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion
<br />
<br /></span>On National Security McCain wins the point.
<br /></strong></span>
<br />__________________
<br />
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">7. Character</span>
<br /></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Nobody can possibly touch McCain on Character.</span></strong> He's proven it time and again and suffered for it tremendously. His service to the country is impeccable. His willingness not to leave Hanoi ahead of others, who were captured, cost him dearly in broken bones and lasting handicaps, but proved his character and integrity early on.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>The man has seen more horror and friends die than anyone should have to.</strong>
<br /></span>He was not just once, but on many occasions literally in the middle of the fire and has proven to us time and again, that America comes in his mind first, and that <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">this man simply will not falter and crumble</span></strong>, no matter the danger, the odds stacked against him or the personal risk to himself.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">His self-depreciation, humility, integrity and humor makes him a man, most Americans will and can identify with. </span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong>His willingness to lead by example is demonstrated in his adoption of a Child of color, long before any election or presidential campaign.
<br /></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">When assessing a man on character, one must without a doubt measure him by his friends too.</span></strong> Sorry, Obama, in a court of Justice as well as in the court of public opinion with the Electiion for the single most powerful job in the world in mind, <span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>an examination of</strong></span> <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">associations is appropriate..</span></strong> The is in fact such a thing as <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Guilt By Association</span></strong>, as your <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">friends speak to judgment, background and character.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />Listening to the glowing testimony of people who served with John McCain, of a Democrat of the caliber of Joe Liberman or even Hillary Clinton, Biden who spoke of John McCain before the election with the highest respect and almost appreciation, listening to the debates during the primaries, where even staunch adversaries were hesitant to attack John - least alone on Character - , listening to Cindy McCain who in contrast to Michelle Obama comes across as non-controversial, vulnerable and classy, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">one can not help to simply admire the man</span></strong>.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain is the original Maverick</span></strong>. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">An indpendent thinker with a character to match. Courage, tenacity, endurance and an everlasting optimism and faith in the American People and what they stand for.
<br /><strong>His choice of Palin as running mate speaks a thousand words.</strong>
<br />Not only dces it speak to his ability to think outside the box and time and again surprise us all in an arena, where suprises are rare,<strong> <span style="color:#ff9900;">it also speaks to his character as a man who will never waiver to see America first and his own interests later.</span></strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> </span></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">With the surge, he was willing to lose the election before he even started, with his opposition against those unrealistic aethanol subsidies in Iowa, which cost him a whole primary during the critical first period, he proved again, that principle comes with this man before self interest.
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">He opposed Bush on many key items to the extent of being hated by the GOP.</span></strong>
<br />His willingness to reach out on Pro Choice and Immigration, made him the undnerdog in the eyes of staunch conservative Republicans. His willingness to leave faith to a great extent out of the message, but rather live his faith but speak about it, all these things should lead any independent moderate voter to the conclusion that this man's character is what we need to unite this country during difficult and challenging times.
<br />
<br />As far as Obama goes, one simply does not know enough for a thorough assessment and evaluation of his character.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">I therefore started to simply collect some facts and found the following:</span>
<br /></strong>130 times he voted present during 8 years of state and federal Senate.
<br />His relationship with Ayers, a terrorist after all and Rezko, a criminal, <strong>are at best disturbing.
<br /></strong>Sitting for 2o years in a black liberation church, featuring the biggest Nazi I ever heard, does lead me to at best <strong>disqualify Obama's judgment. </strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">His inability to disown the man only after weeks of heated controversy, but never apologize or explain the 20 years, <strong>testifies to either cowardice or arrogance,</strong> depending on the severity one is willing to judge Obama with.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Lastly, for me personally the many flip flops sealed the deal on the topic Character.</strong>
<br /></span>He promised to accept public financing, then broke his promise, after he broke all records of fundraising. He flipped on drilling, troop funding, Israel and just yesterday on nuclear power. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">As a patriot, I do not appreciate that Obama went to Berlin and crapped in front of 250000 Germans all over his own people, just to win some points with a foreign anti-american audience. </span></em></strong>
<br /></span><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;">He went to Irak to get a first hand impression not until McCain challenged him several times on that. </span></em>
<br /></strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">He called people like me in Pennsylvania and other rural areas, who did not vote for him "ignorants, gun toting, Bible quoting and bitter".
<br />His wife, Michelle was quoted to be "proud of this county for the first time in her adult life". Sorry, but that causes concern.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain challenged Obama to several Townhall meetings</span></strong>, where the voter could get a direct contrasting impression of the candidates and their propositions. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama did not engage, which speaks to his character</span>.</strong> I'll leave it at that.
<br />
<br />During the first debate in an interesting format, where both candidates were asked the very same questions independently and after each other, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">McCain gave us direct, courageous, short, to the point answers, whereas Obama waffled around, evaded and lectured. </span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>While McCain actually worked in the senate and got over 30 bills enacted, Obama during his time broke the record in fundraising and/or did not vote at all. </strong>
<br /></span></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Examining the voting record, when Obama every once so often voted, it never stood against his own party, but he came down time and again hard left off centre. </strong>
<br /></span><strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">While McCain did not take or accept a dime in pork barrel funds, Obama took $900M. </span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span></span></strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama nowadays uses his election campaign to come up with something with regard to executive leadership experience. </span></strong>
<br /></span><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span></strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The notion is not only a joke (they have campaign managers to do that) it actually speaks to the character of Obama who up to this day has yet to come up with one single acknowledgment of a shortcoming or misjudgment. </span></em>
<br /><em>
<br /></strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Considering the latter, which always speaks to character,<span style="color:#ff9900;"> <strong>if one is willing to admit a mistake,</strong></span> as John McCain did so on several occasions (e.g. Tax Cuts or his wild times of the youth), it does speak to Character. </span><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Up to this time I personally hav waited for Obama to at least acknowledge that during 20 years of listening to the fanatic black liberation Nazi, Wright, he had known of his radical stands and exercised bad judgment to allow that man to be a "spiritual" influence on his own family for such a long period of time.</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Up to this day, Obama never apologized or showed a grain of humility</span></strong>, which would have endeared him to so many independents like me.
<br /></span>
<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We consider humility and the ability to admit mistakes, which we all commit during our daily lives, as an integral element of Character and Leadership.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">Conclusion</span></strong>
<br /></span></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;">On Character as on many other topics we deem critical for our decision, one does not know much about Obama, even though the man wrote 2 biographies. One can however collect, what a lawyer would call "circumstantial evidence". That material caused us to see Obama as cocky, elite, arrogant with at times extremely poor judgment. There is definitely no record or evidence to the contrary.
<br />The character of John McCain, who feely admits his shortcomings in terms of temper and others, is however undisputed - not even by his most outspoken adversaries.
<br />Hence we can not help to give the point to McCain.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />_______________
<br />
<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">8. Uniting a polarized country</span></strong>
<br /></span>
<br />I guess we can all agree that there is a huge gap in the American Society. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Most forecast a very close election. We all agree that the gap must be bridged. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">If anything is going to get accomplished, it will take true bi-partisan backing, the work of Democrats and Republicans alike and working together in service not of parties but of the country.
<br /></span></strong>
<br />Looking at the simple, straight forward facts during their time in the US Senate, <span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Obama has a 13% record of bi-partisanship</strong>,</span><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> whereas McCain owns a 55% record.
<br /></span></strong>With only 3 Years in the Senate, Obama could have easily and quickly changed the percentage by working just a few times with Republicans and Democrats alike, whereas <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">during a span of 30 years, the 55% record of McCain is staggering and based upon a true tradition of this man to work with people of both sides of the aisle</span>!
<br /></strong>
<br />Most of all, a vast majority of Americans, the people, must buy in and must be inspired to work with and not against a President. Let us not kidd ourselves, the next few years, until the industrial revolution generates an ooutright boom via nw industgries and technologies, we will be called to service by our President. </span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Who, do you honestly believe, will have the courage to call on us</span></strong> in terms of discipline, tightening the belts and accepting tough decisions? Do you sincerely think, that Obama, who has yet to show some form of courage, will have the guts to give us the hard truth and call us to service? </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Will we rather follow a man who's seen misery first hand, proven his enormous courage, strength and unwaivering faith in America time and again, suffered in the service for this country personally and still has the scars to prove it?</span></strong> </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Will we rather follow John McCain who admits his shortcomings and sourrounds himself with (business) leaders of all creeds, genders and political affiliations or Obama, who is untested, unknown and unclear? </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Do we want substance or style? Will we prefer charisma over proven leadership experience? During a storm, what kind of Captain would any normal person want on the bridge? Don't you agree with us, that during these times one needs a captain who has weathered similar storms in the past. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">The Presidency of the US should nevere be considered as an apprenticeship</span></strong> <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">or on the job training, lest during these difficult times, which</span></strong> <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">require a seasoned, tested, proven leader with the proven ability to reach out to the other side and unite the country to the highest possible extent.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama runs on a message of transcending unity.</span></strong> He raises an enormous amount of new voters and people all of a sudden interested in politics. He enjoys a huge popularity amongst our young people. <strong>He definitely has become a symbol of hope to blacks and other minorities. Great achievements without a doubt.
<br /></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">When assessing the candidates on this topic, we however have to consider some disturbing notions. </span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">His Bitter remarks hurt us terribly.</span></strong> </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We are neither bitter, nor racist, bible quoting or gun toting ignorants. We are simple people who ask questions and prefer straight talk over lofty speeches. In order to win us over, one has to talk the talk and walk the walk. We love America too much to base our vote on speeches, negative ads, slandering and distortion. We are smart enough to examine the candidates on their actual records and deeds in the past. So, we are not bitter and most definitely not ignorants. We just look a bit closer.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We also love our country and believe in America and it's great achievements</span></strong>, not to forget the great progress in overcoming the racial divide. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">We did not appreciate Michelle's remarks of<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> being proud for the first time in her life</span></strong> , nor did we appreciate Obama's <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">reverse racismcard being used time and again</span></strong>, " and..... did I mention... he is black".</span></em>
<br />
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We neither appreciated the attacks</span></strong> on Geraldine Ferraro (who will nevertheless remain a Democrat), nor his aggressive reactions to Bill Clinton, who had deservedly won the Nick Name of being the first Black President, turning almost the entire black minority against this former president who was without a doubt very good in his handling and representation of our African American Community.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We did not appreciate Obama's inability to acknowledge the simple, logic fact that black voters do in general vote for a black man </span></strong>- </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Does one honestly believe that 90% of our African American Community actually prefer Obama's Policy Platform over McCains, due to purely pragmatic reasons?
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">The percentage is - just illustrating, not qualifying - based upon race</span></strong>, inasmuch as Clinton enjoyed an advantage with women and McCain with seniors and freely admit it. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">But crushing, smearing, slandering and attacking Ferraro, Clinton and others, </span></strong>who dared to mention this evident fact, as racists, deeply disturbs us.
<br />
<br />We do ask ourselves the question, if a President Obama will qualify anyone ,who will disagree with him on any given issue, as racist too?
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama's 2 decade lasting relationships with Reverend Wright</span></strong> and Farrakhan, and other members of fanatic black liberation movements, deeply concern us.
<br />
<br />Wright, to name just one example, is by now probably among normal white Joe Blows, what the Ku Klux Clan means to the black man. This must be stated clearly and considered as a sad fact.<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> Even though Obama in the meantime disowned the man, doubts remain as to how much a 20 year long black liberation indoctrination has in effect shaped the man's beliefs and views.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />Obama had several widely communicated chances to respond forcefully to those doubts. Yet, he gave us a lecture in racial history rather than acknowledging the so far narrowest racial divide in history.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">All the above does not lend much confidence in Barack Obama's ability to unite the country. </span></strong>As opposed to John McCain, who has a much more differentiated audience and following, Obama's core voter segments are fewer, albeit to huge percentages.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama has become part of the divide</span></strong> instead of transcending it. He inflamed the racial divide rather than ack nowledging, how far America has come to truly be a land of color blind people. To our opinion he has done a disservice to all Blacks who by hard work alone broke the ceiling and not by affirmative action.<strong> Ironically he still enjoys an 80% advantage in this segment.
<br /></strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>McCain on the other hand, shows appeal</strong></span> from women to blue collar workers, from seniors to Union members across all demographics, all genders and all races.
<br />
<br />He<strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"> is</span></strong> the original independent, standing right smack in the middle of the spectre.
<br />He <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">has </span></strong>the track record of bi-partisanship.
<br />He <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">stood </span></strong>time and again against his own party and opinion polls,
<br />and he <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">unites </span></strong>the people of America on his great example of service to the country with much personal sacrifices.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">With McCain the American People can find a Lowest Common Denominator, as most agree upon his experience, service, history, character and personal sacrifices.</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">With Obama, the American People disagree on almost every single aspect or topic.</span></strong> Other than agreeing on his ability to deliver great speeches, one side adores and woreships him almost to the level of a TV Evangelist, while the other hates him with a vengeance.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">As far as we independents are concerned, we simply can not see any area of common ground the American People could find themselves upon with this Candidate.</span></strong>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">The blatant liberal Media Bias</span></strong> (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, LA Times, NY Times, Newsweek, Washington Post in the tank for Obama, FOX and some smaller papers supporting McCain) does not help here either, as the media has become part of the campaigns, heck, outright propaganda platforms, hence look for contrasts, scandals and ugliness, instead of reporting unbiased and looking for common ground.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Currently over 65% of the American People do no longer believe (in) the media.</span></strong> That is a staggering vote of mistrust towards the so called no bull no bias media which makes news, instead of reporting it.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Does the fiery Oprah Winfrey support for Obama disturb us</span></strong>? Yes. Reaching millions of day time viewers, these people have a moral and ethical responsibility not to engage in politics and demagogueism. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We always get suspicious,</span></strong> when people of influence and power try to tell us, what we should believe in.
<br />Albeit, they do make opinons and, stubborn as we are, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">we usually go with the Underdog</span></strong>. Something, we hope, will happen again against the Media and Opinion Makers, as we, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">the American People believe in fundamental fairness in any competition </span></strong>and more and more see, how badly the cards are stacked against McCain, who at times seems to have to compete with one hand bound behind his back (Finances, Media, Public Figures, Bush unpopularity and economic fearmongering)
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Does all the above lead us reallly to believe that Obama is the uniting figure, or does it actually speak to a growing divide?
<br /></span></strong>
<br />Considering John McCain, one can not help to notice, that the American People may disagree on his policy platform, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">but do agree on his service to the country</span></strong>, his character, heroism, tenacity and his proven willingness to always put the country first. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">That we consider at least a basis for an urgently needed unifying and healing process after the election.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Conclusion</span>
<br />Just for that simple logic, that with John McCain the American people have areas they all can agree on, we must give the point to John McCain. Obama may well want to honestly put an effort into uniting the American People. Being a part of the divide however, we simply can not believe that his charisma alone will override deep concerns.
<br />The evident Media Bias towards Obama further lends reasons for deep mistrust.
<br />America may have been ready for the first black President, if the choice had been Colin Powell.
<br />Obama however, generated too much controversy (Leftist voting record, lack of track record, reverse racism, attacks, then ignoring on the Clintons) to ever being able to overcome the huge deficit and to being the uniting personality of a President to the table, who can in fact bring the urgently needed unity about.
<br />
<br />But Unity is, what we will need to tackle the great challenges ahead.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span></em>________________
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;"><em>9. Immigration</em></span></strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em></em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Both candidates are trying to avoid the topic as it is a dangerous one. America is undoubtedly built around Immigration. It draws its immense power of innovation from the influx of the best the world had and has to offer. It also draws from a cheap labor force of legal and illegal immmigrants. Many industries are dependent on these workers.</em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em></em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>The unwillingness by both candidates and both parties to address the issue, has led to dangerous realities.
<br />
<br />Did yo know that most states to not require any proof of citizenship in order to vote? All you need to do is register and then go and vote. With Millions of legal and undocumented aliens in the USA, who definitely have a vested interest in seeing a liberal administration elected, we foresee a grave danger this year that the election could be in several battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania or Michigan swayed by "voter fraud". If only 1 % of all legal and illegal aliens register and vote for Obama, which would be their natural choice, it may well tip close calls over the edge. Several ethnocentric groups and their lobbies and special interest groups are frantically fighting any effort to implement some form of documentation required to vote. Something, absolutely understood and accepted in most western countries.
<br />
<br />In this country, we do not know a national identity card, or have any idea about the true demographics, as nobody is required to submit any papers to any community they move to. Switzerland would offer a great, feasible template of such a system, albeit, any efforts of implementing an all encompassing Immigration reform are being stifled by the ACLU and similar left wing liberal interest groups. People are actually being rewarded for breaking the law.
<br /></em></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Conclusion</em></span></strong> </span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><em>On Immigration we can not give our vote to either of the candidates, as both have not come up with a feasible and doable solution to the problem, which will continue to develop to the worse, no matter the administration. McCain's plans of border security and a sensible way to address illegal immigration go a tiny step farther than Obama's, but do not convince me to give him the point, as the ccurrent situation is an offense to Immigrants like me who went through a painful, long, at times even humiliating process of legal naturalization.
<br />
<br />It rewards illegal immigration, bad beahaviour and encourages people to enter the country that way.
<br />
<br />It is an outrage that neiter of the candidates acknowledges the grabity of the current situation.
<br /></em></span>____________
<br />
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:180%;">10. Experience vs. Change.
<br /></span>Do we really need to sacrifice one for the other?
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Many amongst us regard Experience as key attribute for the toughest and most powerful job in the world. A majority of Americans want change. Ist this really an either or question?
<br /></span></strong>
<br />With Obama one does not get much in regard to the first, but he promises change. McCain too pledges to fix Washington and clean it up. Who is more credible?
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">In this topic I derived from a simple business perspective, that, in order to implement change, one must have experience as change or turn-around manager.</span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">If you want to improve the engine of your car, you need to be a mechanic. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">If you want to change the way business is conducted in Washington, you most definitely need to know and understand in -depth, how the processes and procedures work at the present time. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">You can only fix something, if you actually know it profoundly. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Hence - Experience is a fundamental prerequisite to change</span></strong>.
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">There is no change without experience, but there is experience without change.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">On that notion, Obama is already clearly disqualified</span></strong>, as he has just about 2 years of being a Federal legislator under his belt, most of which time he spent outside of DC fundraising. Nobody, not even Einstein could have gained the needed knowledge and relationships during this short time frame. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">We truly blieve Obama, when he states that he wants to fix Washington</span></strong>. But that is irrelevant, as he simply lacks the tools to deliver on those promises.
<br />
<br />He further does not offer any record of change, going against the grain or his own party or any autored legislation to that.
<br />
<br />We deem him to be a bit hippocritical, when he states to curb special interests, as he himself accepted 900M in pork, whereas McCain didn't take a dime.
<br />Once again, I can not help myself but to see mixed signals out of the Obama campaign. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">He sure talks the talk, but does he really walk the walk?</span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>But what about McCain?</strong>
<br /></span>He clearly has the needed tools, experience and knowledge.
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">But we all want change too.</span></strong>
<br />What can lead us to believe that he will follow through on his promise to change and clean up Washington?</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />Well, he is the original Maverick.</span></em>
<br /></span></em><em><span style="font-size:130%;">He has a track record of bi-partisanship, another prerequisite of change, especially working with a Democratic Congress. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">He has in the past taken on lobbies, financing, special interests and quite actually even introduced corresponding legislation.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The way he led his campaign, selecting Palin as running mate, thinking so far out of the box that even the GOP was (positively) suprised, speaks to his willingness to take new avenues.
<br />With Palin he selcted a running mate with <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">e x e c u t i v e</span></strong> experience, a record of reform and change and a deep background on energy. </span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">A governor with a popularity in her own state, which stands unique in the American landscape. Palin adds definitely to McCain's image of change agent, whereas Biden quite actually speaks to the contrary.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">With Obama, we get a candidate without experience and promises of change. </span></strong></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br />With McCain we get experience plus a track record of actually implemented change and reform.
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">Conclusion</span></strong></em><span style="color:#33ccff;">
<br /></span><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;">On Change, which can never happen without Experience, we must give the point to McCain.
<br />Fact is that we need change. But we need actual implemented executed change, not just words.
<br />We can not afford to just talk about it, we must have it and have it soon. In that sense McCain simply comes across again as much more credible.
<br /></span></em>_________________
<br />
<br /><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">FINAL CONCLUSION
<br /></span></strong>
<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;">Breaking up the Elephant into slices of our interest, then assessing the candidates unemotionally and pragmatically on each of those topics, McCain wins by a landslide. We further believe that a Democratic Congress, so far one with the lowest approval rates on results after all, should be checked and balanced by a Republican President, if of course the latter fits the bill in terms of qualifications. McCain certainly does.
<br />
<br />Our decision making process is not driven by party loyalty, but on the requirements for our great country.
<br />
<br />All aforementioned, briefly outlined topics of importance, as we see them, are in much more detail analyzed and discussed within separate threads of this BLog. This thread is meant as nothing but a condensed version of 500 pages of material, 2h of video and weeks and weeks of media consumption from MsNBC to Fox News including European Media.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;">If you are interested to know more about a specific topic, see on top right the list of various threads for an easy navigation to the topic of your own interest, where you can review in detail, how we derived our decision.</span></em>
<br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"></span></em>
<br /><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffff00;">After careful consideration and assessment of the candidates, we proudly and loudly call on all independents, moderates, Reagan Democrats and Republicans, everybody who is sick of party bickering and special interst politics and corruption and willing to put the country first, to join us in our support of the McCain/Palin ticket.</span></em></strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /></span></em></span></em></span></em>
<br /></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-85883236975180939052008-08-13T09:50:00.000-07:002008-10-31T11:59:10.229-07:00The Media Bias - facts and figures<strong><span style="font-size:180%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">MEDIA BIAS Examined</span></strong>
<br /><strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><em>Many amongst us have perceived the media as being biased. Below material confirms the impression: </em></span></strong>
<br /></strong><p><strong>_____________________________</p>Journalism.Org (PEW Institute)
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://journalism.org/node/13436">How Different Media Have Covered the General Election
<br /></a>
<br /></span>>>>> When it comes to coverage of the campaign for president 2008, where one goes for news makes a difference, according to a new study.
<br />In cable, the evidence firmly suggests there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign.Things look much better for Barack Obama—and much worse for John McCain—on MSNBC than in most other news outlets. On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC.>>>>
<br />>>>>Among the findings:
<br />These findings augment what was learned from a broader report on campaign media coverage released a week earlier entitled <a href="http://journalism.org/node/13307" target="_blank">“Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.”</a> That study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%),
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive).</span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.
<br /></span></strong></strong><strong>
<br />
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6CSix3Dy04&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6CSix3Dy04&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080911.asp#1"><span style="font-size:130%;">Sept. 2008: By 5-to-1 Public Thinks Most Journalists Trying to Elect Obama</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />
<br /></span><a href="http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080905.asp#13"><span style="font-size:130%;">Rasmussen: By 10-to-1 Public Says Reporters 'Trying to Hurt Palin'</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />
<br /></span><a href="http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080819.asp#1"><span style="font-size:130%;">Pew Finds Media Credibility Plummets to All-Time Lows</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />
<br /></span><a href="http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080813.asp#5"><span style="font-size:130%;">Rasmussen: '55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem than Campaign Cash'</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />
<br /></span><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080725.asp#7"><span style="font-size:130%;">Fox News Poll: Two-Thirds Think Most Journalists Want</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> Obama to Win
<br />
<br /></span><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080722.asp#1http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080725.asp"><span style="font-size:130%;">Rasmussen: Three Times More See Pro-Obama Over Pro-McCain Bias </span></a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080606.asp#5"><span style="font-size:130%;">Pew: Many Recognize Media's Pro-Obama Bias, Democrats Prefer CNN </span></a>
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Plus:</span><a href="http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080808.asp#6"><span style="font-size:130%;">Rasmussen: 63%+ of ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and MSNBC Viewers Back Obama</span></a></strong>
<br /></strong><strong>
<br /><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics4.asp"><span style="font-size:130%;">More Polls on How the Public Views the News Media</span></a></strong>
<br /></strong><strong></strong>
<br /><strong><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp"><span style="font-size:130%;">Polls Documenting Liberal Beliefs of Journalists</span></a></strong><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /><strong></strong>
<br /></span><a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist </span></strong></a>
<br /><strong>
<br /></strong><span style="font-size:130%;">>>>>>Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal>>>>>>
<br />
<br />________________
<br />
<br />a new Rasmussen Reports survey showed nearly 60 percent of voters say Mr. Obama gets better treatment from journalists. Nearly half of voters - 49 percent - said reporters would help Mr. Obama, compared with 14 percent who said Mr. McCain benefited from friendly coverage.
<br />The Rasmussen survey suggested the perceived trend is intensifying, with those seeing a pro-Obama slant jumping 5 percentage points from last month while views regarding Mr. McCain stayed the same
<br />
<br />_________________
<br /></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Media Research Center
<br /></span></strong>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.mrc.org/worst/2008/20080909.asp">The Trashing of Sarah Palin</a>
<br /></span>>>>>>Gregory was wrong — that precise question was posed repeatedly on ABC, CBS and NBC as the networks invaded every nook and cranny of Palin's family life. From August 29 through September 4, the Big Three network morning and evening shows ran a total of 59 stories mentioning Palin's family, or about eight per day. Nearly two-thirds of those (37) brought up the pregnancy of Palin's teenaged daughter; another ten questioned whether she could balance her family obligations with a campaign — the exact suggestion Gregory claimed was never "brought up by the media."
<br />On Wednesday's Today, NBC's Amy Robach wondered of Palin: "Will she be shortchanging her kids, or will she be shortchanging the country?" During a roundtable discussion on CBS, the Washington Post's Sally Quinn scolded that "a woman with five children, including one with special needs, and a daughter who is a 17-year-old child who is pregnant and about to have a baby, probably has got to rethink her priorities. >>>>>>
<br />____________________
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obamaExecSum.asp">Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media </a>
<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">How Barack Obama Could Not Have Won the Democratic Nomination Without ABC, CBS and NBC
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
<br /></span>It was the closest nomination contest in a generation, with just one-tenth of a percentage point — 41,622 votes out of more than 35 million cast — separating Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton when the Democratic primaries ended in June. Obama’s margin among elected delegates was almost as thin, just 51 to 48 percent. </span></strong>
<br /><strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">But Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks.</span></span></strong>
<br /></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.
<br />
<br />These are the key findings of the Media Research Center’s exhaustive analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of Barack Obama — every story, every soundbite, every mention — from his first appearance on a network broadcast in May 2000 through the end of the Democratic primaries in June 2008, a total of 1,365 stories. MRC analysts found that the networks’ coverage — particularly prior to the formal start of Obama’s presidential campaign — <span style="color:#ff9900;">bordered on giddy celebration of a political "rock star" rather than objective newsgathering.</span>
<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">If the media did not actually win the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama, they surely made it a whole lot easier.
<br /></span>____________________
<br />
<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/RevWright/RevWrightExecSum.asp">Editing Reverend Wright’s Wrongs</a></span>
<br /></strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">How the Networks Censored and Manipulated Jeremiah Wright Soundbites and Glorified Barack Obama’s Race Speech</span>
<br />
<br />Barack Obama’s greatest struggle in the drawn-out Democratic primary campaign was his relationship with his long-time minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. </span>
<br />
<br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Rev. Wright’s noxious recorded sermons suggesting that America deserved 9/11 and that the federal government created AIDS as a tool of black genocide were widely viewed on YouTube and discussed on talk radio and cable TV.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">But what about the network news shows, the programs most watched by the least politically involved viewers? TV pundits suggested the virulent video clips unfairly caricatured the minister (and by association, Obama himself.) PBS star Bill Moyers lamented that Wright was "assassinated by soundbites."</span> </span>
<br /></strong><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">Did the nation’s broadcast networks really play Wright’s remarks to excess? A Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS, and NBC news broadcasts from the formal announcement of the Obama campaign on February 10, 2007 through July 15 reveals that a viewer watching only broadcast TV news would have received a much more limited (and even censored) version of Wright’s sermons. </span>
<br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;"><strong>Key findings:</strong></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">
<br />The broadcast networks <span style="color:#ff9900;">took an entire year to locate Reverend Wright</span>. Despite a feisty interview on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes back on March 1, 2007 about Obama’s church’s controversial commitment to a "black value system," the name of Jeremiah Wright didn’t surface on the Big Three networks until CBS first broached it on February 28, 2008. The first story with Wright sermon soundbites aired two weeks later, on ABC on March 13. <span style="color:#ff9900;">By then, 42 states and the District of Columbia had already voted. </span>
<br />
<br />The broadcast network evening news shows <span style="color:#ff9900;">gave virtually no coverage to Wright soundbites</span> in March. Snippets of Wright’s sermons drew only 72 seconds of evening news coverage in all of March, or an average of 24 seconds per network,<span style="color:#ff9900;"> less than one commercial.</span>
<br />
<br />The Big Three morning shows gave four times as much time to Wright soundbites as the evening shows in March. The morning shows carried almost five minutes of Wright clips (297 seconds), with ABC offering the most at 128 seconds. The other two networks each ran less than 90 seconds.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The networks completely ignored soundbites of Wright’s conspiracy theory about the U.S. government inventing AIDS to kill blacks, and mostly ignored his comments about the September 11 terrorist attacks being "America’s chickens coming home to roost." </span>
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">None of the network morning or evening shows found one opportunity to air Wright’s 2003 sermon accusing the federal government of hiding the truth about their "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." </span>
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">His attack on America’s alleged record of terrorism and violence was ignored by all three evening shows, as well as by CBS’s The Early Show.</span>
<br />
<br />The broadcast networks gave clips of Obama’s "race speech" on March 18 more than twice as much air time in a few hours than they gave all of the Wright bites aired in the month of March. The evening news shows on March 18 carried almost six minutes (348 seconds) of highlights from the Obama speech, or roughly five times more than all the Wright bites in March. The morning shows carried roughly nine and a half minutes (572 seconds) of sound from the speech. The three morning shows gave almost twice as much time to the Obama speech clips as they devoted to Wright soundbites in March.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Combined, Obama’s one speech drew about 15 minutes of clips, while Wright’s years of sermons drew about six minutes.</span>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Broadcast network interview segments on the Wright remarks and Obama’s race speech in March were dominated by liberal guests. When the networks allowed Republican or conservative guests, they stayed neutral or praised Obama’s remarks. Overall, the network pundit count was 16 to 5. </span></strong>
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS especially loaded its reaction panels with nine liberals and just one right-leaning pundit, pollster Frank Luntz, who contained his remarks to grading Obama’s stagecraft.</span>
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">NBC allowed six liberals and three conservatives. </span>
<br />
<br />ABC aired one liberal and one conservative.
<br />
<br />Wright’s National Press Club vitriol repeating his opinions about an AIDS conspiracy and America deserving 9/11 went virtually unreported.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The broadcast network morning and evening shows aired only two and a half minutes (155 seconds) of soundbites from Wright’s April 28 performance at the National Press Club, but there were no soundbites about AIDS and only 23 seconds about America deserving a terrorist attack. </span>
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">By contrast, these same Big Three shows aired almost six minutes (358 seconds) of clips of Wright’s softball interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, where he accused conservatives of smearing him as a hater.</span>
<br />
<br />In today’s rapid-fire political atmosphere of cable news, talk radio, and the Internet, media analysts can easily make the mistake of believing that the leading network news outlets were tough on a candidate because of the general perception of how the entire media – Old Media and New Media – brought a controversy to the public’s attention.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">But voters who sampled only a light menu of news from Big Three network TV could easily have missed the depths of Reverend Wright’s outrageous remarks. No one could find in these stories a scouring scrutiny of Obama’s decades of membership in his controversial church.
<br /></span>____________________</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /></strong></span></span>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Proof for their liberal bias - see them in their own words:
<br /></span>
<br /></strong><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obviously Not the Media’s Choice
<br /></span>Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift: "This [McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin] is not a serious choice. It makes it look like a made for TV movie. If the media reaction is anything, it’s been literally laughter in many places across news-"Host John McLaughlin: "Where is that? See that?"Clift: "In very, very many newsrooms."— </strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Exchange on The McLaughlin Group, August 31.
<br /></strong></span><a></a>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">"It’s hard to know how many women will flock to the GOP ticket because of Palin.</span> She is a far-right conservative who supported Pat Buchanan over George W. Bush in 2000. She thinks global warming is a hoax and backs the teaching of creationism in public schools. Women are not likely to be impressed by her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest."—</strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter in a "Web exclusive" posted on his magazine’s Web site, August 29.</span></strong>
<br /><strong>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Are You Even More Unbeatable?
<br /></span>"What do you think of Senator McCain’s vice presidential choice?...Does the fact that he chose as his Vice President someone who has less experience than you take that weapon out of his arsenal?"—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS’s Steve Kroft to Obama on 60 Minutes, August 31.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama "Looks Like John Adams"
<br /></span>"[McCain has] done it [picked Sarah Palin] at great cost, because the whole Republican convention...was going to be the slogan, ‘He’s not ready to lead,’ meaning Barack Obama. Well, Sarah Palin makes Barack Obama look like John Adams. I mean, it’s just, it’s no contest."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Newsweek’s Howard Fineman on MSNBC’s Countdown, August 29.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">What’s the GOP’s Nastiest Smear?</span>
<br />"What of the attacks has busted through to you? What makes you angriest at John McCain, the Republicans? What’s being said about your husband that you want to shout from the mountain tops is not true?"—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">NBC’s Brian Williams to Michelle Obama in a taped interview shown on the August 27 Nightly News. </span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span>"<span style="color:#ff9900;">Many of the attacks that have come from John McCain’s campaign have been, quite frankly, condescending</span>. Are you surprised by that? Does it anger you?"— <span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS’s Harry Smith to Democratic candidate Barack Obama on The Early Show, August 22.</span>
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Impressing His Biggest Fans
<br /></span>"I’m just not so sure I’ve ever witnessed anything like this in all of the politics that I’ve covered, which goes back quite a few years already. This place rumbled. And there were certain points during the speech when the stadium was just so alive, and the ground was almost quaking."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS’s Harry Smith on The Early Show, August 29, the morning after Barack Obama’s convention address. </span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">"In many ways it was less a speech than a symphony.</span>
<br /></span>It moved quickly, it had high tempo, at times inspiring, then it became more intimate, slower, all along sort of interweaving a main theme about America’s promise, echoes of Lincoln, of King, even of Reagan and of Kennedy....It was a masterpiece."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">CNN analyst David Gergen during live coverage following Obama’s convention speech, August 28.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Keith Olbermann: "For 42 minutes, not a sour note</span>
<br /></span>and spellbinding throughout in a way usually reserved for the creations of fiction. An extraordinary political statement. Almost a fully realized, tough, crisp, insistent speech in tone and in the sense of cutting through the clutter....I’d love to find something to criticize about it. You got anything?" Chris Matthews: "No. You know I’ve been criticized for saying he inspires me, and to hell with my critics!...You know in the Bible they talk about Jesus serving the good wine last, I think the Democrats did the same."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">MSNBC live convention coverage, August 28</span>.
<br /><a href="http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2008/Audio/2008-08-29-MSNBCChrisMatthews.mp3" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2008/Video/2008-08-29-MSNBCChrisMatthews.wmv" target="_blank"></a>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">"[Obama] had to do two things. He had to be tough and he had to be detailed</span>. We know he is eloquent. He can’t write an ineloquent check, this man."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Newsweek editor Jon Meacham on PBS’s Charlie Rose following Obama’s speech, August 28.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">George’s Impartial Analysis
<br /></span>George Stephanopoulos: "A night of perfect political choreography. The only problem Barack Obama has right now, and it’s a high-class problem, as Bill Clinton used to say, is can he top what happened tonight?"Host Terry Moran: "An extraordinary series of speeches [by Bill Clinton and Joe Biden]."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">ABC’s Nightline on August 27.</span>
<br />
<br />"I think every night in this convention has built on the one that came before....The speeches have gotten better every night."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, August 28.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">An Inspiring "Night for the Ages"</span>
<br />"An incredible night: A return and a roar from the lion of the Democrats....You can almost still feel and hear the echo of the roar that went up last night when Senator Edward Kennedy returned to the convention....People were overwhelmed, simply overwhelmed. They knew it was a night to remember for all ages."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">ABC’s Diane Sawyer on the first night of the Democratic convention, August 26 Good Morning America. </span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span>Co-host Maggie Rodriguez: "I think all of us on this shift stayed up a little bit later than we should, watching what I think couldn’t have been a more compelling first night of that convention."Co-host Julie Chen: "Yeah, Michelle Obama, so impressive, so, just inspiring to watch her speak."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS’s The Early Show, August 26.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Antsy for More Attacks on GOP
<br /></span>"There is one big missing piece tonight, I think, which is why the American people should throw the bums out. We haven’t heard one word about that. We have the most unpopular President in American history, and he’s barely been mentioned tonight. I just think that is an extraordinary gap."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin after the conclusion of the first night of the Democratic convention, August 25.</span>
<br />
<br />"You can say Barack Obama really needs something from Hillary Clinton. He needs her to wake up this hall after a speech that was not only not red meat by former Governor [Mark] Warner, but more like tofu with sprouts."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS’s Jeff Greenfield during live coverage, August</span> 26.
<br />
<br />"I am waiting for someone to take the podium and say the word ‘torture.’ I’m waiting for someone to take the podium, say the word ‘Iraq.’ I’m waiting for someone to take, to take the podium and talk about domestic surveillance and to talk about all the reasons that Democrats want to get rid of George Bush."— <span style="color:#ff9900;">Washington Post columnist and MSNBC on-air regular Eugene Robinson during live coverage, August 26.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span>Co-anchor Chris Matthews: "Keith, I am amazed why they don’t have more fun with the man who calls himself Dick Cheney. Why [not] more references? Why no, why don’t they talk about these villains, as they see them? Why don’t they talk about Bush, who they see as a villain."Co-anchor Keith Olbermann: "I know it works for me."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">SNBC live convention coverage, August 26.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Brian vs. the Glass Ceiling</span>
<br />"I assume she’s going to talk about that glass ceiling, i.e., a woman President of these United States, which begs the question as we listen to her tonight, if not her, who? And when?"—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Brian Williams previewing Hillary Clinton’s convention speech with NBC’s Chuck Todd, August 26 Nightly News.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama = "a Fiscal Conservative"
<br /></span>"Obama’s aides optimistically insist he will reduce it [the deficit], thanks to his tax increases on the affluent and his plan to wind down the Iraq war. Relative to McCain, whose promised spending cuts are extremely vague, Obama does indeed look like a fiscal conservative."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Staff writer David Leonhardt in an August 24 New York Times Magazine article on Obama’s economic ideas.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Harry Hails "Legendary" Liberal
<br /></span>"Helen Thomas has been covering the White House for-ever, almost 50 years now. We’re going to talk to Rory Kennedy, director of a new documentary about the legendary journalist....Where she sits and what she does day after day after day, I’m not sure we value enough."—
<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">CBS’s Harry Smith on The Early Show, August 14.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"></span>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Admiring a "Profound" Attack</span>
<br />"What I liked about the performance by Barack Obama was this: He finally took on John McCain on the issue of our time, which is Russia, of course, and its invasion of Georgia. And he used the word ‘bluster’ twice. Now, there are a lot of neo-conservatives out there that just love the old black and white Manichaean Cold War feeling again. They’d like to get rid of color television, in fact. Let’s go back to the ‘50s and let’s fight with the Russians again....Here’s a guy, Barack Obama who’s not supposed to have a strong suit, in the area of foreign policy, calling it what it is: bluster. It’s just words, just sword-rattling, and he called it today. I thought that was profound."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">MSNBC’s Chris Matthews anchoring live coverage of Barack Obama’s introduction of Joe Biden as his running mate, August 23.
<br /></span><a href="http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2008/Audio/2008-08-23-MSNCAM-Matthews.mp3" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2008/Video/2008-08-23-MSNCAM-Matthews.wmv" target="_blank"></a>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">"Tired of Being Called a Traitor"</span>
<br />"The Republican Party is corrupt through and through.... They’re too adept at thievery, at moving the Constitution into places it never meant to go. I think that they have an extraordinary ability to divide rather than unite. And I think that I am tired of being called a traitor because I like my flag and I like and I support the troops."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Actor Richard Dreyfuss on MSNBC News Live, August 27.</span>
<br /><a href="http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2008/Audio/2008-08-27-MSNBC-Dreyfuss.mp3" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2008/Video/2008-08-27-MSNBC-Dreyfuss.wmv" target="_blank"></a>
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Mocking Obama’s Media Groupies</span>
<br />"I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him [Barack Obama] too much. I don’t think he thinks that he’s all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him."—
<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">HBO’s Bill Maher on Real Time, August 29.</span>
<br />
<br />_____________________
<br />
<br /></strong><strong>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></strong></strong><strong></strong></span><strong></strong><strong></strong></strong><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong></strong></strong><strong></strong></span></strong><strong></strong><strong></strong></strong><strong></strong>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-63641905272919679022008-08-12T13:40:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:35:25.516-07:00Obama versus Obama - 31 Flips and counting<strong><span style="font-size:180%;">31 Major Flip Flopps -
<br />reason for serious concern
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></span></strong>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">• </span><a href="http://voices.kansascity.com/node/1703"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Surge</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "It's fascinating to watch Barack Obama change his opinions on the U.S. troop surge in Iraq... Here's a combo -- a Los Angeles Times report on deletions of Obama's previous anti-surge position on his Web site plus a YouTube video showing his flip-flops on the issue."
<br />
<br />• </span><a href="http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_flip_flops_on_gay_marriage/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Gay Marriage</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Obama before the election: States should decide gay marriage. Obama during the election: California’s attempt to decide gay marriage for itself is 'divisive and discriminatory.' "
<br />
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020955.php"><span style="font-size:130%;">FISA</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Like everything Barack Obama says, that pledge was operative only as long as it was in Obama's political interest."
<br /></span>
<br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SIkoN1MZ4lI/AAAAAAAAHqo/Fq1_JX8sQ2E/s1600-h/080724-obama-nafta.jpg"></a><span style="font-size:130%;">• </span><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cross_tabs/2008/06/obama_flipflops_on_nafta.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">NAFTA</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "OK, this is pathetic: Obama now says that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the campaign was a bit 'overheated.'"
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/obama_reneges_on_public_financ.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Publicly financed campaigns</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/26/flip-flop-confirmed-obama-says-dc-gun-ban-went-beyond-constitutional-limits/"><span style="font-size:130%;">DC Handgun Ban</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "After a day spent paying lip service to both sides of the debate while studiously avoiding the issue of whether the actual statute at stake in Heller was unconstitutional, he finally bites the bullet (no pun intended) and addresses it.."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/06/27/112989/"><span style="font-size:130%;">School Vouchers</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Barack Obama told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in February that he was open to voucher programs, but just last week announced his intentions to squash the DC pilot program."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/17/obama-on-gitmo-jihadis-you-dont-have-to-give-them-the-same-protections-as-normal-criminals/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Guantanamo Bay</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "I’m curious as to what’s motivating this [new] compromise. Is there any logic behind it or is it a simple something-for-both-sides political solution?"
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Illegal Immigration</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - [In March 2004], Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."
<br /></span>
<br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SIkqX1cff-I/AAAAAAAAHq4/N1-BVtEI4dQ/s1600-h/080724-obama-smoking.jpg"></a><span style="font-size:130%;">• </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Marijuana</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "[In] January 2004, Obama [said] he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/07/03/yet-another-obama-flip-flop-now-on-abortion/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Abortion</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says “mental distress” should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/21/collection-of-obama-flip-flops/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Iraq</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "At a time when [the Surge appears to be working], is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? [Kroft asked. Obama replied,] “Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time..." [Kroft:] “And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” Kroft asked.“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6425923706&topic=6103"><span style="font-size:130%;">Death Penalty</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Ten years ago, when Obama was running for statewide office in an [exclusive] Chicago district, he opposed the death penalty. He now supports the ultimate penalty."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obama_leaves_blue_women_seeing.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Faith-based initiatives</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "During the recent Obama pander tour... the presumptive Democratic nominee unnecessarily endorsed President Bush's faith-based initiative, a sort of patronage program that rewards religious activists for their political support with public grants."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080705/OPINION/807050334/1028/OPINION02"><span style="font-size:130%;">Wearing a U.S. Flag Pin</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after 9/11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism." So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over."
<br />
<br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SIkpeHv2D1I/AAAAAAAAHqw/NKJn7sHvjh8/s1600-h/080724-obama-wright.jpg"></a><span style="font-size:130%;">• </span><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9716298"><span style="font-size:130%;">Reverend Jeremiah Wright</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "'I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother' - then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-shifts-on.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Welfare Reform</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Cuba Embargo</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed..." ...in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change.""
<br /></span>
<br />•</span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SIkskeFKSlI/AAAAAAAAHrI/Mz-g3fldX1o/s1600-h/080724-che-che-change.jpg"></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span><a href="http://theutubeblog.com/2008/01/06/clinton-camp-obama-flip-flops-on-single-payer-system/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Single-payer Healthcare</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "Contradicting what Obama said at the debate, the old footage shows the senator saying, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”At the debate, Obama stated: “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer... Single-payer healthcare is an euphemism for socialized medicine."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Special Interest Contributions</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions ...as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements... [referring] respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and ...he is "thrilled" by their support."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-flip-flops-on-united-jerusalem-vow"><span style="font-size:130%;">Divided Jerusalem</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Many on the right of the political spectrum... welcomed Obama’s remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/02/obamas-triple-lindy-iran-iraq-and-league-of-democracies-flip-flops/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Meeting with Iran's leaders without preconditions</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "Barack Obama has returned to the no-preconditions policy for meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to Obama foreign-policy adviser Anthony Lake. Financial Times also discovered in its interview with Lake that Obama has reversed himself on Iraq, now saying that the withdrawal is off."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/21/collection-of-obama-flip-flops/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Palestinian elections</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> - "[In 2006,] Obama [said]: “There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.... But During His 2006 Trip To The Middle East, Obama Met With Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas And Said The Election Represented An “Opportunity…To Consolidate Behind A Single Government.”
<br /></span>
<br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/SIkqznH8iII/AAAAAAAAHrA/6qkCjbY4peg/s1600-h/080724-obama-ahmad.jpg"></a><span style="font-size:130%;">• </span><a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/obama_flipflop_on_iran.asp"><span style="font-size:130%;">The threat posed by Iran</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Yesterday [in Oregon, Obama said], "I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us....You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance." Today in Montana, Obama changed his tune: " Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust..."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/12/184131/41"><span style="font-size:130%;">The Patriot Act</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: " In 2003, he said he was against the Patriot Act, but voted for it in 2006."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/12/184131/41"><span style="font-size:130%;">Gays in the Military</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: ""In 2003, he said he was against the repeal of DOMA, but now he's for it in 2007. In 2003, he said he'd have to "examine specific legislation" dealing with LGBT discrimination in the military, now he's completely for ending "don't ask/don't tell".""
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://www.carboncoalition.org/blog/2007/06/obama-puts-on-his-flip-flops/"><span style="font-size:130%;">Coal</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Although summer hasn’t officially begun, flip-flop season is well underway and it appears Senator Obama has joined the club... On Tuesday Obama, whose support for coal-to-liquid has been widely criticized by environmentalists, sent out a press release clarifying his position on liquid coal."
<br /></span>
<br />• </span><a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/netroots-activi.html?cid=121452114#comment-121452114"><span style="font-size:130%;">Wiretapping</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">: "Netroots activists who helped Barack Obama to become the Democratic party's presumptive presidential nominee are unmoved by the senator's explanation of his change of heart on a pending bill regarding warrantless wiretapping."
<br /></span>
<br /></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/breaking-news-obama-does-flip-flop-on.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Drilling </span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">Video of Obama changing his position on offshore drilling ...obviously only a compromise not a flip flip per the Messiah
<br /></span>
<br /></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-does-two-flip-flops-on-payroll.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">Payroll Taxes </span></a>
<br /></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">From the Penn debate: As a minimum he's flip-flopped on his original idea of sticking it to the top 5% or 6% that make too much money for Comrade Obama's liking and taxing everything over $97000Tonight the first flip flop when attacked by his opponent who points out that many Pennsylvanian teachers, firefighters who typically support Democrats make slightly more than $97000...he addresses their likely salary range saying " I'd be willing to look at exempting people who are making slightly above that."Then when pressed further by Charlie who reminds him there's a heck of a lot of people making more than $97,000 and less than $200,000 Obama changes his position again and literally stammers an untruth "And that's -- and that's -- and that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between."
<br /></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/nevada-politics-of-immigration-seems-to.html"></a>
<br /><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/nevada-politics-of-immigration-seems-to.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">31 Obama did a flip-flop on the construction of a security fence</span></a></span><span style="font-size:130%;">in 2006 Obama voted for the counstruction of a border fence with Mexico. He reversed his position during the Democrat primary
<br /></span></span></span></strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>______________</strong></span>
<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama vs. Obama
<br /></span></strong>A Commentary By Dick Morris
<br />Thursday, September 11, 2008
<br />
<br /><a href="http://harvest483.adgardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=91" target="_blank"></a>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">Now that the conventions are over, it is evident that the battle of John McCain is over (McCain won) and the battle of Barack Obama will determine the outcome of the election.Now that McCain has definitively, and I suspect irreversibly, separated himself from Bush, he has become an acceptable alternative to Obama for voters seeking change. </span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">The question now is whether Obama’s extra quotient of change — or the different direction that change will take — is worth the risk of electing him.</span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">Obama was wrong to </span><a class="iAs" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal! important; FONT-SIZE: 100%! important; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px! important; COLOR: darkgreen! important; BORDER-BOTTOM: darkgreen 0.07em solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent! important; TEXT-DECORATION: underline! important" href="http://web1.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_vs_obama#" target="_blank" itxtdid="6724395"><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">invest</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"> so much in the Bush-McCain linkage. Any candidate can define himself at his convention. And if McCain chose, as he did, to use the gathering to distance himself from Washington and from the Bush administration, there was really nothing that Obama could do to stop him. He should have focused very specifically on McCain himself and taken shots at specific votes and bills that he introduced.</span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">Now, after the massive exposure McCain got at his convention and the demonstrable commitment to change embodied in the selection of Sarah Palin, it is too late.
<br />
<br />The Obama campaign doesn’t seem to get that it is running against McCain, not Sarah Palin. They spent the entire Republican convention and the week since attacking the vice presidential candidate. That’s like stabbing the capillaries instead of the arteries.</span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">Nobody is going to vote for or against McCain because they want Sarah Palin to be vice president of the United States, or don’t. But Palin has served, and will serve, a key purpose in illustrating and demonstrating what kind of a man John McCain is. She stands as a tribute to his desire to bring change, his willingness to cut loose from the past, and his courage in attempting </span><a class="iAs" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal! important; FONT-SIZE: 100%! important; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px! important; COLOR: darkgreen! important; BORDER-BOTTOM: darkgreen 0.07em solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent! important; TEXT-DECORATION: underline! important" href="http://web1.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_vs_obama#" target="_blank" itxtdid="6319185"><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">innovation</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">. No amount of criticism of Palin is going to stop that process. Obama needs to remember who his opponent is. </span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">
<br />Now the election will hinge on a referendum on Obama. Is the extra healthcare coverage he would pass worth the huge tax increases he will impose? Nobody buys his claim that he will only increase taxes on a few rich people and give the rest of us tax cuts. Voters can add, and they realize that his spending plans and tax-cut promises come to a trillion dollars and that his tax increases represent only one-tenth as much. They know that everyone who pays taxes will end up paying more if Obama is elected. The question will be: Is it worth it?Is his commitment to income redistribution and increasing tax “fairness” worth the risk his tax plans pose for the economy?
<br />
<br />Is his plan to pull out of Iraq and his commitment to multilateralism in foreign policy worth the risk of putting someone with virtually no foreign policy </span><a class="iAs" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal! important; FONT-SIZE: 100%! important; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px! important; COLOR: darkgreen! important; BORDER-BOTTOM: darkgreen 0.07em solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent! important; TEXT-DECORATION: underline! important" href="http://web1.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_vs_obama#" target="_blank" itxtdid="6782320"><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">experience</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"> in charge of our international relations in the middle of a war? </span>
<br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">Is his promise to respect the Constitution and ratchet back the intrusions of the Bush homeland security measures worth the extra risk of terror attack?</span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">The answer to these questions will only partially depend on what Obama is proposing and on how sound we think his judgment is. They will also depend on the events that will transpire between now and Election Day. If Iran moves closer to getting nuclear weapons or Israel attacks Iran to forestall that development, things could change in a hurry. If the current atmosphere of economic uncertainty and impending possible crisis — signaled by the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — deepens, it may make voters less willing to risk the high taxes and big spending that Obama will bring in his wake. If Russia continues to assert its imperial right to dominate Eastern Europe and restore a Soviet-style satellite empire, voters will wonder if they can take a chance on Obama.But if things are relatively peaceful and uneventful, voters may bristle at the stagnation and turn to Obama in the hopes of change.</span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;">The key point is that this race is now not about Bush or McCain or Clinton or Palin. It’s all about Obama.
<br />______________________
<br />
<br /><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/09/12/obamas_race_to_lose_-_and_he_might"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama's Race to Lose - And He Might</span></strong> </a>
<br />by Charles Krauthammer </span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">>>>>
<br />But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain's Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama's meteoric rise was based not on issues -- there was not a dime's worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues -- but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.
<br />>>>>></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">____________________</span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>
<br />
<br />
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-7372704265287129482008-07-30T16:03:00.000-07:002008-08-07T11:00:03.791-07:00Obama - The Messiah - Irony from London<a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT4FKNGmyI/AAAAAAAAAGI/6lo3tDuEwtg/s1600-h/obama.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230077834806336290" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 461px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 249px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="278" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT4FKNGmyI/AAAAAAAAAGI/6lo3tDuEwtg/s400/obama.gif" width="477" border="0" /></a> <em><strong><span style="color:#66ffff;">The effort by the Obama Team to build this "transcending" Rock star image, to give Obama an almost messianic character, which he starts to sell to the American People himself (or actually believe himself)( See Article below), starts to penetrate even overseas.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">First signs of ridicule comes from London in a beautiful piece, which will allow you a hearthy laugh.<br /></span>The imagery, subliminal mesages below contain some of Obama's own marketing material, <span style="color:#ff9900;">and, while we are smiling about the cartoons, the real life imagery is definitely reason for concern. Even thoug Obama howled in outrage, when the McCain team used imagery of Brittney Spears and oyther celebrities to portray Obama as a Rock Star,<span style="color:#ff6666;"> there is clear evidence, that the Obama Campaign in fact promotes a "Messiah Factor"</span> in order to avoid having to talk about real issues. </span>Sadly, below article by the reputable London Times proves that once again America becomes a laughing stock to the world.</span></strong></em><br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5231101991038878386" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 162px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 122px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="134" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJibi5e2ArI/AAAAAAAAAJY/TAR_cRPoh9w/s400/2087835746_2a0ebd778c.jpg" width="174" border="0" /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Taken from Obama's Own Website......</span></em> </strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong>Do we really need another TV Evangelist?<br /></strong></span></em><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">July 25, 2008, London Times</span></strong><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffff00;">He ventured forth to bring light to the world</span><br />The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers<br />Gerard Baker </strong></span></div><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong></strong></span><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230079114990982370" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT5PrQ6FOI/AAAAAAAAAGY/JkRmApmI81k/s400/2286521650_15d399b8c2.jpg" border="0" /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Taken from Obama's Website...<br /></em></span><br />And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. </strong></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"></span></strong><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230094982892535618" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJUHrTzcv0I/AAAAAAAAAIQ/tmQIZKMs3yM/s400/celestial_choir.jpg" border="0" />The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><object style="WIDTH: 248px; HEIGHT: 159px" height="159" width="248"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mopkn0lPzM8&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mopkn0lPzM8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></strong></span><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?” </strong></span><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><br /></strong></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong></strong></span><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230080230833254178" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 421px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 245px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="276" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT6QoGb7yI/AAAAAAAAAGg/eEQ5ySGjbwk/s400/5x8ml2b.jpg" width="459" border="0" /> <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><br />In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. <img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5231102448829081762" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="90" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJib9i4iKKI/AAAAAAAAAJg/VJ3Wn1LWLnA/s400/426942193_5c6e0a5b8a_b.jpg" width="132" border="0" /><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Interesting, how the perspective is always directed upwards..... (Taken from Obama's Website)</em><br /></span><br />And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world. <img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5231103216712851538" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJicqPeSoFI/AAAAAAAAAJo/XSJOOPvyJtQ/s400/24_berlin.jpg" border="0" /></strong></span> <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Taken from his own website. </span></em><br /><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><br /></span></em><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"></span></em>He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.<br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230080827572142386" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 223px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="223" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT6zXIEwTI/AAAAAAAAAGo/9V7W4vW90qI/s400/a_obamachild600.jpg" width="362" border="0" /><br />And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more. </strong></span><br /><br /><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong></strong></span></p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230081149767331106" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 201px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 260px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="231" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT7GHZZLSI/AAAAAAAAAGw/3ZH-TfCtgbA/s400/2286517554_8b5264084d.jpg" width="224" border="0" /> <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.<br />And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.</strong></span><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230082126460487490" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT7-93MB0I/AAAAAAAAAHA/I_cmpqjOajo/s400/leapoffaithuq8.jpg" border="0" /> And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace.<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6CSix3Dy04&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6CSix3Dy04&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.<br />From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet. </strong></span><br /><br /><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230082341950188386" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 413px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 109px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="140" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT8Lgn762I/AAAAAAAAAHI/zNbbpvLNfkQ/s400/2619205229_cc2d84e9c6.jpg" width="463" border="0" /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"> Taken from his own website...</span></em><br /><br />In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.<br />As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites. </strong></span><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230082747774689042" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT8jIcCXxI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/DVZtWNzXGFc/s400/obama_choir.jpg" border="0" /> And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.<br />The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for. <img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230083092712298386" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT83Nbkl5I/AAAAAAAAAHY/WJEAPhbKf-Q/s400/2286517528_b8deca4edf_m.jpg" border="0" /> And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.<br />Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it. </strong></span><br /></p><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230083289490496258" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="211" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT9CqfJmwI/AAAAAAAAAHg/VYkyuh6tptc/s400/2330301126_d0149ffca2.jpg" width="186" border="0" /> And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230084573111953234" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="448" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT-NYWWp1I/AAAAAAAAAIA/nDbxGHI24-Q/s400/2725753644_eb2f41234e.jpg" width="324" border="0" /> Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.<br />But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him</strong></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230083551616221890" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT9R6-ywsI/AAAAAAAAAHo/wnHIxqh-wIY/s400/obama-water.gif" border="0" /> And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets. </strong></span><br /><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230083804235974802" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT9goECSJI/AAAAAAAAAHw/isG-jretGZM/s400/obamassiah.jpg" border="0" /> Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.<br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230084140674138402" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 188px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 116px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="147" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJT90NZJQSI/AAAAAAAAAH4/9lFFTOPgTtE/s400/reachouttouchfaith.jpg" width="180" border="0" /> </strong></span><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Taken from his own website...</span></em></strong><br /><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.<br /></strong></span><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230091385040266738" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="325" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJUEZ4wn5fI/AAAAAAAAAII/W_2ReMnX3Wc/s400/obamamessiahMEcohen.jpg" width="420" border="0" /> <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”</strong></span></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-50306379391230023662008-07-29T12:31:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:38:44.104-07:00Energy Discussion - How Much Oil Does The US Really Have<p><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s1p2eZnoWJE&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s1p2eZnoWJE&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffff00;"><a href="http://energytomorrow.org/energy/Access_to_Domestic_Supply.aspx?pmc=Glsrch-01&gclid=CLX2_-K10JkCFQ9JagodhFQ3vA">ACCESS TO DOMESTIC SUPPLY</a> (Review this website for facts and figures)</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">The cost of energy has become a top concern for Americans. According to a </span><a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/884/gas-prices" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Pew</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"> poll in May 2008, voters ranked energy as a higher priority than social security, Iraq and terrorism. </span><a href="http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1519" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33cc00;">Zogby</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33cc00;"> reported that 74% of voters support increased energy exploration. </span>A poll from </span><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369827,00.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Fox News</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"> shows that <span style="color:#33cc00;">76% of voters support immediate measures to begin offshore drilling.</span> Take your pick of national polls, and chances are you will find numbers that show Americans asking for more energy exploration here at home.<br />According to federal government data,<span style="color:#33cc00;"> the U.S. has enough oil and natural gas to fuel more than 65 million cars for 60 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. In fact, the U.S. government estimates that there are 30 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil on federal lands currently closed to development.<br /></span>In addition, a recent </span><a href="http://energytomorrow.org/Untapped_U_S_Oil_and_Gas_Resources_Study.aspx"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">study by ICF International </span></a></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">shows that more access to domestic energy resources <span style="color:#33cc00;">could generate $1.7 trillion in government revenue, create thousands of new jobs and enhance America’s energy security by significantly boosting energy production here in the United States.<br /></span>It is clear, from recent polls, that Americans want policies that will allow U.S. companies to develop natural resources here in the United States that will generate revenue, create jobs and increase our energy security. Congress should listen to the American people. Our nation also needs increased energy efficiency and more energy from all sources, including domestic oil and natural gas for the benefit and security of American consumers.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/01/drilling_and_blissful_ignorance"><span style="font-size:180%;">Drilling and Blissful Ignorance<br /></span></a>by Charles Krauthammer<br /></span><span style="color:#ff9900;">>>>>>Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?<br />The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage>>>></span></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">___________________________________________</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">The Latest:<br />I can't help myself - but the latest cheap shot came from Obama again this week: He accuses McCain to be, with 26 years in the Senate, "Guilty" of the current Energy Problem. </span><span style="color:#ff9900;">Okay - let us examine this a bit further Mr. Obama. ..<br /></span></em></strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5231096872488010018" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJiW49ZOASI/AAAAAAAAAJI/1XMRYglqOP8/s400/corn-on-the-coboma.jpg" border="0" /> <strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">If you as usual by now, want to play the blame game again, then you have to look at the last 90 years, Sir.<br />You have to look at the fundamental flaw of the US Energy Policy or the lack thereof. That means that<span style="color:#ff9900;"> in effect all Congresses, all Presidents and every politician since the roaring 20s are to be blamed. Democrats and Republicans alike.</span> </span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n49qkoXoY0&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n49qkoXoY0&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">The current Energy problem is based upon a fundamental design flaw of the US society. We are a nation of Highways, Truck Transportation and car drivers, while public transportation systems were neglected or suppressed by the powerful automotive industry. In part understandable, as this comparably young country went naturally the way of the least resistance in comparison to historically grown train and subway systems, such as in Europe.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Heck our entire explosive economy was (and had to be (WWII) based upon easy available energy sources, whereas Europe early on was forced to examine alternative sources, due to lack or resources within their territory.<br /><br />Having said that, it is easy and cheap to condemn the US, as the Europeans too were forced to take a specific route - the environment not foremost in mind at the time, but sheer economic survival.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff6666;">The point I am trying to make is, that our current state of the affairs in terms of energy is a result of logic, history and admittedly also a lack of foresight across all political parties and administrations.<br /></span><br />Mr. Obama, <span style="color:#ff9900;">if you want to play the guilt card all the way, then you have to walk the walk and blame the American People as well. But that would not be a smart election strategy, right, and cost you votes?<br /></span><span style="color:#ff6666;">And while you have the audacity to blame, where is your own (even short) track record in state and federal government to that matter?<br /><br /></span></span><span style="color:#33ff33;">How about walking the walk and do what you preach?</span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#ff6666;"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UEwDG7hjlgQ&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UEwDG7hjlgQ&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></span>While McCain legislated and served - you lectured and fund-raised, quite actually delivered absolutely nothing of note. <span style="color:#ff6666;">So according to you - all of a sudden the ones who did absolutely nothing in any area, are to be applauded? </span>Are we now to believe a lazy, calculating Macchiavelli, who got nothing done in his political career, just because he opens his big mouth - or someone who time and again delivered?<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">It is so easy and cheap now to jump on the bandwagon of climate change, global warming, energy conservation and the exploring of alternative sources.<br />It is much harder to do the right thingt, when nobody cares. Where is your track record to that, Senator Obama?</span></span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><br /></span>While you are applauding and honoring the legacy of Great Democratic Presidents and Politicians, have you completely lost your sense for history and forgotten, that none of them saw this crisis coming?<br /><span style="color:#ff6666;">So , while John McCain once again demonstrates humility and integrity by accepting and acknowledging the lack of foresight in this regard - even his own - you come along with your halo and blame everybody, but yourself, even though you too are part of the political establishment, Sir.<br /></span></span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">How about showing a bit of integrity to acknowledge that fact and how about a bit of wisdom now, delivering a comprehensive and feasible plan to actually solve the problem, instead of going negative again and issuing blame?</span></em></strong><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oHXYsw_ZDXg&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oHXYsw_ZDXg&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff9966;"><em></em></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff9966;"><em><span style="font-size:180%;">Some Cold Hard Energy Facts<br />The Reader Should Contemplate:</span><br /></em><br /><em>The US sits on huge Oil reserves, some of which can be available within 18 months (Off-shore Oil)<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">According to the latest scientific data, The US has the single largest deposits of shale oil in the world (already discovered)<br /></span>This seconodary oil exploration could free up more than 70 years of oil at the current consumption rate !!!!<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EiTpS4MK3D8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EiTpS4MK3D8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">(Any drilling or secondary oil exploration is opposed by Obama, supported by McCain)</span><br />Just the outlook of foreseeable additional supply would have an even faster impact on prices, as futures speculations would drive the price down.<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">Aren't the Dems exactly the ones blaming speculation for artificially raising of gasoline prices? Quite hypocritical to conveniently "forgetting" that mechanism, when we discuss drilling....</span></em></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff9966;"><em>France has proven <span style="color:#33ff33;">with 70% of its energy supplied by Nuclear power</span>, that it can be done, incident free, safe and environmentally conscient. Should take less than 10 years to build sufficient amounts of reactors, freeing additional oil for transportation by replacing oil based technologies by electricity.<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">(Opposed by Obama - supported by McCain)</span><br /><br />The Southern States could be self-sufficient with a broad based roll out of Solar and Wind Technology.(<span style="color:#33ccff;">Supported by both)</span><br /><br />Bio-Fuel technolgy as practised in the USA is wrong, as it drives food prices up (Sorry Ohio). Brazil (40%, via sugar cane) is the right approach or the processing of genetically manipulated grasses with a much higher efficiency (Amount of processed material versus amount of gained biofuel)<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">Hence the domestic Biofuel approach with huge subventions to the producers is opposed by Mccain and supported without distinction by Obama. (However, if done right, supported by McCain)</span></em></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ff9966;"><em>Hydrogen technology - <span style="color:#33ccff;">supported by both<br /></span><br />Conservation, higher environmental standards - <span style="color:#33ccff;">supported by both</span></em></span></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Additional Taxing of Oil, Coal and Nuclear (after all our primary Energy providers), hence in brutal consequence higher prices for the latter<br /></span>Supported by Obama - Opposed by McCain</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Tire inflation and servicing of cars</span> - Suggested by Obama, already known by the American people and McCain.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Voting on Drilling in Congress</span> -<br />Opposed by Obama, Nancy Pelosi <span style="color:#ff9900;">and enough Democrats to shut down Congress and take a vacation, most Americans can not afford to take.</span><br />Supported by McCain and the Republicans, </span><span style="color:#ff9900;">who appeal to the President to call Congress back and do, what they are eledcted for - work for us and get something done! Now!</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;"><span style="font-size:180%;">In Conclusion -</span><br /></span><span style="color:#33ccff;">Obama has only theoretical,<span style="color:#ffcc66;"> longterm plans</span> plus the patronizing naivety to suggest that inflating tires will result in as much conservation, as we would gain by additional drilling..... ???<br /><br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Mccain proposes an all-of-the=above compehensive Strategy with immediate impact.<br /></span>Short term: Expanded Drilling and massive investments in alternative Sources<br />Mid-Term: Expansion of Nuclear Power, as proven feasible by France, will kick in.<br />Longterm: Investment in alternative sources will kick in with roll out of wind, solar, gas, clean coal, hydro and other.<br /><br /></span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">His plan is comprehensive, immediately feasible and does not throw the people under the bus, since, while he massively invests in alternative sources, he secures our immediate energy needs. The main difference between Obama's and McCain's Plan is, thet while they agree on the longterm, Obama completely neglects all immediate needs. In other words, we will pay10$ a gallon for a long time, before we will find relief. McCain has a plan which will help us soon, while acccomplishing the very same overhaul during the very same time frame.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">His strategy reduces the chance for military conflict or political blackmail, as we become independent from the middle east sooner. </span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">Mccain's strategy does not only help us immediately with regard to energy cost, it strengthens our National Security, creates immediately jobs, hence has a huge impact on the economy.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">McCain's Plan further reduces our need for involvement in a chronically unstable region.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">McCain's Plan reduces our trade defizit vs. Saudi Arabia and the likes massively, whereas Obama's strategy will result in huge debth increases.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">McCain's Plan improves our geostrategic position fast in terms of foreign policy, as we may become able to use the oil lever to help allied countries become less likely to be blackmailed by middle eastern despots.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;"><span style="color:#33ccff;">On every level, from any perspective, on every dimension the McCain Plan is sound and far superior to the cloudy lonogterm plan, Obama is presenting.<br /></span>__________________</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;"><a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html"><span style="color:#3366ff;">New CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology Could Greatly Boost U.S. Oil Supplies<br /></span></a>Reports See Another 89-430 Billion Barrels of Oil Through Carbon Dioxide Injection, Other Advances<br />U.S. DoE<br />__________________</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html">Enhanced Oil Recovery/CO2 Injection<br /></a>U.S D.o.E<br />_______________<br /><a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html">Reports See Another 89-430 Billion Barrels of Oil Through Carbon </a>Dioxide Injection, Other Advances<br />U.S.DoE</span></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ff6666;">__________________<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Factcheck.Org<br />Straining a Point<br /></span>July 16, 2008<br />Updated: July 17, 2008<br />An Obama ad says he'll "fast track alternatives" to imported oil. Actually, his plan is a 10-year proposal with no guarantees.<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Summary</span><br /></span>Obama released a national ad saying he would "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Analysis<br /></span><span style="color:#33ff33;">Fast TrackAs an example of Obama's supposed grasp of 21st-century security threats, the ad says he will "fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations." Pictured on screen are images of whirling windmills generating electricity, a solar array against a blue sky, and a couple of white-coated lab workers, one of them peering into a microscope.The </span><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Changing_World_7-16-08.pdf"><span style="color:#33ff33;">campaign says</span></a><span style="color:#33ff33;"> the ad is referring to Obama's long-standing proposal to spend $150 billion over 10 years for research into alternative energy – "to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid<span style="color:#ff9900;">."Spending that money may well be a good idea, but it's not our place to judge. We do object to implying that a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, is a "fast track" to anything. We also point out that even over the long term there can be no guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse the growth of oil imports.</span> Keep in mind that </span><a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimus2a.htm"><span style="color:#33ff33;">the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year</span></a><span style="color:#33ff33;">, up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a long time. Reversing it will not be "fast" or painless.</span></span><span style="color:#33ff33;">. </span><span style="color:#ff9900;">We are saying Obama’s ad gives the false impression that his decade-long program is a "fast track" that would allow the U.S. to "stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations."<br />_________________________________</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ffff00;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Found on Orbat.com<br /></span>How Much Oil Does The US Really Have? </span></span></strong></p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">No sooner than we came up with the outline of a $1-2 trillion crash program to eliminate US dependence on volatile-region oil plus create an export capacity (see below) using every measure we could think of, than we come across two articles 2 US Department of Energy articles that suggest the US has 1.124 trillion barrels of conventional oil left.<br /><br />Well, since the official figure you will see for US reserves is 21-billion barrels - just 3-years total consumption, you will be justified in asking what controlled substances has DOE been ingesting and why are we worrying about oil when we should be worrying about why DOE has not made this wonderful stuff available to everyone.<br /><br />The mystery is resolved once readers recall we had run a piece some months back which said only one-third of available known oil had been recovered in the world. Let's back off a minute to go over the matter in admittedly simple terms.<br />Primary recovery of oil is when the pressure inside an oil field suffices on its own to push oil out through drilled holes. This is the easy, cheap oil, and yes, the US is just about out of it. Primary recovery gets 10-20% of the oil out.<br />Secondary recovery comes when you have to inject pressure into an oil field to force oil out. This can be done with water or with CO2. US has been using secondary recovery to get up the percentage of oil recovered to 20-40%. We knew about this technology as surely did most of our readers, its no secret. But whenever we did read about it, it was all "Waaaaaah! It's so expensive! Weep, moan, whine".<br />What was not known to us - we do have to earn a living and then there's Orbat.com to run, so it's not like we can spend 12 hours a day researching - is that the technology has now advanced to the point that once large quantities of CO2 are available, DOE figures US can comfortably recover 83-billion barrels more.<br />Now, our program calls for a reduction in use by 5-million of 20-million barrels a day, eliminating volatile region imports, and production from shale and coal of another 5-million barrels, which the US would export while blockading enemy oil. So, for example, if you didn't want the world to suffer when you blockade Iranian oil - a move that will destroy Iran in short order - you would put 2-million barrels a day on the market to make up for the shortfall.<br />But if all that's needed is CO2, we don't have to go the shale/coal route. That 5-million bbl/day could come from US fields for 50 years. And the nice thing about CO2? You've guessed it - you sequester it from existing coal plants. It can be shipped via pipeline - one project in the works has CO2 being shipped over a 300-km pipeline for use in injecting oil fields. So everyone should be ecstatically happy, including the greens.<br />You would still need programs that shift our energy from dirty to clean - nuclear, solar, wind etc etc because you still want to run vehicles on fuel cells and not on gasoline, for environmental reasons.<br />But we're talking about 83-billion barrels, where did the 1.124 trillion come from? Well, developing technologies that exist today can push up secondary recovery to 430-billion barrels. Next, geologists have found that under the secondary layer is yet another layer - we don't know if we are into tertiary recovery yet, perhaps readers can look at the articles closer than we did. But this additional layer is achievable with technologies we can conceive of, but still need to develop. That's how we get to 1-trillion plus barrels.<br />Yes, the stuff is expensive. And yes, the pure economics of oil say that oil companies will want to develop where they get the most money, so let's be off to distant parts of the world and worry about the strategic dependency later. Economic theory will also tell you when companies are making huge profits doing business as usual, they have no incentive to shift to new technologies.<br />The problem with all this is that as Orbat.com has repeatedly said, we are not paying $70/barrel for our oil. When you add in the cost of securing that oil - for example, obviously we wouldn't be in Iraq if it did not have oil aplenty and even there they've only scratched the surface because without oil Iraq would not be a strategic interest - we are paying way over $100/barrel. We did this exercise some years ago, we'll do it again soon.<br />You cannot in any case rely on market mechanisms when you are dealing with something so fundamental as energy procured from volatile regions. If for some reason the flow of Chinese toys to the US is disrupted, that is not a problem. But if the flow of oil is interrupted, we have a big problem. Energy independence, and indeed, the ability to export energy in support of US foreign policy, is a strategic national security issue. It requires top priority - right now.<br />The government will have to spend money to encourage conservation, demand reduction, and technologies for recovering secondary/tertiary oil because it's spending that and likely more anyway on defense of overseas production areas and the sea lanes.<br />So if companies say: "well, secondary CO2 recovery makes no sense for us because oil will come in at $80 barrel", then the government has to say "fine, we'll make up that $10" because right now the people, via the government, are paying more than that $10 AND there is no assurance overseas supply wont get disrupted. How much better to subsidize production of US oil than to subsidize Iran and Saudi Arabia.<br />The two articles can be found at </span></strong><a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html"><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"> and </span></strong><a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html"><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html</span></strong></a><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><br /><br />The absolute best way for the US to destroy Iran...<br />...and other enemies like Saudi Arabia is to launch a crash program to substantially reduce oil consumption and to produce oil by other means such as shale and coal-to-oil. US should be installing enough capacity that it exports oil.<br />Oh yes, we are quite aware of the environmental issues. But freeze that thought for a minute.<br />Think of a crash program utilizing ALL technologies: more US drilling, coal-to-oil, shale oil, tar sands, N-power, vastly expanded solar/wind, cut transport use by increasing mileage standards/raising taxes. double mileage standards/cut demand by raising taxes.<br />Let's use round figures. US imports about 13-million bbl/day of crude/products. Lets say US needs to replace 5-million bbl/day that comes from unstable areas and it needs to export 5-million bbl/day to supply the world with oil when it blocks oil exports from countries that need smacking.<br />Okay, increasing mileage standards/decreasing use can cut 5-million bbl/day. Goodbye imports from volatile areas. Produce 5-million bbl/day with the combination of above technologies. That will be needed when you smack - say - Iran. WE blockade its ports and supply the world with the lost 2 million bbl/day or whatever. Let's arbitrarily assume the US government will need to subsidize this shift to the tune of $200-billion for 20 years. Throw $200-billion more into a mass expansion of N-power - that's the government contribution, the world is awash with liquidity, money for capital costs is not a problem. Why N-power? Because you need to start shutting down coal generation plants both for environmental reasons and to reduce the pressure on coal prices.<br />Next - back to the greens, and aside from Mr. Dick Cheney we are all greens at some level. Simple politics, and simple good stewardship of the earth says that if you are going to get the greens to agree even on national security grounds, they have to get something in return. So throw $200-billion over 20 years into each of the following: environmental cleanup of the damage caused by the coal-to-oil etc.; $200-billion into subsidies for clean new technologies - solar, wind, whatever; and $200-billion as subsides for mass transit. You are then spending $4 dollars to keep greens happy plus money to shift the existing base from coal to nuclear for every $1 for oil produced by other means.<br />Forget about Iraq for the moment, assume the regular defense/foreign aid/intelligence budget can be cut by $50 billion/year - say less than 10% of existing spending because we wont have to give a hang about the Middle East. You've paid off that trillion in 20 years. And in 20 years, with new technologies and a vast expansion of existing technologies like wind and solar producing results, you can start shutting down the extra coal and start drawing down on existing coal, which is used mainly for power plants.<br />You don't want to cut the defense budget? You don't like our figures and you want to - say - spend more on clean-up and subsides for solar/wind etc so less is needed for N-power etc? Okay, would you be happy with an additional $50-billion a year? That's $100-billion/year - what we spend on Iraq without a squeak. It means 0.8% of the current GNP - a lot less of the 2027 GNP. That money won't break any bank - and it will generate millions of good jobs for the US.<br />It would be nice to build a consensus on this, and if it is presented as a national security issue, and environmentalists are given iron-clad assurances that money will be spent on things they value - reduced consumption, clean-up, new clean technologies - and that the dirty stuff is temporary, they should find it palatable.<br />After all, no one wants to be held hostage to foreigners who hate America and use our money to try and destroy us. Environmentalists are patriots too.<br />But if consensus cannot be quickly built - well, the President keeps telling us we are at war, doesn't he? Time to put his money where his mouth is. In war you enact wartime measures. </span></strong>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-4173563560920606462008-07-24T14:46:00.000-07:002008-08-06T10:52:39.999-07:00Myths & Legends About Barack Obama<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9mQ_eCGbdg0&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9mQ_eCGbdg0&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />By Dr. Richard L. Benkin, as posted in<a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-major-myths-about-obama-dispelled.html"> OBAMA WTF </a><br /><div><div><div><div><div><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Myth #1: That Barack Obama has done anything in his political career.</span></strong></div><div>Whenever I ask Obama supporters to name one thing—just one—that he has accomplished in his political career, they can’t.<br /></div><div><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><strong>Not even a State Senator, staunch supporter of Obama can:<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ixc2IHum2hg&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ixc2IHum2hg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></strong></em></span></div><div>They might titter and say that he inspires people or brings people together, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">but they cannot point to anything he actually has done</span></strong>. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">That’s because there is nothing there.</span></strong><br />One of a Senator’s most important jobs is to lead by proposing and passing new legislation. Yet, <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">in his three-year Senate career, Obama has not sponsored a single bill that was passed by the US Senate—not one!</span></strong> His name can be found on a few procedural amendments to existing bills, honorific resolutions such as naming a building after someone, or as part of an undifferentiated mass of co-sponsors on someone else’s bill. Legislators add their names to these bills to fulfill party obligations or to pad their statistics. For instance, Obama’s people proposed several bills on the same day (actually around the time he started campaigning for President) with none or almost no co-sponsors; bills that lie dormant never to see the light of day. </div><div></div><div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5230072323825799250" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 158px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 185px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="248" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SJTzEYM9EFI/AAAAAAAAAGA/QUJOkj6MSQY/s400/Trump.jpg" width="165" border="0" /></div><div><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>In contrast, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has seen five bills he sponsored become law during that same period; this in addition to his record of leadership on major legislation outlawing torture, funding elections, and ending a judicial impasse.<br /></strong></span></div><div></div><div><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Myth #2: That Barak Obama is a figure who brings people of both parties together</span></strong>.</span> </div><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>This is an enormous lie. As a member of the Illinois legislature—the only political office he held before becoming Senator—Barack Obama took every hard left position that presented itself.</strong></span> He was a partisan who built no effective bridges with large groups of people. He is one of the most partisan individuals in the United States Senate, and his votes earned him the rating of the most liberal-left Senator in the United States; that is, he pushes others away rather than works with them.<br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5226705165404738658" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 259px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 238px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="338" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SIj8p9mmFGI/AAAAAAAAAE4/-EzdKqpPTjg/s400/obama_button_oxy.jpg" width="242" border="0" /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>I have seen Barack Obama with other leaders of his party, and the guy simply has neither class nor judgment.</strong></span> Even while other, equally partisan, Democrats took the high road when presented with prime opportunities for a swipe against the opposition, Obama never did. He grabbed the chance for every cheap shot he could take. Part of “bringing people together” is knowing when to attack and when to show respect. Again, his rhetoric does not match his actions. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Even his election to the Senate was a fluke. It became a virtual one-man race because his two major rivals had to drop out due to scandals;</span></strong> it was not a function of “bringing people together” as his supporters would have us believe.<br /><div><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Myth #3: That Barack Obama represents a “new” type of politician, untainted by corruption and self-seeking behavior.<br /></span></strong></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5226705498104034450" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SIj89VASdJI/AAAAAAAAAFA/DeEsyM0_JIE/s400/obama-change-sac0623acd.jpg" border="0" />Obama’s people have been working overtime to keep the Chicago media away from their candidate. Why? Because coming up through the political system in Chicago, Obama has some dirty laundry that would tarnish the image he is trying to craft. An indicted influence peddler and alleged racketeer, Tony Rezko, entered into sweetheart financial deals with Obama that helped the candidate on his way up. That information is beginning to surface, especially since the connection has sparked the interest of the US Attorney. Obama also has built a political machine with Chicago operatives.<br /><div><br /><br /><div><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5226705920859927554" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SIj9V75JdAI/AAAAAAAAAFI/yn2edqj1TTE/s400/obama%27s_magic_gogglesdirtydozen2.jpg" border="0" /></div><div></div><div>Does that make him excessively corrupt? No, but it hardly sounds like the “new” sort of politician Obama keeps trying to convince people he is. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Back on the streets of Chicago or Philadelphia where I came of age, we would say that Barack Obama “talks a good game” but that’s about all.<br /></span></strong><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><strong>Myth #4: That Barack Obama would not be a tremendous disaster for the United States, and all peoples fighting an onslaught of Islamist terror. </strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">This is the most important myth of all to burst. Obama has stated numerous times that if he becomes president, he would sit down and talk with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and other terror supporter in the world without preconditions.</span></strong> Like many of his followers, Obama totally misreads the threat of international jihad. He has made it clear that he is ready to make compromises to win over these terrorists, and he does not see them as the existential threat they are. He seems not to realize that the United States and Iran are engaged in ongoing dialogue even now; but it is not taking place at the Presidential level. Obama is oblivious to the fact that direct involvement by the US President confers a level of prestige that Ahmedinejad does not deserve according to the majority of Americans. An individual with any experience—or sense in the matter—would know that precisely because direct talks with the US President is highly valued, it should not be given away for free, if you will, without demanding some concessions in return. Finally, Obama seems not to understand the propaganda and recruiting value such a meeting would have for Ahemedinjad—an advantage that would further oppress the growing opposition in Iran.<br /><strong><span style="color:#ffcc66;">But has Barack Obama already sent signals that if President, he would start retreating in the war on terror?</span></strong> While he has sponsored little legislation, one of those resolutions he has sponsored would disallow the US to use force against Iran, whether to stop their nuclear bomb program or to prevent an attack on European or Asian allies. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Fortunately, his measure has not found a single co-sponsor in the Senate—not one; that is how out of touch he is with the American people.</span></strong> Obama also voted against the Foreign Intelligence Bill and conveniently stayed away from the vote on implementing recommendations of a commission studying the September 11, 2001, attacks. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">And he is one of only ten Senators who voted against funding for US troops in Iraq because the legislation did not have a retreat date for the US.</span></strong></div></div></div></div><br /><div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33cc00;">But Obama is, on top of all that a moral coward and someone who does not have the internal fortitude to stand up for victims of Islamist terror.</span><br /></span></strong>In 2003, I began fighting to free Weekly Blitz editor and publisher, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, from imprisonment and torture. I personally approached about 15 percent of the US Congress for support in my struggle; and either personally or through associates approached a handful of Senators. The response was overwhelming. Everyone was supportive; everyone took public action. As a whole, both houses have held up Bangladeshi trade legislation as part of their response. In fact, within the span of a few days, I approached a US Senator about as far to the political left as we find and a US Senator equally far on the political right. Both responded positively and identically. In fact, of all the Senators and Congressmen I approached, <strong><span style="color:#ffcc66;">everyone wanted to help, everyone took action. Everyone, that is except one; that’s right, Barack Obama.</span></strong> He was the only member of Congress who did not take action on this human rights issue. I spoke to him personally about it twice, spoke to his aides, and at their request sent them volumes of evidence. But they did nothing. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Right now, the world does not need a US President who will cower in the face of Islamist terror.<br /></span></strong><span style="color:#33cc00;"><strong>Obama has a consistent record of failure when it comes to standing up for principle.<br /></strong></span>At one point, he told Israel supporters that an undivided Jerusalem should remain Israel’s capital. But a few days later, after getting criticism from Hamas and others, he changed his tune. As Weekly Blitz correspondent, Amitabh Tripathi told me, <strong><em>“<span style="color:#33cc00;">If he will change his position on a topic that is important to US voters, how can we expect that he will be strong and defend South Asians against the terrorists we face?”</span></em></strong> He will not even stand up for himself. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">His name, as most people know, is Barack Hussein Obama, but anyone who uses his full name received a barrage of criticism from the Obama campaign,</span></strong> as if the candidate wants to stay away from his own Muslim roots. When his pastor’s racist comments were made public, Obama first defended the man; and repudiated him only after he was personally insulted by the pastor’s comment about acting out of political self-interest. <strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">And despite his speeches, he has backed off from confronting Islamist terrorism every real chance he has had.</span></strong></div><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5226706334161094642" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SIj9t_j0x_I/AAAAAAAAAFQ/pFCvmqv4UaY/s400/gaffe_tongue_oxy_2.jpg" border="0" /><br /><div><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">And that, my friends, is the real Barack Obama!</span></strong><br /></span><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffff00;">While Democratic Barack Obama speaks as if Bangladesh simply does not exist, his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, has a very special tie to Bangladesh: his youngest daughter, Bridget McCain.<br />Bridget is Bangladeshi, John and Cindy McCain adopted her after Mrs. McCain saw her at Mother Theresa’s orphanage during a visit to Bangladesh. According to the Republican Presidential candidate: “There were two little baby girls there. One had a heart problem the other a severe cleft palate. Cindy was very concerned about their ability to survive and their need for medical treatment, so she decided to bring them here for medical treatment. She fell in love with both of them. We decided to adopt Bridget. Two close friends of ours adopted Mickey, the other child.”<br />When McCain ran against George Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000, some people attacked him with racist remarks because of his daughter’s dark, Bengali skin. But McCain stood up to them even if it cost him votes, saying, “I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.”<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">And that, my friends, is John McCain.</span></strong></div></div></div>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-8052606738309512462008-05-13T11:05:00.000-07:002008-08-06T11:06:19.990-07:00Talking Points from a Conservative Viewpoint<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3EgQrG0q50&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3EgQrG0q50&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em></em></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em></em></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>I recently visited a blogsite which considers itself as truly conservati ve and lists strong objections to John McCain. Instead of dismissing those members of the Republican Party as Right Wingers, I see them as the conscience of the party, reminding us on the "pure" core values - some form of Zen goal one should try to work towards to, but never really accomplishes fully.</em></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em></em></span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>I was harshly commented, when I posted a moderate piece. One of the replies reflects a sentiment within the Republican Party, noone should just dismiss, which is why I will quote the issues and then offer my slant on things.</em></span></strong><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="color:#ffcc00;">Overall, to set the tone</span><br />- I am a pragmatist and optimist. I truly believe that 4 steps into the right direction are superior to 2 steps backwards.<br />- I am a business exec who tries to utilize a leadership style of listening to my specialists and let them do what they're good at and specifically educated to do.<br />- Changing/adapting my opinion/strategy due to (evolving or changing) frame condition, or adopting someone else's idea I consider not as flip-flopping, but as strength to change vs. stubborness.</em></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="color:#ffcc00;">>>>McCain was the leading opponent to Bush tax cuts and used Dem rhetoric to try and stop them. He now is for them? You believe him. That is your problem>>>>><br /></span>Arnold here tried recently to push some initiative forward like a bulldozer, then got slapped by the voters. The next day he came out and humbly apologized, admitting factual mistakes and taking full responsibility for the defeat. I appreciate such humility and honesty, inasmuch as John did something similar concerning the cuts. He had the guts to change opinion and admit so, even though he knew he would be called flip-flopper for sure.<br />To learn, accept, evolve and adapt it to my opinion a strength - not a weakness.</em></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6220299165806866855&postID=805260673830951246&page=1&isPopup=true"><span style="color:#ffcc00;">>>>>> Continued here>>>></span><br /></a></em></span></strong><br /></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-66367292862426527022008-05-12T12:44:00.000-07:002008-08-03T15:24:31.245-07:00To all Obama Supporters - Here's a Plan for you.<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SC3ln31HMTI/AAAAAAAAAEo/MN3oMXRS-vo/s1600-h/Robin+Wiliams.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5201065617847169330" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SC3ln31HMTI/AAAAAAAAAEo/MN3oMXRS-vo/s400/Robin+Wiliams.jpg" border="0" /></a> <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><em>Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says 'I love New York' in Arabic.<br /></em></strong></span><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">How about Robin's Foreign Policy Platform, dear Obama Supporters?</span></strong><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">1) 'The US will apologize to the world for our 'interference' in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest o f those ' good 'ole' boys', we will never 'interfere' again.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea , the Middle East , and the Philippines . They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">5) No foreign 'students' over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a 'D' and it's back home baby.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">6) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not 'interfere.' They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.</span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:130%;">10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us 'Ugly Americans' any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH..learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?'<br /><br />The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.' <span style="color:#ffcc00;">She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' '</span></span></div>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-24878491183190888052008-05-09T13:57:00.000-07:002008-11-16T10:47:26.507-08:00Facts about Senator Obama<em><span style="font-size:130%;">November 15, 2008<br /></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The Campaign is over. Now we watch.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">This week, Obama reached out to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Once again simply brilliant, the way this man applies the lessons of past presidents.<br /><br />It is better to have people inside the tent, pissing out than outside the tent, pissing in, Dwight Eisenhower used to say. Abraham Lincoln became famous hiring his former enemies into his administration.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama once again proves his chessmanship and icecold opportunism.<br /><br />By bringing up Hillary Clinton for the Sec State position, he serves a variety of objectives. No matter what, he wins. He wins by simply opening up the discussion, as he comes across as uniter. He wins, should she accept the position, as he checkmates her for 2012, should he not be successful in his first term. Being part of his adminisstration, there is not a chance in hell that she in such a case could materialize as a democratic alternative. He further mutes any potential opposition, if she in fact becomes a member of his team. And a strong opposition this would be, if one considers Bill and Hillary still having a strong following within the democratic party.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">If Hillary does not accept the "Olive Branch", it is she who comes across potentially as divisive. he thus puts his potentially strongest opposition faction within the own party from the get go in the defensive. he buys time at least, should she at least accept for a period of his first term, then bow out early enough to sell herself as alternative for 2016.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">No matter what happens, he wins. A genious chess move.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">By reaching out to McCain, Obama without publicly acknowledging the fact how centrist and independent McCain is, brings a strong voice to the table who in fact has lost ( never had really) a ton of support within his own party. He comes across as bi-partisan without having to really reach out to the real power centres within the republican party. Once again here, no matter what happens, Obama wins points without having to concede anything. Brilliant.<br /><br />We admire the man. He does not do anything spectacular here, but his ability to see and seize political opportunities to further his agenda is truly staggering. Is is one thing to have many options. It is another to make use of them. He does read and it shows. Having studied the mistakes of earlier presidents, he is able to not make any such off the hip decisions.<br /><br />We haven't seen this level of political macchiavellism since Nixon. As much, as we do not like to admit that the American President must be a Macchiavelli, in order to further an American Agenda, we must nevertheless appreciate that these times do require a politician with an uncanny instinct. An opportunist who is able to seize the moment and most of all a president who does not make dumb mistakes. There will be many tough decision making moments in the near future, where Obama can not do it right for all interested parties. Moments in time . where his popularity will suffer (naturally) and enemies will materialize. As Biden said - these will be the moments of truth, where the real metal of the backbone will be tested.<br /><br />So far however, Obama achieved the most important immediate objective. He did not make any dumb mistake, but is eagerly working diligently on preparing the battle field. If he indeed manages to combine this tactical ability with a strategic vision and corresponding follow-through, proving like Abe Lincoln strenght and principle during times of crisis, watch out, Putin, as you may get a player to the table whom many underestimated.<br /><br />So far, Obama has done everything right. he wins with the Hillary Clinton and McCain discussion. He wins by letting Gates stay on (at least for a while). He lets Bush get us almost to a win in Iraq and a potential withdrawal almost within the time frame of his own promises, so Obama will be credited with 'ending the war".</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">As said before - Obama can win quick points on the foreign policy dimension. The fact that there are many opportunities, is for this discussion somewhat irrelevant. What's relevant is that any president must take advantage of these opportunities.<br />So far, Obama has shown to be able to recognize openings and seize the moment.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">That's promising. We hate to admit it, but America needs a shrewd politician. We believe that for now Obama has proven to be exactly that and deserves to be given an honest chance to demonstrate more of it for the sake of this country.<br /><br />Is he more than just a shrewd politician? Does he have the moral strength, courage and principles enabling him to make tough decisions? That will have to be seen and soon. We once again state that we hope that we were wrong and the gut feeling of the majority of the American People was right.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">The Presidency has many facettes. The job description and requirements are complex.<br />In order to enter history as a successful president, Obama will have to pass many tests on many dimensions and topics. Charisma, eloquence, strong tactical ability and opportunism only takes you that far. But these are needed qualities - no doubt.</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;">So, Obama has definitely passed the first tests on aforementioned dimensions. I personally am at a point to concede that he has proven so far, that he has the ability to learn from history and most of all does not make any stupid mistakes. That is reason for at least some optimism. The time however for decisions on a strategic, longterm dimension with potentially grave impact on the US will come soon. (Energy and Taxing of Businesses) Will Obama be an ideologue, trying to shape the entire society a la FDR into his vision of a social capitalism or will Obama be able to appreciate the positive factors of capitalism and free trade as promoted by the conservative side and become a truly fact based, pragmatic leader governing from a center left perspective and leading us thus out of a depression?<br /><br />Time will tell. And soon at that.</span></em><br /><br /><br /><br />_________________<br /><br /><div align="left"><strong></strong><strong><em></em></strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5191097514658911602" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 409px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 484px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="400" alt="" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SAp7r5uoVXI/AAAAAAAAADQ/VGT8sq6nvqs/s400/image001.png" width="409" border="0" /><em> </em><em><strong>Legislative Accomplishments?? Zero<br />_____________________ </strong></em></div><div align="left"><strong><em></em></strong></div><div align="left"><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;">McCain's Next Duty Call<br /></span>A Commentary By Tony Blankley<br />Wednesday, October 15, 2008<br /></strong><a href="http://harvest483.adgardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=91" target="_blank"></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The essence of this election season couldn't be simpler. The American public is so appalled at the condition of the country (which it unfairly, but not implausibly blames on the despised President Bush) that with fate casting </span><a class="iAs" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal! important; FONT-SIZE: 100%! important; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px! important; COLOR: #336699! important; BORDER-BOTTOM: #336699 0.2em solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent! important; TEXT-DECORATION: none! important" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/mccain_s_next_duty_call#" target="_blank" itxtdid="6310159"><span style="font-size:130%;">John McCain</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> in the role of Bush's surrogate, a majority actually is considering voting for Sen. Obama. </span></em></div><div align="left"><em><span style="font-size:130%;">And when an electorate is intent on doing something, the last thing it wants to hear about are the facts. Moreover, the public's lack of interest in the facts is facilitated by the major American media's refusal to report them. >>><br /></span><br /><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/mccain_s_next_duty_call"><span style="color:#3366ff;"><strong>>>>>>>Read entire Article</strong></span></a></em></div><div align="left"><strong><em></em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em>_____________________</em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;">A Question of Barack Obama's Character</span></em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em>By <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/charles_krauthammer/">Charles Krauthammer</a></em></strong></div><strong><em><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">WASHINGTON -- Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. <span style="color:#ff9900;">It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters.</span> Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.</span></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama.</span><br /><br />With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate<br /></span><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obamas_character_still_questio.html"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;">.>>>>>>>read entire article</span></a></em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em></em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em>___________________</em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;">155 Documented Obama Lies<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Here just the major ones:</span><br /></span></em></strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/shameful-obama-lied-about-dead-soldiers.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>154 Obama lied about being asked to wear dead soldier's bracelet: family had asked Obama to stop wearing it</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><div align="left"><br /><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obisama-claimed-during-debate-all-new.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>153 Obama claimed all new spending is economic plan was self-funding; short by $3.5 Trillion says nonpartisan Tax Policy Center</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><div align="left"><br /><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-denied-admiral-mike-mullen-had.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>152 Obama denied Admiral Mike Mullen had called Obama's Iraqi troop plan "dangerous"; Mullen made comment on Fox in July 2008 according to WaPo</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><div align="left"><br /><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-lied-about-kissingers-views-of.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>151 Obama lied about Kissinger's views of diplomacy during first debate; Kissinger confirms the lie</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><div align="left"><em><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></em></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em></em></span></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/during-debate-obama-denied-voting-to.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>150 During Debate 1 Obama denied voting to tax some people making $42000 a year: Annenburg Factcheck,org confirms Obama is lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/must-see-after-debate-team-obama-denied.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>149 After Debate 1, Team Obama denied Obama ever said, "Iran's not a threat": Video proves Obama DID say "Iran is NOT a threat."</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/debate-1-obama-claims-only-5-of-people.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>146 Obama claims only 5% of Americans would see tax increase; he's grossly understating the number of people effected</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/team-obama-accuses-mccain-of-lying.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>145 Obama accuses McCain of lying about Biden being against clean coal; video proves Obama is lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-lying-about-his-record-of-voting.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>144 Obama claims McCain is opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest; McCain has never held that position</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>.</em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-lying-about-his-record-of-voting.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>142 Obama's ad on abortion claims BHO always supported medical care to protect infants; text of the Bill he supported shows he wanted babies born alive after abortions to be left to die</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-lying-about-his-record-of-voting.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>141 Obama's ad on abortion uses quotes by journalists who made negative comments about a McCain ad; but Obama is misleading because both journalists have been proven to be incorrect</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-lying-about-mccains-ad-on-obamas.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>140 Obama's lying when he says McCain's ad misstated BHO's Sex Ed for Kindergartners Bill: McCain's ad was accurate; here's the Sex Ed Bill text </em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-claims-under-mccain-elderly-would.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>139 Obama and Biden both truncate McCain's comments on the strength of the economy's fundamentals: deliberate distortion</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-claims-under-mccain-elderly-would.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>138 Biden claims McCain tried to hurt our veterans by denying them educational benefits; NewsWeek confirms Biden is lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-claims-under-mccain-elderly-would.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>137 Obama claims under McCain, Elderly would have had Social Security tied up in the Stock market; Newsweek cries BS</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-ad-claims-mccains-plans-to-cut.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>136 Obama claims his opponent will cut social security in half: NOT true; Obama guilty of scare-mongering aimed at Seniors</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/biden-claims-mccain-wouldnt-help-small.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>135 Biden claims McCain wouldn't help small borrowers hurt by housing crisis; this is untrue according to Newsweek</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-134-obama-claimed-during-primary-he.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>134 Obama claimed during the primary he had more Ex President Clinton Foreign Policy advisers than Sen. Clinton; she had 70% more</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-132-obama-grossly-misquoted.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>132 Obama grossly mis</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>quoted Sen.Clinton about her vote on a banking bill; BHO used the false quote to show why voters don't trust Government</em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-131-obama-claimed-employers-are.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>131 Obama claimed employers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be prosecuted for employing illegals; Gov stats prove he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-128-obama-disparaged-our-healthcare.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>128 Obama disparaged the efficiency of our healthcare system saying the U.S. spends twice per capita than other countries: WaPo proves he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/127-obama-claims-president-clintons.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>127 Obama claims President Clinton's Labor Secretary said BHO's healthcare plan, "Does more than anybody to reduce costs"; Robert Reich did NOT say it</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-125-obamas-spanish-language-ad-lies.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>125 Obama's Spanish language ad lies about McCain's position on immigration; tries to stir race-war: lies debunked by ABC</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-lies-about-his-interference-in.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>124 Obama lies about his interference in Iraqi negotiations; but his campaign admits his treachery</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-123-obama-took-credit-for-stimulus.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>123 Obama took credit for the economic stimulus package passed in Feb 08; BHO's colleagues on Capitol Hill cry BS</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-122-obama-claims-oil-companies-are.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>122 Obama claims Big Oil is ignoring 68 million acres of oil fields they could be drilling; most fields are being worked</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-questions-mccains-patriotism.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>121 Obama claims never questions his opponent's patriotism; asks of McCain "WHICH country first?": ABC says he's questioning McCain's patriotism</em></span></a></div><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-questions-mccains-patriotism.html"></a><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-120-obama-claims-personal-savings.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>120 Obama claims personal savings rates are lowest since the Great Depression; currently higher than under President Clinton</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-119-obama-claims-on-this-video-that.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>119 Obama claims on this video that he doesn't switch positions; list of 31 flip flops show he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-116-obamas-attack-ad-in-michigan.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>116 Obama's attack ad in Michigan claims McCain doesn't support loan guarantees for auto-industry. McCain DOES support them</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/lie-112-biden-claims-mccain-palin-will.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>112 Biden claims McCain will increase taxes for workers & Obama will only increase taxes on those making $435k: he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/biden-grossly-overstated-obama-wafer.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>111 Biden claims Obama drew the Nation's attention to problems at Walter Reed Army Hospital; it was two WaPo reporters that reported the issues to the Nation</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/every-time-obama-talks-without-his.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>109 Obama lies yet again to disparage Gov. Palin; ignores her executive experience as Governor of Alaska</em></span></a></div><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/every-time-obama-talks-without-his.html"></a><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/09/newsflash-world-bank-concludes-bush-has.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>108 Obama says the US economy has failed under Bush; World Bank stats proves Obama's been lying; US a world leader in growth, employment, incomes</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-is-11-most-partisan-in-senate.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>106 Obama claims he's bi-partisan: voting records prove Obama is #11 most partisan</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/104-obama-claimed-abortion-rate-has-not.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>104 Obama claims abortion rates have not gone down under the Bush Administration; stats show they have gone down</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/lie-103-obama-dismissed-bomber-bill.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>103 Obama dismissed Bomber Bill Ayers as "some guy who lives in the neighborhood";they had a close working relationship</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-lies-about-his-support-of.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>100 Obama lies about his support for infanticide; campaign concedes in 03 he opposed a bill stopping the killing of kids born alive after abortions </em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/lie-99-obama-overstates-oil-industrys.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>99 Obama overstates Oil Industry's contributions to McCain; ignores cash the Oil industry gave BHO; Newsweek debunks</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/lie-98-to-belittle-americaobama.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>98 To belittle America,Obama exaggerated the growth in Debt under the current Administration; debunked by WaPo</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/lie-96-to-promote-his-green-agenda.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>96 To promote "green", Obama claimed he drove a vehicle that uses ethanol; GM confirmed the model was NOT ethanol-ready</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/gaffe-36-obama-claims-properly.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>94: Obama claims "properly inflating tires" will save as much energy as we could drill offshore; analysis shows not even close</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-93-obama-denies-accusing-mccain-of.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>93 Obama denies accusing McCain of using race against him; ABC, NYT confirm Obama did accuse McCain of making racial attacks</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-91-obama-claims-hes-not-being.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>92 Obama claims he's not being political when he's flip-flopping; timing & direction of major flip-flops show he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-berlin-obama-invents-existence-of.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>91: Obama INVENTS a wall between Christians and Jews; deceptively omits the major religious wall is caused by a "fatwah" to kill American Christians and Jews</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/90-obama-claims-he-made-substantive.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>90 Obama claims he made a substantive call for Germany to help in Iraq; Berlin speech transcript proves he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-89-obama-admits-he-underestimated.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>89: Obama admits he underestimated the decline in violence from the Surge; falsely claims McCain made same mistake</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/85-claims-reducing-obesity-levels-to-8.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>85 Claims reducing obesity to 80's levels would save Medicaid ONE TRILLION DOLLARS; not even close</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-84-to-make-iraqafghan-wars-look-bad.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>84 To make Iraq/Afghan Wars look bad, Obama claimed demands on Nat Guard personnel hurt flood relief; Guards prove lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-83-obama-claimed-overseas-missions.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>83 Claimed due to overseas commitments, too few helecopters were available to help with Midwest flood relief; now concedes not true</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-82-starting-in-iowa-obama-falsely.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>82 Starting in Iowa, Obama claimed Clinton's healthcare plan would "punish families that couldn't afford healthcare"; NYT calls BS</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-81-obama-claims-mccains-tax-plan.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>81 Obama claims McCain's tax plan will do nothing to help the middle-class: The Tax Policy Center proves he's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-78-obama-tells-nbc-that-he-said-in.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>78 Tells NBC that during the debate on the Surge he said the Surge would work in Baghdad; video proves during the debate he said the opposite</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/77-obamas-changing-worldad-claims-he.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>77 Obama's "Changing World" ad claims he'll fast-track alternatives to oil to stop us buying from hostile nations; "fast track" is totally misleading</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/76-obama-tells-israelis-hes-member-of.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>76 Obama tells Israeli media that he's a member of the Senate Banking Committee; CNN confirms he's delusional</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-75-obama-claims-lou-dobbs-caused.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>75 Obama claims Lou Dobbs caused hate crimes against Latinos to double; the FBI and CNN confirm Obama is lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-74-obama-claims-he-thinks-like.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>74 Obama claims the military brass think like he does; top US commanders say his plan for Iraq is unworkable</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-73-obama-promised-to-filibust-fisa.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>73: Obama promised to filibust FISA; later Obama voted for FISA and now denies changing his position</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-70-obama-denies-accusing-president.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>71 Obama denied he accused President Bush of starting the War for political reasons; Russert transcript proves Obama made that false claim</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-70-obama-claims-us-has-lost-jobs.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>70 Obama claims there has been substantial job losses from NAFTA; Independent studies show its at least" job neutral"</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-65-to-justify-his-move-to-private.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>65 To justify move to private funds, Obama claims McCain's campaign is" fuelled" by PACs and Lobbyists; its less than 2% of McCain's money</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-64-obamas-ad-claims-he-worked-his.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>64 Obama's "Dignity" ad claims he "worked his way" thru college and law school; campaign admits only two summer jobs</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-seond-official-ad-includes-claim.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>63 Obama's "Dignity" ad gives him credit for reducing Welfare rolls by 80%: he's deceptive as he was opposed to Fed Welfare Reform in '96</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-62-in-obamas-i-love-my-country-ad.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>62 In Obama's The Country I love ad, he takes credit for passing a healthcare bill he did NOT vote for</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/lie-61-claims-he-ran-in-chicago-as.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>61 Claims he first ran in Chicago as an unendorsed candidate; his '96 election questionnaire proves he had several</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/06/58-obama-lies-about-why-he-voted.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>58 Obama tries to deceive about why he voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois Senate; Chicago paper reveals the truth</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-claims-voters-put-usa-ahead-of.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>56 Claims race and party not important to how people vote as they put America first; 93% block vote disproves</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/06/lie-55-on-june-5-obama-assured-pro.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>55 On June 5, Obama stated that Israel must remain undivided; June 6 on CNN he reversed his position, but denied he had done so</em></span></a></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/06/lie-53-obamas-healthcare-plan-depends.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>53 Promise of $2500 reduction in Healthcare premiums needs billions in Admin cost savings by 2012: not possible</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/06/documented-lie-51-obama-claims-john.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>51 Obama claims McCain wants to wage a lengthy war in Iraq: Video proves Obama's lying</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/03/photo-of-pastor-wright-lobbying-obama.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/documented-lie-obama-said-hed-agree-to.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/documented-lie-44-obama-claims-he-is.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/demonstrable-lie-42-obama-claims-he.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/watch-obamas-demonstrable-lie-41-claims.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/demonstrable-lie-37-obama-claims-his.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he knew it was controversial since 86</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/demonstable-lie-36-obama-will-take-us.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-claims-he-passed-ethics-reform.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-says-hes-consistently-opposed.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-claims-his-bitter-attacks-were.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-says-he-did-no-favors-for-his.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-changes-his-story-repeatedly.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-claims-he-never-supported-ban.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-lies-about-leaving-church-blasts.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lies-to-cover-up-truth-about-his.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-not-ready-for-primetime.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lies-lot-and-flip-flops-on-key.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/did-campaign-contributors-buy-off.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/arabs-in-chicago-discover-political.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-lies-obama-claims-he-doesnt-accept.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/did-obama-use-his-hopefund-to-influence.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-lies-about-size-of-donatiions-he.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-exposed-as-fraud.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/03/it-keeeps-getting-worse-for-obama.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-cited-in-long-list-of-ethics.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"><br />· </em></span><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/nyt-article-proves-obama-lied-about-not.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied</em></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><em> </em></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><div align="left"></em></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">Obama WTF defines "DOCUMENTED LIE " as :<br /></span></strong>1) a statement by one or more reliable news agencies or credible authorities citing supporting verifiable facts which rebut a reported statement by Obama.</em></span></span></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>2) observable video/transcript contradictions</em></span></span></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>3) the omission of an important fact the exclusion of which defies common sense unless the intent is to deceive</em></span></span></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em></em></span></span></div><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em>This therefore EXCLUDES unintentional gaffes eg the Auschwitz Memorial Day blip; the 57 States etc which can be found at <a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-gaffe-city-obama-patriotism-speech.html">New Gaffe City </a>This therefore also excludes Flip Flops unless</em></span></span></div><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em><div align="left"><br />a) Obama is seen to be holding multiple positions depending on the audience, eg The Jerusalem flip flop...where his position was altered with 18 hours, talking to different audiences.or </div><div align="left">b) Obama lies about holding a different position e.g denying he favored gun controlCredit to each of the following news outlets who are some of the most cited in the List of Documented Lies:<br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.factcheck.org">Annenberg Factcheck.org; </a>at U Penn<br />At the St Petersberg Times; <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/</a><br /><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/">Washington Post Fact Checker</a> ...Michael Dobbs<br />Top of the Ticket Blog at the LA Times;<br />Political Punch at ABC News.com.<br />Dozens of other major news orgs are quoted to provide support for one or more lies</em></span></span></div><div align="left"><strong><em></em></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><em>____________________</em></strong></div><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Barack Obama<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;">Here's looking at you, kid<br /></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Sep 18th 2008<br />From The Economist print edition</span><br /></span></span><br /><em>IF YOU find yourself believing that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”, or that “this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” or even, tout court, that “yes we can”, the chances are that you are suffering from a severe case of Obamamania.</em> </strong><em><strong><br />Tens of millions of Americans and an even larger number of Europeans have fallen victim to the syndrome, which involves a belief that a young black senator from Chicago can cure the world’s ills, in part because of his race, in part because of his obvious intelligence and rhetorical skill; <span style="color:#ff9900;">but in no part because of any record of achievement in the past.</span> Fortunately, an inexpensive remedy is at hand.<br />It comes in the form of a new book by David Freddoso, “The Case Against Barack Obama”. Unlike the authors of some of the cruder attacks on Mr Obama, Mr Freddoso works for a <span style="color:#ff9900;">well-respected organisation</span>, the online version of the National Review. Although it is a conservative publication and the author makes no secret of where his political sympathies lie, <span style="color:#ff9900;">this is a well-researched, extensively footnoted work.</span> <span style="color:#ff9900;">It aims not so much to attack Mr Obama as to puncture the belief that he is in some way an extraordinary, mould-breaking politician.<br /></span>The Obama that emerges from its pages is not, Mr Freddoso says, “a bad person. It’s just that he’s like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. <span style="color:#ff9900;">Just like all the rest of them in Washington.” And the author makes a fairly compelling case that this is so. </span>The best part of the book concentrates on <span style="color:#ff9900;">Mr Obama’s record in Chicago,</span> his home town and the place from which he was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, before moving to the United States Senate in 2004.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">The book lays out in detail how this period began in a way that should shock some of Mr Obama’s supporters</span>: he won the Democratic nomination for his Illinois seat by getting a team of lawyers to throw all the other candidates off the ballot on various technicalities. One of those he threw off was a veteran black politician, a woman who helped him get started in politics in the first place.<br />If Mr Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, <span style="color:#ff9900;">you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years</span>.<span style="color:#ff0000;"> But there isn’t very much.</span> Instead, as Mr Freddoso rather depressingly finds, <span style="color:#ff9900;">Mr Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat.<br /></span>He was a <span style="color:#ff9900;">staunch backer of Richard Daley</span>, who as mayor failed to stem the corruption that has made Chicago<span style="color:#ff9900;"> one of America’s most notorious cities</span>. Nor did he lift a finger against John Stroger and his son Todd, who succeeded his father as president of Cook County’s Board of Commissioners shortly before Stroger senior died last January. Cook County, where Chicago is located, has been extensively criticised for corrupt practices by a federally appointed judge, Julia Nowicki.<br /></strong></em><em><strong>The full extent of<span style="color:#ff9900;"> Mr Obama’s close links with two toxic Chicago associates</span>, a radical black preacher, <span style="color:#ff9900;">Jeremiah Wright</span>, and a crooked property developer, <span style="color:#ff9900;">Antoin Rezko</span>, is also laid out in detail. The Chicago section is probably the best part of the book, though the story continues: once he got to Washington, DC, Mr Obama’s record of voting with his party became one of the most solid in the capital. Mr Freddoso notes that <span style="color:#ff9900;">he did little or nothing to help with some of the great bipartisan efforts of recent years, notably on immigration reform or in a complex battle over judicial nominations.<br /><br /></span>On the whole, though, Mr Freddoso raises legitimate points. And he ends with a question <span style="color:#ff9900;">Obamamaniacs should ask themselves more often</span>:<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">“Do you hope that Barack Obama will change politics if he becomes president? On what grounds?”</span></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>_____________________</p><div align="left"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Boston Globe</span></strong></em></div><div align="left"><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama ties to embattled donor<br />go back over 15 years</span></strong></em></div><div align="left"><em><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">CHICAGO - Real estate developer and fast-food magnate Antoin "Tony" Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama's climb from the Illinois legislature to Capitol Hill and helped him raise tens of thousands more. Obama has also been forced to explain how Rezko got tangled in the purchase of the Obama family home and other ties to Rezko, some of them going back more than 15 years. If federal prosecutors are right, his ties to Rezko may mean Obama's campaign unwittingly accepted money generated by illegal activities.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">"The senator exhibited some bad judgment in continuing the relationship once it became clear that Tony Rezko had such serious clouds overhead,"</span> said Cindi Canary, director of the nonpartisan Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.<br /><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/23/obama_ties_to_embattled_donor_go_back_over_15_years/"><span style="color:#3366ff;">>>>>> read entire article</span><br /></a></span><br /><strong>___________________</strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">National Journal</span></em></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">2007 Vote Ratings</span></strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;">In the following list, senators^ are ranked according to their overall composite liberal or conservative scores based on National Journal's 2007 vote ratings.<br />Obama ranked 1. Biden ranked 3 on liberal voting.<br /><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc"><span style="color:#3366ff;">>>>>> see charts</span></a></span></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><em>____________________</em></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Boston Globe</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy</span></strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><em>The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair<a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/"><span style="color:#3366ff;">.>>>>read entire article</span></a></em></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><em>_____________________</em></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><em></em></strong></div><div align="left"><em><a href="http://www.jpost.com/"></a><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Jerusalem Post</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;">The audacity of resume-padding </span></strong></em></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;">One of the knocks on Barack Obama is that his résumé is, so to speak, paper-thin. But that is not entirely accurate. Obama, in fact, has held some major job titles which are noteworthy all by themselves: United States Senator, Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Harvard Law Review President-each of these titles puts him in rarefied company. Tack on a few Illinois State Senate terms, and his resume actually appears solid. </span></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Yet, in spite of these prestigious positions, Obama has increasingly resorted to making claims of accomplishment that are so patently inflated that even his cheerleaders at CNN and the New York Times are taking notice.</span> Why?<br />It seems that Obama recognizes that while his résumé titles are impressive, his actual accomplishments are weak. It's as if he were jockeying </span><a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;">>>>>>> read entire article</span></a></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><em>______________________</em></strong></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Sept.18. 2008,</span> </span></strong></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;">Kindergarten Sex Education?<br /></div></span></strong><div align="left"><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;">In last nights CNN broadcast Cambell Brown, Jeffery Toobin, and others called the McCain campaign’s ad about Senator Obama’s support for a bill for ‘comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners’ a lie.<br /><br />One problem, they’re wrong.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">The text of the bill states:<br /></span></strong><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”</strong></span><br /><br />They repeated the Obama campaign’s explanation that the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’. </span></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"></span></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><span style="font-family:times new roman;font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Second problem, there is no reference to ‘inappropriate touching’ in the bill.</span></strong><br /><br />Byron York of National Review researched this bill and provides and an explantion along with the text of the bill in his article On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain is Right.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">However, when this article was brought up during last night’s CNN broadcast it was dismissed.</span></strong></span><br /></div><div align="left">_______________________</div><div align="left"></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/29/self-made_man_or_mysterious_stranger">Self-Made Man or Mysterious Stranger?<br /></a></span></strong>by Charles Krauthammer<br />>>>>>><span style="font-size:130%;">Clinton's withholding the "I've come to know this man" was vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the standard of presidential candidates.<br />Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.>>>>></span></em></div><br /><br /><p><em>_______________________</p></em><em><div align="left"></em><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Obama Polishes His Resume</strong><br /></span><em><strong>June 21, 2008, Factcheck.org</strong><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">His first ad of the post-primary season puffs up his legislative accomplishments.<br /></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Summary</span></strong><br />Obama has released his first post-primary ad, a 60-second spot that's airing in 18 battleground states. It paints a picture of Obama's accomplishments that could leave viewers with a misimpression or two.When Obama discusses his legislative accomplishments, he leaves out some important context.The ad talks about laws that Obama "passed," but in fact, he sponsored only one of the three bills mentioned and cosponsored another. The third included provisions from some bills he'd sponsored earlier, but his name wasn't attached to the one that passed. And two of the three laws were accomplishments of the Illinois Legislature, not the U.S. Senate.<br /></em><em>So for Obama to say that he "passed a law" casts him as a legislative Lone Ranger, hogging credit that properly belongs to other parties as well.</em></div><br /><br /><div align="left"><em>___________________________<br /></em><br /><p align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><em>The incredible Image and Branding Campaign of the Obama Team is truly amazing. A huge populus is hyped about " Change, Hope" and his obvious charisma, willing to give an unknown quantity a shot at the single most important post in the world.<br /><br />Many do not look at his specifics, his track record which is one of the most leftist of all senators. We think it is time that the American People start to scrutinize this man who has delivered nothing than slogans and fluff - certainly no substance.<br /><br />Why is it that the normal average Joe Blow must undergoe a serious Job Interview for pretty much any type of work, whereas Obama seems to skate by without any serioous questions raised as to background, track record and experience?<br /><br />In this thread I will try to commence the process of scrutinizing Senator Obama, as a president must have more than just a great image.<br /></em></span>________________________________<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Factcheck.org<br />Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money<br /></span></strong>June 20, 2008<br />Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Summary<br /></span></strong>Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal.One reason, he said, is that "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs."<span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts.<br />_____________________________</strong></span></p><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/07/04/obama_flips_and_flops">Obama Flips and Flops<br /></a></span>by Charles Krauthammer<br /><span style="font-size:100%;">>>>>>> Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left? Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon. >>>>>><br /></span>________________________</span></strong></p><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Factcheck.org:<br />Obama's Inflated Health "Savings"<br /></span></strong>June 16, 2008<br />He claims that a shift to electronic medical records will help save families up to $2,500 a year in his first term. Independent experts say that's wishful thinking.<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Summary<br /></span></strong>Obama says his health care plan will garner large savings – $120 billion a year, or $2,500 per family – with more than half coming from the use of electronic health records. And he says he’ll make that happen in his first term. <span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers. And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#000000;">________________________________</span></p><br /><p align="left"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffff00;"><strong><span style="font-size:100%;">New York Times<br /></span><span style="font-size:180%;">Big-dollar donors are a major force for Obama</span></strong></span><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><br />By Michael Luo and Christopher Drew<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/index.html?partner=msnbcpolitics"></a><br />updated 9:19 p.m. PT, Tues., Aug. 5, 2008<br /><br />WASHINGTON - In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less >>>><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26047071/">read on here</a> </em></span></strong></p><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>______________________________________________<br />Pork Barrel Spending?Special Interests?<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tcSytvVguJ8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tcSytvVguJ8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />____________________________________________________<br /></em></span></strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#00cccc;"><strong>___________________________________</strong></span></p><br /><p align="left"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#00cccc;"><strong>Obama’s Lobbyist Connection </strong></span><span style="color:#00cccc;"><strong><br /></strong><strong>(Newsweek) </strong></span><span style="color:#00cccc;"><strong><br />>>>>Last week, Obama hit John McCain for hiring "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his campaign; Obama's aides say their candidate, as a foe of "special interests," has refused to take money from lobbyists or employ them. Neither Axelrod nor his partners at ASK ever registered as lobbyists for Commonwealth Edison—and under Illinois's loose disclosure laws, they were not required to>>>>><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519">Read the entire Piece<br /></a>_____________________________</span></strong></span></p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247458202684027202" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SNK3buCw8UI/AAAAAAAAAK4/Pf9tspEJeo0/s400/untitled.bmp" border="0" /><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;">FactCheck.Org:<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama's Work Claim<br /></span></span>July 2, 2008<br />His new ad says he "worked his way" through college and law school. His campaign says he had a few summer jobs and once sold newspaper subscriptions while in college.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Summary</span><br />Obama’s latest ad repeats an often-stated claim, saying he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law.” <span style="color:#ff9900;">We know Obama took out loans to get himself through school. But the campaign at first provided information on just two jobs Obama had in those years, and they were both in the summer</span>.The ad also says he "passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent." <span style="color:#ff9900;">Actually, the Illinois law was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress.</span> Welfare rolls did go down by nearly as much as the ad says, but Obama can't claim sole credit.<br />______________________________</span></strong></p><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519">The Truth vs. Barack Obama</a></span></strong><br />Found On gossiprocks.com<br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">An unemotional pragmatic compilation of Obama Statements which are blatantly false or misleading with solid evidence presented. Overall the list paints a disturbing picture of the freshman senator from Illinois.<br /></span></strong></em>________________________________<br /><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#3333ff;"><a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/04/25/the_distractions_of_obamas_character">The "Distractions" Of Obama's Character </a><br /></span></strong>By Charles Krauthammer<br /><strong>>>>>>>>Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.) >>>>>><br /></strong>_______________________________</p><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Great Articles found online by Wolf Howling:</em></span></strong></p><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-guilt-and-our-next-president.html">The Race Card, Liberal Guilt and our Next President<br /></a><span style="font-size:100%;">>>>>>>>><em>The allure of Obama is not any of his demonstrated leadership qualities or his economic or foreign policy ideas. As </em></span><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/01/krauthammer-saruman.html"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">piece</span></em></a><em><span style="font-size:100%;"> after </span></em><a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/01/08/sen_obamas_calls_for_unity_are_not_what_they_seem"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">piece</span></em></a><em><span style="font-size:100%;"> in the conservative press and some in the </span></em><a href="http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/01/08/the-cotton-candy-candidacy/"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">blogosphere</span></em></a></span><em> have pointed out, Obama has very little experience for the presidency, and his claims to be able to unite the country are particularly disingenuous in light of his voting record as a hard line liberal. Yet none of this is discussed by the main stream media.>>>>>>></em></strong></p><strong><em></em></strong></div><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-obama-dichotomy.html">Another Obama Dichotomy</a></span></strong></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:100%;"><em>>>>>>>>There are enough dichotomous issues about Obama to fill a laundry list, with the most discordant being Obama’s claim to be a post racial candidate while adopting as a preacher and mentor for twenty years the lunatic racist Rev. Wright. Then there is Obama’s claim to be able to heal the bi-partisan divide of the country while never having once in his career attempted to reach across the aisle on an issue of bi-partisan controversy. And there is Obama’s claim that he will clean Washington of special interests even as he panders shamelessly to Democratic special interests for their support.>>>>><br />_____________________________<br /></p></em></span></strong><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Factcheck.org</span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/obamas_creative_clippings.html">Obama's Creative Clippings</a></span><br />January 3, 2008<br />Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.</span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_nafta_nonsense.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">More NAFTA Nonsense</span><br /></a>March 3, 2008<br />An Obama mailer uses dubious, disputed statistics about how much the trade deal hurt Ohio workers.</span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Substance Abuse</span><br /></a>April 1, 2008<br />A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama's bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton's. Don't believe it. </span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Senator Obama has one of the worst records for getting bills passed that he has sponsored in the US Senate. That sounds like experience most of us wouldn’t want. <span style="color:#ffcc00;">The Senator has sponsored and passed <span style="font-size:180%;">2</span> Bills in the US Senate </span>- one for the Congo (shock and awe?) and one that makes lobbyists stand when they eat. Impressive work for 4 years on the job.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ffcc00;">John McCain has sponsored <span style="font-size:180%;">537 bills since Jan 21, 1993, of which 340</span> haven't made it out of committee and <span style="font-size:180%;">31 were successfully</span> enacted</span> (Exceedingly Good, relative to peers). McCain has co-sponsored 1211 bills during the same time period.<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">___________________________ </span></strong></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-major-myths-about-obama-dispelled.html"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama's List of Demonstrable Lies: 77 and growing</span></strong></a><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/07/four-major-myths-about-obama-dispelled.html">Obama WTF</a> >>></span></strong> is the most comprehensive and authoritative site about the life, votes, and positions of Senator Obama and his political backers. As his campaign is based on words... not on a proven track-record... if his words are not supported by facts, there’s nothing left but an empty blue suit>>>>>>></em></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">I found this site extremely interesting and devoted to counteract the "messianic" character of the Obama campaign. This website specializes on examining Senator Obama in-debth.<br />_______________________________________<br /></span></em><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23540579/">Obama's Senatorial History: "Starpower - Minor Role"</a></span></strong><br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">See clearly evidenced, how this candidate always rather campained than legislate. He loves to campain, but hates to govern. Using the Seanate as a stepping stone in a 5 year plan for the Presidency. Absence on tough decision votes.....it's not me, it is MSNBC, after all a Democratic oriented media which has been very tough on Clinton.<br /></span></em>_________________________<br /><a href="http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%203_3_08.htm"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama enjoys unfair advantage in media coverage.</span></strong><br /></a><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Up to 90% of the coverage positive? 50% with Clinton and McCain? What's wrog with this picture?<br /></span></em></strong></p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5195827809259536114" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 514px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 390px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="308" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBtJ3SUCvvI/AAAAAAAAAEg/QdtXZ4jYwQ0/s400/obama-excited-msm.jpg" width="470" border="0" /><br /><a href="http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm"><strong>MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH “BILLARY”</strong> </a><br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">Once again it is evident that the intelligent voter cannot just believe the media, but must make up his own mind, based upon cold hard facts. Do not make the mistake and easily dismiss people like Bill O'Reilly or Brit Hume of Fox News, as their coverage is fact based and fresh in terms of being inquisitive. Watch the shows and make up your own mind. Objective research shows clear evidence of a way more balanced coverage than CNS, ABC, CNN, NBC.<br /></span></strong></em>---------------------------<br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">NewsWeek ( one of the most liberal Media after all) posted now an article raising</span></strong></em> <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/113672"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">serious questions as to the gap between rhetoric and substance. </span></strong><br /></a>___________________<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23256713#23256713"><strong>Obama supporter can not name one of Obama's accomplishments :</strong> </a><br /></span><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">And that's a state government official, for God's sake. A professional politician who terribly failed at naming just one single accomplishment......<br />I invite all of you Obama supporters to do the very same test and ask your fellow supporters the very same question: Name one major factual accomplishment.......<br />And then, when the silence becomes really loud, ask yourself what evidence you have to see Obama deliver in the future? Why would anyone in his/her right mind bet the country on these odds?<br /></span></em></strong>_____________<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>Guilt by Association?</strong> </span><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194720347647295106" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBdaoiUCvoI/AAAAAAAAADo/xudLsxmxS5U/s400/iid%3D23124_Page_1.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">First let us define this notion.<br /></span></em><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25537">Here an analysis based upon the legal interpretation of Guilt By Associacion:</a></strong><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25537"> </a><br /><strong>Obama and the Wright-Wing Conspiracy<br />by </strong><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Bill+Siegel"><strong>Bill Siegel</strong></a><strong> >>>>>>>>>>><br /></strong>..................................<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama Pastor: God Damn America </span></strong><br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>The evidence is appalling, shocking, disgusting and revealing. Sad, tragic evidence for the often mentioned reverse Racism, practised by his church. </strong><br /><strong>(Silently practised by Obama as well?) For 20 years Obama was indoctrinated by this very Reverend.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mk3LXvVlsI4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mk3LXvVlsI4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></strong></span></em></p><br /><p align="left"><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong></strong><br /><strong>Why - I ask you - would Obama possibly attend the sermons again and again over two decades, if he did not agree with the position of this church and this specific Preacher? It took me one sermon to leave a congreagtioin for another....</strong><br /></span></em><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Please watch with awe below video and make up your own mind. if you do not come to the conclusion that it sounds very much like the hate filled yelling by the fanatic fundamentalist Mullah out of Birmingham, preaching hate against Christianity, all infidels and the western world, you are beyond help.<br /></span></em></strong>.........................................<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Shocking Video Evidence:<br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">See Reverend Jeremiah Wright in his own words</span></em></strong>. </span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Preaching Hate!</span></em><br /></span></strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4WMqlfiQKo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c4WMqlfiQKo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></p></span><br /><p align="left"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/617eK2XIaLk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/617eK2XIaLk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p><br /><p align="left"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vaNBzU6iryo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vaNBzU6iryo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><strong>Can you really picture even one member of this unbelievable congregation being actually in power or having a position of influence? Can you really? Will you believe that Obama did not know after 20 years of listening to this man? Talking about judgement.... and the cowardice of only responding, after these videos surfaced... How can any decent American patriot listen to these insults, to this hate, to this distortion of historical facts, to this crapping all over the dead souls of soldiers bleeding for the freedom of this country and others since WWII, and not walk out of this church in disgust and outrage? And even after hearing and seeing this shocking evidence not "disowning" this Nazi, but give us a lofty lecture about the racial divide in this country? How can anyone in his right mind even consider voting for this man?<br /></strong></em></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><strong>For God's sake - we are talking President Of The United States here!!!<br />All of a sudden, Michelle Obama's statements about her pride in this country (see video below) appear to be in a logical context </strong></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><br /><strong>______________</strong></span><br /></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">America created the Aids Virus to eradicate the black man....<br /></span>Jeremiah Wright sounds suspiciously like this Radical Muslim Fanatic<br /></strong><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMztM0Z7BYE&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMztM0Z7BYE&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><strong>....................................</strong> </p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Classic Example of Bigotry and reverse racism:<br /></span></em><span style="font-size:130%;">Hillary was never called a Nigger!</span></strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHATK4OjnyI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZHATK4OjnyI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></span><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>Reverse Racism at work. I rest my case. So it is okay to use the N word, just as long as of course the person uttering it is black? God help us, if a white, latino or Asian ever dared to use the same language.....<br /></strong><br /><strong>Let us be clear here - I am not talking about a one time statement here. No simple slip of the tongue. This is a continously repeated message of anti-semitism, hate against America, a message Obama has been listening to for over 20 years, which makes this so concerning and as a minimum leaves some serious questions and doubts about Obama's so oftenmentioned and celebrated judgement....</strong><br /></span></em>..............................................<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">But - do not just take my word - here a link to an excellent analysis submitted by a friend out of Europe:<br /></span></em><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ">Uncle Jeremiah<br />Barack Obama and his cookie-cutter race huckster</a></span></strong><a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ">.<br /></a>By Mark Steyn<br /><br /><strong>Did Obama consider God Damn America as a title for his book but it didn’t focus-group so well?>>>God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The “racist” here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Reverend Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend>>>><br /></strong>..................................................<br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25543">Pastor Halts Obama's Rise Above Identity Politics<br /></a></span></strong>by <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Ross+Kaminsky">Ross Kaminsky</a> </p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194723942534921906" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBdd5yUCvrI/AAAAAAAAAEA/PAfI4DPOgCA/s400/ScreenShot004.jpg" border="0" /><br /><p><strong>>>>>>>it seems an odd coincidence that just over one month after Obama announced his campaign for the presidency, the church altered its “About Us” page on its web site, eliminating the discussion of a “Black Value System,” which included such concepts as “Adherence to the Black Work Ethic,” “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness,’” and “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.”>>>>><br /></strong>__________________________</p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012"><strong>More about Obama's Congregation</strong><br /></a></span><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">If that's not scary in terms of (reverse) racism.....</span></em></strong><br />......................................................<br /><strong><a href="http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obamas_speech.php"><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama's Speech</span> </a><br /><br />>>>> His decades-long embrace of Wright, seemingly untempered by any serious qualms about what his pastor represents politically, suggests that he isn’t willing to confront the rhetoric of division and polarization within his own community, let alone in the country as whole. Which in turn suggests that that far from being the man who will tell us what we need to hear, rather than what we want to hear, he's a go-along-to-get-along figure, a man who accepts The Way Things Are and doesn't rock the boat. In other words, that he's just another politician>>>>>></strong><br /><br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>The above was written before the speech was given, and is 100% congruent with my own personal opinion. Today I heard the speech and the writer was confirmed.<br />While once again the man wiggles out from under any form of accountability or guilt, let alone for once being humble (quality of great leaders)apologizing for the long association with this black Nazi,, he delivers once again proof for being one of the most gifted politicians in recent history and so, once again, nothing sticks to this so immensly polished and smooth surface. I read through many reactions to the speech and it does seem that many of our so gullible populus have bought the coolaid yet again. No matter what happens, Obama will by no means apologize. he will spin, twist and torque any issue to the extent it will fit to this transcendent blurp of hope and change again. And people just keep on sipping the nectar from his lips.</strong> </span></em></p><br /><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>Just for a second - let us turn this around and assume that a White Senator of the US would have only a few times and not 20 years attended the sermons of David Duke of the Ku Klux Clan. I mean, the statements of Wright are about as controversial, divisive and outrageous as the ones of the KuKlux Clan, right?<br />Do you believe that this Senator would still have a political future? He would have resigned the very same day of breaking the news.</strong><br /></span></em></p><br /><br /><p><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">So - why are we applying once again a different set of moral and ethical standards, when a black man is concerned? Aren't the statements of Wright as despicable as the ones voiced by David Duke?<br />Wouldn't America call immediately for utter condemnation of this hypothetical white Senator? Why is this not happening with a black senator who not only calls this man a spiritual advisor and friend for over 20 years, is married by him, has his kids baptized by him and even after the material is published is not disowning the man? Why is this double standard applied?</span></strong><br /></em></p><br /><br /><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Nobody would ever doubt that there is guilt by association, if the above hypothetical example would occur. Any politician associated with such fanatics as the Clan would be crucified. Yet, in the case of Obama, associated with a reverend who's rantings are as terrible as any of Islamic fundamentalists or any White Power Right Wing Nut, kid's gloves are applied and the media is is surprisiingly silent.... it is illogical, it does not make sense, it is not fair - it is against any fundamental priciple of our democracy - it is - once again Reverse Racism, sadly so prevalent in our society.<br /></em></span></strong>______________ </p><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/03/21/obamas_speech_leaves_a_few_question_marks">Obama's Speech Leaves a Few Question Marks </a><br /></span></strong>By Charles Krauthammer<br /><strong>>>>>>>>The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction. >>>>><br />______________<br /></strong><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Does Race matter? Is it politically correct to point out the obvious?</span></em></strong><br /><strong><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25514&s=rcmp"><span style="font-size:180%;">Playing by Obama's Rules<br /></span></a>by </strong><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Patrick"><strong>Patrick J. Buchanan</strong></a><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">A great analysis a</span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">bout Reverse Racism.</span></em><br /></strong><strong>.............................</strong><br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>Some information about Obama's Background In Chicago from an objective, British Perspective, read the article of the reputable LONDON TIMES:</strong> </span></em></p><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece">Barack Obama: toxic mentors start to corrode pristine campaign </a><br /></span></strong>_______________<br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Do you know Obama's actual voting record in the senate?</span></strong><br /></span></em><a href="http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Here the detailed voting record as proof - Make up your own mind:</span></strong><br /></a><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Please take notice of the amazing amount of NV - Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present to some of the most critical issues.........<br /></span></em></strong>_______________<br /><a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/49244.html"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Proud of her country?????</span></strong><br /></a><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Did you see Michelle Obama state that she is now for the first time in her entire adult life proud of our country? A slap in the face of many people living through extremely hard times. Is that the kind of first family we would like to see?<br /><br />No after the fact press conference will be able to spin this one..... watch for yourself and you be the judge.</span></em> <img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194724028434267842" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBdd-yUCvsI/AAAAAAAAAEI/DVsWm090gaQ/s400/ScreenShot001.jpg" border="0" /><br />_________________<br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">I subscribe to The Economist, a fair and independent British Weekly, respected worldwide.<br /></span></strong></em><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10689547&CFID=11427384&CFTOKEN=20750d35cdef2819-393F9C44-B27C-BB00-0129755AA998C604"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Can Obama Deliver?</span><br /></strong></span></a>________________</p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama's Oil Spill</span></strong><br /></span><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies.</span></em> <em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Really?<br /></span></em><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895/page/1">Factcheck.org says that's a little too slick. (Newsweek)</a></strong><br />_________________</p><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><em>Anyone not voting for Barack Obama is bitter?</em></span></strong></p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194721339784740514" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBdbiSUCvqI/AAAAAAAAAD4/XjXUgfWxAb8/s400/iid%3D23125_Page_1.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions: </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2A168YyyDHs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2A168YyyDHs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></span></em></strong><br /><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<br />End Quote!</span></strong></em><br /></p></span><br /><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Once again Obama stereotypes and demeans Americans. Anyone who does not vote for him is brushed aside with cliches, as he stereotyped the typical white person.<br />Does it slowly start to penetrate, that this man is arrogant and elitist? That there is an overall mindset he so far successfully hides?<br />And once again, there was afterwards no humble apology offered, but just an apology for "a poor choice of words". When will he finally have the backbone and accept responsibility and be truly accountable for his actions and words?<br />What a pathetic contrast to John McCain who always had the courage to stand before the American People and apologize for a mistake.<br /></span></em></strong>____________</p><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Reverend Wrights full speech to the NAA -<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">Part I<br /></span><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2lV8x_-Uk2c&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2lV8x_-Uk2c&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></strong></p><br /><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">PART II</span></strong></p><br /><p><strong><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/am50KvOWaaw&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/am50KvOWaaw&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></strong></p><br /><p><strong>PART III</strong></p><br /><p><strong><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BWWx4Q1VFg&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8BWWx4Q1VFg&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">The mindset is absolutely scary - Only upon this speech did Obama finally issue a strong rebuttal.<br />That is weak and once again the typical response of a politician.<br /></span>__________<br /><a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/05/02/obamas_changing_moral_equivalence"><span style="font-size:180%;">Obama's Changing Moral Equivalence</span> </a><br />By Charles Krauthammer<br />>>>> Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are pre-emptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting"(New York Times editorial, April 30).>>><br />....................................................<br /></p></em></strong>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-2655568121404954912008-05-08T10:54:00.000-07:002008-08-15T13:24:31.433-07:00Obama and his IRAQ Promise - How will we look back at his own"Read My Lips"<p><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fp-VmXgeVhc&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fp-VmXgeVhc&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="color:#ffff33;"><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">This thread is based upon an article from the neue Zuercher Zeitung, April 8, 2008>>>><br /><br />Senator McCain is clear and speaks clearly about his position on IRAQ. "If we want to succeed, we must strengthen ouor presence there." The poll driven stands by Obama and Clinton present slogans yet no truly clear positions. Both do not dare to fully disclose the realities of this key issue.<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hq7IyrjghLo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hq7IyrjghLo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></span></em><span style="color:#ff9900;">t is widely known that Obama as well as Clinton promote an end to the military engagement in IRAQ. Obama promised to pull out 2-3 brigades each month as off his start of tenure as US president. He does however not mention, how many US troops are to remain in the country. </span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color:#ffff33;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">A few days ago, a strategy paper was revealed in Washington, in which his political advisor promotes a military presence of at least 80,000 troops in IRAQ until at least 2010.<br /><br /></span>Colin Kahl, the author of the strategy paper is a close advisor to Obama. Even a closer look at Obama's website leads to believe that Obama is not necessarily promoting a complete and utter withdrawal out of IRAQ ( as publicly stump speeched). If Al Khaeda should gain ground there, US troops should be able to take counter measures immediately....<span style="color:#33ff33;">But where to base these troops, Obama does not talk about..</span>. Clinton is much more frank. her first act as commander-in-chief will be to withdraw immediately ( but will take 2 months of consulting with the generals in the field first..) The above insecurity about the factual positions of Clinton and Obama may become one very difficult question in the future. They almost painted themselves in a corner here in the eye of the American public. Publicly promising an immediate retreat, yet mostl likely being forced in the future to correct that course, as it will be almost impossible to renege on a military presence in this mission critical region.<br /><br /></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Will this become another "read My Lips" situation - but this time for Obama or Clinton? <span style="color:#ff9900;">While Obama publicly stands for complete and immediate retreat, his factual ambivalency leads to the conclusion that he wants to keep all options on the table.<br /></span>It further leads to an impression of the same John Kerry (unsuccessfully) did and was held against him as flip-flopping.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama will (after an election) with a high probability be forced to "adapt" his promises due to the geostrategic situation</span>.<br />He will leave troops there and these toops will remain engaged for some time to come. Breaking his election promise though will cost him dearly in the eyes of his core voter base. </em></span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color:#ffff33;"><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In conclusion there is a high probability that once again candidates try to gain voters by promising them the impossible, then lateron have to reverse course due to "changing circumstances".....<br /><br /></span>In this case it is foreseeable and based upon inexperience, naivety or sheer political opportunism. <span style="color:#ff9900;">I surely hope the American people will not make the mistake of buying the Obama or Clinton promises now, only to have to call them liars and flip floppers later</span>.</em></span></strong></span></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-36156312215680556182008-05-07T10:32:00.000-07:002008-10-22T10:17:47.462-07:00National Security & Foreign Policy<span style="font-size:180%;">Biden - Obama will be tested</span><br /><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>October 22, 2008<br />As I have mentioned several times in the past, if Obama will be elected, there is a significant chance that some despot, terrorist or regime may try to find out, how far they can go with this unknown quantity - hence the probability for conflict is much higher, if Obama is President.(See below older posts)<br /><br />Senator Biden now , providing his newest gaffe, just confirmed my statements to this matter. (See video).</em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IpiNfuG8YY8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IpiNfuG8YY8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>We will not qualify Obama at this time. He may be up to the task, or he may be not. But that is not the relevant quastion to ask.<br />The real question is for us voters: Why even go there?<br />Why even experience a "generated" crisis or conflict? Don't we have enough to cope with at present? Can we afford another (unnecessary) conflict, just because we have an inexperienced President?<br /><br />Already the Obama campaign is trying to open up the backdoors, shoring up influencial leaders for that case that the public opinion will be against Obama very soon. They obviously foresee that those many promises can never be kept and the polls will swing soon. I ask again: why even go there? Why do we have to first land brutally hard, before we acknowledge that he is not the right President for these harsh times?<br /><br />Obama will (be forced to ) abandon most of his lofty promises. He will raise taxes. He will move away from drilling and nuclear power. he can never follow through on his domestic almost socialistic plans. He will have to go back on Iraq. he will have to go back on Pakistan. He will not keep his promises and at some point the American People will feel massively misled, when the consequences kick in.<br /><br />Why not do the right thing right now and prove the media and pollsters wrong?<br />We are a fundamentally fair people. </em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Is it fair to have a 20:1 Marketing Money advantage and swamp the field with adverts?<br />Is it fair to see 57: 16 of the leading Newspapers in the Obama tank?<br />is it fair that 8:1 of the TV networks support Obama?<br />Is it fair to blame the GOP and most of all Bush for an economy crisis which had been 40 years in the making?<br /></em></span></span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><em>Is it fair to completely overlook Pelosi and co. who dominated congress during the last 2 years, killing legislation which could have averted the collapse?<br />Is it fair to speak of tax cuts but in effect raise taxes, hence mislead the American People?<br />Is it fair to link McCain to Bush?<br />Is it fair to woreship a candidate, who is a lawyer, trained to never say anything of substance but stay ambivalent?<br />Is it fair to completely overlook the qualifications for the most important job in the world?<br />Is it fair to overlook the kind of people Obama surroounds and surrounded himself with?<br />Is it fair to see an election decided by a huge ground operation dominated by strange organizations such as ACORN, investigated by the FBI in more than 14 states?<br /><br />We once again call on the American People to be fair and go with the underdog.<br />Prove those media pollsters wrong. Exercise sound judgment and not emotion.</em></span></span><br /><br /></p><p><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vM4K6sE1Ri4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vM4K6sE1Ri4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">________________________</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ccff;">History Will Judge<br /></span>By <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/charles_krauthammer/">Charles Krauthammer</a></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#33ccff;">WASHINGTON -- For the last 150 years, most American war presidents -- most notably Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt -- have entered (or re-entered) office knowing war was looming. Not so George Bush. Not so the war on terror. The 9/11 attacks literally came out of the blue.<br /></span><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/vindication_will_come_for_bush.html"><span style="color:#3366ff;"><strong>>>>> Read entire article</strong></span></a></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">________________________</span></strong></p><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=74797"><span style="color:#3366ff;">Hamas, Hezbollah: 'Legitimate claims'?<br /></span></a>>>>>><br /></strong></span>Oh, how I wish Barack Obama would take my phone calls …<br />I would surely like to follow up on </span><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74702" jmblu="0" xegeo="0"><span style="font-size:130%;">an interview he gave David Brooks of the New York Times</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> in which he stated Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate claims" that are being undermined by the terrorist groups' commitment to violence.<br />My question to the Democratic Party presidential candidate: <span style="color:#ff9900;">What are those "legitimate claims" of Hamas and Hezbollah?<br /></span>Perhaps I won't have to ask directly.<br />Maybe some enterprising reporter who has access to the anointed one will find the chutzpah to ask the obvious question.<br />Then Obama might get a chance to elaborate on what he believes are "the root causes of problems and dangers" currently being unaddressed by U.S. foreign policy.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">But I for one would really like to know which of the claims of Hamas and Hezbollah are "legitimate" in the eyes of Barack Obama</span>. I think it's a very important question.<br />>>>>>>><br /><strong>_____________________</strong></span></span></p><p><a name="020315"></a><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Hamas Endorses Obama<br /></span></strong><span style="font-size:130%;">On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: <span style="color:#ff9900;">Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President</span>. Yousef said, "<span style="color:#ff9900;">We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election."</span> Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."<br />Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."<br />Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.</span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">_____________________</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Russians invade Georgia</span><br />First proof for the danger Putin poses with his reactionary vision towards former glory is presented by the current invasion of Georgia.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Who was again the one candidate who saw this coming? You guessed right - it was John McCain. -</span> heavily attacked by the Democrats for "living in the old daysof the cold war". It was McCain who warend us again and again of the danger of these tendencies. It was McCain who called for expansion of NATO with the republics of the former Sovjet Union, while Obama was silent. Who, do you think has the calibre to lead us during a time, where Russia rediscovers its imperialism?<br />__________________________<br />Radical Islam - Threat to the entire Free Western World </span></strong><br /><br /><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6666;">I invite you to click here and watch the controversial dutch documentary about Radical Islam and the Quran "Fitna"</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffcc00;"></span></strong></a><br /><em><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">I was not able to embed the player, as Youtube considers this documentary as too cntroversial... This is not about fear mongering or scare tactics - FITNA is a brutally realistic depiction of the mindset of many thousand of orthodox muslims. While we must consider, that a majority of Muslims are peaceful, it must nevertheless be said, that this religion never saw any reformation, and the Quran is still an archaic piece of dogma. It poses a huge moral dilemma on Muslims, as they, if they wanted to adhere strictly to the verses, would have to follow a way of confrontation. </span></strong></em></p><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><em><strong>Even though the images will shock you, we deem the posting of the movie as appropriate, as we must remain vigilant and aware of the kind of threat the Western Free World is facing still. Most of all - Many amongst us are already taking our domestic peace and safety for granted. A Bit of a reminder will serve us all, when we have to elect a strong president.<br /><br /></strong><strong>The threat is too grave to leave it to an amateur or a person who will appease these fanatics as Hitler had been appeased initially. This aspect alone deserves a man with deep experience and realism. No room for error.</strong><br />_________________________<br /></em></span></p><p><em><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194727713516207826" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBdhVSUCvtI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/uDzPFkpYu1A/s400/obama_dictators.jpg" border="0" /></em><strong><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/05/23/a_gaffe,_an_absurdity,_and_a_policy"> </a><span style="color:#00cccc;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/05/23/a_gaffe,_an_absurdity,_and_a_policy">A Gaffe, an Absurdity, and a Policy</a><br /></span>by Charles Krauthammer<br />>>>>>Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."<br />After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. <span style="color:#ff9900;">Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.</span> >>>><br />______________________________________<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="color:#00cccc;"><br /></span><em>Next - let us examine Obama's Stands on IRAQ:</em></strong> </p><p></span><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>by Charles Krauthammer<br /></em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/06/13/obamas_plan_for_defeat">Obama's Plan for Defeat </a></span><br />>>>>>The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed. >>>>><br /></strong>_____________________________________________<br /><br /></span><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Wouldn't you agree that a commander in chief should personally know the horror of war and hence use the defense forces wisely?<br /><br />A strong defense ensures peace in times of war. And we are in a war, let us not kid ourselves. Eliminating Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do - even if only for humanitary reasons. America has a moral obligation to propagate the pronciples and freedoms of the best constitution in the world.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vcle7YwOZOo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vcle7YwOZOo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />I think that John here as well has the right position and will be a respected and worldwide appreciated president. After years of POW this man will never use the army lightly, but will at the same time never shy away to use it, if needed. That's the man I would like to see as commander in chief, surrounded by millions of Islamic fanatics who will never shy away to commit atricities against civilians.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8sj91NH5fvw&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8sj91NH5fvw&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Just spotlighting the Islamic threat, go ahead and watch below videos, secretly taped in the Mosque in Birmingham. Not only will you see some distinctive similarities with the hate speeches given by Reverend jeremiah Wright (see facts about Obama), you will on top of that be appalled by the hate the Western World is facing by a growing segement of the Islamic Population.<br />You be the judge:<br /></em></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff6666;">Dispatches - Undercover Mosque I (UK)<br /></span></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:100%;color:#ff6666;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/peFQWuk4nuo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/peFQWuk4nuo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Dispatches - Undercover Mosque II (UK)</span><br /></span></strong></span><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuCLC8kjWCI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuCLC8kjWCI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6666;">Dispatches - Undercover Mosque III (UK)<br /></span></strong><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x5t5EqWX92k&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x5t5EqWX92k&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6666;">Dispatches - Undercover Mosque IV (UK)<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Please Pay Attention to The Statement, that We created the Aids Virus and other diseases to eradicate the Muslim (See, where Wrigt took his intelligence from?)<span style="color:#ff9900;">Does it strike you as disturbing, how the Wright rhetoric, Obama and his family was exposed to for over 20 years, is almost identical to the teachings of most extreme, radical , and fanatic islamists?<br /></span></em></span></span></strong><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMztM0Z7BYE&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yMztM0Z7BYE&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6666;">Dispatches - Undercover Mosque V (UK)<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V4Zv3BUmwqs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V4Zv3BUmwqs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff6666;">Dispatches - Undercover Mosque VI (UK)<br /></span></strong><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BIgVoEQ6D7Q&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BIgVoEQ6D7Q&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">I leave the conclusions to you, Dear Reader. If you, after having watched, what is in fact preached in Western Mosques, still think, that we do not need to remain vigilant and strong and there is no real danger posed to us by Radical Islam, you are beyond help. If only 0.1 % of all Muslims are orthodox believers, we face thousands of potential terrorists of the calibre of Osama Bin Laden. It would make for the single largest Terror Organisation of all time. Estimates of supporters of radical Islam are however much much higher.........</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><em>This is no scare tactics or fear mongering - It is the cold hard reality we are living in, which is why we must elect a leadership which acknowledges this threat and is willing to conofront it without ifs and buts.<br /></em><a href="http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/?action=view&current=Ahmed20Yousef.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="WIDTH: 399px; HEIGHT: 223px" height="157" alt="Photobucket" src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/Ahmed20Yousef.jpg" width="533" border="0" /></a> </span></strong><br /><strong><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/05/building-case-to-attack-iran.html">Some disturbing material about the IRAN Threat consolidated by Wolf Howling:<br /><br /></a>>>>>>><a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_kMs_q1g_CmQ/SB87j27hloI/AAAAAAAABfE/DS4aANG-xkE/s1600-h/Death+to+america.bmp"></a><em>The case for attacking Iran's Qods Force (see </em><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/04/next-moves-in-bloody-chess-match-with.html"><em>here</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/05/iran-in-crosshairs.html"><em>here</em></a><em>) as a means to stop their proxy war and attempts to “Lebanize” Iraq is picking up ever greater evidentiary support as new revelations of Iranian arms shipments and training of militias using Hezbollah surrogates is making the news. This is no longer an “American” issue. It is now recognized by at all levels of Iraqi government and society as a major threat.>>>>>><br /></em></span></strong><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><br />The IRAN Threat goes even farther, which is why we must keep a military presence in this region.<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E94BwSI1LoA&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E94BwSI1LoA&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></em></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;"><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-theocracys-nuclear-program-must-be.html">Why the Iranian Theocracy's Nuclear Plans must be stopped</a></span></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#ffcc00;">>>>>>>There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples>>>>>>></span></em></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Inasmuch as it is hard to conceive for us Western Infidels, how anyone can blow himself and a bunch of innocent people up in a market place, it is even harder to appreciate the fanatism of an entire government, willing to "sacrifice" their own people and country for their skewed mission. As long as this Theocracy is in power, driven by their mission to wipe Israel off the map and destabilize the entire region, a solid military presence by the US is mission-critical. Not only to stabilize IRAQ as a counterbalance to IRAN and Syria, but moreso to be able to mount a fast response and deter IRAN by conventional means. The Cold War presents great historical evidence to support this position.</em></span></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2007/11/evidence-that-iran-is-seeking-nuclear.html"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc00;">Solid evidence for IRAN seeking to establish a nuclear Arsenal</span> </a>is presented again on wolf's website.</span></em></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Now - let us ponder the question of a hasty withdrawal from Irak as proposed by Clinton and Obama once again...... Talk about judgement.</em></span></strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><br />_____________________________</span></em></p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"></span></em><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>G</em><strong>reat contributions to this topic by Wolf Howling:<br /><br /></strong><span style="color:#33ccff;"><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-and-peace-in-our-time.html"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Obama and Piece in Our Time </strong></span></a><br /></span></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><em>>>>>Obama's foreign policy resembles and portends to be every bit as disastrous as Neville Chamberlain's .<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm9IUfPZsX8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm9IUfPZsX8&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></em><em>Indeed, Neville Chamberlain's choice to talk with Germany and seek peace in the late 30's missed the last real opportunity to stop, at then minimal cost in blood and gold, a war that ultimately claimed near 60 million lives and destroyed Europe's economy for decades. >>>>>></em></strong></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><strong><a href="http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-disparages-military-gets-pass-on.html">Obama disparages the military and gets a pass on IRAQ.</a></strong></span></p><p><a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_kMs_q1g_CmQ/R5-sotggY4I/AAAAAAAAA0M/vvAAP5vSIM8/s1600-h/obama1.jpg"></a><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><em>>>>>>Whether to withdraw from Iraq has tremendous ramifications for our national security, given the effect such a withdrawal would have on Salafi terrorism and Khomeinist adventurism. Yet not a single Democrat has been seriously questioned on this by the MSM.>>>><br />______________________</em></strong></span></p><p><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/obama_on_civilian_casualties.html"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama on Afghanistan's Casualties:</span></strong> </a><br /><strong>(Washington Post)</strong><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Which once again is a bit of evidence to this inexperience and lack of detail knowledge about key defense issues. We can not afford a layman in a time of war to make one single bad decision. The room for error in the meantime has become tiny. I'd sure sleep better, if McCain was our Commander_In_Chief.</span></em></strong></p><p><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em><strong>________________________<br /></strong></em><strong><span style="font-size:180%;"><a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/04/11/the_advancing_iranian_nuclear_program"><span style="color:#3366ff;">The Advancing Iranian Nuclear Program</span><br /></a></span>By Charles Krauthammer<br /><span style="color:#333333;"><span style="color:#ffcc33;">>>>>>>It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.<br />The president is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.>>>>><br /></span>_________________________</span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#333333;">Obama's Position On IRAN - shockingly naive:<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ew5qP2oPdtQ&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ew5qP2oPdtQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#333333;"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#333333;">_____________________</p><p><br /><br /></p></span></strong><p><a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/04/18/nonproliferations_time_has_passed"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;">Nonproliferation's Time Has Passed</span></strong> </a><br />By Charles Krauthammer<br />>>>>><strong>WASHINGTON -- The era of nonproliferation is over. During the first half-century of the nuclear age, safety lay in restricting the weaponry to major powers and keeping it out of the hands of rogue states. This strategy was inevitably going to break down. The inevitable has arrived. >>>>><br />________________________</strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">In light of above evidence, would you possibly consider giving a Newby the handshake for his foreign policy platform? <span style="color:#ffcc00;">Obama's lack of experience, his naivety, outright dangerous propositions and plans would in all probability lead to a desaster of global magnitude.<br /></span><br />it is our strong opinion that <span style="color:#ffcc00;">these times require strong, predictable leadership</span>.<br />We do not like Romney - but for onvce he got it spot on:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc00;">"This is not the time for an internship with the Presidency of the USA".</span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc00;"> </span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ccff;"></span></em></strong></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-76879674589095726522008-05-04T10:50:00.000-07:002008-08-06T11:26:54.414-07:00Experience vs. Change?<a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/R_zyorviGmI/AAAAAAAAAC4/Zdno5rH38I0/s1600-h/Obama+change.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5187287651574749794" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 386px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 328px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="264" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/R_zyorviGmI/AAAAAAAAAC4/Zdno5rH38I0/s400/Obama+change.jpg" width="436" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">One of the key debate slogans of this election.<br /><br />Can anyone in his right mind explain to me, how possibly an outsider can come into a very complex environment, without a solid network of influencal contacts and friends and then go ahead and implement change?<br /><br />What a load of BS, defying any fundamental principle of logic. In order to change something one must profoundly know the animal first. If you do not understand how something works, ow can you be so arrogant to state and promise to come in and immediately change it to the better.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CDTJDv4hevU&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CDTJDv4hevU&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />In that regard Obama as well as Romney completely miss the point and only prove mine that they are lightweights, spilling nothing but empty slogans. The system in Washington is complex beyond belief. getting legislature passed is a matter of endless and careful pragmatic balancing, negotiating and compromising.<br /><br />As a turn around manager for several small to large companies, I can testify to that fact. The first year coming into such a corporation in trouble is spent on nothing but learning and analysing - the so called situations analysis. not before you utterly comprehend, how they work, the procedures and mechanisms, the clients, the product, can you possibly suggest remedies.<br /><br />Now look at our Government, which is so much more complex and involves so many more people - all with interests and also responsibilities to their own constituencies. Of course it is normal that any Congressmen involved in a legislative subpanel will try to get something for his own people - after all he/she has been elected to do so. Look at the powerful lobbies. Then multiply this by 100 when considering the big picture involving our allies and other countries. Then multiply this again and consider our "enemies" and economic competitors worldwide.<br /><br />This is the environment any new President has to navigate and C H A N G E for the better. How can he /she possibly do that without years of working within the environment first? If we really want some things changed ( and most of the American People truly wish that), then no one in his right mind can possibly argue for newbies like Obama or Romney. They would be burned to rubble by the political grind work within months. Naivety or Illusions will not help. Charisma will not help - it takes the unattractive day to day detail work and knowledge of the system only a person like John can bring to the table who knows the place, the mechanisms and the players.<br /><br />Who will get something rather passed, Obama or John McCain? Who can build alliances in the Congress and senate rather, Romney or McCain? Who can possibly bridge the isle on specific issues?<br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R549MbyIuu4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R549MbyIuu4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />The answer is to my opinion clear as daylight. If we do not only want solutions, but also implementations and execution of such plans and strategies, the answer can only be McCain.<br /><br />Without deep, deep experience, there can not be any change.<br /><br />It does not suffice anymore to keep on blabbering about Washington being broken, it is time to actually change it. John has been amazingly successful in working towards it - consider, what this man could do if in the powerful position of President. he is liked and respected across the party lines ( can you say the same for Hillary or Obama or Romney?) Wouldn;t he be the only and logical solution to actually get bipartisan majorities to effectively implement and execute on new legislature?<br /><br />Just for a second - picture your car. Something is wrong with it. It does not run smoothly anymore. Would you rather have it fixed by an experienced mechanic or a medical doctor?</span></em></strong></div><div></div><div></div><br /><a href="http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/?action=view&current=obama-phone-photo-opp-upside-down.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Photobucket" src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/obama-phone-photo-opp-upside-down.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">If you fake it, at least do it right.......</span></em></strong>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-50487179516995934622008-05-03T10:23:00.000-07:002008-11-06T11:39:24.845-08:00Uniting a polarized country - Will Obama do it?<strong><em><span style="color:#00cccc;">November 6, 2008</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#00cccc;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/loose_ends">Loose Ends</a>
<br /></span>A Commentary by Debra J. Saunders</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#00cccc;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33cc00;">>>>>>>In his victory speech, Obama reached out "to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn. I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too."
<br />Then Obama offered the White House chief of staff post to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., one of the most partisan creatures on the planet. Emanuel is infamous for brandishing a steak knife at a dinner celebrating Clinton's election that he used to stab the table as he named each enemy, proclaiming each "dead."
<br />So how does this work? Obama hears the voices of McCain voters and then "Rahmbo" knives more </span><a class="iAs" style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal! important; FONT-SIZE: 100%! important; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1px! important; COLOR: darkgreen! important; BORDER-BOTTOM: darkgreen 0.07em solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent! important; TEXT-DECORATION: underline! important" href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/loose_ends#" target="_blank" itxtdid="7133048"><span style="color:#33cc00;">furniture</span></a><span style="color:#33cc00;"> and pronounces them dead? </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33cc00;">And how will independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut fare in the post-partisan Obama era?
<br />Several new reports suggest Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will strip Lieberman, who supported McCain even as he has caucused with Senate Democrats, of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee when they meet today. </span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33cc00;">>>>></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#00cccc;"></span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#00cccc;">_____________________________________</span></em></strong>
<br /><strong><em><span style="color:#00cccc;">During the RNC Convention, for the first time in history <span style="color:#ff9900;">a Democrat, 8 years ago on the Democratic Ticket for the US Presidency, spoke in favor of a Republican Candidate </span>on a Republican convention notabene, </span><span style="color:#ff9900;">and reached out across party lines to democrats and independents like us.
<br /></span></em></strong>
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C7RDLHSclyw&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C7RDLHSclyw&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<br /><em><strong><span style="color:#00cccc;">That is unheard of in American Politics. Joe Lieberman, a US Senator who caucuses with the Democrats<span style="color:#ff9900;"> and stands almost in e very single line item in opposition to the policies Palin for instance stands for> Albeit, he himself proved the so called bi-partisanship, McCain is famous for, with his support of McCain/Palin.
<br /></span>
<br />In utter neglect of party lines and propaganda, neglect of his own careeer , which is endangered now, <span style="color:#ff9900;">he lent his support to the man he feels is best qualified to lead this great country during these challenging times.
<br />
<br /></span><span style="color:#33ff33;">Isn't that actual proof for bi-partisan appeal, McCain can bring to the table?
<br /></span>
<br />That is what I mean, when I mention talking the talk and walking the walk.
<br />Don't you agree that speeches of unity should not be good enough, but actually be backed up with corresponding action? </span></strong></em>
<br /><em><strong><span style="color:#00cccc;">
<br />Show me the proof that you mean what you say. Show me proof of bi-partisanship and accomplishments. Proof for your ability to tell the truth, even if that hurts in opinion polls. Look at the Clintons, who, as everybody knows, disqualified Obama rightfully and harshly, then for political cynical opportunism turn around in step with party lines, to proclaim during the Democratic Convention that Obama is all of a sudden ready to be President.
<br />
<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">Are these the kind of politicians we want to entrust our future with?
<br />Isn't that exactly why we are so sick of Washington? </span>
<br />
<br />Isn't it refreshing, when for once a politician like Liebermann throws all caution and party loyalty overboard, and <span style="color:#ff9900;">follows his conscience with America and not the Democratic party line in mind?</span> Lieberman, another straight talking, honest and humble man of great reputation is today being attacked and slandered by media and the Democrats in the worst manner. It's ugly and sad to state, that he probably will be finished as a Democratic Politician. Nobody mentions however, that McCain and Liebermann talk, then follow their words up with action. No matter the cost. Country first ist their motto, and once again they backed that up with action and just for that alone deserve respekt.
<br /></span></strong></em>
<br />
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXaAVSQs1eU&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PXaAVSQs1eU&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<br /><strong><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#009900;"></span></strong>
<br /><em><strong><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#009900;">As a new Citizen I came to objectively see my beloved new country as a highly divided people.</span></strong> </em>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></span></strong></em><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The fact that a true leader should demonstrate tolerance, a bit of self-depreciation and humility, up to even adapting, learning and admitting a mistake (as we all commit those) is also key to earn true respect. </span></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></strong></span></em>
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OW0bvbS0Ja0&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OW0bvbS0Ja0&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br />
<br /></p><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">All of the above is manifested in John McCain. I truly believe that he has the ability to transcend party politics and unify this divided populus to a high extent, as opposed to Obama, who hammers his transcending nature home, yet in fact is a left liberal who quite actually polarizes the voter base within the Dems, let alone across party lines.
<br /><a href="http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/?action=view&current=bitter20small20town.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="WIDTH: 386px; HEIGHT: 620px" height="542" alt="Photobucket" src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/bitter20small20town.jpg" width="488" border="0" /></a>
<br />The fact that he gets up to 90% of the black votes ( evidence, that many blacks vote according to race and not facts) is clear indication for a racist (divisive)dimension which will (has already in PA, KY, WV) result in a nationwide counter effect (e.g latinos, jews, white rural voters) <span style="color:#ffcc00;">- hence furter divide our people</span> - <span style="color:#ffcc00;">but this time in addition to political platforms and ideology along racial lines as well.
<br />
<br /></span>In that sense, Obama is not only outright dangerous with his foreign policy and economic ideas, <span style="color:#ffcc00;">he will domestically rip a gorge between ethnic groups.</span> His 20 year association with the black Nazi reverend and other extremists is only aggravating the gap - latest tendencies show that Obama even polarizes the African American Community:
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4h5Aq6wPFis&fs=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4h5Aq6wPFis&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br /><span style="color:#ffcc00;">It seems to me very ironic, that the factually single most polarizing candidate in recent decades sells himself so successfully as the "Great Unifier".....
<br /></span>
<br />I only hope that the American people at some point look at the candidates pragmatically, logically and unemotionally. Look at the facts and the evidence and then derive their decision.
<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i3Ixt-mh3qM&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i3Ixt-mh3qM&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<br /></span></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The man, depicted above is the man who can make it happen.
<br />
<br />How to get us all to do a standard due diligence along the lines of a job interview for a top exec instead of the easy jumping on board the emotional bandwagon of America's Rockstar who admittedly has the best marketing machine going in decades, will be the great challenge for John and responsible bloggers and voters such as you and I.</span>
<br /></strong></span></em>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="font-size:180%;color:#66ffff;">Race no Issue?</span></strong>
<br /><strong><a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25568">Wright Connection Fatally Undermines Obama's Central Theme</a></strong>
<br />by <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=David+Limbaugh">David Limbaugh</a></span>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br /></span><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>Looking at the latest Buzz about Geraldine Ferraro and her remarks to the fact, that Obama would not be in this position, if he wasn't black, then the ensuing harsh reaction of the Obama Campaign, this is a wonderful example once again how reverse racism works.</strong>
<br /></span></em><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">
<br />If a white person dares to point out the obvious (90% of all Blacks in Mississippi voted for Obama after all to name just one fact), and it touches upon race, the Blacks will scream hell.
<br />
<br />If a Black congregation (such as Obama's) loudly proclaims to be black and focus on blacks and their issues, it is completely politically correct and of course never racist.</span></em></strong></p><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>It is my strong opinon that we must do away with racism as well as with reverse racism. This election is in fact very much about race - let us be honest about it. The latino votes as well as the Black votes are irrefutable evidence to that fact. We did have strong women in high positions since 1984(Ferraro), but only very few Blacks. Now thatObama as outspoken Black person enters the arena, he must be equally be prepared to respond to questions regarding race, as any White person must. The extreme reactions of the Obama camp to anything which could remotely hint at bringing the issue up, only proves the widespread reverse racism and discrimination practiced by Black America. Using the race card by the Obama camp comes across as typical, predictable and sadly reflects the been there done that mentality of our black voters, as whenever they run out of factual arguments, they move the discussion to the emotional dimension of Race. I consider it as cheap and dirty campaigning.</strong> </span></em></p><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">It is deplorable how a candidate running on the theme of unifying a country will absolutely not distance himself from a black nazi hate monger. (See Facts about Obama). Obama's speech, defending Pastor Wright leads to division, but certainly not unification. John McCain, staying above the fray of race and gender discussions can for sure.</span></em></strong></p><p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>In this thread Iwould like to discuss, how in fact the wide middleground of "independents and moderates" consisting of dems and reps can come together and be the driving force and not the wings of left and right.</strong>
<br /></span></em>
<br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>John would to my opinion be the perfect candidate due to this history and track record to truly unify this country. Let us not forget that historically this exact symptom ( a highly divided people) was the downfall of all empires.</strong>
<br /><strong><span style="color:#009900;"></span></strong></span></em>
<br /><a href="http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/?action=view&current=MuslimAtHeart.jpg" target="_blank"><img style="WIDTH: 416px; HEIGHT: 253px" height="199" alt="Photobucket" src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/MuslimAtHeart.jpg" width="416" border="0" /></a> </p><p><em><strong><span style="color:#ffcc00;">A picture speaks 1000 Words....... Polarizing or Unifying? You be the Judge</span></strong>.
<br /></em>
<br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">I propose that John keeps on working the center of the spectre, maybe even introduce Democratic potential Cabinet members not limited to even the running mate to work towards that goal of reaching across the isle and thus unify a large segment of our society behind an honest leader. Let's discuss.
<br /></span></strong></em><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">______________________________</p></span></strong></em><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">USA Today, September 2008</span></em></strong></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong>Our view on bipartisanship:
<br />Who's the better uniter?
<br />
<br /></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>McCain has a longer record of bucking his party’s orthodoxy</strong>.</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><p>
<br />Presidents who try to push through major policy changes without the opposing party almost always come to grief. George W. Bush's bid to create </span></p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/06/bush.budget/index.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">private accounts for Social Security</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> collapsed in 2005 when Democrats rejected it. A decade earlier, Bill Clinton's </span><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page3.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">health care overhaul</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> died for lack of Republican input and support.</span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><a id="more"></a>
<br />
<br /><p>
<br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Social Security and health care remain unreformed, and whether the next president is Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama, he'll need help from members of the other party to address these and other pressing issues. So it's reasonable to ask whether either of them — both self-styled change agents who tout their ability to cross political lines — have shown they can do this.</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><p>
<br />McCain, in Congress for </span></p><a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=m000303"><span style="font-size:130%;">26 years</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> to </span><a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167"><span style="font-size:130%;">Obama's four</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;">, has the longer record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues. He has </span><a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter9.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">bucked his party again and again</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> to do just that — on immigration, federal judges and campaign finance, to name three on which he enraged many Republicans by defying the party position and working with Democrats.</span>
<br />
<br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">McCain-the-maverick has reverted to party orthodoxy on taxes and other issues this year, which will put him in a bind if elected: Would he stick with those new positions, or compromise with the Democratic Congress he'd likely be working with?</span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><p>
<br /><strong>As McCain points out on the campaign trail, Obama has a much thinner record of bucking his own party.</strong> With </span></p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21mon2.html"><span style="font-size:130%;">the exception</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> of tough fights for ethics reforms in the Illinois Senate and in Washington — where he angered Democratic colleagues by insisting on the disclosure of lobbyists who bundle campaign donations — <strong>Obama has rarely challenged party dogma on the sort of big, contentious issues he'd face as president</strong>. </span>
<br />
<br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>As a U.S. senator, he has taken liberal Democratic positions on most issues</strong>. Studies by Congressional Quarterly show Obama has voted with his party almost 97% of the time, vs. about 85% for McCain.</span><span style="font-size:130%;">
<br />Where Obama has diverged, it has often been rhetorical and reactive: After securing the nomination, he expressed disagreement with a Supreme Court decision that struck down the death penalty in cases of child rape, and he approved a decision that overturned a strict gun control law in Washington, D.C. </p></span><p>He has signaled support for a modified form of affirmative action (extending it to poorer whites and denying it to better-off African Americans), and he has supported a key Bush initiative that funnels federal dollars to faith-based groups.</p><p>
<br />Obama's bipartisan accomplishments in Washington have been on significant, but relatively non-controversial, efforts to secure nuclear weapons and establish a federal-spending database.<strong> What he lacks is a record of challenging his own party on divisive, difficult issues — the deficit, immigration, energy — that he'd have to reach out to Republicans on if he's elected. </strong></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><p>Even with a Democratic majority in Congress, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most major measures.
<br />None of this is to say Obama couldn't turn into a consensus-building, party-challenging president.<strong> Based on their records so far, though, it takes a greater leap of faith to believe that of him than of McCain.</strong></span></p>
<br />Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-58805143490266287672008-05-01T14:18:00.000-07:002008-08-06T11:37:58.538-07:00Why Change is such an attractive proposition - Characteristics of a True Leader<strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"></span></em></strong><a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/R-fr27viGbI/AAAAAAAAABg/Cf-5HQFK2dQ/s1600-h/words_with_canada.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5181369225295567282" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/R-fr27viGbI/AAAAAAAAABg/Cf-5HQFK2dQ/s320/words_with_canada.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><div><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>I just read the passionate depiction of our current state of affairs, written by Lee Iacocca and must admit that much of it rings true. I do believe that the underlying sentiment is shared by many Americans, hence the continuous call for "change" so many people respond to.</strong> </span></em><br /><em><strong></strong></em><br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">John McCain, when President, will to my opinion not only be sensitive to "Change". but quite actually able to execute and implement it <br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ucpSrsRNdaI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ucpSrsRNdaI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />Yes - America wants a curious leader, willing to examine out of the box approaches to Education, Immigration and much so with regard to our devastating dependency on foreign oil. America wishes to unleish its power of innovation again without the handcuffs of liability laws, frivolous lawsuits and unfair trade practises. </span></strong></em></div><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"></span></strong></em><br /><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><div><span style="color:#33ccff;">You may want to learn to know the character of John McCain - a simple introdcution to the man - the kind of man he had to be to survive torture without breaking. After that you will understand, why I call him a hero and why I believe him to be the kind of leader we need now.<br /></span><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vQsckD9trn4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vQsckD9trn4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></span></strong></em></div><br /><span style="color:#66ffff;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><strong><span style="color:#ffcc00;">let's tell them all we've had enough:</span></strong><br /></span><span style="color:#ffcc00;">(Lee Iacocca)</span><br /></span><span style="color:#ffcc00;">Had Enough? Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course." Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. </span><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><div><br />This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out! You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies.Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). </div><div><br />The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for.I've had enough. How about you? I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. </div><div><br />My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to, as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests.<br />Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us. Who Are These Guys, Anyway? Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them, or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. </div><div><br />We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy. And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. <strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">Where have all the leaders gone?</span></strong> </div><div><br />The Test of a LeaderI've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points, not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "<strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Nine Cs of Leadership</span></strong>." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.<br /><br />A leader has to show<strong> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">CURIOSITY</span></strong>. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right? He's the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Bush disagrees. As long as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the sound system, he's ready to go.If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don't care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big point of saying he didn't listen to the polls. Yeah, that's what they all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened, because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong track. It took a "thumping" on election day to wake him up, but even then you got the feeling he wasn't listening so much as he was calculating how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right.<br /><br />A leader has to be <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">CREATIVE</span>,</strong> go out on a limb, be willing to try something different. You know, think outside the box. George Bush prides himself on never changing, even as the world around him is spinning out of control. God forbid someone should accuse him of flip-flopping. There's a disturbingly messianic fervor to his certainty. Senator Joe Biden recalled a conversation he had with Bush a few months after our troops marched into Baghdad. Joe was in the Oval Office outlining his concerns to the President, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanded Iraqi army, the problems securing the oil fields. "The President was serene," Joe recalled. "He told me he was sure that we were on the right course and that all would be well. 'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'how can you be so sure when you don't yet know all the facts?'" Bush then reached over and put a steadying hand on Joe's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts." Joe was flabbergasted. He told Bush,"Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough." Joe Biden sure didn't think the matter was settled. And, as we all know now, it wasn't. Leadership is all about managing change, whether you're leading a company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative. You adapt. Maybe Bush was absent the day they covered that at Harvard Business School.<br /><br />A leader has to <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">COMMUNICATE</span></strong>. I'm not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites. I'm talking about facing reality and telling the truth. Nobody in the current administration seems to know how to talk straight anymore. Instead, they spend most of their time trying to convince us that things are not really as bad as they seem. I don't know if it's denial or dishonesty, but it can start to drive you crazy after a while. Communication has to start with telling the truth, even when it's painful. The war in Iraq has been, among other things, a grand failure of communication. Bush is like the boy who didn't cry wolf when the wolf was at the door. After years of being told that all is well, even as the casualties and chaos mount, we've stopped listening to him.<br /><br />leader has to be a person of<span style="font-size:130%;"> <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>CHARACTER</strong>.</span></span> That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." George Bush has a lot of power. What does it say about his character? Bush has shown a willingness to take bold action on the world stage because he has the power, but he shows little regard for the grievous consequences. He has sent our troops (not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens) to their deaths. For what? To build our oil reserves? To avenge his daddy because Saddam Hussein once tried to have him killed? To show his daddy he's tougher? The motivations behind the war in Iraq are questionable, and the execution of the war has been a disaster. A man of character does not ask a single soldier to die for a failed policy.<br /><br /></span></div><a href="http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/?action=view&current=hillary-obama.jpg" target="_blank"><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><img style="WIDTH: 395px; HEIGHT: 461px" height="361" alt="Photobucket" src="http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm4/MCZala/hillary-obama.jpg" width="395" border="0" /></span></a><span style="color:#ffcc00;"> </span><div><span style="color:#33ffff;"><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><em><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;">Character isn't morphing into anything the electorate wishes to see.....</span></strong></em><br /><br />A leader must have <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">COURAGE.</span></strong> I'm talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn't courage. Tough talk isn't courage. George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.If you're a politician, courage means taking a position even when you know it will cost you votes. Bush can't even make a public appearance unless the audience has been handpicked and sanitized. He did a series of so-called town hall meetings last year, in auditoriums packed with his most devoted fans. The questions were all softballs.<br /><br />To be a leader you've got to have <span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">CONVICTION</span></strong>,</span> a fire in your belly. You've got to have passion. You've got to really want to get something done. How do you measure fire in the belly? Bush has set the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S. President, four hundred and counting. He'd rather clear brush on his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake. It's no better on Capitol Hill. Congress was in session only ninety-seven days in 2006. That's eleven days less than the record set in 1948, when President Harry Truman coined the term do-nothing Congress. Most people would expect to be fired if they worked so little and had nothing to show for it. But Congress managed to find the time to vote itself a raise. Now, that's not leadership.<br /><br />A leader should have <strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">CHARISMA</span>.</span></strong> I'm not talking about being flashy. Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It's the ability to inspire. <strong>People follow a leader because they trust him.</strong> That's my definition of charisma. Maybe George Bush is a great guy to hang out with at a barbecue or a ball game. But put him at a global summit where the future of our planet is at stake, and he doesn't look very presidential. Those frat-boy pranks and the kidding around he enjoys so much don't go over that well with world leaders. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who received an unwelcome shoulder massage from our President at a G-8 Summit. When he came up behind her and started squeezing, I thought she was going to go right through the roof.<br /><br />A leader has to be<strong> <span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">COMPETENT</span></strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">.</span> That seems obvious, doesn't it? You've got to know what you're doing. More important than that, you've got to surround yourself with people who know what they're doing. Bush brags about being our first MBA President. Does that make him competent? Well, let's see. Thanks to our first MBA President, we've got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life support, and we've run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far) in Iraq. And that's just for starters. A leader has to be a problem solver, and the biggest problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.<br /><br />You can't be a leader if you don't have <strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">COMMON SENSE</span></strong>. I call this Charlie Beacham's rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford's zone manager in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham, who was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel. Charlie used to tell me, "Remember, Lee, the only thing you've got going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your common sense. If you don't know a dip of horseshit from a dip of vanilla ice cream, you'll never make it." George Bush doesn't have common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know, Mr.they'll-welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behin d-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomplished Bush. Former President Bill Clinton once said, "I grew up in an alcoholic home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based world, and I like it here." I think our current President should visit the real world once in a while.<br /><br /><strong>The Biggest C is <span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Crisis Leaders</span> are made, not born</strong>. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down. On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day, and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero. That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq, a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you,I don't know what will.A Hell of a Mess.So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way.<br /><br />These are times that cry out for leadership.But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened. Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it? Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? </span></span></div><span style="color:#33ffff;"><span style="color:#ffcc00;"><div><br />Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change? Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises, the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. </div><div><br />It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work.<br /><strong>Let's tell 'em all we've had enough</strong><br /></div></span></span><strong><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span></strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5194728014163918562" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SBdhmyUCvuI/AAAAAAAAAEY/fyENkMVJlZw/s400/audacity_of_oprah.jpg" border="0" /><br /><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong>I personally admire Iacocca's 9 C dogma and fully agree that a great leader must have all these qualities.<br />While the above article certainly may come across as at times a bit harsh and unforgiving, no future president should underestimate the underlying sentiment. This'years massively increased voter interest is not only based upon Obama's charisma or the republican's dislike for Clinton, it is indeed based upon a deeply rooted desire for change. Obama's success so far is widely based upon his promise for change. While more and more people lose faith in his ability to deliver on this promise, the fact remains that John McCain will be called upon to implement change in many areas too.</strong></span><br /></em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><br /><em><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc00;">John McCain to my opinion has all of the 9 Cs.</span> Especially, if one reads the definition of Charisma Iacocca offers. John may not be flashy, but certainly deserves and commands trust.</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>IN this thread though, I would love to discuss, if you can see yourself and America in the state of affairs, as depicted by Lee Iacocca. I would love to hear and debate the specifics of that change we all desire.</strong><br /></em></span><span style="color:#3333ff;"></span>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-12734804832390965462008-04-05T11:21:00.000-07:002008-10-13T15:53:49.410-07:00Economy<p><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cgpbo3ReNhs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cgpbo3ReNhs&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Sept.17. 2008, A few remarks to the Crisis in the finance sector</span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">As with the energy situation a long overdue baloon finally exploded. Very unfortunate, that this should happen during an election campaign, where such will be exploited as just another Bush economy failure. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">People, this is not - hard to believe - an economy crisis. This is a finance sector crisis, which was long overdue. </span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">It has a lot to do with another one of those structural design flaws of our economy. </span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">It has a lot to do with the lending market, which went totally overboard in competing for clients. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">No downpayment, no interest mortgages and loans combined with spending and consumer habits of the American People who are by design much more risky than other societies.</span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">A lack of regulative oversight allowed these firms to take risks no normal business usually would. As opposed to one classical and reputable country of banks and finance institutes, Switzerland, here in the USA one can apply for a loan, when one has a ton of debt already.</span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Only then can the consumer establish, what we call here "Credit". <span style="color:#ff9900;">There is something totally wrong with that system.</span> </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">If a client does not have any credit cards, does not show a car or other payment, he/she will not get a loan. What is wrong with that picture?<br />In your personal environment, <span style="color:#ff9900;">would you rather lend a friend money, if that friend was not overstretched with payments and debt already?<br /></span><br />In recent years, credit cards were being distributed like candy without any regulation or oversight and the whole thing by means of a terrific marketing pressure, the whole ting with a ton of small print, leaving the clients with double digit % interest after a few months. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">The American consumer could not resists and<span style="color:#ff9900;"> hence incurred huge private debts. </span>All it takes in such situations, is for instance a real estate correction, a 1 % prime rate interest hike, caused by things like terror attacks or natural desasters, or a bancrptcy of a large firm, and millionos of overstretched customers go broke. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">In Switzerland, one has to show that one does not have debt, car payments etc., while having a solid income. If the debt to income ratio exceeds the capabilities of the client, loans and most of all mortgages are not being granted. This reasonable, conservative MO is rarely practised here in the USA.</span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">In European, hence similar economies, they ask for a significant downpayment and grant never loans without any interest. From day one, as opposed to the USA one has to calculate hard and make true payments </span><span style="color:#ff9900;">including paying down the principal.<br /></span><br /></span><span style="color:#33ff33;">As with Energy, the chicken have finally come home to roost also in the finance sector. </span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">This is neither Bush's fault, nor can it be attributed to any individual congress or administration. It is a long term structural design flaw. Nothing much a president or a government can do about it, other than instituting a much tighter oversight in terms of lending. </span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Legislation could be passed which require all lenders to follow basic business and risk assessment principles, as for instance practised in Switzerland. McCain, self-described "Deregulator", proposes of course such tighter oversight, which may well entail some degree of regulation.</span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Appropriate legislation is a duty of Democrats and Republicans alike.</span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ffff00;">Are the fundamentals of the US economy really strong?</span> </span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">We believe that they indeed are. GDP, Economy growth, Job Creation, Unemployment, Productivity, Inflation are all factors for measuring the state of the economy. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">In all these aspects the state of the ecomomy in comparison to similar economies such as Japan, Germany, France, England, Italy etc., our economy is in about the same average to stagnating, but basically stable state. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Certainly not in a state of catastrophy, as the Obama team, which desperately tries to change the subject toards to same old lame McCain=Bush=responsible for all pain message of doom. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Most of all the situation is not reason for panic. We have an Energy crisis and we do have a finance sector crisis, all of which can be addressed in the short term by a courageous administration of business leaders and executives.<br /><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">Do we really need messages of doom and gloom, as presented by Senator Obama, who nowadays attributes all of the current problems to Republicans and especially the Bush Administration?<br /></span></span></span></span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><br />He then goes ahead and purues with a vengeance the strategy of linking McCain to Bush, stating, if you vote for McCain you vote for a continuation of the current state of the economy - that is a huge distortion of facts and realities.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Did you know, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were democrat inventions?</span> </span></span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Did you know that we had a democrat controlled congress for 2 years which slept at the switch and could have easily prevented the collapse by implementing legislation for a severe oversight of Wallstreet and the Financial institutions?<br /><br />Please do not drink the coolaid and respond to the fearmongering in terms of economic turmoil. </span></span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">The crisis of the financial institutions is not reflective of the overall state of the economy. This crisis was to a large extent caused also by us. </span></span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Ups - did we say something politically incorrect?<br /></span><br />Well, who in his right mind buys a house with zero downpayment and no interest for a time, then can barely make the monthly payments just to keep afloat? One percentage point rise of interest, and these families go broke. Gas prices rising, the household finances go broke.<br /><br />What we try to say is that many Americans overstretched themselves by accepting the admittedly ridiculos terms of these lending institutions. They should have operated under much better oversight, no doubt. But, as hard as it may be to swallow, our mentality of consumption and immediate gratification played a role here too and we must accept some of the blame. It always takes two - the offering and a customer willing to buy.<br /><br />What we see at present in the financial markets is an urgently needed correction. It was overdue. But it does not reflect a total desaster of the economy, as Obama wants you to believe. Unemployment rates are not dramatic in comparison to the Clinton years even, our GDP grew dramatically and even our debt is in comparison not yet as terrible, as the bringers of doom and glom want you to believe.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Nevertheless, the economy needs an overhaul, mainly in structure.</span> Indeed some change in times of concern. I ask all people who see ecomomy as key topic, who they think should be their leader in difficult times. An untested man who does not have any economical background, yet sells himself as such or a true leader surrounded by some of the brightest Business Executives of our time? </span><br /><br /></span></span></span></em></strong><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">We all know the ebb and flow of global economics</span>. Over time they usually balance each other out . Recessions can not be avoided, at best they can be mitigated. <span style="color:#ff9900;">To blame poor old Bush for pretty much all the misery we feel, is neither fair, nor does it reflect the reality.</span> In all due criticism of the GWB Admin, there was little they could have done with regard to the housing crisis for example, and, as far as the energy problem is concerned, all Admins since the roaring twenties should be accused of lack of foresight.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">America had and has admittedly some serious design flaws (housing, lending, (private) debt, consuming habits and transportation, to name just a few). </span></span></em></strong></p><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><p><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">These are the responsibilities of many different Administrations and for many we the People must accept some guilt.<br /><br /></span>The prosperity of the Clinton years, for instance, were not just achievements by the Clinton Administration, but to a high extent based upon the groundwork laid by (Republican) Admins before them, as most economic measures have<span style="color:#ff9900;"> a huge leadtime</span>, until they take hold.<br /><br /></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Nobody will deny, that we pay painflully more at the gas pump and for heating our houses. </strong></span></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Nobody denies that the lending crisis has finally hit home. </strong></span></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>Our debt has risen to uncomfortable levels, even though, in comparison to most European Countries for example, we still look fairly decent. </strong></span></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>At present, the debt to GDP Ratio is at 3%., meaning that compared to the Gross Domestic Product, key indicator of the status of an economy, the debt is lower than in the 80s and early 90s.</strong></span></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>In other words, please do not believe all messages of doom and gloom, as even the unemployment rate is not dramatic, if compared to most western Countries. When it rains it pours, is definitely a kitchen wisdom also applying to the economy. </strong></span></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Nevertheless, McCain is right, when he considers the economy fundamentally sound. The economical fear and message of doom, the Obama Campaign tries to sell to the American People is however way overblown.<br /></span><br />Are we better off now than 8 years ago? No.<br /></span><br />But to blame Bush on everything is simply not fair. he did not cause Sept. 11 and he certainly did not cause our private spending and consumer habits, did he now? Most economists would quite actually go as far as saying , that he prevented by stimulating the economy an outright recession. Administrations can do little to control the ebb and flow of economics. most of all, their interventions in terms of legislations have huge leadtimes and oftentimes only show results long after an Administration has gone.<br /><br /></strong></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">When a company is in trouble, when your family finances are in trouble, what would you do?<br /></span><br />Cut cost, streamline, cut spending, right? Increase the amount of revenue streams. The last thing you would do, is to increase your familie's spending.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">From a simple business point of view, as executive this is what we would do: </span></span></strong></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;"><br /><p><br /></span><strong>The fundamental design flaws need to be addressed, spending should be massively cut, government admins and the size of organizations should be reduced, departments either eliminated or streamlined, or consolidated. </strong></p><br /><p><strong>We would emphasize transparency, meaning that we would allow the American People to see much better, where their tax dollars would be spent. </strong></p><br /><p><strong>We would recommend to re-introduce the line item veto, so the president is enabled to veto pork, but keep the meat. </strong></p><br /><p><strong>At the same time, while massively cut the fat, we would try to generate more revenue streams. This is in a nutshell, what any company in trouble must do in order to implement a successful turn-around strategy. </strong></p><br /><p><strong>The last thing we, as turn around managers, would suggest is raising taxes, cost or burden on the citizens or increasing the size of management. The USA Corporation needs now the very same conservative, logical business logic, as applied by a turn around manager in Corporate America. Lower cost, increse efficiency, increase revenue, innovate, streamline and lower the burden on the taxpayer.<br /><br />But, in the macro-cosmos of the US Govermment, that is not, what the Obama plans would propose.<br /><br /></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">I. Obama's Economy Platform in Brief<br /></span><br />Obama's plans <span style="color:#ff9900;">increase the size</span> of government admin and organizations drastically. </strong></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>They do not , other than military (where it does not make sense in fact), define drastic budget cuts, nor do they specifically address special interests or pork barrel spending.<br /></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><strong>Obama proposes in these times <span style="color:#ff9900;">tax increases</span>. </strong></span></p><strong><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247455603909400658" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SNK1Ec2nGFI/AAAAAAAAAKo/z-KELrHcQnU/s400/Obama+taxes.bmp" border="0" /><br /></strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><p><br /><strong>While they try to sell you on the idea, that these will not impact you, but only the richest, <span style="color:#ff9900;">in fact the tax increases for businesses will very well trickle down to your own wallet,</span> as these businesses mustand will raise their prices to make up for additional tax burdens, apart from the tiny fact that they make US businesses even less competitive in a global environment, where US companies are already paying the hightest corporate taxes in comparison with other western countries.<br /><br /></strong><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>What's so hideous about Obama's plans is, that he sells you on the idea, that 95% of the people will enjoy tax decreases, while he in fact by secondary or indirect tax hikes in effect burdens us massively.<br />_________________</strong></span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>The Wall Street Journal</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html"><strong>Obama's 95% Illusion</strong></a><br />(Click for full article)</span></p><p><span style="color:#33ccff;">>>>One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.<br />AP<br />It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut.">>></span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;"><strong>________________</strong></span></p><p><strong>What do you think, will companies do, <span style="color:#ff9900;">when they pay higher profit taxes, payroll taxes, taxes on interest, all that combined with significantly higher insurance cost? </span>YOu guessed right, of course the prices for their products will go up. Apart from the fact, that his proposals result in an almost socialist re-distribution of wealth, he misleads the American People, <span style="color:#ff9900;">as indirectly their burden will be much much higher than now.</span></strong></p><br /><p><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Even the windfall tax ideas will mercilessly trickle down to you,</span> or do you honestly believe, that those hated Oil Companies will not make up for additional taxes by raising prices at the pump?<br /><br />Wouldn't you agree that right now, these Oil companies should take their profits and invest heavily in shale oil exploration technologies or secondary oil drilling rigs?</strong></span></span></em></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;">The energy topic is touched upon in a specific thread on this blog. </span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;">I may however mention here, that it has a <span style="color:#ff9900;">direct impact on our economy</span>. For instance does <span style="color:#ff9900;">Obama oppose additional drilling and oil exploration</span> within the USA. The today introduced bill by the democratic congress is now truly a lipstick on a pig. Window dressing, which includes drilling, but with massive handcuffs. </span></span></em></strong></p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><p><br />Obama further <span style="color:#ff9900;">opposes the use of Nuclear Power</span>, but puts his chips (Investment funds, budgets) solely on "fast tracking" of alternative energy sources, which <span style="color:#ff9900;">will not have an impact on our wallets for a decade at least and in the meantime, we go broke at the pump or when heating our houses, as we for a decade at least still depend on oil and nothing is being done for the short term.<br /></span><br />Obama proposes a <span style="color:#ff9900;">government managed health care system</span>. Not only has that been tried already and unsuccessfully and <span style="color:#ff9900;">driven some European Countries to near bancruptcy,</span> it comes with a price, most economists on record state, can not actually be paid with the proposed tax plan, hence result in a </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">huge burden on our ecomomy.<br /></span><br />Obama proposes a <span style="color:#ff9900;">hasty widthdrawal out of Iraq</span>. The ensuing instability in a region, from where we still procure 30-40% of our oil, <span style="color:#ff9900;">will result in higher prices at the pump</span>, not to mention the foreign policy or national security dangers of such an approach. </span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">For as long, as we have to import Oil from the middle east, the prices at the pump are in direct correlation to the political stability in the region. (For at least another 5-10 Years, there will be a decreasing dependence, for 20, if Obama gets elected.) Have you taken notice of IRAN deploying the Revolution Guard to the street of Hormuz? have you taken notice of the Russian arming IRAN with Rocket technology? Have you taken notice of IRAN avoiding all IAEA inspections?<br /><br />If you do not understand, that we need some toops remaining in IRAK, until we are no longer dependent on stability in the region, you'd be willing to pay $10 a gallon.<br /><br />Obama has a problem with free Trade, He does not like NAFTA, stands for trade protection, sanctions and subventions. One can not stand in the way of technological development. The sock industry, lost to China for instance, will not come back to us, no matter the trade barriers or industry subventions. Our strenghts lay in innovation, new technologies and re-inventing ourselves - <span style="color:#ff9900;">not in protecting a losing ground against low pay countries. </span>Another aspect, which will </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">hurt the economy, not help it.<br /></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;">Conclusion:<br />Obama stands during these harsh economic times for massively increased government administrations, higher debths, higher taxes and cost, higher energy cost for at least another 20 years, more government involvement and regulations and at times almost a socialist type re-distribution of wealth, which stands against any principles this great country was founded upon. </span></span></p><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><br /><p><br />Most economists , even counting those tax increases in, still can not fathom how Obama is going to pay for all these programs and lofty goals.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">II. Now let us look at McCain's Economy Platform:</span><br /><br />He will across the board <span style="color:#ff9900;">lower taxes</span>. No hidden, indirect taxes on businesses.</p><br /><p><br />He has not only a proven track record of fighting special interests and porkbarrel spending, he promises to <span style="color:#ff9900;">aggressively cut spending</span>, where it absolutely does not make sense, hence </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">save huge amounts of budget funds for projects we do urgently need here in the USA.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">His Energy plan, a 15 Year Apollo type Plan, proposes an all -of - the- above; approach, including additional oil exploration to alleviate the pain for the short term,</span> Nuclear power, which can kick in in the mid term and will help tremendously to generate urgently needed electricity and free up carbon based fuels for transportation until the overhaul kicks in, while pursuing the Obama thrust towards alternative energy development </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">at the very same time.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">That will allow America to get to the very same goal Obama proposes in the very same time frame, yet will help the normal Joe Blow within a short time frame at the pump and when heating his house.</span></span></p><br /><p><span style="font-size:130%;">This approach will <span style="color:#ff9900;">further reduce</span> our dependency on middle eastern oil much much faster, hence decrease the importance to stay massively engaged in the region. Heck, if shale oil exploration takes off (The US has the world's largest reserves!!), which may well result in a boom in states like Montana, we may even be able to export oil to our European Allies and make them less independent from Russian Energy. Not only would we save <$700 B every single year, we'd be actually producing the greatest budget surplus in history, while reducing the nasty Arab influence in the world.</span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Not only will we spend 700B less on Oil imports, hence have huge funds available for projects here, we will strengthen our National Security at the same time and generate a much higher number of new jobs right here and right now.<br /><br />Just the approval of additional Drilling would result in an almost immediate impact on prices at the pump, as the futures speculation would for once work in our favor, even though such oil would not be actually available for up to 5 years. The automotive industry would gain time to develop solid hybrid and fuel cell technologies and above all, such cars would be affordable. It would buy us some time for urgently needed infrastructure improvements and the beefing up of our almost inexistent public transportation systems.<br /><br /></span>McCain's energy plan, all-encompassing including drilling and secondary oil exploration, nuclear power and all alternative technologies alone </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">will result in an outright "industrial revolution" here in the US and an ensuing economy boom.<br /></span><br />McCain has a proven track record of being on the forefront of cutting cost. Palin has a track record of being a maverick too, by taking on the oil companies. </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">When they say that they will clean up Washington, they have the credibility of having done exactly that in the past. </span></span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Show me proof for Obama's willingness to cut cost. All we have are once again promises and words and a track record of $3B in Pork Barrel Spending Obama took himself advantage of - while John McCain did not take a dime for Arizona.<br /></span><br />McCain stands adamantly for <span style="color:#ff9900;">free trade. Instead of fighting trade wars</span> with China, India and the likes, a result of the Obama plans, he will, driven by his strong belief and faith in the American People, power of innovation and fundamental strength of our leading edge technology, compete with them, not fight them via sanctions, regulations, barriers and trade wars.<br /><br />McCain stands for a </span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">modern type of small government, small admins and transparent budgets, where funds will clearly and accountably be provided to specific projects. We will know, where our tax dollars will be spent.<br /></span><br />McCain stands for private initiative, <span style="color:#ff9900;">with incentives provided by the federal government, not regulations.</span> A health care plan which is <span style="color:#ff9900;">financially sound</span> and offers choices, not a huge admin paid by the American people, which has already proven to be wrong in so many modern western countries.<br /><br /></span><span style="color:#33ccff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Conclusion:<br /><br />McCain promotes, what any sound business owner would do for his company in the current challenging environment.<br />Streamline, cut spending, improve revenue streams. Small government, much freedom and initiative for the individual. He will not further burden us with addtional direct and indirect taxes, will not idly stand by, while our energy cost go through the roof, until in a far away future we will be independent, but he proposes a plan with immediate impact on cost, job creation, competitiveness and debth.<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">From a purely egoistic point of view, with McCain's ideas we can get to most of the lofty goals Obama envisions, but we will not have to go broke in the process.<br /></span><br />Lastly - while both candidates speak about changing Washington, <span style="color:#ff9900;">only one of them has the corresponding record and credibility.</span> If I have to trust one or the other with my own wallet, I'd rather go with McCain. He is the only one, who has proven in the past not to shy away from reaching across party lines, from standing against his own party, and to not take a dime in pork barrel funds.<br /><br />He is the one who follows the very sound business principles a successful company CEO would, as during hard times or a to some extent natural economic downturn, the last thing a successful CEO would contemplate, is to increase the size of the company, number of employees, increase the cost of doing business and raise spending and the burden to the customer further with higher prices.<br /><br />The last thing one could possibly do right now is to demotivate the American People even further by increasing taxes. Let us not be fooled here, Obama's significantly increased taxes on businesses are nothing but an indirect tax on us all, hence the populist argument of only raising taxes on the super rich is outright double tongue speak. This is the time of streamlining the government, but certainly not the time for blowing up the management.<br /><br />The Obama campaign tries here too the simplistic and populist approach of using the low popularity of Bush and the current state of our economic affairs, which are not in good shape, but not in total Bush's fault, to link McCain to Bush.<br /></p></span></span></span></em></strong><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;">If the informed reader however looks just a bit closer and applies just a bit of a "differential diagnosis", he will undoubtedly come to understand that Obama's economy platform is not only inferior, but would result in an economical desaster. </span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Just apply your own sound common sense</span>, as you manage your own family finances. </span></span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Apply the very same rules and measures, then compare those to the proposals of the candidates without anger or frustrations or listening to the mantra of "eight More years", and you will find your own pragmatic, logical basic conclusion within the economical platform of John McCain, who proposes in fact nothing more and nothing less, than what you would do within the realm of your own personal economy or finances. </span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Most of all - we are sick and tired of the negativity and fearmongering.<br />According to Obama, all is bad, everything is a tragedy, America is in a state of catastrophy.<br /><br />I want some real propositions, changes implemented and executed and all that wrapped into a vision driven by faith and optimism in America.<br />I do not need anyone to lecture me from the pulpit as to how bad my shape is and further demotivate and frustrate me. I want someone who acknowledges the work ahead in a positive and uplifting manner and then goes to work for me with a vengeance. You may guess, who that person is.</span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;">__________</span></p></span></em></strong><br /><p><strong><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Listen to John talk about our Spending Habits - Some seriouos Straight Talk:</span></em></strong></p><br /><p><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3EgQrG0q50&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3EgQrG0q50&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />There is absolutely no alternative to consequent free trade without barriers or subventions or trade protections. John is on the mark here.<br /><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V22IMLtlmRI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V22IMLtlmRI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Instead of clamoring about China and so many jobs which have wandered towards Asia, John rightfully promotes to accept normal migrations and developments, but lean on the single most important strength of the American People. Our Power of innovation.<br /><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1-7mlHZ2qyo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1-7mlHZ2qyo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />We are decades ahead as far as science and technology are concerned. Our state of economics is by far not so grave as many of the leftists want us to believe. Most European countries suffer from way higher debths. The free market has a natural way to balance itself out. Currency fluctuations have occurred in the past as well. It is a normal biorythm.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5jxQEtNv5c4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5jxQEtNv5c4&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></span><br /></span></em></strong><br /><a href="http://ca4mccain.blogspot.com/2008/01/economy.html">Continued here>>>></a> </p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-75102039148581726832008-04-02T10:15:00.000-07:002008-08-06T09:55:11.779-07:00Immigration<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0cNqtUtufo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0cNqtUtufo&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><strong><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">John seems to be weak on the topic of immigration, as far as many Republicans are concerned.<br />Too liberal if not outright amnesty are many of the comments from the right wing.<br /><br />I suggest that he (and the respective team of experts) investigate a proven and very successful template - the system Switzerland has to manage immigration, borders, administration and registration up to and not limited to a softly enforced assimilation.<br /><br />Switzerland has a higher immigration rate per capita than California. Albeit it has managed to keep the flow in control and the people in a homogenous structure. A far cry from our society, diversified, polarized, ghettos in almost every single large city.<br /><br />Assuming John will win the nomination he will need to present an all encompassing plan to address the issue, otherwise the Democrats will mercilessly hammer him on a "weakness" as perceived by even the Republicans.<br /><br />It will take the wind out of the sail of anyone who will try to take advantage of it.<br />Let's discuss it.</span></em></strong>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-36776281718429091542008-04-01T08:59:00.000-07:002008-09-15T12:36:14.883-07:00The Swiss Debate - NZZ Leserforum - Georgien<p><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7DT-iWY44-k&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7DT-iWY44-k&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">Erst mal - Sorry, dass wir die Swiss Debate in einem Inneramerikanischen Blog ansiedeln mussten.. Ja - wir sind McCain Befuerworter - aber , wer tatsaechlich die Topics evaluiert, wird sehr schnell erkennen, dass wir versuchen die Wahl pragmatisch anzugehen mit Fakten und viel Material, welches es den US Lesern erlauben soll, sich ihre eigene Meinung zu bilden.<br /></span></em>_______________<br /><em><span style="color:#ff9900;">In diesem Forum sollen unzensuriert und unlimitiert Themata der Schweizer Medien weiterdiskutiert werden.Angesichts der Zeichenlimiten und rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen, denen eine Zeitung unterworfen ist, ist es irgendwo verstaendlich, dass die Kommentare zu Punchlines, Schlagworten und persoenlichen Angriffen verkommen und die Grauzonen schlicht nicht ausgeleuchtet werden koennen.</span></em><br /><em><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#00cccc;">Dieses Forum ist voellig unabhaengig von jedwelchen Medien in der Schweiz und demnach von keiner Redaktion in irgendwelcher Form legitimiert. Aussagen in diesem Forum unterstehen der US Rechtsprechung. </span></span></em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><em><br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><em><span style="color:#00cccc;"><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8KQwLZT3aQk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8KQwLZT3aQk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></em></span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;"><strong>Zum Verstaendnis der USA Mentalitaet</strong></span></em></span></span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-family:georgia;">Wer die Debatten in der NZZ verfolgte, wird bemerkt haben, wie oft die USA im Zusammenhang mit der Georgien Invasion kritisch, oft auch als Urheber der Kriese erwaehnt wurden. Vielleicht ist es hilfreich, ein paar Gedanken zum besseren Verstaendnis der Intentionen der USA in der Welt zu Papier zu bringen.<br /></span></em></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>______________</em></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><br /><span style="color:#66ffff;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Der folgende Artikel, auf den uns Stefan Jungo hingewiesen hat, beleuchtet in einer akademischen Weise das Thema und bietet einen hervorragenden Rahmen zu meinen eigenen Aufsatz.</span> </span></span></em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="color:#66ffff;"><strong>Die Dialektik von Einheit und Differenz.<br />Zur Diskussion über Migration, Multikulturalismus und Integration in Amerika und Europa (Teil I)<br /></strong><span style="font-size:100%;">VON SEBASTIAN VOIGT<br /></span></span></em><strong><a href="http://www.lizaswelt.net/2008/09/e-pluribus-unum-i.html"><em><span style="color:#3366ff;">Die europäische Ignoranz gegenüber Amerika<br /></span></em></a></strong><em>_______________<br />Teil 2<br />Die Dialektik von Einheit und Differenz.<br /><strong><a href="http://www.lizaswelt.net/2008/09/e-pluribus-unum-ii.html">Das Pluralismusprinzip und die jüdische<br />Einwanderung nach Amerika<br /></a></strong>_______________</em></span></span></p><p><span style="color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em>Nun von einer subjektiven Warte aus betrachtet, meine eigenen Gedanken zum Thema.<br />Dem Leser bleibt ueberlassen, wo wir obigen Artikel bestaetigen oder widersprechen. </em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:180%;">I. Zum Verstaendnis der US Mentalitaet<br /></span>(by Michel C. Zala)<br /><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236367303243477698" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SKtQUZ9MMsI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/2vJcA7ARDjs/s400/Putin+1.jpg" border="0" /> </em><br /><em><span style="font-size:100%;">Als wir noch Kinder waren auf dem Mutschellen, hatten wir einen Nachbarn, der irgendwo aus dem Ostblock eingewandert war. Er war ein Erz-Patriot und groesserer Urschweizer als ein 7. Generation Urner von der Alp. Schweizer Flagge im Garten, perfekt geschnittene Beete und Rasen und immer beleidigt, wenn man mit ihm Hochdeutsch reden wollte. Obwohl er selbst nur gebrochenes Deutsch sprach, bestand er darauf, dass man mit Ihm gefaelligst Schweizerdeutsch zu sprechen haette, da er ja ein Schweizer sei.<br />______<br />Was mich angeht, In der Schweiz hatte ich kaum mal einen Stimmzettel ausgefuellt, aber am Stammtisch war ich immer der erste, der eine Meinung hatte und auf die Regierung fluchte.<br />____<br />Spaeter besuchte ich die die USA fuer Ferien, die ich vor allem zum Golf spielen verwendete. Eines Tages, mittendrin im Backswing zu einem Drive, merkte ich ploetzlich, dass es auf dem ganzen Golfplatz still geworden war. Erstaunt schaute ich auf und sah, dass alle Leute stock-still standen und ihre Hand am Herzen hatten. Ich realisierte, dass auf dem benachbarten Spielplatz einer Schule gerade ein Baseball Spiel begann mit der ueblichen Nationalhymne zu beginn.<br />Natuerlich war meine (typisch Europaeische) erste Reaktion ein ironisches Laecheln ueber die "naiven" Amis - aber tief unten konnte ich mir nicht verwehren, ein ganz klein wenig neidisch zu sein auf diese Leute, die solche altmodischen Ausdruecke der Respekterweisung noch kennen.<br />____<br />Spaeter machte ich meine Sprueche und Witze ueber die tausenden von religioesen Organisationen und Kirchen und das fast naive, unschuldige </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Glauben so vieler US Buerger an die Prinzipien, die in der "Declaration of Independence"so wunderschoen zum Ausdruck kommen<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."</span><br />und der Praeambel der US Konstitution beschrieben sind:<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></em><span style="font-size:100%;"><em>Mit Erstaunen stellte ich fest, dass viele "normale" Leute diesen Text fast im Detail zitieren konnten, waehrend ich nicht mal den Text der CH Hymne kannte.<br /></em>________<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Als Schweizer Immigrant wurde mir ein gravierender<br />Unterschied der Mentalitaeten bewusst:<br /></span>In den USA sind die Menschen immer noch sehr von " Glauben" angetrieben.<br />Glaube und Hoffnung sind Attribute und Ausdruecke, die hier ohne Scham genannt werden.<br />Man glaubt an Gott (egal welchen), mal glaubt an sein Land, man glaubt an sich selbst, oder die Atheisten glauben an die Verfassung.<br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Eine Mehrheit jedoch glaubt immer noch an den "American Dream".<br /></span>Er ist ein roter Faden, der sich durch die Gesellschaft zieht und in einem kraeftigen, unzerstoerbaren Optimismus resultiert, der selbst in Zeiten von Kriesen nie gaenzlich verschwindet.<br />Im Vergleich dazu herrscht in Europa eine viel zynischere, pessimistischere, desillusioniertere Einstellung, <span style="color:#ffcc66;">die auch ich, zugegeben, absolut teilte. </span>Ein Art Gefuehl der Machtlosigkeit und Unwichtigkeit, welche oft durch Sarkasmus und Arroganz ueberspielt wird.<br />Ich erinnere mich, wie oft wir uns ueber die naiven kulturlosen Amis lustig gemacht haben, die in die CH zu Besuch kamen und 200 Jahre alte Haeuser mit derselben, fast kindlichen Bewunderung betrachteten, wie wir vielleicht die Pyramiden in Gizeh sehen.<br />_______<br />Die obgenannten Anekdoten dienen mir zum<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ff9900;">Fundament einer Hypothese:</span><br /><br />Betrachten Sie sich die Bevoelkerungsentwicklung in Westeuropa:<br />Fast alle Laender zeigen einem negativen Trend, Mehrere wissenschaftliche Artikel, die ich zu diesem Thema gelesen habe, fuehren diesennicht zuletzt auf die obbeschriebene Mentalitaet zurueck. Ohne Immigration einzurechnen, besteht in den USA immer noch ein leichtes Bevoelkerungswachstum, welches von obgenannten Autoren darauf zurueckgefuehrt wird, dass man noch etwas "glaube".<br />Irgendwo macht es uns schon Sinn, dass eine optimistische Mentalitaet, die vielleicht halt auch traditionelle Prinzipien wie Patriotismus (ein verpoenter Ausdruck heutzutage in Europa) oder althergebrachte Werte wie "fuer Prinzipien einstehen, den Schwachen in Schutz nehmen u ae." , als Pfeiler beinhaltet, eher dazu fuehrt, mit Hoffnung in die Zukunft zu sehen und Familien mit Kindern zu gruenden.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Unseres Erachtens besteht hier eine Kausalkette, die Sinn macht:<br /></span><span style="color:#33ccff;">Glaube>zu>Optimismus>zu>Initiative>zu>Aktion<br /><br /></span>waehrend im anderen Fall und zugegeben sehr simplifiziert </em></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Desillusion>zu>Pessimismus>zu>Indifferenz>zu> Inaktivitaet</span><br /><br />Wer die Mentalitaet in Europa mit derjenigen in den USA objektiv vergleichen kann, muss uns doch recht geben, dass wir irgendwo den Finger am Puls haben...<br />_____<br />Mein Freund, der vor Jahren in die USA ausgewnadert war in Kalifornien, wo waehrend 320 Tagen im jahr die Sonne scheint, stand jeden einzelnen Tag vor der Haustuere und freute sich fast kindlich ueber das schoene Wetter, waehrend die Kalifornier allenfalls ueber die Hitze klagten...(heute bin ich es, der dasselbe tut, nach 15 jahren in den USA)<br />_____<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">Alle oberwaehnten Anekdoten (Symptome) sind <span style="color:#ffcc66;">als Illustrierung, nicht Qualifikation der Dissonanz</span> (Syndrom) zwischen den Gefuehlen in Europa und USA gedacht.<br /></span><br />Unseres Erachtens scheint sich die alte Weisheit zu bewahrheiten, dass man erst das Umfeld wechseln muss, bis einem bewusst wird, was man vorher gehabt hat. Im guten, wie im schlechten Fall.<br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Wenn man im Schweizer Nebel aufgewachsen ist, wird man niemals das schoene Wetter in CA als selbstverstaendlich verstehen, sondern jeden Tag schaetzen. Frueher niemals bemerkt, traeume ich heute von einem Cervelat Salat oder einer Bratwurst mit einer Scheibe knusprigen Brotes....</span><br />Macht es demnach nicht Sinn, dass, wenn man aus einem Land ohne die Grundrechte stammt, die man in der Westlichen Welt so selbstverstaendlich nimmt, man nachher jeden einzelnen Tag feiert, den man in der CH oder einer USA leben darf?<br />Warum wohl sind Immigranten, ob in der CH oder USA, meist "patriotischer" als die jeweilige Originalbevoelkerung?<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Lasst uns nun die Helikopter Perspektive einnehmen.<br />Wer die USA kennt oder nur bereist hat, ist sich sicher bewusst, dass die USA Bevoelkerung zu einer Mehrheit aus Immigranten der 1., 2. oder 3. Generation besteht.</span><br />Die Erfahrungen von Grosseltern, Eltern oder gar aus erster Hand sind deswegen noch absolut gegenwaertig. Fast jeder US Buerger hat entweder Familie oder direkte Vorfahren im Ausland. Kaum ein Land oder eine Rasse, die nicht vertreten waere.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Wyatt Earp, der beruehmte Marshall des OK Corrals, Held vieler Wild West Filme, ist 1948, gerade mal 1.5 Generationen her, in Hollywood verstorben.<br /></span><br />Mit andern Worten, Freunde - in der Beurteilung der US Gesellschaft muss man sich bewusst sein, dass die Erinnerung an die Pionierzeit hier ueberhaupt noch nicht vergessen ist und das heutige Verhalten durchaus noch sehr praegt. (Insbesondere in laendlichen Gegenden)<br />Waehrend wir in der CH fuer alles unsere Handwerker haben, ist "Do It Yourself" hier die Norm. ( Als ehemaliger JUMBO Marketingleiter kann ich Ihnen sagen, dass wir das Konzept mit unseren Baumaerkten knallhart von den Amis abgekupfert haben.)<br /></em></span></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Ist es demnach wirklich so schwer nachzuvollziehen</span>, dass die zum Teil brutalen Ereignisse, persoenlichen Erfahrungen und Repressionen, denen viele Immigranten in vielen der urspruenglichen Laendern ausgesetzt waren<br />- die so schlimm waren, dass man alle Wurzeln, Familie, Freunde und Bekanntes hinter sich lassen musste (etwas, was nicht einfach ist, weiss ich aus eigener Erfahrung) -<br />, <span style="color:#ff9900;">dass in der Mentalitaet vieler Menschen hier diese Umstaende noch frisch in Erinnerung sind und das Denken und Funktionieren beeinflusst, oder die Mentalitaet praegt?</span><br /></span></em></span></span><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#66cccc;">Um Missverstaendnissen vorzubeugen, wir reden nicht von strategischen oder politischen Interessen, die unsere verschiedenen Regierungen vertreten. Administrationen kommen und gehen. Wir reden hier von Volk, Volksbewusstsein, Mentalitaet, Grundstimmung (mangels besserer Ausdruecke, wie auch immer man das kleinste gemeinsame Vielfache eines Volkes benennen will)<br /></span><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Es ist diese tief verwurzelte Dankbarkeit fuer Rechte und Freiheiten, die man andernorten gar nicht mehr wahrnimmt, die manchmal fast einen Messianischen Character annimmt, die manchmal fast ueber das Ziel hinausschiesst, welche der Treibstoff des USA Motors ist.<br /></span><br />So clicheartig, naiv und simpel dies einem Europaer vorkommen muss:<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">- weil wir uns als Russen verstehen, unterstuetzten wir RU nach Glasnost,<br />- weil wir Juden sind, stehn wir fuer Israel ein,<br />- weil wir Europaer sind, versuchen wir mit einer Praesenz in Europa oder Georgien Unabhaengigkeit und Frieden zu erhalten, darum auch das tiefe Beduerfnis, die trans-atlantische Partnerschaft trotz so viel Ablehnung weiterzuverfolgen.<br />- weil wir Moslems sind, bestehen wir auf Reformation und De-Militarisierung einer archaischen Religion und Kultur<br />- weil wir wirklich daran glauben, dass unser politisches System des einzigartigen "Vielvoelkerstaats" USA superior ist im Vergleich zu Kommunismus, Totalitarismus, Theokratie - mit garantierten Grundrechten, die jedem Individuum zustehen -<br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">darum, nur darum haben unsere Regierungen jeweils eine Mehrheit des Volkes hinter sich, sich in der Welt zu engagieren.</span><br />Darum wird sich - kann sich - nach der Wahl in der Sache nichts aendern, wenngleich eine viel partnerschaftlichere Kommunikation verwendet werden wird.<br /><br />Das naive US Volk ist, so schwer dies fuer einen intellektuellen Europaer nachzuvollziehen ist, an</span><span style="color:#ff9900;">getrieben, motiviert, ja penetriert von der fundamentalen und an sich ehrlichen Motivation, </span><span style="color:#33ff33;">dass unsere Familien, Verwandten und Freunde im Ausland dasselbe Recht auf "free Pursuit of Happiness" geniessen sollten, welches wir hier fuer uns als rechtmaessig erwarten und mit Zaehnen und Klauen verteidigen.<br /></span><br />Glauben Sie mir, <span style="color:#ff9900;">der Amerikaner sieht sich nicht als superior - im Vergleich zu Europa sind im Gegenteil durchaus Minderwertigkeitsgefuehle (Kultur, Geschichte) zu erkennen.<br /><br /></span>Wer die US Berichterstattung gerade waehrend dem Wahlkampf etwas verfolgt, wird sicher auch bemerkt haben, in welchem Ausmass (Selbst-)Kritik geuebt wird.<br />Die Amerikaner sind sich ihrer vielen Schwaechen sehr wohl bewusst, im Unterschied zu Europa, welches sich fast nicht mehr bewusst ist, wie stark man eigentlich noch waere, aber auch einer einzigartigen Staerke,<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">die Qualitaeten von so vielen Kulturen in einem Land zu vereinigen.<br /></span>Die Namen der verschiedenen Nobelpreisgewinner oder Wissenschaftler mit bahnbrechenden Erfindungen, die immer noch mehrheitlich aus den USA stammen sind doch ein deutlicher Beweis dafuer, <span style="color:#ffcc66;">dass es der "Melting Pot" ist, aus dem die USA ihre unerhoerte Innovationskraft schoepft.<br /></span>Die Kraft, sich kontinuierlich neu zu definieren, Kriesen als Challenges zu sehen und weniger als Obstacles, der ungeheure Optimismus, der Willen, die Herausforderungen frontal anzunehmen, hat unseres Erachtens sehr viel mit Immmigration zu tun.<br />Am Anfang mehrheitlich aus Europa und zur Zeit aus Asien und Suedamerika, fuehrte sie zu einer kontinuierlich fluktuierenden, dynamischen Demographie, deren viele Spannungsfelder ungeheure Energie erzeugt, Diskussionen anregt, Innovation stimuliert und Stagnation schlicht nicht zulaesst. </span></em></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;">Simplifiziert ausgedrueckt:<br />Es werden viele Fehler gemacht, aber man macht was.</span><br /><br />In Europa, speziell in der Schweiz, entwickelt man sich langsam, methodisch, fast stagnierend, waehrend in den jungen USA die Entwicklung manchmal fast erratisch, sprunghaft, dynamisch ist. Die (politische) Landschaft bewegt sich permanent.3 Schritte vorwaerts, ein Schritt zurueck...jedoch immer vorwaerts.<br />____________</span></em></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Patriotismus<br /></span>Ich habe erst Nach meiner Immigration in die USA begriffen, dass das Wort<br />" Patriotismus" nicht mit Rechtsradikal, einer Politischen Partei wie SVP oder Republicans, Konservatismus, Militarismus zu tun hat, sondern dass dieses Wort ein allumfassendes <span style="color:#ff9900;">Gefuehl beschreibt, welches, von Erz-Demokraten bis hin zu Erz-Republikanern quer durch alle sozio-demographischen Segmente, Rassen, oder geographischen Bereiche dieses Landes, geteilt wird.<br /></span>Patriotismus wird nicht gleich verstanden, wie der Begriff in der CH oft benutzt wird im Kontext mit Ueberfremdung, Hymnen singen und Fahnenschwenken, sondern ist eine Art Gewissheit, Freude, Dankbarketi, Ueberzeugung, Stolz auf ein Land, gebaut auf Prinzipien, die ehrenhaft und fair sind.<br />Ich persoenlich bin erst hier zu einem CH Patrioten geworden, der stolz auf sein Herkunftsland und dessen Geschichte ist.<br /><span style="color:#ffcc33;">Stolz im Sinne von Anerkennung, Toleranz, Freude und Respekt - nicht mit einem Unterton von Arroganz.<br /></span>Es ist die Art von Stolz, die mich persoenlich aergerlich macht, wenn ein Ghatafi den Schweizern ohne Ramifikationen ans Bein pinkelt, oder wenn sich die Schweizer in Kommentaren selbst zerfleischen und dadurch den Despoten der Welt als schwach erscheinen.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">OCCAM's Razor</span><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Angesichts der obigen "Pieces of Evidence", kann der Leser nun vielleicht OCCAM's Razor nachvollziehen und eventuell verstehen, dass die einfache Erklaerung fuer die Intentionen der USA in der Welt moeglicherweise richtig sind, und die komplizierten Verschwoerungstheorien eventuell falsch sein koennten?</span> Keine US Administration kann im Widerspruch zur Volksmeinung agieren, da die Kontrollen direkt und hart ausgeuebt werden. (Justiz, Medien und Aktivismus)<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">In diesem Kontext muss demnach klar erwaehnt werden, dass die Luegen der Bush Admin inbezug auf Massenvernichtungswaffen nicht der Grund fuer die 80% Unterstuetzung der IRAK Invasion waren.</span><br />Das Volk stand hinter der Regierung, weil man schlicht die Nase voll hatte von einem Massenmoerder, der jedem Suizidbomber in Irael eine Rente versprach, 250,000 Kurden mit chemischen Waffen vergaste und Kuweit okkupierte, demnach direkt unseren Way of Life bedrohte.<br />Die Empoerung ueber Sept. 11 war letztlich nur ein Anlass, der den lange brodelnden Vulkan zum Explodieren brachte.<br />Ja - Kein Zweifel - Co-President Cheney und seine Halliburton Mafia haben profitiert. Im End-effekt wurden jedoch wir selbst betrogen, da wir den Wiederaufbau mit unseren Steuergeldern bezahlen.<br />Um IRAK''s Oel fuer die USA zu sichern gings ja offensichtlich nicht, ansonsten wir nun deren Oel verbrennen wuerden und nicht Deutschland und Frankreich...<br />Wo, bitte, ist die Entschuldigung von Schroeder, La Fontaine und Chirac und all denjenigen, die uns damals genau diese Motivation vorgeworfen haben?<br />Dass natuerlich Stabilitaet in einer Region, von der man 40% seines Oels bezog (SA, Kuweit) absolut im geostrategischen Interesse der USA lag, ist kein Geheimnis und voellig verstaendlich.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Niemand streitet ab, dass mit der IRAK Invasion politischer Pragmatismus mit humanitaeren Aspekten kombiniert wurde.</span> Ist es aber wirklich so schwer zu akzeptieren, <span style="color:#ff9900;">dass selbst ein Staat wie die USA</span>, der trotz Superpower Status nicht ueber die Mittel verfuegt, alle Kriesenherde der Welt zu eliminieren, <span style="color:#ff9900;">Prioritaeten setzen muss?<br /></span>Angenommen, dieser Sachzwang wird verstanden, muesste man in diesem Fall nicht eigentlich applaudieren, dass im Falle IRAK mehrere Fliegen mit einem Schlag erledigt wurden?<br /></span></em></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Zur Rekapitulation:<br /></span>Ein Massenmoerder wurde eliminiert, ein Volk wird hoffentlich bald in die Reihen der Rechtsstaaten aufgenomen werden koennen, Stabilitaet zu einem hohen Ausmass wurde in einer Region erreicht, die fuer die gesamte westliche Welt energiekritisch ist, Al Khaeda wurden massive Verluste zugefuegt, den Despoten der Welt wurde ein klares Signal gegeben und letztlich besteht nun der Nuklearambitionierten Radikal-Islamischen Theokratie, IRAN, gegenueber eine Praesenz, die, wie im Kalten Krieg sehr wohl militaerische Abenteuer verhindern koennte.<br /><br />Im Endeffekt, muss doch jeder zugeben, wurde recht viel erreicht. Die Entwicklung in IRAK 2008 ist vielversprechend, muss doch auch mal gesagt sein.<br />Natuerlich berichten die Medien lieber ueber Bomben, Anschlaege, Kriegsszenen, aber wer IRAK im 2008 besucht, wird eindeutige Beweise des Wiederaufbaus in Richtung einer funktionierenden Demokratie erkennen koennen. Sind die jungen Demokratien perfekt? Natuerlich nicht - dies kann noch Generationen brauchen. Aber Lender wie Jordanien, Tuerkei, Georgien usw sind durchaus in der richtigen Richtung. Vielleicht muss man manchmal das Glass halb voll sehen. Auch RU war in die richtige Richtung gestartet, worum sie ebenfalls massive Wirtschaftshilfe von den USA erhielten. Selbst die reaktionaeren Tendenzen unter Putin finden Parallelen in der Geschichte, was als Erklaerung, jedoch nie als Rechtfeertigung benutzt werden sollte und uns nicht von der Verpflichtung entbindet, diesen Tendenzen entgegenzuwirken, wie sehr wir auch das Russiche Volk bewundern und als Freunde zaehlen. Genauso, wie im Westen die Regierungen kontrolliert, kritisiert und notfalls abgewaehlt werden, muss dies auch in RU moeglich (gemacht) werden.<br />___<br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Die Zukunft</span><br /><br />In den USA ist politischer Aktivismus, das Engagement durch Privatpersonen viel mehr verbreitet als in Europa. Die jeweiligen Administrationen wissen sehr genau, wo zu jedem Zeitpunkt die Meinung des Volkes liegt.<br /></span></em></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Ob Obama oder McCain - die Tonalitaet muss und wird sich aendern, </span>und die Partnerschaft mit unseren Freunden wird vermehrt gesucht werden.<br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">In der Sache jedoch - mark my words - wird sich und kann sich nichts aendern, da sich die USA, wie oben ausgefuehrt, immer noch als <span style="color:#33ccff;">"Beacon Of Freedom"</span> versteht und bereit sein wird, notfalls fuer diese Prinzipien auch einzustehen</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;">Anti-Amerikanismus</span><br />Wie gesagt - wir sind selbst Russen, Iraner, Polen und Chinesen und jede jeweilige Minderheit wird uns laut daran erinnern, wenn die Zeit kommt, fuer die jeweiligen Verwandten im Ausland Stellung zu nehmen. <span style="color:#ffcc66;">Wir koennen nicht anders!</span> Hier in den USA sind die Regierungen nur Sprachrohre, die das fundamentale Volksgefuehl zum Ausdruck bringen sollen. Im Fall GWB sind die Noten in der Tat schlecht, warum man unter Clinton oder Reagan nie diesen Anti-Amerikanismus in Europa erlebte.<br />Die USA haben spaet aber immerhin endlich realisisert, dass ein Umdenken inbezug auf Energie und Umwelt stattfinden muss. <span style="color:#ff9900;">Ich garantiere Euch die gleiche konsequente Umsetzung der Strategie der "Independence from foreign Oil" binnen 15 Jahren, wie damals ein Mann auf den Mond gestellt wurde. </span>Die "geostrategische" Notwendigleit, Stabilitaet im Mittleren Osten zu bewahren oder Supply Kanaele zu schuetzen wird sich demnach drastisch minimieren.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Wir warnen deswegen davor, der wachsenden isolationistischen Minderheit innerhalb der USA , mit blatantem Anti-Amerikanismus Nahrung zu geben, da Europa die USA zu einem viel groesseren Masse braucht, als dies umgekehrt der Fall ist. </p><p><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236367908702048754" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SKtQ3pdw0fI/AAAAAAAAAKY/pALFaZpx6pA/s400/Putin4.jpg" border="0" /><br /></span>_____<br />Vielleicht konnte ich mit obigen Gedanken etwas zum Verstaendnis beitragen.<br />Wahrscheinlich jedoch, sind die RU -Versteher dieser Welt nicht zu ueberzeugen und werden mich weiterhin als rechtslastigen, kriegshetzenden Hurrapatrioten beschreiben - Tja..<br /></span></em></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><em><span style="font-size:100%;">Wir bedauern, dass die Mehrheit der Leser Kommentare fanatisch Anti-Amerikanisch gepolt sind. Darum dieser Versuch eine Diskussion anzuregen, die vor allem dem Abbau von Missverstaendnissen dienen soll.<br /><br /><span style="color:#ff9900;">Wenn nur einer der Leser nun einen etwas besseren Einblick in die US Mentalitaet erhalten hat, war es es uns wert, ein paar Stunden Zeit in diesen Aufsatz zu investieren.<br /></span></span></em><strong>____________________</strong></span><br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">II. Die RU - Georgien Diskussion</span></span></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:100%;">(By Michel C. Zala)<br /><br /><em>Seit Putin sind die reaktionaeren Tendenzen in RU nicht mehr von der Hand zu weisen.<br /></em><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3bt065ov-hk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3bt065ov-hk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><em>Mit Georgien ist ein Laborversuch erfolgreich durchgefuehrt worden, wie die ehemaligen Republiken, die mittlerweile sich an die Nato anlehnen, an die Kandarre genommen werden koennen. Georgien muss als ein Mosaikstueck in einem groesseren Bild gesehen werden - einer eigentlichen Putin Doktrin.<br /><br />Putin's Strategie soweit war brilliant, konesquent, pragmatisch, logisch und in der Ausfuehrung perfekt.</em></span></span></strong><em><br /></em><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236367679171509826" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SKtQqSZavkI/AAAAAAAAAKI/jhPSP28mreM/s400/Putin+3.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ff9900;">Im Falle Georgiens wurde das bewaehrte (Hitler) Rezept verwendet:</span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">1. Man nehme eine Randregion mit separatistischen Tendenzen, bring RU Buerger rein und oder gib denen eine RU Pass. Militaerberater und Waffen in die Region reinbringen, Subversion und Unruhen anheizen bis irgrendwann die Regierung nix mehr anderes tun kann, als Truppen in das Unruhegebiet zu bringen um Ihr eigenes anerkanntes Territorium zu bewahren. Kriesenmechanismus par excellence.</span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">2. Man nehme dies zum Anlass, die "Friedenstruppen und eigene Bevoelkerung" zu verteidigen und in das Nachbarland einzumarschieren. Genug weit, um eine Pufferzone zu haben, welche komplett auf dem Territorium des anderen Staates liegt.</span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">3. Man annektiert de facto das gesamte Randgebiet und verzettelt die UNO und Nato mit endlosen Gespraechen und Diplomatischen Initiativen, womit mehr Zeit gewonnen wird um Faits Accomplis zu schaffen.</span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">4. Das Randgebiet wird, befreit, gesaeubert von Bevoelkerung des Nachbarstaates - Krieg und undiffernzierte Bombardierungen schaffen Fluechtlinge, womit nur noch die Separatisten verbleiben.</span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">5. "Freie" Wahlen werden gehalten, der Anschluss ans RU Reich wird formalisiert. Dem Nachbarland wird ein saftiges Stueck Land genommen. Jede Aktion des UN Sicherheitsrates wird mit Veto blockiert.<br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Im Falle Georgiens resultiert dies in1/3 der Landflaeche.</span></span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">7. Die USA sind auf der ganzen Welt verzettelt, demnach nicht in der Lage, eine weitere Front zu halten. <span style="color:#ffcc66;">Da ausser ihnen ja niemand mehr die Mittel hat, fuer Rechtsstaat, Freiheit und Demokratie einzustehen, werden die Faits Accomplis als gegeben akzeptiert. Appeasement wie zu Zeiten Chamberlains ist die Regel, und RU expandiert. </span></span></strong><br /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ff33;">8. Europa wird duch die Kontrolle der letzten Ausser RU Pipeline von unabhaengigem Energiezufluss abgekopppelt <span style="color:#ffcc66;">und damit hoechst erpressbar fuer zukuenftige Abenteuer (Ukraine, Moldawien, Baltische Staaten.</span></span></strong><br /></p><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">9.<span style="color:#ffcc66;"> Der blatante Doppel-standard</span>, der angewendet wird (Chechnya, eine Region innerhalb RU, die die genaugleichen "Ansprueche wie Abchasien oder Sued-Ossetien haette wurde ins Steinzeitalter zurueckbombardiert), wird von den "Russland-Verstehern in Europa natuerlich conveniently unterschlagen. </span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">10. Mit Waffenlieferungen an IRAN und (geplant) an Syrien, wird eine Region weiterdestabilisiert, die mission-critical ist fuer den Westen insgesamt. Eine der letzten Pipelines, die Europa noch ausserhalb RU Territoriums mit Oel versorgen liegt nun in direkter "Kontrolle" Russlands und kann fast nach Belieben unterbrochen werden. Dass natuerlich auch hier das Angenehme mit dem Nuetzlichen verbunden wird, ist schlagend. Die Amerikaner, die mit Not und viel Muehe endlich gewisse Erfolge in Irak sehen, werden mit einer destabilisierten Region "blamiert", Israel wird, falls IRAN sein nukleares Programm weiterfuehrt in brutalere Logik in den Zugzwang kommen, da ja die Iranische Theokratie immer noch klar dem Dogma anhaengt, dass Israel von der Landkarte gewischt werden muss. Israel hat aus geographischen Gruenden und mangels einer UBootflotte keine Moeglichkeit zu einem Zweitschlag. Qui Bono? Russland, welches bei einem Konflikt natuerlich zum Hauptlieferanten Europas Energie wird.<br /><br />Wer sich erlaubt, genauer hinzuschauen, dem wird die Schachartige Putin Doktrin sehr wohl ersichtlich.<br /><br />Anstelle aber den neuerstarkten Imperialismus der RU zu verurteilen, ist die NZZ voll von Kommentaren, die nicht nur die politischen Realitaeten nicht mehr erkennen koennen, sondern gar hingehen und die USA als Verursacher dieser Konflikte und Imperialisten verschreien. Eine komplette Verdrehung jeglicher Sachverhalte.<br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Keine Frage - GWB hat mit seiner unilateralen Kommunikationspolitik verheerend auf die Trans-Atlantischen Beziehungen gewirkt. Darum wird es in 2 Monaten auch eine freie Wahl geben und die Richtung der US Assenpolitk - eher die Tonalitaet - wird sich drehen (Sehen Sie die Nuance, Russland-Versteher - FREIE WAHLEN...<br /></span>Unter Reagan oder Clinton waere den Freunden definitiv besser erklaert worden, warum die USA jedwelche Aktion fuer noetig erachtet. </span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc00;">Nichtsdestotrotz muss doch den NZZ lesern insbesondere die Intelligenz (im klassischen Lateinischen Sinn von" Wahrnehmen, Einsehen") zugetraut werden, die geostrategischen Realitaeten zu verstehen und von ihrer emotionellen Gefuehlslage der "Beleidigten Leberwurst" runterzukommen.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Die Russland_Versteher sollten sich mal ehrlich fragen, wo - falls vor die Wahl gestellt - Sie Ihre Familien ansiedeln wurden. In einem America, wo die fundamentalen Freiheiten und Rechte jedem Buerger garantiert sind - oder im Putin RU, wo sie ihren Laerm nie machen duerften?</span> Ich glaube, die Antwort ist offensichtlich, womit eigentlich ihr Nonsens prop primo als irrelevant abgetan werden muesste.<br /><br />Des weitern moechte ich fragen, <span style="color:#ffcc33;">woher die Arroganz herkommt, die Aengste von den Baltischen Staaten, ueber Polen, Tschechei, Ukraine, Georgien bis hin zu Uzbekhistan, als unbegruendet und "paranoid" abzuwinken.</span> Alle diese Menschen sind Panikmacher?<br />Um Himmels Willen - mein eigener Vater fluechtete aus Ungarn 1957. Das Trauma war everpresent durch meine gesamte Kindheit. Wir verstehen demnach die Aengste der Ex Sovjet Republiken sehr wohl. <span style="color:#ffcc33;">Diese Leute sind direkt betroffen und haben die RU ueber Jahre sehr genau beobachtet und mit Erschrecken festgestellt, dass RU unter Putin mehr und mehr der alten Sovjet Republik aehnelt..</span><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RpuEW7GUHtM&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RpuEW7GUHtM&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff9900;">Es sind vor allem die Menschen der Ex -Republiken, die aus oberwaehnten Gruenden mit Erschrecken feststellen,<br /></span><br /></span></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;"><strong>1. dass Putin RU ueber die letzten Jahre 100% "gleichgeschaltet" hat.<br /><br />2. dass er an jeder Schaltstelle der Macht seine Plutokraten und Surrogates installiert hat,<br /><br />3. </strong></span><span style="color:#ffff00;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;">dass er bei jeder Unstimmigkeit sofort den Hahn zudreht (Ukraine), oder mit Drosselung der Energiezufuhr droht<br /><br />4. dass kritische Journalisten in bekannter KGB Methode entweder umgebracht oder vergiftet wurden.<br /><br />6. dass Anti-Regierungs - Demonstrationen in derselben Art brutal niedergeschlagen werden, wie dies zu Zeiten der Sovjets ueblich war.<br /><br /></span></strong></span><span style="color:#ffff00;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#3366ff;">7. dass sogar auslaendische Politiker nicht vor Anschlaegen des uebelsten KGB Stils sicher sind (Juschtschenko - Dioxin)<br /><br />8. dass er 15 % des GDPs fuers Militaer ausgibt, waehrend das "sichere" Europa bei eiwa 1% liegt.<br /><br />9. dass er vor 1.5 Jahren eine total neue Generation von Ballistischen Missiles eintwickelt und eingefuehrt hat, die jeden realistischen Ansatz fuer Raketenabwehr praktisch verunmoeglichen (Mehrfach Sprengkoepfe)<br /><br />10. dass er Demokratische Wahlen de Fakto abgeschafft hat,<br /><br />11. dass er sich de Fakto auf Lebenszeit installiert hat<br /><br />12. dass er jung genug ist um noch 30 Jahre lang die geschicke der RU zu bestimmen<br /><br />13.dass er vor 2 Wochen die Ukraine als Integrales Bestandteil von RU bezeichnet hat.<br /><br />14 dass ein RU General Polen wiederholt (heute)als militaerisches Ziel bezeichnet<br /></span><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>(wg 10 Abfangraketen ?????)</em> </span></span></p><span style="color:#33ff33;"><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236367801232264770" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SKtQxZG-DkI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/xHhs2WXdKI0/s400/Putin5.jpg" border="0" /><br /></span><span style="color:#3366ff;"><span style="font-size:130%;">15. dass Putin zurzeit mit Vertraegen ueber den Grenzverlauf die "Front" mit China beruhigt hat, (sogar in RU "untypischer" Art etwas Territorium aufgegeben hat), und die Koopereation bis hin zu militaerischer Zusammenarbeit mit China verstaerkt, damit "den Ruecken frei" kriegt<br /><br />16. dass "Manoever "durchgefuehrt werden, demonstrativ vor der Haustuere der Ex Republiken<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>(will da jemand ein Zeichen setzen?)<br /></em></span><br />17. dass vor jeder einzelnen Republik vorwaerts orientierte Basen stehen<span style="color:#33ccff;">(massive Aufgebote, die durchaus fuer eine militaerische Offensive dienen koennten)</span><br /><br />18. dass Putin den IRAN, (den anerkannten weltweiten Pariah), mit Raketentechnologie beliefert hat - dies zu einem Zeitpunkt, wo sogar in der UNO (???!!) Einigkeit darueber herrscht, dass IRAN ein Nukleares Militaerprogramm verfolgt,<br /></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><em>(Die Russland-Versteher sollten sich hier fragen, qui bono? Wer profitiert von einer massiven Destabilisierung des mittleren Ostens durch ein Nukleares IRAN? RU, welches in einem solchen Fall zum letzten Energielieferanten Westeuropas wird, oder die USA, die immer noch 30% ihres Oels aus der Region importieren und deren Wirtschaft direkt abhaengig ist von Stabilitaet und Frieden im mittleren Osten)<br /><br /></em><span style="color:#3366ff;">19. dass RU fuer sich in Anspruch nimmt, ein separatistisches Tschetschenien als " innerhalb des RU Territoriums, daher eigene Angelegenheit"zu betrachten, es in der Folge in Grund Boden bombardiert, jegliche Stationierung von Beobachtern und Friedenstruppen abzulehnt, waehrend Georgien in exakt derselben Sachlage (Im Gegenteil wurden den Minderheiten in Ossetien und Abchasien sogar weitgehende Selbstverwaltung gewaehrt) dieselbe Integritaet verneint wird und in ein souveraenes Land einmarschiert wurde.<br />(</span><em>Dieser Doppelstandard muss doch sogar den RU verstehern bewusst sein?)</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;">19. dass RU heute eine UNO Resolution ablehnte, die ausdruecklich die territoriale Integritaet Georgiens formuliert.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ff6600;"><em>Auch hier ist OCCAM's Razor anwendbar:<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;">Wenn es aussieht, wie ein Hahn, es Federn hat wie ein Hahn, es kraeht wie ein Hahn, es richt wie ein Hahn und es nicht Eier legt: Ist es vielleicht ein Hahn?<br /></span><br />Angesichts obiger Fakten ist doch eine klare Richtung oder RU Strategie erkennbar, die in Konsequenz Panik in den Ex-Republiken verursacht.<br />Da kann man doch als Mitglieder der freien westlichen Welt nicht den Kopf in den Sand stecken, und die berechtigten Aengste der Bevoelkerung der Ex-Republiken als paranoid bezeichnen. Da muss man doch Position beziehen, findet Ihr nicht?<br /></em></span><br /><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236367537695178082" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SKtQiDW1PWI/AAAAAAAAAKA/36sQVxQczvE/s400/Putin+6.jpg" border="0" /><br /></span></strong></span><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Angesichts der Stimmen, die die USA als Afghanistan Invaders bezeichnen, Imperialisten, die RU "einkreisen", usw usw, kann es eigentlich nicht mehr als Wunder gesehen werden, dass vermehrt in den USA Stimmen laut werden, die es satt sind, kontinuierlich Ohrfeigen dafuer zu erhalten, fuer andere einzustehen, ihnen die gleichen Freiheiten zu geben, die man in der Westlichen Welt fuer so selbstverstaendlich nimmt. Anstelle uns fuer die Unterdrueckten dieser Welt einzusetzen und dafuer noch angegriffen zu werden, solle doch die USA das viele Geld nehmen und im eigenen Land einsetzen.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Kann man es diesen Stimmen verueblen, eine neue Form von Isolationalismus zu promovieren?<span style="color:#ffcc66;"> 80% Europaischen Ursprungs, sind wir Europa als ehrlicher Freund verbunden</span><span style="color:#ffcc66;">. Das Volk in den USA ist getrieben von einer ehrlichen und fundamentalen Motivation - naemlich dass die Freiheiten, die wir geniessen duerfen, auch den vielen Unterdrueckten dieser Welt zustehen. </span>Dies wird uns von viel zu vielen in Europa - unseren eigenen Vorfahren - als Imperialismus ausgelegt.</span></strong></span></span><br /></p><p><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Hier ein paar der lustigsten Anwuerfe:<br /></span><br /></span>- Die USA hat Afghanistan okkupiert und zur Kolonie gemacht<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Erinnert man sich an "Beneith The Veil", CNN, das Leben in Afghanistan unter dem Taliban? Erinnert man sich an den Taliban, der Hafen fuer Al Khaeda war? Erinnert man sich an das Sprengen von uneresaetzlichen Kulturguetern, nur weill diese nicht Islamisch waren?<br />Erinnert man sich an die Tatsache, dass dies eine NATO inervention ist, die von allen Europaischen Laendern unterstuetzt wurde? Erinnert man sich daran dass sogar RU hier zustimmte? Erinnert man sich daran, dass Osama BinLaden, der Ingenieur der schlimmsten Terrorattacke in der Geschichte, sich im Taliban kontrollierten Grenzgebiet befindet und vor der Invasion seine Ausbildungslager in Afghanistan hatte? War einer der RU Versteher jemals in NYund hat sich mal angeschaut, dass Ground Zero etwa der Flaeche der gesamten Zuercher Innenstadt entspricht?<br /><br /></span></em>- Die USA hat IRAK nur okkupiert, weil sie deren Oel wollte<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Deutschland und Frankreich, die lautesten Gegner der Invasion, haben soeben Erdoelvertraege mit IRAK abgeschlossen, waehrend die USA nicht eine Gallone Oel aus Irak beziehen....obwohl US Soldaten geblutet haben.....Saddam wurde wg Vergasung von 250000 Kurden in Halabscha verurteilt - Die Entfernung dieses Moerders also nicht gerechtfertigt? Politischer Pragmatismus, wo man das moralische mit dem nuetzlichen verbindet, ist nur fuer die RU Versteher akzeptierbar, im Falle der USA, die nun wirlich nicht jeden einzelnen Saustall ausraeumen kann, natuerlich lediglich Machtgelueste? Schon die letzten IRAK Meinungsumfragen oder gar die Eerfolge des Wiederaufbaus gesehen? Selbstredend, hat die USA ein direktes egoistisches National Security Interest an Stabilitaet in der Region, woher man immer noch 30% seines Oels bezieht. Ein Saddam, der Nachbarlaender okkupiert, kann nur schon aus diesem Grund nicht akzeptabel sein.<br /><br /></span></em>- Die USA und Polen wollen RU angreifen<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ccff;">Obwohl dieser Kommentar jenseits von bescheuert liegt, moechte ich doch zwecks Aufklaerung das Detail erwaehnen, dass es den USA nach der Implosion der Sovjet Republik ein Leichtes gewesen waere, das Land zu kassieren. Aber nein - Billionen sind dem RU Volk als Hilfe von den USA zugekommen, was ja wirklich beweisen sollte, dass die USA keine imperialistischen Motivationen vs RU hat.<br /><br /></span></em>- Die USA hat oder will Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Mexico, Guatemala und Venezuela anschliessen.<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Cuba wird von selbst implodieren. Was den Rest angeht,so moechte ich nur fragen, welches land wir militaerisch angegriffen haben, dann an das USStaatsgebiet angeschlossen....</em><br /><br /></span>- Der Raketenabwehrschild bedeutet ein Angriff auf RU gleichzusetzen mit Raketen in Venezuela und Kuba<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Man zaehle die Menge, man differenziere zwischen Offensiven (mit Nuklearen Sprengkoepfen ausgeruestete) und defensiv (patriots)Waffen</em></span>.<br /><br />- Die USA und Israel sind schuld an der Georgien Kriese<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Siehe RU Strategie oben und frage sich, wo genau die Interessen der USA und Israel liegen. Warum wohl die Praesenz? Das Oel aus Baku kassieren oder vielleicht sicherstellen, dass der freie Westen noch eine (letzte) unabhaengige Zufuhr hat...<br /><br /></em></span>- Die USA ist ein Freund Saudi Arabiens, wo Frauen gesteinigt werden, womit sie kein Recht haben sich in anderen Laendern fuer Freiheit zu engagieren.(Helfenstein)<br /><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>Absolut tragisch in der Tat, dass sogar eine Grossmacht wie die USA Prioritaeten setzen muss. Man ist sich in den USA sehr wohl bewusst, wie weit man sich auf diesen "Freund" verlassen kann. Abr ist es wirklich so unverstaendlich, dass man sich auf die "brennenden Konflkiktherde konzentrieeren muss, die direkten Einfluss auf die USA und die freie Westliche Welt haben, dann erst auf die anderen Katastrophen eingehen kann? Ja was machen denn wir in unseren taeglichen Problemen? Eins nach dem anderen, oder? Letztlich soll auch mal gesagt sein, dass einige dieser Konfliktherde (Palestine, Darfur, Zimbabwe et al) in der Verantwortung der Europaer liegen. Wir koennen doch nicht alle Probleme der Welt loesen....</em></span></span></span></strong><br /></p><p><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><strong>-</strong><strong><span style="color:#33ff33;"> Die USA unterstuetzen Kosovo, um eine Militaerbasis zu errichten<br /></span>Offensichtlich ist dieser Kommentator sich nicht bewusst, dass nur ein einziger Flugzeugtraeger, parkiert in der Adria, mehr Offensiv Punch hat, als 50 teure Basen mit jeh ein paar hundert Soldaten zusammengerechnet. In Konsequenz waere die oftgenannte "Einkreisungspolitik" der USA demnach fuer eine offensive (imperialistische) Kriegsfuehrung ein Witz.<br />Von einer militaerischen Perspektive aus gesehen, bringen Basen ohne massives Personal, Artillerie und Panzer fuer eine Offensivstrategie nix. Man erinnere sich an das monatelange Aufmarschieren von 250'000 Soldaten mit der entsprechenden Hardware, nur um einen vergleichbaren militaerischen Zwerg (Saddam) anzugreifen.<br /></strong></span><span style="color:#33ccff;"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Dass jedoch in einer landgestuetzten Basis (defensive)Frueherkennungs-und Abwehrsysteme positioniert werden koennen, versteht sich von selbst. Warum sich RU wohl dagegen straeubt, waehrend die USA jederzeit ein Raketenabwehrsystem in Kuba, Venezuela oder gar RU selbst zulassen wuerde, ueberlasse ich Ihrer Interpretation. Den Argumenten wie "Sicherung der Erstschlagskapazitaet" muss preventiv gesagt sein, dass sogar RU unter Putin sich bewusst ist, dass Nukleare Kriegsfuehrung Selbstmord fuer alle bedeutet. Zurzeit gibt es nur ein Land, wo ein kollektiver Selbstmord aus ideologischen (religioesen) Gruenden durchaus moeglich ist: IRAN.<br />____________________ </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5236368029243697154" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OtZGAhWVo3A/SKtQ-qhIaAI/AAAAAAAAAKg/XHhagQ7rX9U/s400/Putin2.jpg" border="0" /> </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Hintergrundmaterial und Artikel<br /></span>_______________________</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Russia and Georgia<br /></span></strong><a href="http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11920992"><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">A scripted war </span></strong></a><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Aug 14th 2008<br />GORI, MOSCOW AND TBILISI<br />From <span style="color:#ff0000;">The Economist</span> print edition<br />________________<br /></strong>GEORGIEN-KONFLIKT<br /><strong><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,574178,00.html"><span style="color:#3366ff;">In Washington nahm niemand das Telefon ab</span></a><br /></strong>Von Matthias Schepp, Moskau,<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>Spiegel OnLine</strong><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:130%;">link von Herrn Helfenstein.<strong><br /></strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>___________________<br /></strong></span><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,576487,00.html"><span style="font-size:130%;color:#3366ff;"><strong>KAPITALFLUCHT NACH GEORGIEN-KONFLIKT<br /></strong></span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>Russland droht neue Rubelkrise<br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Spiegel Online</span>, Sept.2, 2008<br /></strong><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Der Georgien-Konflikt hat für Russland ernste wirtschaftliche Folgen. Anleger und Investoren ziehen in großem Umfang Kapital ab - jetzt muss die Zentralbank intervenieren: Sie verkauft Devisenreserven in Milliardenhöhe, um den Verfall der russischen Währung zu stoppen>>><br /></span></span><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">________________<br /><br /></span></strong></span></em><span style="color:#33ff33;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong><span style="color:#ff9900;">Was meinen Sie?</span> </strong></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc00;"><strong>Wer hat den Mut, in eine sachliche, pragmatische Debatte einzutreten? Fakt vs Fakt, Argument gegen Argument.<br />Wo liege ich falsch?<br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCOvwT-dZPI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oCOvwT-dZPI&ap=%2526fmt%3D18" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Bin ich wirklich nur ein Hurrapatriot, der in Cold War Denken verhaftet ist? Seit Ihr nicht im Grunde alle Amerikaner, die an die selben Werte glauben? Genauso, wie wir hier unsere Regierung kritisieren oder gar auswechseln, muessen wir icht mit dem RU Volk solidarisch sein und darauf wirken, dass dieses so wichtige Land ins Konzert der Freien Rechtsstaatlichen Gemeinde eintreten kann?<br /><br />Hauen sie frisch drauflos - </strong></span></span></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com41tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6220299165806866855.post-66488028225000939362008-03-31T10:37:00.000-07:002008-09-06T13:14:59.162-07:00T - The Swiss Debate II - Die Wahlen in den USA<span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:130%;color:#33ccff;"><span style="color:#33ff33;"><strong><em>Da die USA Wahlen ebenfalls zu einer regen Diskussion innerhalb der NZZ Kommentare gefueht haben, habe ich hier einen weiteren Thread eroeffnet, der diesem Thema auf Deutsch gewidmet ist.<br /><br />Unlimitiert koennen auch hier Kommentare abgegeben werden und hoffentlich kommt eine koheraente Diskussion zustande.<br /></em></strong></span><br /><em><span style="font-size:180%;color:#33ff33;"><strong>1. Objektivität der Medien?<br /></strong></span></em></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#33ccff;"><em><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#33ff33;">Wir sprachen letzthin mit einem Redaktor einer renommierten Zeitung in Deutschland über das Thema, welches oft auch zu extremen Kontroversen in den Leserkommentaren der NZZ führt. Seine Bemerkungen gaben mir doch recht zu denken.<br />In den verschiedenen Redaktionen der Media, ob TV oder Print, ist man sich absolut klar, dass der Ausdruck "Objektivität" ein Misnomer ist, und demnach immer müde gelächelt würde, wenn einerseits Komplimente oder andererseits Anwürfe zu diesem Thema gemacht würden. ich versuche mal meine Fragen wie in einem Interview aufzulisten und seine Antworten so gut wie möglich weiterzugeben:<br /></span><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Ich bin oft mit anderen Leuten in Konflikt geraten, wenn ich Eure Berichterstattung als objektiv bezeichnete. Ich persönlich finde sie wirklich objektiv.<br /></span><br />" Objektivität ist ein Attribut, die in unserem Business nicht gebraucht wird, da sie nicht existiert. In aller Freundschaft finde ich Deine Benutzung des Wortes recht naiv und zeigt, dass Dir die Basis, ein Studium der Geschichte oder Journalismus fehlt.<br />Du, Michel hast den intellektuellen Ueberbau, aber genaus so wie Du ja wohl eine Medizinische Operation einem Arzt überlässt, dem Spezialisten, muss man halt auch verstehen, dass Politik, Journalismus einen Bereich darstellt, der es jedem erlaubt, einen Kommentar abzugeben. Die Basis von Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit. Journalismus ist die Verbreitung von Ideologie und Meinungen. "<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Also sagst Du, dass es "Objektivität" gar nicht gibt?<br /></span><br />" Genau. Wenn man genau hinschaut, dann ist selbst die Selektion von Ticker Headlines wie sie von den Newsagenturen angeboten werden (zB eine auf den ersten Blick neutrale illustrierende News wie.... RU hat Truppen nach Georgien entsandt und stationiert sie in....) irgendwo schon Meinungsbildung, da sie subjektivem Empfinden des jeweiligen Redaktors entspricht, der die Wichtigkeit abschätzt. In logischer Konsequenz, widerspiegelt selbst die Frontseitengestaltung die Meinung des jewiligen Redaktors, also Ideologie."<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Wie kann man dann die Berichterstattung ueberhaupt qualifizieren?<br /></span><br />In den Redaktionen der Welt reden wir von gut und schecht. Schreibe, Hintergrundfakten, Logik, ob man die verschiedenen Aspekte umfassend beschreibt, ob die Artikel interessant sind und informativ. Selbstredend wollen wir in unserer Redaktion als neutral rüberkommen und möglichst viele Sichtwinkel einbeziehen, aber schlussendlich entspricht jeder einzelne Kommentar dem Sichtwinkel des Autors und der Mentalitaet oder generellen Sicht einer ganzen Redaktion, die aus Individuuen besteht. Ueber die Jahre gesehen gleichen sich in jeder jeweiligen Redaktion die Meinungen zu einem gewissen Teil, da sich aus logischen Gründen gleich und gleich ansammelt. Da werden nach einer Weile halt auch generelle Ideologien erkennbar.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Kann man demnach eine Verschwörung sehen, ,wo wirtschaftliche Interessen (Eigner der Zeitungen und Kabelkanäle bestimmen Editorialen Content)?<br /></span><br />"Soweit würde ich im generellen Fall nicht gehen. In jeder Zeitung konsolidiert sich über eine Weile eine Form von Grundhaltung, die in der Berichterstattung durchaus Ausdruck findet. Genauso, wie sich die Meinungs vielfalt in den Kommentaren widerfindet, genauso haben auch Journalisten eine Meinung."<br /><br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Also sagst Du mir, dass es eine faire Berichterstattung gar nicht gibt?</span></span></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><p><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#33ccff;"><em><span style="font-size:130%;">" Was ist fair? Fairness liegt im Auge des Lesers. Stelle Dir mal eine Schachpartie vor, die zwei völlig unterschiedliche Reporter (Erziehung, Schachwissen, Background) als Beobachter kommentieren. Der eine, vielleicht im Westen aufgewachsen, hatte mehr die Partien von Bobby Fischer studiert, und der andere hatte sich in der Vergangenheit vielleicht eher mit der Russischen Schule befasst. Ist es demnach verständlich, dass der Kommentar des einen unter Umständen komplett anders tönt, als die Beschreibung des Spiels vom anderen reportiert wird? Beide betrachten dasselbe Spiel. Der eine schwärmt von der Sizilianischen Verteidigung des einen, der andere bewundert die elegante Russiche Damen Bauer Gambit strategie des anderen.<br />Also, mit anderen Worten, selbst ein einfacher Sachverhalt kann nicht "objektiv" beschrieben werden, da Menschen mit subjektiven Werten und Vorstellungen und Erziehungs und Erfahrungs hintergründen hier an der Arbeit sind.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Das kommt mir also schon als zynisch vor. Die Reputation Deiner Zeitung ist Meinungsmache? Historische Fakten also gibt es gar nicht?<br /></span><br />"Sehr simplifiiert ausgedrückt, Ja. Geschichte im vergleich zu Mathematik und Physik ist nicht eine exakte Wissenschaft und Interpretationen unterworfen. Man versucht als Journalist oder Redaktor nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen Info zu sammeln und logisch abzuleiten und Ereignisse zu interpretieren, in gnadenloser Logik aber sind alle diese Interpretationen halt doch subjektiv. Zeitungen und Newschannels sind Ansammlungen von Individuen, die eine eigene Ideologie haben und in der Natur der Sache demnach auch verbreiten. Das gleiche gilt halt auch für die Politik und Geschichtswissenschaften. Man offeriert Gesichtswinkel und Facetten, die man in einer Qualitätszeitung mit gutem Hintergrundmaterial unterlegt.</span></p></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Demnach sagst Du mir, dass der normale Buerger gar nie sich ueber die effektiven Realitaeten informieren kann. Dass es sowas wie die "Wahrheit" gar nicht gibt.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#33ccff;"><em>"Brutal ausgedrückt, gibt es nur Meinungen, die der eigenen Ideologie entweder entsprechen, oder widersprechen. Die ultimate Wahrheit kennt nur Gott. Die gibt es im Journalismus nicht. Man versucht, sich von einer Seite her anzunähern, aber man kommt, wie ich Dir hoffentlich erklären konnte, immer von einer Seite.<br />Der Leser hat aber 2008 die Möglichkeit die Medien und Meinungen unterschiedlicher Seiten zu konsumieren. Um ein Beispiel zu nennen, kann er die USA Wahlen 50-50 in CNN und FOX News verfolgen und sich seine Meinung unter Einbezug zweier oder mehrerer Grundideologien bilden. Was Georgien angeht, so kann man im Internet RU Medien, USA und oder CH Medien konsumieren. Am Ende jedoch, selbst bei Betrachtung von Dutzenden von Zeitungen und TV Kanälen, gibt es so etwas wie die Ultimate Wahrheit nicht. Im Besten Fall bildet oder unterlegt man seine eigene Meinung, die auch dann noch von anderen als subjektiv kritisiert werden wird. Schlussendlich ist es eine Frage des Vertrauens in sein bevorzugtes Medium. Eine qualitativ hochstehende Redaktion wird sich bemühen, möglichst viele Sichtwinkel zu einem Sachverhalt aufzuzeigen und "logische" Schlüsse zu ziehen. Selbst dann jedoch wird es viele Leser geben, denen die Information als gefärbt" vorkommen wird. Das ist Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit. Auf diesen Werten basieren unsere Staaten. Also, nicht vergessen, wir diskutieren hier im endeffekt Meinungen und Themen wie Geschichte, Politik, die schlicht nicht mathematisch und exakt zu umfassen sind. Darum nochmals, Michel, danke für Deine Komplimente, aber bitte benutze nie den Ausdruck "Objektivität", der nur in Bereichen wie der Physik gilt und selbst dort oft (Heisenbergs Unschärfeprinzip) in Frage gestellt werden kann".<br /></em><br /></span><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Mit obigen Infos im Kopf, hab ich seit ein paar Tagen mit etwas mehr Sensitivität die Berichterstattung in den USA, den Kanal regelmässig wechselnd, beobachtet</span></em>.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Ich hab tatsaechlich festgestellt, dass klare Kontraste bestehen zB zwischen FOX (eher konservativ) und MSNBC (klare Obama Fans), ja sogar CNN (lehnt stark richtung Obama) wo ich bisher oft meine News bezog. Die genau gleichen Ereignisse und "Fakten" werden diammetral unterschiedlich kommentiert, Auf der einen Seite kommen eher Republikanische Vertreter zu Wort, auf der anderen Seite nehemen sogar die eigenen, sogenannt objektiven Reporter, klar Stellung. Die Fragen, die den verschiedenen Interviewpartnern gestellt werden, verraten schon die eigene Idologie.<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#33ff33;">Während bei MSNBC Palins Tochter und der Vetting Prozess McCains heute praktisch komplett die News sind, ist dies auf Fox praktisch kein Thema. Keine Frage, die Bemerkungen meines Fruendes aus Deutschland werden hier täglich als brutal richtig bestätigt. Es sind Meinungen und Ideologien, die aufeinanderprallen, jeder Fakt kann diammetral unterschiedlich interpretiert werden. Irgendwo eine ernüchternde Tatsache, speziell für einen naiven Menschen wie mich, der nach der ultimaten Wahrheit sucht. Mein Respekt für die Meinungen, die mir in der NZZ in brutalster Weise entgegengehalten wurden, ist jedenfalls massiv gewachsen.</span><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#33ff33;">Nichtsdestotrotz werden wir weiterhin jede Meinung, jedes Argument mit einem eigenen Argument zu beantworten versuchen in der Mission, mäglichst viele Perspektiven auszuleuchen.<br /></span>______________________<br /><span style="font-size:180%;color:#ffcc66;">II. Semantische Missverstaendnisse<br /></span><br /><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Was mit oft in den Leserkommentaren aufgefallen ist, ist dass oft , insbesondere nach Reden, die McCain hielt, der oft das Wort "LEAD oder LEADING" benutzt, den USA eine Art Hegemonialanspruch vorgeworfen wird. Irgendwo sogar durchaus verstaendlich, wenn man bedenkt, in wie vielen Regionen die USA zurzeit politisch, wirtschaftlich und auch militaerisch engagiert war und bis heute sind.</span></em></span><br /></em></span><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc66;"><em>Auf die unterliegende Mentalitaet bin ich in den Leitartikeln auf Swiss Debate I ausfuehrlich eingegangen, um die Dissonanz zwischen Europa und den USA auf der Dimension der Gefuehle auszuleuchten.</em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffff00;"><em><strong>Es gibt jedoch eine weitere Dimension, auf der grundlegende Missverstaendnisse oft zurueckgefuehrt werden koennen. Die Ebene der Semantik.</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc66;"><em>Wie wir alle wissen, hat sich English so ziemlich als Weltsprache des Handels, der Politik und Diplomatie etabliert. Die Gruende dafuer sind vielfaeltig und nur zu einem Teil auf das Britannische Weltreich zu beziehen. Offensichtlich benutzt man English in viel mehr Laendern, als man auf der linken Seite Auto faehrt. Was oft vergessen wird, ist die einfachste aller Erklaerungen -<span style="color:#ffff00;"> die Sprache ist eine der einfachsten</span>.<br /><br />Deutsch, Franzoesisch et al, um nur einige Beispiele zu nehmen, sind Sprachen, die nicht nur grammatikalisch viel komplexer sind, sondern auch einen viel extensiveren Basiswortschatz benoetigen, um nur schon eine normale Konversation fuehren zu koennen. Zum Vergleich braucht man fuer English nur etwa 4000 Worte, um als "fliessend" zu gelten, waehrend es fuer Deutsch 10000 Worte braucht. Auf Russisch und Chinesisch, die dazu noch eigene Schriften haben, muessen wir ja wohl nicht mal eingehen in diesem Zusammanhang.<br /><br />Die Einfachheit der Sprache, die in den USA sogar noch weiter geht, als dies in GB der fall ist, kommt jedoch mit einem hohen Preis. Viele Schluesselworte haben enorm viele, machmal bis zu diametral unterschiedliche Bedeutungen, womit dem sogenannten Kontext eine extreme Wichtigkeit zukommt. </em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc66;"><em>Als Immigrant mit guten Schulkenntnissen in English, wurde mir im professionellen wie privaten Umfeld brutal und bald bewusst gemacht, wie sehr man " zwischen den Zeilen" lesen muss und wie schnell Missverstaendnisse entstehen koennen, wenn man seine Worte nicht super sorgfaeltig waehlt. Darueberhinaus, was heute "politically correct "ist, kann morgen schon Grund fuer eine Rassismus Attacke sein, in anderen Worten, "it is a moving target". Die offizielle Vereingung (Association ) der African Americans is benutzt heute noch eine Abkuerzung, die das Wort "Colored People" beinhaltet. Wer es aber wagen wuerde, das Wort "Colored" im Kontext mit underer schwarzen Minderheit anzuwenden, wird sich heute schnell vor Gericht wiederfinden. Nur waehrend meiner Zeit hier (15 Jahre) darf man nicht mehr African American nehmen, sondern man will schlicht als black bezeichnet werden.<br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc66;"><em>Mit anderen Worten, die Sprache entwickelt sich rasant mit dem gleichen Tempo und im Spannungsfeld der sich schnell veraendernden Demographie.<br /><br />Nicht nur resultieren oft Missverstaendnisee mit dem Ausland, wo man exakte reiche Sprachen spricht, die viel praeziser jeglichen Sachverhalt wiedergeben koennen, die Missverstaendnisse finden selbst hier statt, wo man sich eigenltich daran gewoehnt sein sollte, zwischen den Zeilen zu lesen. Wer mit Briten und Amerikanern Konversationen gefuehrt hat, oder sogar eine Freunding oder Partner aus dieser Region hatte, kennt doch das Szenario, wo man was sagt, der Partner dann seinen Kopf leicht auf die Seite neigt und man seine Gedanken fast lesen kann die etwa so gehen:" What the Hell does he/she mean by that?".... Als Deutschsprachiger wird mir jeder US Immigrant recht geben, wie oft man am Anfang ellenlang zusaetzliche Erklaereungen abgeben musste, nur damit die eigene Meinung nicht komplett missverstanden wurde....""No, No, I did not mean that......let me try a diffrent approach..."<br /><br />Eines der potentiell gefaehrlichsten semantischen Missverstaendnisse wurde erst vor ein paar Tagen in den NZZ Leserkommentaren klar ersichtlich. Emporert reagierten verschiedene Leser auf McCain's Rede, in der er mehrfach ansprach, dass " the United States must lead the world in this or that, by doing this , or doing that...."<br />Im Deutsch kennen wir das Wort fuehren auch, jedoch haben wir mehrere Worte um die Absicht dahinter viel besser zu definieren. Wir brachen das Wort Fuehrer eher selten, um einen "Leader" zu beschreiben, da es ja von Hitler recht missbraucht wurde. Wenn wir heute in Europa von einem "Leader" reden, dann nehmen wir Worte wie Leiter, an der Spitze stehen oder viele andere Ausdruecke, die spezifisch die Rolle einer fuehrenden Person beschreiben in Politik, Wirtschaft, Geschichte oder jeglichen Organisation. In America benutzen wir simplifiziert ein einziges Wort fuer alles " Leader". Die Qualifizierung bleibt dem Rezipient der Message ueberlassen. Ghatafi, Putin, Hitler, sind leader genauso wie Reagan, Bush oder der Papst.<br />Als verb " to lead" wird die Sache noch problematischer, da wir viel praeziser sind und genaue Ausdruecke haben fuer fuehren im Sinn von beherrschen, oder im Sinn von simplem mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen.<br /><br />Demnach ist es schon verstaendlich, dass eine Botschaft (Message im Kommunikationswissenschftlichen Sinn) , die von Worten wie "Leading" strotzt, in Europa leicht als anmassend oder arrogant verstanden werden kann. Wenn ich aber das Wort paraphrasiere als "Wir muessen vorangehen", erklaert es einserseits die Haeufigkeit, mit der der Ausdruck speziell in einer Wahlkampfrede benutzt wird, sollte aber auch zur Entschaerfung der Decodierung dieser Message in Europa beitragen.<br /><br />Hoffe, dass dieser kurze Exkurs helfen konnte, dass "Leading The World" hier nicht als Beherrschen, Dominieren oder Hegemonialanspruch gemeint ist, sondern dass man sich bewusst ist, dass Macht und Groesse (Politisch, Wirtschaftlich oder Militaerisch) auch eine moralische Verpflichtung mit sich bringt, damit weise umzugehen und mit gutem Beispiel voranzugehen. Wir haben in den anderen Leitartikeln versucht zu illustrieren, dass in den USA Worte wie Moral, Ethik, Fairness, Patriotismus usw. nicht nur anders interpretiert werden, sondern dass diese Begriffe die Grundmentalitaet in den USA penetrieren.<br /><br /></em></span><span style="font-size:130%;color:#ffcc66;"><em>Dieselben Gundgedanken gelten auch fuer viele andere Reizworte, weswegem wir unsere CH Copatrioten einladem, immer vorsichtig mit jeglicher Interpretation von Englischen Texten und Reden zu sein und uns nicht immer woertlich nehmen sollten.<br />Bedenken Sie bitte immer die Limiten der (Englischen) Sprache, wenn Sie mit einem Ami diskutieren. Darum ist Body Language und der Gesichtsaudruck so wichtig.<br /></em></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><em><span style="color:#ffcc66;">Darum ist auch Bush so schwerwiegend in Europa gescheitert. Mit seiner sogar fuer Englische Verhaeltnisse simplen Sprache konnte es gar nicht anders rauskommen, da die Verantwortung fuer die Message immer beim Sender liegt und nicht beim Rezipienten. Der Sender muss sicherstellen, dass die Message auch richtig ankommt, worum es als US Politiker so wichtig wird, notfalls halt auch ausfuehrend zu werden.<br /></span>_____________</em></span></p>Weisz (Michel C. Zala)http://www.blogger.com/profile/15082590035654575212noreply@blogger.com3