Posts with the tag policy

Job Creation in the Manufacturing Industry

Suellis from San Diego, CA — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:19:37 EST

It is widely known that the Automakers that the taxpayers assisted at the beginning of the year are determined to pay the money back. In fact, these payments are supposed to begin being made in less than three months; the first installment at One Billion dollars.

Since our citizens are in great need of employment, how about our American Automaker’s make their first payments in the form of creating manufacturing jobs to begin re-hiring this segment of our American workers!

As a result of all the events that have happened during the last two years, our citizens have become highly aware of how important it is to purchase American made products; which was clearly demonstrated during the, “Cash for Clunkers,” programs that occurred less than a couple of months ago. The sales of American made automobiles, was so rapid that our Automakers’ actually generated profits during this time of recession!

Although, taking this action won’t produce the millions of jobs that are needed to secure and rebuild all of our citizen’s lives; our workers in the manufacturing industry will begin to be stabilized, along with the communities that they live in. Then while these positive events are occurring, we can continue finding other solutions to establish additional jobs for our United States citizens.

Meanwhile, our Leader’s can also start encouraging us to purchase American made products whenever we can. And our News programs and other Television shows can begin developing and airing Public Interest segments to let us know about the businesses in our communities that have created and are selling American made products.

So, instead of sending our Taxpayer’s repayment check to the Capitol, our Automakers can insert those tax-dollars directly back into our economy. Creating this kind of Policy also paves the way for the re-emergence of a significant aspect of our Heritage – and provides our Automakers with an open door to reassert themselves as active members within our society and rise up in the support of our citizen’s advancement and well-being; while adding to and benefiting our countries growth.

Perhaps, by utilizing this method for our Automakers to pay the taxpayers back, we can also give ourselves the opportunity to regain some of our innocence, by restoring and re-establishing our foundation of taking care of our citizens first and watching out for each other again.

President Obama: A Truly Strong Leader

Kathleen in Washington — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:24:49 EST

One year ago today our country elected a good, brave and gifted man, Barack Obama, to take on the tremendous burdens of the Presidency. I think this is a good insight from Joseph Nye, Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University:“Look what he inherited -- a global economic crisis, two difficult wars, erosion of the non-proliferation regime by North Korea and Iran, deterioration of the Middle East peace process, and the rising strength of China just for starters. Obama's dilemma was how to manage this sad inheritance while creating his own vision of how Americans should deal with the world.

He did that with his theme of ‘a new era of engagement with the world.’ Through a series of symbolic gestures and speeches (Prague, Cairo, Accra, the United Nations and others), Obama worked wonders in restoring American soft or attractive power in his first year of office. As a recent Pew poll reported, ‘in many countries opinions of the United States are now as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office.’

Skeptics regard soft power as over-rated, but it is a mistake to discount the role that transformative leaders can play in changing the context of difficult issues. Power involves setting agendas and creating others' preferences as well as pushing and shoving. Soft power alone rarely solves hard problems. That is why the administration speaks of "smart power" that successfully combines hard and soft power resources in different contexts. But soft power can create an enabling rather than a disabling environment for policy. Diplomats report that Obama's success in brokering agreements at NATO and G-20 summits was assisted by his popularity.

When Obama came into office, his economic advisers told him there was one chance in three that we were on the brink of another depression. We have successfully avoided that, and Obama was able to help organize a surprising degree of international cooperation on economic issues. Unlike FDR, who torpedoed an international economic conference in 1933, and failed to halt the spread of ‘beggar they neighbor’ policies that made the depression worse, Obama's soft power helped to promote international cooperation when it was vital. And there was a certain audacity of hope in that pursuit.”You can read the whole article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/obamas-timidity-is-a-fore_b_344064.html

I prefer our President's "soft power" to the noise and destruction of the previous eight years.

The Bank

Kathleen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:03:50 EST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59AxxLc9WSw

This is a true story that takes place in Germany, Lübeck area. In 1993, Kathleen, an American, was denied a Citibank account because she did not have a 9 to 5. In 2006 she applied and was told the same thing. In 2008 she was told the same thing, but this time she wrote Comptroller of the Currency (CCO) located in Texas. The customer service, overlooking national banks. All Americans are entitled to a bank account. Germany has the same law.

Kathleen was given an account, but being a foreigner and "whistle blower", payback was on the horizon. Regarding cashier´s checks, she now needs a drink just to deal with Citi´s German-branch.

The facts:

February 9, 2009, she mailed a letter to the local Citi branch, requesting two cashier´s checks in US dollars. Her account # and address were included. A week or so later was told that she needed to re-send the order because they don´t know where it is. She refused, so someone from headquarters in Duisberg got the info and put in the order. Weeks later the checks arrived.

April 14, 2009...she sent in another order, and the same thing happened: The order was lost so someone from the Duisberg office put it throuh, checks arrived weeks later.

In May, she phoned the Banking Online to order. They sent one check in euros, and the other in US dollars, the currency she had requested. The next time, the person correctly processed the and it arrived, weeks later. Again Kathleen phoned Banking Online, but was told "we don´t do that," and was told to call or go to her local branch. Meaning no online banking service.

July 24, 2009: Kathleen received a letter from Duisberg, instructing her to send orders for cashiers checks to their office -- considering she refused to send orders to the local branch where her personal info is floating around somewhere and they don´t know where... So on the end of July and August 11, Kathleen mailed her next orders to Duisberg.

Beginning of September, she still has still not recieved those checks -- and phoned Duisberg ... couldn´t talk to no one except the phone-girl who gave another telephone # to call. The person at the other # said the charges for those cashier´s checks were listed on her account August 13th.

Come September 8th, when her bank statement arrived, she noticed there were no charges for those checks...at all. She called the local branch and was told by Christine, the order for those checks did not arrive until end of August/beginning September. Which means that order sat in Duisberg from end of July to September. But Christine said the order has been sent.

Beginning of October. Kathleen noticed that the charge for the cashiers check was also not on the October statement. She called the local branch...a trainee answered the phone. No one else would come to the phone. The trainee said to wait until Christine came back from her weekend, this was Wednesday.

The following Monday, Kathleen spoke to Christine ---Christine said she would call her back. Kathleen said, "Today." But Christine didn´t call back until the next afternoon and said: For Kathleen to cancel the order and put it through again, because although they had ordered the checks, they don´t know where they are.

FORM: Being Advisors to the Obama Administration

Madama Ambi — Sat, 16 May 2009 17:29:58 EDT

The idea behind Feminist Advisory Board for Obama has always been to find ways to make visible and audible the voices of the people who can speak about their lives and their needs directly to the ones who make policy. Since I formed FAB (November 2008), the landscape has changed, not radically, but we know a little more of how the Obama administration is comporting itself. I know more about some members of this group and I know more about the femisphere. Some of my ideas about women's needs have grown into huge ideas (needia), and other of my projects have taken a back seat while I've been roaming the femisphere like Lewis and Clark on an epic journey.

Which brings me to my subject today: form. Form is important, structure can be determinative. Which comes first, the what, the who, the where, the how or the when? Where is the why?

WHERE Member Jon Pincus feels that a wiki is the best place to support group communication. I don't agree, but I'm interested in hearing from other group members. What OFA gives us is this listserve, and each of us has an OFA blog that feeds into the blog for FAB. So, for instance, in addition to sending you this email, I could post this to my blog on OFA and then cross-post it to FAB and other groups within OFA, and anyone who is a member of MyBO/OFA can read and comment. Furthermore, what gets blogged at MyBO/OFA gets crawled by Google, so our blog posts will show up in public searches. We also have 157 members on FAB/Facebook, where anyone can post to the wall or to the discussion board. Also, the FAB/FB group is open, so even non-members can participate and read what is posted.

WHAT Two members of this group have asked if we have a Mission Statement, and I answered that I have ideas about one and then I invited each of these members to head up the committee or the wiki or whatever you want to call it to develop a Mission Statement. This is how I lead--I ask people to take responsibility for the projects they bring to the group. I can't do it all and I don't want to do it all. I want to contribute where I have skills, expertise or leadership energy, and I want members to do the same.

HOW Taking a page from National Organization for Women's organizational model, I have some ideas about creating something on the order of "Officers" within FAB. I will spell this out in a separate posting. If you have ideas about organizational models, please step up to the plate. You don't need permission from me to be a leader in this group. Got an idea? Go for it.

WHEN Along with my idea for appointing "Officers" (a term I'm not crazy about, actually. I prefer "Advisors..."), I'd like to see this group produce a monthly or a quarterly Advice Memo that we would then submit to appropriate government officials. Because I called this group Feminist Advisory Board for Obama, some people have assumed that I have an insider track to the White House. I don't. True, I supported Obama for president and know many people who did the same, and some who went on to have jobs in the administration. Still, I am NOT an insider. My activism will always be as an outsider because I happen to believe that once you get on the inside, you find yourself preserving the status quo. In my view, you cannot be an activist, an agitator, a critic or a change-agent from the inside. This is just my opinion, and I welcome yours.

WHO It's just us. We are the change we've been waiting for.

WHY I think we all know why. If you didn't already have a sense of why, you wouldn't have joined this group...I think...

Please post your feedback, your thoughts, your ideas, your criticisms, to this list and/or to your OFA blog and FAB's OFA blog. Or post to FAB/FB and cross-post to OFA. If you don't understand how that works, first go nose around OFA and see if you can figure it out. If you can't, post your questions to the group list.

The Gig is UP!

EMK — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:03:17 EDT

For those interested: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4020719354420953428.

Another place to find it: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/fib/gGxJBN.

Quite informative about money and monetary policy.

EMK

Debate and Opinions wanted on this vid!

EMK — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:13:22 EDT

This vid was one I found on a site called Deprogram.net. The vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoA3wHi9iDE, is by a guy from the Center for Global Research known as Michel Chossudovsky. He argues that the current policies + TARP will eat up almost all of the US's GDP (which I've heard is more a service economy rather than a manufacturing economy).

What's your take on this vid after watching it?

Hmm...

EMK

President Obama's Green Team - CWT Turn Trash Into Energy!

The Idea Girl — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:16:24 EDT

http://www.changingworldtech.com/

CWT - Changing World Technologies is all about renewable energy. Brian Appels company can turn a cities TRASH into RENEWABLE ENERGY. It can also turn AGRICULTURAL WASTE into RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Watch the video and see how Organic Material (anything with Carbon) is converted to oil, gas or a solid.

http://www.greeninventions.info/Free-Energy-From-Trash.html

The United States has 12 Billion Tons of Solid Waste each year.

Garbage trucks take 323 million trips to carry the trash to the dump each year.

CWT has a pilot plant in Philedelphia that uses TDP- Thermal Depolymerization technology (Thermal Conversion Process) to convert your garbage to reuseable oil, gas, and coal

This company had to file Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in March of 2009. Idea Girl Consulting would like to highly recommend that President Obama's Green Team speak with Brian Appel and look at his innovative plans for the future and how it could revolutionize the renewable energy technologies of the world.

Next week you are planning to pass a bill about renewable energy concerning hydro usage and automobiles. You need ideas from people who have taken a "renewable energy" concept and made it work.

I would like to extend this invitation to Mr Steven Chu, The Environmental Protection Agency - Lisa Jackson, The White House Council on Environamental Policy - Nancy Sutley, The Director of Energy and Climate Change - Carol Browner, The Chairman of the select commitee on Energy Independence- Edward Markey, To the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology - John Holdren, The President of the United States Barack Obama , The President's Green Team and to Brian Appel- The Chief Executive Officer & Chairman of CWT (Changing World Technologies). I believe that all of you would benefit from listening to ideas from Brian Appel and consider a plan to stimulate jobs and create new technologies together.

You can twitter "The Idea Girl" if you have more ideas to add to this article and I would be happy to post them on my OB site.

Who's holding the debt: Discussion Questions.

EMK — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:28:04 EDT

I wonder how we will work to pay it back.

From CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29880401. It's a slideshow of all the people, countries, and institutions holding the US debt. Take a look at it.

If we have a loan or credit card payment that has to be paid, how do we -- as individuals -- get the money to pay it back? What happens if we -- as individuals -- can't pay it back?

Now, what happens when the U.S. has to repay it, what could happen? How does the money to pay it back the debt earned? What if the debt cannot be paid back?

...

"The society's deprivation relies/ not on our differences/ but the separation within."
--Linkin Park, "Frgt/10"

EMK

Terrorizing the Terrorists

Don — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:34:58 EDT

How do you deter an enemy who is willing to kill himself in order to kill you? You strike at something more important to him than his own life. Defining that will be easy for me. The next question is can America be as ruthless as our enemies?

The time has come to end the fruitless and unsustainable effort to search and destroy every cave in Afghanistan and bomb every campground in bordering Pakistan. It’s counterproductive anyway.

What will put the fear of America into terrorist masterminds and those who would follow their orders is simple and radical revenge. Masterminds have families: Cousins, brothers and fathers. Eliminate them. All at once, or one at a time, it works just as well. The ones who survive an initial “hunt” will go into hiding. Having some adult male relatives killed and the rest hiding out in caves will demoralize masterminds and their loved ones. You cannot work and support your women like that. You can’t make more baby masterminds that way. You cannot continue the blood line. The women and children will pressure them to stop their plotting and bombing.

People want to leave a familial legacy, and they can’t do that under those circumstances over the long term.

Should America do that? Yes. Do we have the “intestinal fortitude” and sustainable motivation? I don’t think so. But we should, and it shouldn’t take another terrorist attack to get us there.

For the last seven years the CIA has been kidnapping people from other nations and torturing them. Why not just go in there and quietly shoot them to death?

Frankly, by not killing women or children the way those terrorists routinely do, we can even claim the moral high ground.

Bernanke vs. Larry Kudlow: FRS all over the MSM; Debate & Discussion Question.

EMK — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:57:44 EDT

I ran accross the 3/15/09 60 Minutes show online, http://beta.sling.com/video/show/130320/87/60-Minutes,-031509, and I find the show pretty interesting, though Bernanke doesn't go through the entire history of the FRS. (I won't go through all of it here, but there are plenty of links and sources about the full story, if you're willing to know. Remember, Woodrow Wilson regretted creating the FRS).

About Bernanke's policies, though, IMO, he's either fooling himself or he's a pretty shrewd actor, as he seems emotionless throughout the piece (or it could be the editing).

It could be global warming, or even the solar system heating up (Yes, apparently, it's not just the Earth that's heating up, http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html.), but this guy, who's not a college undergrad, has his own opinion about Bernanke's policies: http://capitalbeat.com/?p=2647.

Uh, why is all of this talk about the FRS and its policies becoming so popular on the MSM now, even though it's been all over the indy media for years?

Very interesting indeed...

EMK

The Real Abominations Against God and Jesus

Don — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:04:47 EDT

The fact that Americans vote in favoring of paying our farmers to produce LESS milk in order to keep the gallon price of milk HIGHER than a gallon of gasoline while millions of American babies' parents can't afford milk is an abomination against God.People who, in the name of Jesus, vote to DENY medicine and treatment for babies in nations where it is otherwise not available suffering from AIDS because adults delivering help condone use of condoms to staunch the spread of AIDS are committing an abomination against God.People who vote against public sponsored healthcare for babies and children who cannot otherwise obtain it are committing an abomination against God.People who allow others to go hungry, homeless and sick, thus disobeying Jesus AND God himself, find the energy to rail against adults who behind closed doors have sex with other consenting adults are committing an abomination against God. They spend money, cast votes and change constitutions to deny those people rights to get divorced like 50% of the self-righteous people do every day.People who blatantly ignore the commands of Jesus and stated in all the gospels to care for the sick, the hungry and the homeless, and “judge not lest you be judged” while trumpeting an obscure sentence fragment from the Old Testament taken out of context while calling themselves Christians are an abomination against God and Jesus. Theirs is the greatest of blasphemy imaginable.When the mere idea that a person would not CHOOSE to be reviled, persecuted, fired from the military, and in some cases savagely beaten to death -- in other words, be gay -- is met by 'conservative Republicans' with such rabid, savage hostility, then one could reasonably believe that their position and their associated rage is intended merely as a distraction from their own actions which are immoral, inhumane and even criminal (refer to first five paragraphs).

Military Sexual Assault

Lisa Holmes - Obama Precinct Captain #3361 — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:08:49 EST

Marine Corps - “Victims of sexual assault are entitled to our support” | By Suzia Van Swol - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service and Talk Radio News Staff | Friday, March 6, 2009

The House Armed Forces Subcommittee held a Military Personnel hearing, today, on “Sexual Assault in the Military: Prevention.”

The subcommittee heard testimony from Carolyn Collins, program manger of the Army’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program, Raymond Bruneau, manager of the Marine Corps’ Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program; Katherine Robertson, deputy manager of the Navy Installation Command’s Counseling, Advocacy and Prevention Program and Charlene Bradley, assistant deputy for the force management integration in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Prevention and Response Office.

This was one in a series of hearings that this subcommittee will conduct on the subject of sexual assault in the military, this year. The hearing today focused on Prevention Programs that are currently in place.

Chairwoman Susan Davis (D-CA) said: “Just as we have the responsibility to ensure that victims of a sexual assault receive all the support that can be provided following an attack, we also have an obligation to do all we can to prevent such attacks from ever taking place. The Department of Defense has made significant improvements in recent years, but the question we need to ask is, has enough been done?”

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) asked the witnesses whether and why the question “do women belong in the military” was still an issue and stated that this needed to be addressed. She said there needs to be a “change in cultural attitudes” towards woman in the military, and more “effective laws.”

The prevention and after-care systems that were identified by the panel seemed focused on the woman; offering counseling for victims. There was no evidence of rehabilitation programs in place for the men who commit this offense.

Mr. Bruneau said: “People are our most important resource. Marines have a long history of taking care of their own. Which means that we do not intentionally harm one another. Nor, do we leave a comrade behind. Victims of sexual assault are entitled to our support and care and deserve to be returned to the fight as fully functioning marines. The marines as always, are committed to caring for their own, as it’s the right thing to do.”

The subcommittee showed three videos by the witnesses that have been created by and for the military in an attempt to highlight the serious nature of sexually criminal behavior.

Source:

http://talkradionews.com/2009/03/marine-corps-%E2%80%9Cvictims-of-sexual-assault-are-entitled-to-our-support%E2%80%9D/

The George W Bush Recession and Depression

Don — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:13:08 EST

We need to give credit where credit is deserved: NAME this economic crisis after the man most responsible for it's creation.

$10 trillion deficit is what we had at the end of the Bush administration. In eight years, Bush more than DOUBLED all the indebtedness America had accrued in more than 200 years.

This is more than a talking point, this is a necessary reminder that should be made every day, so that the notoriously SHORT memories of Americans shall be stimulated on a regular basis.

Bankers CAN be heroes -- No 'vetting' required

Don — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:01:53 EST

Senator Dodd went rogue and inserted some crazy stuff into the new law, so the President will need to be creative. Perhaps we are looking for HEROES to run our troubled banks. A lot of wealthy patriots have made great financial sacrifices to serve in the Obama Administration. Like-minded people who don’t want to go through the vetting process and insane pubic humiliation of being outed on every little tax related or other embarrassment can now serve their country without becoming federal employees but while still consenting to be paid wages not all that far above that.

Gregg: Is This Petty Partisan Politics

Don — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:47:23 EST

I see nothing different Obama has said or done since 2004 and today -- perhaps Gregg's understanding of it morphed overnight between the time he was begging for the job and yesterday, when it came time to vote on the stimulus plan. Gregg seems to claim otherwise.

Obama should have known Gregg either hasn't the courage of his convictions or , far more likely, hasn't got any deeply held beliefs other than politics. We demand omniscience! How DARE the President not realize a man like Gregg would say anything to further his own personal ambitions?

There's something wrong with a vetting process that cannot discern that a politically savvy adult who somehow got himself repeatedly elected to the US Senate would claim to have turned his back on Petty Partisan Politics but actually lack the moral fortitude to stand by his decision.

The New Poor

LOL — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:39:14 EST

A story that examplifies the current economicsituation. I was on work assignment in a southern city. I was riding along with a couple of friends I had met from other places around the US. One of them spotted a beggar in the middle of the medium. He made a comment like, “You mean to tell me that guy can stand on the medium all day but he can’t get a job?” I was in the process of slamming on my breaks to stop next to him. The cars occupants were ushering me on out of some form of embarrassment. The one guy says to me, “were you really going to give that guys money?” I said “No way!” Confused I explained to them that I was going to ask him, “What are your financial secrets to success?”

Amazingly that didn’t get any one of them less confused. I explained, “that guy is much wealthier then I am.” There is no way that guy can get credit with no job. What he has is all his. Now me, I have a house mortgage the bank owns, School loan the government owns, two car loans the credit union owns, and $15,000 In credit card debt that I own. If the banks called in both of our accounts at the same time (mine and the street beggar), he would be around $180,000 richer then I am. Each day I slip a little further behind him. Each dollar puts him further ahead. I think the general consensus was that I was smoking something and should really share. I am used to that.

The Yellow Brick Road For CHANGE in America Starts Where & When FEAR Stops

Gicomeng — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:07:58 EST

In 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man disabled with a peripheral neuropathic disorder that left him unable to walk rose to the highest office in our nation during the midst of the worst economic disaster in U.S. history. Five sentences into his inaugural address, FDR set the course of the nation for the next 36 years, declaring “there is nothing to fear but fear itself”. Those words became the anthem that echoed throughout our nation, instilling a sense of bravery and patriotism in all Americans, just as “Yes, We Can” rings out today. U.S. citizens had no jobs; no food, and yet, one of FDR’s first accomplishments was bringing beer and wine back into American communities, and by the end of that year, prohibition of all other alcoholic beverages had ended. Until recently, ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment has been consistently overlooked or criticized for it’s lack of importance. Today historians identify it as a strategically prudent maneuver of the only U.S. presidential administration maintaining overwhelming popularity across an unprecedented four terms despite the challenges in resolving the Great Depression. Repealing Prohibition was more than a gift of Pleasure; it was a gift of Responsibility. It brought Unity and Motivation to the backbone of the nation to support FDR throughout the largest war effort of all time, culminating in the only U.S. war victory of the 20th century through today and into the foreseeable future. We can wrap a circle around the years 1933 through 1968 and rightfully call this the Rooseveltian Era. It was a time of superman, super heroes, and binary super powers. It was a time when people remained loyal to “Truth, Justice, and the American way” simply because “fear” was not a barrier.

Psycho-active chemical substances were first introduced to the American people by the U.S. Government. Students today learn that Japanese and Nazi military used amphetamines which had an impact on our opponents losing the war. The truth is that amphetamines were regarded state-of-the-art military technology during WWII and those who had the most advanced technology were more likely to have a greater abundance of amphetamines. Since U.S. technology during the war was by far, the most advanced, it is rather obvious that we exceeded others in quantity.

The assassinations of three U.S. Civil Rights leaders during the 1960s rocked the Rooseveltian Era and brought psycho-active substances into the mainstream. The general public was in mourning; the drugs became a way to heal.

While the presidential administration of Richard M. Nixon is credited with ending segregation, landing an American on the moon, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and the end of the draft and the Vietnam War, these events were either fueled by public protest or already set in motion prior to Nixon’s inauguration. The impetus of the Nixon administration lies in restoration of Fear, Ignorance, and Exclusion. Antithetical to FDR, Nixon befriended Fear and Ignorance with a chilling and ghostly pessimism that resounds not only through the tapes he left behind, but in his policies, namely, in the war on drugs (WOD). The Nixonian Era has enduring for 40 years now .

To understand why the WOD was never a logical move, consider two major issues impacting health and safety of the Boomer generation during their teen years, automobiles and drugs, and how each was handled by two distinctively different presidents, one during the Rooseveltian Era and the other in the Nixonian Era.

MOTOR VEHICLE LEGISLATION

In 1966, when automobile fatalities had topped 50,000 in one year, President Lyndon Johnson brought before Congress recommendations from a 1936 Select Committee of the United States Senate, the 1949 Hoover Commission Task Force on Transportation, President Eisenhower’s 1961 Budget Message, and a 1961 Special Study Group of the Senate Committee on Commerce in urging the US Congress to create Department of Transportation.[i] President Johnson facilitated an inclusive effort that reached out to automobile manufacturers, federal, state, and local government contractors engineering the design of roads and highways, motorists, and high schools in developing the foundation for policy that is still successful today.

DRUG WAR LEGISLATION

Exactly one month after the Stonewall Riots commenced on June 27, 1969 in Greenwich Village, Manhattan, triggering a positive turning point in the gay movement, the Nixon administration issued legislation for a comprehensive reform of federal drug enforcement laws. It was a response to constituents and others who believed that sexual perversity was caused by psycho-active substances. Until 1973, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in the DSM, and the growth of the gay movement was incorrectly attributed to the use of illicit drugs. In Nixon’s May 13, 1971 taped conversation with John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman, Nixon himself states that “Homosexuality, dope, and immorality are the enemies of strong societies.”[ii] A month later, on June 17, 1971, just 10 days before the second annual Gay Pride Parade in New York City, Richard Nixon spoke before Congress with the opening words:

“In New York City more people between the ages of fifteen and thirty-five years die as a result of narcotics than from any other single cause.

"In 1960, less than 200 narcotic deaths were recorded in New York City. In 1970, the figure had risen to over 1,000…”[iii]

The mention of New York City, of course, was a blatant allusion to the gay population that stirred a rather fanatical nationwide appeal by the president in which he states:

“The magnitude and the severity of the present threat will no longer permit this piecemeal and bureaucratically-dispersed effort at drug control. If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us. I am not prepared to accept this alternative.”[iv]

There are two ironies here.

FIRST, “piecemeal…” describes the actions reformists are taking today in a leisurely attempt to undo the WOD. However, the magnitude and severity of the threat imposed by today’s drug laws has totally eclipsed all problems resulting from drugs.

SECOND, destroying the “drug menace in America” IS destroying us, since “US” defines the American people comprised of drug users / abusers.…

Unlike Johnson, who managed the implementation of formal recommendations from experts, commissions, and panels assembled specifically to study the problem of motor vehicle accidents, Nixon excluded the voice of experience, the general public, and even the recommendations from the National Committee on Marihuana and Drug Abuse led by Raymond Shafer, a committee that Nixon personally appointed which recommended the legalization of marijuana when it was released in March 1972. Richard Nixon and members of his administration also rejected input from Dr. Roger Egeburg, Assistant Secretary of Health that he personally appointed to study 1972 in shaping the WOD. In reviewing more than 100 transcribed documents produced by Nixon with specific regard to drug abuse during the first term of his administration, his concern about drug abuse that seems admirable at first glance is actually obsessive and disturbing. However, it is Nixon’s unrefined, personal, erratic, and dangerously presumptive level of understanding about psychoactive substances and drug abuse that are alarming and without foundation. As a result, his efforts threaten rather than inform; demand rather than request; broadly assume rather than specifically identify. Discrepancies in definable terminology with the medical community have been one significant factor steering the U.S. Government directly off course from the original objective.

With support for the drug war waning during the Ford and Carter administrations, Ronald Reagan’s adoption of the WOD was an expectation. During the 1980s, the WOD began expanding in scope with increased bipartisan support and a new focus on prescription drugs. One of the great blunders of the Democratic Party has been the failure to recognize drug use as a Civil Rights issue. Zero Tolerance policy with mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines was not a deterrent to drug use / abuse; it was an invitation to the drug community to engage in other forms of crime. For example, burglary can be reduced to a sentence of a few months; the minimum for possession is 10 years. In cases across the U.S. a defendant arrested for both burglary and drug possession the latter charge might be thrown out if the defendant pleads guilty to the charge of burglary. However, if the defendant was only charged with drug possession, judges have no recourse but to sentence the defendant for 10 years. Such laws are ridiculous because drug crimes offer no reason for incarceration whatsoever.

“Too little is known about drug abuse, especially the causes, ways to treat, and prevent drug abuse.” That humiliating, show-stopping statement came from members of the 109th US Congress in January 2006, 34 years and 7 months after President Nixon declared drugs to be “public enemy number 1”, launching an effort that has cost US taxpaying citizens 2 trillion USD, clogging our courts and increasing our prison population with non-violent drug law offenders sentenced 20-to-40 years or longer under zero tolerance guidelines for something that the US Government knows “too little” about. These mandatory sentences have routinely torn families apart for simple drug possession. As parents are arrested, children, adolescents, and teenagers are taken into custody and frequently scattered among family members whose lives are inconvenienced and these minors are often left on the streets to fend for themselves. They end up without education, a bitter hostility towards law enforcement, and a lifetime of criminal activity. Our lawmakers may know “too little about drug abuse”, but when it comes to spinning out criminals, no nation has mastered this craft better than the U.S.

At the end of the first decade in the 21st century, evidence strongly reveals that the harm resulting from U.S. drug policy is inescapable. Incidents might no longer be hidden but reported daily by the mainstream press with callous interest from the general public which has been led to believe that punishment and treatment are the only ways to stop drug abuse. This is false. These are invalid approaches. Inside the walls of correctional institutions of America, drugs still proliferate. Hundreds of reform organizations have sprouted up over the years and membership is growing steadily in number. While the U.S. Government is so consumed with achieving an impossible victory in the WOD, it has neglected to notice that the collateral damage of current drug policy, by far outweighs any benefit. In fact, it is virtually impossible to determine why nothing has been done to change the course of a war between the government and the people; a war that is destabilizing our nation leading to dangers that are far more imminent than those of global warming. Impacts of the WOD can be mapped across 12 categories:

1. Human Life

2. Civil Rights

3. Healthcare

4. Medical & Pharmacological Research

5. Education

6. Criminal Justice

7. Law Enforcement

8. Corporations & Businesses

9. Economics

10. Family & Society

11. Foreign Relations

12. Future Generations

Each of these is currently defined on my website at http://www.DrugUseEducation.org, I plan to write a blog summarizing each.

RESPONSIBLE DRUG USE IS NORMAL

My website at http://www.DrugUseEducation.org explains in great detail the residual effects our drug laws, but first, to couch my point, simply and succinctly: appropriately formulated drugs are not a threat to humanity. They never have been. Using drugs and chemical substances is normal human behavior.[v] Our culture has established this with regard to using drugs which have medicinal value, while ancient civilizations established the recreational value of drugs with countless generations ever since approving the use of alcohol. The Electro-Chemical Age[vi] coinciding with the Anthropocene[vii] Epoch in which we live today is the logical springboard for introducing safer alternatives to alcohol when correctly administered. These options also make it possible for individuals of different genetic types to enjoy pleasure and relaxation that is more suitable to their body chemistry than alcohol, which is considered to be one of the most lethal substances along with tobacco and gasoline used as pleasure drugs by Americans but are not controlled substances.

THE REAL THREAT IS THE LACK OF EDUCATION

The dangers associated with drugs are specifically linked to incorrect methods of drug administration, namely: drug abuse, dependence, addiction, and misuse. President Richard Nixon was aware of this. Throughout President Nixon’s address to U.S. Congress on June 17, 1971, he specifically mentions drug abuse and drug addiction as the two central “drug problems”. Furthermore, RN presents a proposal for rehabilitation and prevention efforts. Not once does RN mention a “war on drugs” before Congress. Not once does he make the remark that “America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse”. Such comments were made during a news briefing several hours after RN addressed Congress.

ABSENSE OF STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

During the past 37 years, the WOD has evolved into an enigma of convoluted terminology, in which there are no standards and no guidelines to designate the acceptable use of recreational drugs, a pastime that has been growing among adults and will surely continue to grow well into the future with no end anticipated outside of the annihilation of the Earth before we have the opportunity to inhabit at least one other planet outside our solar system.

For that reason, I am appealing to the Obama administration and members of Congress to consider my proposal or any substitute action that will stop the condemnation of those with legitimate medical disorders using controlled substances and responsible recreational drug users and self-medicators who want -- and very well may have just cause -- to use drugs, while providing necessary education to everyone in society, especially those who are unaware how drugs should be used correctly, applying harm reduction, and providing treatment for drug abusers and those who have become chemically dependant. So far, the U.S. Government has repeatedly failed to show why anyone administering drugs one way or another -- whether they are prescribed or illicit controlled substances -- should be subjected to incarceration when they threaten no other members of society. By legalizing drugs and making them available at a fair price to individuals who have earned the privilege to use them, the unwanted illicit drug trade would diminish and cease to exist with the absence of any demand for illegal drugs.

I do not support an illicit drug trade, or the manufacturing, sale, distribution and use of impure homemade/homegrown substances that have not been FDA-approved, or the glamorization and commercial sale of drugs as has been the case with alcohol and tobacco. My philosophy is that all drugs whether they are used for medicinal, recreational, performance-enhancement or other purposes are a personal matter that requires education and qualified support by a legitimate pharmacist, physician, or perhaps some other trained and certified individual who is able work with the user to determine which drug is appropriate for them. While there is no way to assure that drugs won’t be abused, dosing restrictions provided with every drug, including alcohol and cigarettes would give the public the knowledge and the responsibility to maintain control.

In the 21st century, the problems associated with incorrect forms of drug administration are merely a cosmetic blemish compared to the life-threatening hemorrhage that defines our current drug policy. How can we even begin to estimate the number of individuals that are adversely impacted by our drug laws. There are reports on-line which suggest a lower end of 700,000 to an upper end of more than 200 million U.S. citizens that have in some way been adversely impacted by our society’s drug laws during the past two decades. Tragically, many of those directly in the line of fire have been innocent children.[viii] Even more tragically, down here in the trenches we are helplessly witnessing the self-destruction of America as faith in our democratic government wanes amidst a background of corruption, including drug laws that have created an environment far worse than the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 until 1933 since today we have included patients with legitimate medical disorders among those who use drugs for entertainment.

The longer it takes to reach a level of sane, acceptable, drug policy, the more certain we are that a far greater number of human lives will be challenged, if not lost, by hardships that result from the irrational control of psycho-active substances.

[i] Special Message to the Congress on Transportation. Lyndon B. Johnson March 2nd, 1966 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=28114&st=automobile&st1=

[ii] http://www.gicomeng.com/histinsidenixon.htm Original Source: Harper’s Magazine.

[iii] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3048&st=&st1= Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, June 17, 1971.

[iv] Ibid

[v] See analysis at http://www.gicomeng.com/

[vi] Electro-Chemical Age (ECA) – The theoretical name that logically represents the tools of our time, which are electronic or chemical based. The ECA has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment (18the Century)that spawned the Industrial Revolution. Technically, the ECA succeeds the Industrial Revolution that took place during the early 19th century. The ceremonial start date of the ECA is May 1, 1851, the date that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert opened the Great Exhibition (aka Crystal Palace) in Hyde Park, London, England, where over 17,000 exhibitors from around the world gathered to demonstrate their inventions and trigger the start of an Age dominated by electrically-powered mechanics, and complex chemical technology.

[vii] Anthropocene is used by some scientists to describe the most recent period in the Earth's history. It has no precise start date, but may be considered to start in the late 18th century when the activities of the humans first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems. This date coincides with James Watt's invention of the steam engine in 1784.[1] The term was coined in 2000 by the Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, who regards the influence of human behavior on the Earth in recent centuries as so significant as to constitute a new geological era.

[viii]

The MONETARY REFORM ACT (Proposal)

Action Central — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:41:10 EST

Courtesy of www.themoneymasters.com

MONETARY REFORM ACT

An Act

Note: Portions in blue are the most important.

To restore confidence in and governmental control over money and credit, to stabilize the money supply and price level, to establish full reserve banking, to prohibit fractional reserve banking, to retire the national debt, to repeal conflicting Acts, to withdraw from international banks, to restore political accountability for monetary policy, and to remove the causes of economic depressions, without additional taxation, inflation or deflation, and for other purposes.1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:

Section 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Monetary Reform Act.

Sec. 2. IMPLEMENTATION. This Act shall be implemented over a one-year transition period, beginning thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Sec. 3. DEFINITIONS. The definitions of terms shall be those set forth in the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, as amended. United States Notes as used herein shall mean Treasury issue United Stated currency notes (as defined in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5115) not bearing any interest, being lawful money and legal tender for all debts, public and private, and which term as used herein shall include Treasury Department Deposits (a.k.a. Treasury Deposits or Treasury book entries) convertible to United States Notes, which may be substituted therefor at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. During the transition period, Treasury Deposits as used herein shall include Federal Reserve Deposits.

Sec. 4. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) RESERVE REQUIREMENT. Section 19(b)(2)(A-D) of the Federal Reserve Act is hereby amended to raise the Reserve Requirement ratio for financial institutions, in equal monthly increments of eight and one-half percent (8.5%), to one hundred percent (100%), during the said transition period. No existing reserve requirements shall be reduced, but shall be increased as the overall Reserve Requirement ratio incremental increase surpasses them. The initial minimum overall Reserve Requirement ratio shall be fixed at eight and one-half percent (8.5%) for all accounts, effective in one month. United States Notes, Federal Reserve Notes, Treasury Deposits and Federal Reserve Deposits shall be included in Reserve calculations in the transition period. No waivers or exemptions to this section may be granted, and any in existence are hereby repealed.2

Sec. 5. RETIRING THE NATIONAL DEBT. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to purchase, in open market operations or otherwise, all outstanding Federal Debt held by the public, with United States Notes; thereby the net National Debt is to be completely retired and replaced with United States Notes.3 Treasury Deposits are to be created for intra-U.S. government debt in quantity sufficient to extinguish the remaining National Debt.

Sec. 6. STABLE MONEY SUPPLY. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to time and apportion the purchase of United States Bonds and other federal debt securities held by the public, and the issuance of United States Notes and the creation of Treasury Deposits to the rate of the Reserve Requirement ratio increases made pursuant to this Act, in order to keep the money supply (calculated including the monetary substitutions provided for herein) constantly stable, except as is provided in section 7, infra. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to purchase such outstanding United States Savings Bonds/Notes during the transition period as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section.4

Sec. 7. FUTURE MONETARY GROWTH. Beginning with the transition year period, and thereafter on an annual basis, the total dollar amount of United States Notes (as defined supra: i.e. the sum of outstanding currency plus Treasury Deposits) outstanding (calculated to include the total amount of outstanding Federal Reserve Notes, i.e. not yet replaced with U.S. Notes) shall be increased by the Treasury Department, steadily, by three per cent (3%) per annum5, which amount shall be paid into the economy by the Treasury Department, first to retire (or purchase) any future war bonds (issued pursuant to section 8. hereof), then any remaining non-marketable federal debt (e.g. Saving Bonds/Notes and fully guaranteed obligations of the government), then, pursuant to appropriation by Congress, to pay for goods, services, or interest. Any such new money not appropriated (i.e. allocated for expenditure) by Congress during any such year, shall be rebated by the Secretary of the Treasury to individual, personal income taxpayers on a fixed percentage basis within thirty (30)days of the close of such year. Except in time of war, no United States government bonds, bills, savings bonds/notes, or other debt obligations may be sold by the government, except as is provided for in this Act. No federal agency or federally-chartered bureau, board or instrumentality may engage in any further lending or borrowing, nor guarantee same, after the date this Act becomes law.

Sec. 8. WAR EXCEPTION. In the case of a formal Congressional declaration of war with a foreign nation, the three percent (3%) monetary growth provided for in section 7., supra, may be exceeded and United States government bonds may be sold or purchased in open market operations by the Treasury Department, pursuant to Congressional authorization. The suspension of the fixed three per cent (3%) monetary growth, and United States government bond sales, shall terminate annually unless renewed by Congress, or upon the cessation of hostilities, or by formal proclamation of the President declaring the war ended, or upon the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace. The provisions of this Act shall supersede the provisions of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., Titles I-V, as amended), and any declaration of emergency by any member of the Executive Branch.

Sec. 9. FULL RESERVE BANKS. After the transition period, institutions using the word bank in their name or title, may not engage in lending, except that the capital of the owners may be invested or loaned on the open market, but may charge fees for their services and may invest deposits in Treasury Department Deposit accounts. These: full reserve; one hundred percent (100%) reserve; deposit; check or narrow; banks, as they, exclusively, may also be titled, must treat deposits received as trust-funds of money held for depositors. By the end of the transition period, for every dollar deposited, banks must have a dollar of United States Notes on hand or invested in a Treasury Department Deposit account. All bank deposits shall be in demand accounts. Banks shall be free to pay any rate of interest on accounts. Only bank deposits may be transferable by check, credit card, electronic transfer or any substitute therefor. At the beginning of the transition period, entry into such one hundred percent (100%) reserve banking shall be open to all persons having no criminal record, subject to minimal bonding requirements to be established by the Secretary of the Treasury.6

Sec. 10. TREASURY DEPOSITS. Funds placed in Treasury Department Deposits shall be utilized by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to appropriation by Congress, to pay for goods, services, or interest needed by the federal government. Any such funds received by the government in excess of federal expenditures not funded by tax revenues shall be rebated to individual, personal income taxpayers on a fixed percentage basis within thirty (30) days of the close of that year. Withdrawals of Treasury Deposits in excess of receipts in any given year shall be funded by future monetary growth as provided in section 7., supra, or should the withdrawals ever exceed monetary growth, by tax increases; in this latter, unlikely event, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized, in the absence of any other, specific authority, to add a fixed percentage surcharge to income taxes for that period, equal to the sum of excess withdrawals.

Sec. 11. INTEREST. The initial rate of interest payable on Treasury Department Deposits shall be equal to the average yield on three-month Treasury bills during the preceding quarter. Thereafter, it shall be adjusted quarterly in accordance with changes in the average yield of ninety-day commercial paper over the preceding quarter.7

Sec. 12. LENDING INSTITUTIONS. Banks or any other persons may establish separate associations, with or without joint ownership or management, not to be titled banks, such as investment trusts, mutual funds, brokerage or lending houses, to sell stock, to receive, borrow, lend or invest money at interest, but by the end of the transition period only from existing funds (i.e. United States Notes and Treasury Deposits). Contractual provisions must be made by such institutions upon the receipt of any funds with their owners, investors or depositors, that at no time may more funds be subject to demand than are presently idle and one hundred per cent (100%) available on demand. For any funds deposited with such associations payable on demand there must be a dollar of United States Notes on hand or deposited in a Treasury Deposit. No such association may denominate any account a demand account, nor promise immediate availability of any funds which may be invested, deposited or otherwise placed by such association without notice in any instrument or account other than Treasury Deposits. No funds deposited or invested with such associations may be transferred by check, credit card, electronic transfer or any substitute therefor. Owners, investors, lenders and depositors must be advised of the use of their funds, fairly appraised of the risks including the risk of total loss, of the maximum term of the use and of the potential and actual lack of availability of their funds, and the agreed or expected interest rate or the rate of return.

Sec. 13. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ACTS. The National Banking Act of 1864 and amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and amendments, are hereby repealed,8effective at the end of the transition period. All Federal Reserve System monetary authority and Federal Reserve Deposits shall be transferred to the Treasury Department at the end of the transition period. From the effective date of this Act, and during the transition period, the Federal Reserve System and its District Banks shall not engage in open market transactions, nor change the Federal Funds Discount Rate, nor alter any Reserve Requirements, nor otherwise alter any money aggregate, nor transfer, dispose of, nor move any gold or silver in either their physical or legal possession, except as provided for in this Act, contrary provisions of the Federal Reserve Act or other statutes notwithstanding. The paid-in capital of Federal Reserve System member banks shall be credited to their Federal Reserve Deposit accounts at the beginning of the transition period, and the Federal Reserve Banks, employees, assets and liabilities transferred to the jurisdiction and control of the Treasury Department and employed for the purposes of this Act, including continuation of check-clearing and other services not prohibited by this Act. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to replace gradually all outstanding Federal Reserve Notes with United States Notes, as soon as is practicable. Outstanding Federal Reserve Notes shall remain legal tender for all debts, public and private. Section 602(g)(14) of the Riegle Act of 1994 amending U.S.C. Title 32, insofar as it removed the requirement of reissuing United States currency notes upon redemption, is hereby repealed. Title 31 U.S.C. Section (a)2(b) limiting United States Notes to a total of $300 million and prohibiting their use as reserves, is hereby repealed. Existing legislation in conflict with this Act, whether in whole or in part, is hereby repealed in whole or in part as may be necessary to resolve any conflict with this Act.9

Sec. 14. PENALTIES. After the transition period, no person may loan, create credit or liabilities payable on demand or transferable by check, credit card or electronic transfer, without having one hundred percent (100%) reserves of United States Notes, dollar for dollar, for any such amounts. Violation of this provision will subject the violator to civil penalties for fraud, and to criminal penalties. 18 U.S.C. Crimes and Criminal Procedure §1344. Bank fraud: is hereby amended to include a new subsection (3) as follows: Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice — (3) to engage in fractional reserve banking practices as described and prohibited by the Monetary Reform Act, Section 14, shall be fined not more than three times the total dollar amount of the violation(s), or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; but if the amount of the violation does not exceed $1,000, the violator(s) shall be fined treble damages or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Sec. 15. WITHDRAWAL FROM INTERNATIONAL BANKS. It is hereby declared as a matter of federal statutory law that membership and/or participation of the United States government, or its agencies, or of the Federal Reserve Board or Reserve Banks or any officer or employee thereof, with the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and all other international banks, is inconsistent with and in direct conflict with the purposes of this Act of Congress. The President is hereby authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary to withdraw the United States from all participation, and membership, in the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and all other international banks, in any orderly manner, but in a period not to exceed one year from the effective date of this Act, and to recover the original and any subsequent United States subscriptions, contributions and quotas to such organizations, not already fully and lawfully expended, whether in the form of gold, deposits, currency or otherwise; and to enter into negotiations to establish new exchange facilities consistent with the purposes of this Act having no authority to create money or credit in any form, and having no independent authority to establish laws or regulations binding upon the United States or its banks, financial institutions or citizens, and subject to the ongoing, annual budgetary authority and approval of Congress.10

Sec. 16. FOREIGN EXCHANGE. The Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to enact regulations allowing the external rate of exchange freely to fluctuate, as foreign price levels fluctuate (i.e. in accordance with their respective purchasing power), while utilizing the exchange stabilization fund and foreign currency reserves to counterbalance fluctuations in the exchange rate. The Secretary of the Treasury shall enact such regulations in order to: 1. keep the stable, internal domestic price level established by this Act unaffected by foreign exchange rate fluctuations; 2. maintain imports and exports of capital, in equilibrium. In no event shall foreign exchange rates be allowed to alter the fixed rate of monetary growth set forth in section 7., above.11‘

In any period in which the exchange stabilization fund and foreign currency reserves are inadequate to maintain equilibrium in capital flow, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed: to restrict any imbalanced inflow of dollars to an amount equal to the monetary growth rate for such period (as set forth in Section 7.,supra), which monetary growth shall be thus funded; and, to prohibit any imbalanced outflow of dollars. Imbalances in excess of such amounts must first be chronologically booked for subsequent exchange as soon as the free markets restore the equilibrium necessary for the exchange(s) to occur.

The Secretary shall issue regulations to establish an advance foreign exchange book, open for public inspection, of all contracted, future foreign exchange transactions and obligations, in order to facilitate such exchanges. Such exchanges must be assigned by the Secretary on a first-come, first-served basis, in order to guarantee foreign exchange availability, for a one quarter per cent (0.25%) fee. 12

Sec. 17. APPROPRIATIONS. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to establish Treasury Department Deposits, convertible to United States Notes on demand, sufficient to accomplish the provisions of this Act. The Federal Reserve Act is hereby amended to add this section: that the Governors of the Federal Reserve System are authorized and directed to establish Federal Reserve Deposits sufficient to accomplish the purposes of this Act, in amounts to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Director of the Bureau of Engraving is hereby authorized and directed to print a sufficient quantity of United States Notes to accomplish the provisions of this Act. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.13

Sec. 18. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance shall be held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

* * *

END NOTES

1. A draft in 17 sections; last revised 5/22/2006, Copyright 1996, 1997. All rights reserved. For a free copy of the latest revision of the Act, send a SASE to: Monetary Reform Act, P.O. Box 4605, Rolling Bay, WA 98061 - 0684, or call 1-888-THE PLOT to order the video The Money Masters which has the Act as an insert, or visit http://www.themoneymasters.com. Minor revision is an ongoing process in response to suggestions received. Return to main article

2. The principal point of this section and of the entire Act is to replace private creation of money by debt-based, bank-book-entry creation (i.e. by bank loans), based on fractional reserves (i.e. high-powered money) which is inherently unstable and unjust, with government creation of money by credit-based Treasury deposits and U.S. Notes (i.e. for government payments or purchases) which are based on full reserves (i.e. not high-powered money), by definition for the benefit of all the people, not just for bankers. Return to main article

3. The net National Debt (i.e. net of what the government owes itself) is c. $3.7 trillion. c. $400 billion is held by the Fed, and c. $300 billion by financial institutions; paying off these amounts would consist of little more than a Treasury Department book entry, and the balance of merely surrendering and substituting one form of government obligation for another (e.g. interest bearing U.S. bonds for non-interest bearing U.S. currency Notes.). See section 3., supra. [note: national debt figures are constantly changing, hence these figures will need updating.]

Alternatively, in a less comprehensive but arguably easier reform, full-reserve banks could be required to keep their reserves in either the form of cash or federal debt securities. This would be equivalent to keeping their reserves in interest-bearing Treasury Deposits. Both methods would effectively require banks to substitute existing bank liabilities for the entire marketable government debt in one form or another. Free markets to facilitate this substitution would very rapidly arise and should be allowed to so function. Similarly, Federal Reserve Notes and/or Deposits could be used instead of U.S. Notes and Treasury Deposits, PROVIDED one hundred percent (100%) reserve banking (section 4.) is enacted. The form of the new reserves required for the transition to full-reserve banking is immaterial provided they result in the substitution of government securities for existing bank liabilities, and provided fractional reserve banking is terminated as the reserve requirement is increased to one hundred percent (100%), scheduled concurrently to avoid any inflationary/deflationary effect. Return to main article

4. As the net U.S. Debt less Savings Bonds/Notes is c. $3.6 trillion, and commercial bank liabilities, less net assets total c. $3.6 trillion, retiring the National Debt with U.S. Notes or their equivalent would not change the total of the money supply and would provide sufficient funds for the transition to one hundred percent (100%) reserve banking with neither inflation nor deflation. Section 6. also provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the flexibility to purchase the c. $184 billion of Savings Bonds/Notes with U.S. Notes during the transition period as well, should this prove advisable to provide additional funds for reserves; otherwise, this relatively minor debt facility shall be retired out of future monetary growth (see section 7.). Return to main article

5. The three percent (3%) figure represents the low end of the three-to-five percent (3-5%) range proposed by Prof. Friedman and Mrs. Friedman, for a Constitutional Amendment limiting monetary growth, which we completely support (see endnote 14. for text). However, this draft Act takes the practically-easier legislative approach and adds the critical prohibition of fractional reserve banking as well as other related issues. With population growth and productivity increases averaging approximately one percent (1%) each per year for the last thirty years, a three percent (3%) growth figure will insure stable prices within a vary narrow range and would allow for price-level or cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in contracts with a predictable effect to address any slight variation in economic activity from the three percent (3%) monetary growth rate. Further, as perfect fine-turning of monetary growth in a complex economy is not possible, to err on the side of a very slight inflation would at least relieve those burdened by debt of some of the effects of the prior inequity caused by private money creation, whereas to err on the side of deflation would exacerbate such inequity. A fixed rate of growth will provide the needed stability so long lacking m monetary policy, which instability has caused every economic depression in United States history. In 1931, Sweden established a mixed commodity krona by setting up an oflicial C.P.I., and succeeded in keeping it stable (within 1.75%) for several years, until she had to give up the system under pressure from international bankers to stabilize foreign exchange rates. This example demonstrates both empirical proof of the validity of this ideal approach, and of its susceptibility to failure by political manipulation

Periodic, non-discretionary, fine-tuned adjustments based on widespread indexation of prices, by a Monetary Commission of some sort would be the ideal, but lack the stability and predictability of a fixed growth rate and are subject to corruption and to manipulation indirectly (e.g. such as by alteration of index definitions, components or base years as has repeatedly occurred with the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index [CPI]).

The zero (0%) monetary growth proposal, particularly if tied to freezing high-powered money, lacks the essential feature of abolishing fractional reserve banking. This is particularly important in light of all the exceptions to maintaining any reserve ratio. However, if combined with such an abolition (and allowing for COLAs to address the inevitable deflationary effects), would be acceptable and arguably easier to advance politically due to the Schelling point effect of a figure such as zero, as Prof. Friedman has pointed out. But, as Paul A. Samuelson noted, the gyrations in the futures markets tend to belie the notion that monetary stability can be found in that direction Return to main article

6. Absent massive fraud or theft, full reserve banks cannot fail, rendering insurance such as F.D.I.C. and F.S.L.I.C. unnecessary. Only a minimal cost to insure against fraud or theft would be necessary. Had full reserve banking been in place before the S & L collapse, this one reform would have saved the U.S. taxpayers over $600 billion. Return to main article

7. As now, no interest would be paid on currency in circulation - the government benefitting from the seigniorage. However, as Prof. Friedman and George Tolley warn, if the government pays no (0%) interest on reserves, which is the theoretical ideal (or charges banks interest on Treasury-assumed bank liabilities [e.g. on so-called Commercial Bank Conversion Bonds] - a variation of a one-time government take-over of existing reserveless [i.e. factional-reserve-based loans] bank liabilities), this would create a high incentive for private near-monies of various kinds (e.g. new forms of negotiable debt, equity or derivative instruments) to proliferate, particularly in advanced economies such as the U.S.

This would threaten many of the benefits of monetary reform including the stability of the money supply and the prohibition of private fractional reserve money creation. The interest may be viewed as a social cost for the benefits of a stable national money. The private trading (circulation) of futures based on widespread price indices as money offers only speculative, though intriguing, reform possibilities at this time. Return to main article

8. While it would theoretically be easier simply to reform the Federal Reserve System than to abolish it, the experience of the last 300 years in Europe and the last 200 in the U.S. has proven time and again that private banking interests invariably utilize any independence afforded a central bank from government control as an opportunity to exert undue influence over it, often by acquiring outright ownership interests in it, and/or to gain control of it through placement of their employees and experts (schooled in protecting and promoting their private interests who often “retire” to very well-paid positions in private banking) in its key positions at the expense of the public good. This is one reason for the seeming anomaly that private banking interests champion the “independence” of central banks from any effective oversight by politicians generally controlled by them. It simply exposes central banks to even greater private manipulation with less interference from and explaining to have to do to “unreliable” politicians. Independent central banks concentrate national economic control in a body too removed from accountability and therefor from responsibility to the body politic, at least in the often critical short-term.

The so-called independence or autonomy of central banks from governmental control, such as the Federal Reserve System has in the United States, to whatever degree granted, has in practice meant increased private influence and control to that same degree.

The avowed purpose of central bank independence or autonomy - to reduce political (i.e. private special interest) influence over its functions - something the present independent central banking system utterly fails to achieve but rather enhances, can be accomplished without this danger, by establishing a fixed rate of monetary growth not subject to any discretionary authority or manipulation, as is set forth in section 7. Of course, this too could be a reform within the present Federal Reserve System, but absent direct accountability to Congress (including for annual budget appropriations - a power now uniquely delegated to the Fed which funds its operations without Congressional budget authorization or audit, from interest it receives on the U.S. bonds it purchases for the cost of the paper) the Fed would remain the powerful, effectively independent and dangerous, entrenched banking lobby with virtually unlimited and unaudited funds, constantly working to resist, obstruct and repeal reforms, just as it did during the Great Contraction (i.e. Depression) which it caused. Further, the current division of responsibility for monetary policy between the Fed and the Treasury has allowed both bodies to shift responsibility to the other for harmful actions. This can only be solved by ending this division. Return to main article

9. Other conflicting, or partially conflicting Acts, such as the Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935; Federal Securities Act of 1933; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Margin Requirements Act of 1934; Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; Bretton Woods Agreements Act of 1944; Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950; Bank Holding Company Act of 1956; Bank Merger Acts of 1960 and 1966; Emergency Loan Guarantee Act of 1971; Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978; International Banking Act of 1978; Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978; Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980; Bank Export Services Act of 1982; Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982; Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, and subsequent amendments, would be repealed in whole or in part where in conflict with this Act. Return to main article

10. The U.S. Supreme Court, in an increasingly important decision, held that an Act of Congress is on full parity with a treaty (or any lesser agreement), and that when a federal statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute, to the extent of the conflict, renders the treaty null. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888); et aliacf. Reid v. convert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)Return to main article

11. It is estimated that $200-250 billion in U.S. currency is held outside the U.S. This is high-powered money that would cause hyper inflation if repatriated in large amounts in a short period of time. Additionally, the U.S. presently has a high trade deficit, which has been roughly balanced by U.S. bond sales to foreigners, which total approximately $1 trillion at present. Further, currency speculators manipulate and exacerbate temporary exchange fluctuations, which can radically affect internal price stability, as has been recently demonstrated in several of the Southeast Asian nations.

Whoever originates and controls the volume of money, controls every single economic operation. Therefore, it is essential to monetary stability, and so to reform, as well as to maintaining national sovereignty, that the import and export of capital be kept in balance, so that the domestic money supply be not subject to manipulation nor to fluctuation in quantity, beyond the rule fixed in section 7., above.

Stability of the internal quantity of money is the only basis on which to obtain a stable price level, and foreign exchange rates must not be allowed to disrupt internal price stability. This can be accomplished, there being no theoretical difficulty. For example, the government of China simply forbids banks from handling large foreign transactions other than those for the purchase of Chinese goods, and also maintains a large exchange stabilization fund to defend the yuan. Chile requires that 30% of capital inflows stay in the country a minimum of one year. Return to main article

12. i. e. the so-called Tobin tax, designed to discourage speculative trading in small differentials in interest on exchange rates. Return to main article

13. Prior inequitable and usurious profits accumulated by banks from fractional reserve banking practices are not addressed in this draft Act, which therefor leaves the banks in possession of prior profits of some $360 billion (1996 commercial bank net worth), most of it from such unjust practices. Likewise, prior distribution of profits to bank owners is not addressed. This vast wealth and the economic and political influence it represents, particularly through the control of the media it has purchased, constitutes a standing danger to the Republic and should be addressed, perhaps by some effective form of anti-trust legislation and/or Court action breaking-up the giant banks (and media) into small localized units with separate ownership, or more aggressively by a bank nationalization, break-up into smaller units, and immediate reprivatization by public stock sale pursuant to rules insuring widespread ownership.

But any nationalization Act without an immediate reprivatization clause would create a new and unnecessary danger, as the power to loan does not properly rest with the government, is most effectively handled at the local free market level, and is easily abused for political purposes as was the case with pre-war Germany’s Reichbank which granted loans to whomever the government chose for political reasons, as do government banks in communist command economies.

The goal is not nationalization of banks, but of money. By contrast, and by definition, creation of a national currency/money supply can only be effectively and properly handled by a national government, not by local governments or private persons, as reason and experience abundantly prove.

It is primarily for these reasons that we disagree with that portion of the monetary reforms advanced by Messrs. Peter Cook, Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner, insofar as they advance the notion that the Treasury ought to become a lender to banks and local governments, while we are in general agreement with their reform proposals otherwise (including their rejection of a return to a gold standard). Rather, consistent with the sound reform principle of subsidiarity, the private sector alone ought to engage in the various legitimate forms of lending, as set forth in section 12. herein, with free market supply and demand setting the interest rates.

Government selection of lending proposals for “creditworthiness” or “profound societal impact” etc., or any criteria imaginable, and their evaluation, is inevitably subjective and therefor open to grave abuse by a monolithic lender. As Ms. G. M. Coogan wrote in Money Creators (p. 333-334), for the government to create money as loans is even more vicious than for private banks to create money as loans, carrying with it the power to aid (by granting loans) or destroy (by denying loans) whomever it chooses.

Decentralized, private lending agencies generally tend to loan to any creditworthy applicant, their primary motive being profit (or profit-derived power) which is maximized by making more loans; whereas governments replace this profit priority with political ends such as rewarding their supporters, the political value of which is maximized by restricting loans. So government lending tends to arbitrary discrimination for political motives, an abuse generally avoided in a truly free market lending situation.

Thus, perhaps the most dangerous error of any monetary reform proposal would be to place the lending of money in the hands of the government, which is the essence of communist economics, carrying with it the power to destroy. Indeed, Lenin recommended government origination and control of lending for the political control it affords. That money-lending ought to be carried out by private legal persons rather than the government is a major principle of sound monetary policy. The lending of money ought to be completely divorced from its origination, for as Ms. Coogan pointed out, it is fundamental that money ought not to come into existence as loans or in response to loan applications, but only as the total stock of available goods increases (or a reasonable approximation thereof, such as three percent [3%] in the U.S.). Further, there is simply no need for the government to get involved in lending, and risk the dangers mentioned, in order to reform the present system and achieve all of the ends set forth in the preamble hereof. Return to main article

14.Prof. Milton Friedman on his proposed Constitutional Amendment

“When the Constitution was enacted, the power given to Congress ‘to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin’ referred to a commodity money: specifying that the dollar shall mean a definite weight in grams of silver or gold. The paper money inflation during the Revolution, as well as earlier in various colonies, led the framers to deny states the power to ‘coin money; emit bills of credit [i.e., paper money]; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.’ The Constitution is silent on Congress’s power to authorize the government to issue paper money. It was widely believed that the Tenth Amendment, providing that the ‘powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’ made the issuance of paper money unconstitutional.

During the Civil War, Congress authorized greenbacks and made them a legal tender for all debts public and private. After the Civil War, in the first of the famous greenback cases, the Supreme Court declared the issuance of greenbacks unconstitutional. One ‘fascinating aspect of this decision is that it was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who had been Secretary of the Treasury when the first greenbacks were issued. Not only did he not disqualify himself, but in his capacity as Chief Justice convicted himself of having been responsible for an unconstitutional action in his capacity as Secretary of the Treasury.’

Subsequently an enlarged and reconstituted Court reversed the first decision by a majority of five to four, affirming that making greenbacks a legal tender was constitutional, with Chief Justice Chase as one of the dissenting justices.

It is neither feasible nor desirable to restore a gold-or-silver coin standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money. The best arrangement currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range. This is a particularly difficult amendment to draft because it is so closely linked to the particular institutional structure. One version would be:

Congress shall have the power to authorize non-interest-bearing obligations of the government in the form of currency or book entries, provided that the total dollar amount outstanding increases by no more than 5 percent per year and no less than 3 percent.

It might be desirable to include a provision that two-thirds of each House of Congress, or some similar qualified majority, can waive the requirement in case of a declaration of war, the suspension to terminate annually unless renewed.

A Constitutional Amendment would be the most effective way to establish confidence in the stability of the rule. However, it is clearly not the only way to impose the rule. Congress could equally well legislate it.”

Quoted from: A Program for Monetary Stability, by. Dr. Milton Friedman, Fordham University Press (N.Y. 1960, 1992), pgs. X, 66-76, 100-101; and, Free to Choose by Dr. Milton & Rose Friedman, Harcourt Brace & Co. (San Diego 1980, 1990), pgs. 307-308.

The MONETARY REFORM ACT (Proposal)

Action Central — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:41:09 EST

Courtesy of www.themoneymasters.com

MONETARY REFORM ACT

An Act

Note: Portions in blue are the most important.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that:

Section 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Monetary Reform Act.

Sec. 2. IMPLEMENTATION. This Act shall be implemented over a one-year transition period, beginning thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

* * *

END NOTES

12. i. e. the so-called Tobin tax, designed to discourage speculative trading in small differentials in interest on exchange rates. Return to main article

14.Prof. Milton Friedman on his proposed Constitutional Amendment

This is NOT a Matter of Consumer Confidence, it is Our New BILLS!

Marie — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:30:43 EST

This is NOT a Matter of Consumer Confidence, it is Our New BILLS

I am so sick of hearing on the news that what is wrong with the economy is a matter of consumer confidence. So I am going to put out my personal information (mostly) here in DKos, Hoping and PRAYING that SOMEONE, who has the ear of anyone in the new administration HEARS (READS) what is really going on.

this diary will not be full of links and references, it is personal to me, this economic downturn, as I am poised to lose everything.

I will keep this as 7th grade'ish as I can.

IT IS OUR BILLS, NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF CONFIDENCE.

Just to add injury to insult, it is MLK Day, there is no money in the bank, and I sent my husband to work, without enough gas to get home. I have no car....

Listen to the cries of the children

Compassion — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:30:40 EST

This morning I read the world blog post by an NBC producer and was brought to tears. We must demand in America a new direction in our policy towards the Middle East. We are not a nation that condones the shelling of schools and shelters where children are hiding from the ravages of war. Our tax dollars paid for the bullets which have ended up in the bodies of hundreds of young innocent children. We can no longer subscribe to this carnage. A new direction in American policy must be set. Here is the link to the NBC blog:

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/16/1747060.aspx

THE AUTO INDUSTRY, A FEW OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES (INDUSTRIAL GREED):

Alex Karoub — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:14:47 EST

Contact: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

This post is a brief overview of the Automotive Industry which describes some of the fundamental problems that are rarely spoken of. In addition, you will learn of a few of my personal experiences growing up, an environment where I was surrounded by the industry; you will learn of a few perspectives that are shocking and that even only a few within the industry know of. At the end of the post, you will better understand what happened to American Manufacturing and where it stands.

The Auto Industry is at the heart of all of American Manufacturing. It is an industry that laid the groundwork for many other types of industries to follow, deemed at one point in history to be the highest of successes. But now, it sheds light on what can become warning signs for other businesses that mistakenly try to imitate it.

This months hot topic is whether to bailout/rescue the regressing American Auto Industry. The original owners and their successors abandoned that industry long ago. The auto industry was ravaged and plundered by the wealthiest Americans a half century ago and has been in decline ever since. Shortsighted greed from one generation to the next has been the culprit. Since autos were first mass-produced and America monopolized the world, it was only natural that the American percentage/share of the market would eventually be reduced. However, total growth was enormous and total size of the market continues to grow even through today. Therefore, American growth of exports should have continued to grow, but does not significantly due to pillage and poorly planted roots. In simpler terms, we originally owned the entire pie. The pie was split up. Since the entire pie has grown dramatically, our piece should have grown too. However, the Big 4, 3, 2, … have been loosing market dominance and lead since the end of World War Two. Here we are years later in crisis, and the real question remains whether or not to rescue the real victims of the auto industry, the workers. People were not retrained or re-educated; most were never afforded real education's to start. People are now in despair and hopelessness. From my vantage point now living in Colorado for the last two decades, I have seen the high tech industry follow the auto industry, but at a learned and accelerated rate. Other industries are also copying the auto industry and are laying similar foundations also headed for disaster. Going back to a brief history, the misguided roots show how the decay started and why it spread.

Although I did not grow-up during the inception of the Auto Industry, its roots surrounded me. I spoke with a few who were there in the earliest days, and spoke with many who were of the following generation. I absorbed its history by studying it while attending school in Motown (Motor Town), by natural osmosis, and in my earliest career dealing with the car makers.

Growing up as a kid I lived less than a mile from Henry Ford's first moving assembly line factory, with GM’s World Headquarters’ just three miles away, and with Chryslers World Headquarters at the end of our street. The first Ford plant (in Highland Park, a city now surrounded by Detroit) and the first of GM's plants were built on the importation of the next generation of former black slaves and white share crop workers from the south (whites similar to former slaves whose white necks were red from working in the sunny fields, hence the mean spirited term 'Redneck'). The joke that Henry Ford must have laughed at and that went around town was "each worker would get paid enough to buy a Ford" (Of course using infamous 'Ford Credit' which was a primary direct withdrawal from their pay checks.) Henry manipulated a built-in guaranteed customer base and tapped double profits, being profits on the cars and the profitable bonded interest. Those were scams that he copied from sharecropping. The remains of their wages were so low that they had to live in shacks; but after all Henry felt, they came from shacks near the fields in the south. So much bigotry and repeated methods from sharecrop economic slavery. Instead of updating and rebuilding the original plants and without regard for the people who were the workers, the emerging auto giants left to go further to the suburbs.

So, as they moved and grew they imported shipload after shipload of immigrant economic slaves from Poland (to Hamtramck, MI) and more economic slaves from the Middle East (to Dearborn, MI). There were other minorities imported as well, also imported for economic servitude to supporting industries such as mining, iron works, steel fabrication, glass works, textile, …. Astonishing how easily the game of 'divide and conquer' worked upon the variety of minorities; a game of keeping the workers pitted against each other using race and ethnicity; all to hold back the power of the people from truly uniting. WW2 caused the Automakers not only to retool but also to reevaluate their future directions.

Soon, after the victory of WW2, came the Auto Giants grand visions for economically conquering the world via expansion outside the U.S. They quietly boasted that that would leave mainly world headquarters executives, designers, and engineers in the U.S. with the prestigious white-collar jobs. It was felt then (and these are not my bigoted opinions, not from me, yikes) that after all even 'the weaker sex' could do factory labor jobs as seen during WW2 (i.e. Rosie the Riveter). So why not have the 'stupid foreign workers' do the labor outside the U.S. What also gave way to the idea that manufacturing could succeed outside the U.S. was Mexico; since Mexican workers were also imported, but only temporarily during WW2. (By the way, the temporary Mexican workers were never fully paid back as promised during WW2.) A tremendous wave of pride about white-collar jobs became very popular in Detroit and in other automotive communities during the 50's. That vision sat poised on the back burner, but a pre-planted seed was already in place, which was Canada (Windsor) just across the Detroit River.

Canada was a much-desired orchestrated precedence for the automakers; it set the stage for grace given by the government as an easily set up protocol for off-shoring jobs. Soon after, the automakers made a migration south to other states, then further south to Mexico, and finally overseas and on to economic slavery in China.

Today we see the results of the destructive path the industry has taken. Layoffs, instead of being temporary situations reserved for pauses during new model changeovers, eventually became the mark of permanent labor plant closures. Obvious abandonment of people soon became the name of the automakers game. Along the swathed trail are - Highland Park, Detroit, Pontiac, Flint, Marquette, Gary Indiana, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Cleveland, …, which became known in the early 80’s as 'The Rust Bowl’. Sort of a rape, pillage, and burn mentality, which continues to today.

Amazing how well the reasoning of "that's the way it's always been" persists and grows from one generation to the next. Excuse after excuse gave temporary reasoning to incremental geographic movements for global conquer. Temporary excuses ranged from the need to originally amass large workforces, to the hindrance of union pressures, to American workers are lazy, to 'over' government regulation, to …, all straw obstacles as to why the auto industry needed to move as it did.

No! Greed is not good. We see how those at the top of the industry have each come in, grabbed with their greed, and left. Now today, we see how greed has caused "what once was, no longer is". So in short, now we see the results of greed, poorly planted roots, and disregard, taking its toll on America. Equally, is the toll on the myriad of unrelated businesses, old and new, that have adopted the auto industries infectious habits of having little to no regard for individual people that make up the American workforce. People.

While being raised in the center of Detroit, I experienced many situations involving the Auto Industry; the following although early was not my earliest, and is an actual example.

Around 1963, when I was 11 years old, I remember George Romney visiting our house to exchange political favors. Our 23-room house was a rundown relic of a past era, but it cleaned up well as a phony front for wealth and pretentious power. I remember we kids had to pretend that we were Christian Protestants for the visiting Governor (former Chairman of AMC) who was doing his Christian Mormon tradition of visiting the homes of his new legislators. How ostentatious they both were with fraudulent humility of how they rose from their humble beginnings. But more to the point, I remember Romney sitting at our dinning room table and saying "The Big Four Automakers don't have to worry about giving the Unions what they want, as long as the benefits will not be due for decades. By that time the labor plants will be outside the U.S." That shocked my brother Jimmy and I, as we listened playing in the sunroom just off the dinning room. Later we were once again physically punished (beaten-up), this time for listening to adult talk. Jimmy a year older than I, and intellectually gifted, soon became a Page at the State Capital. The accounts he returned with were shocking as well. Growing up as we did would make your head spin and open your eyes to disgust. We continued living in those surroundings until we grew out of our teens. Then we moved on to make our own adult lives, creating better environments much different from what we were born and raised in.

Recalling back to my teens, I realized back then the Detroit riots were not only about race, but was also about economic oppression. It was the minorities who were oppressed the worst, most especially African-Americans. Bad however you measure it is bad. (For a better understanding of the decline of Detroit and to better understand the riots, take a look at my other post: “DETROIT RIOTS OF 1967, A RECOLLECTION OF THE TRUTH.” You will also better understand how very close we came to seeing a nationwide repeat of the riots in the coming Spring of 2009.)

Unions, workers, man-hours, laborers, …, are not people, they are burdens to be minimized and eliminated. While watching Lee Iacocca being interviewed on Charley Rose last year, I noticed Iacocca admit that he new all the way back during negotiations with the unions, in the early 80’s, that Chrysler would never have to pay off in full on long term commitments to the unions. As Iacocca danced around the issue he said "now the unions will have to face reality". And, as Rose went on to discuss it more, Iacocca was getting more uncomfortable, and eventually managed to change the subject away from discussing past union negotiations. Iacocca was a bit slicker than George Romney was, since Iacocca was on national TV. It made me ashamed that Chrysler World Headquarters was at the end of our street when I was a kid. And, that as a young adult I had so proudly in my early career returned while working for a couple of electronics companies to Chrysler's World Headquarters R&D operations. I thought it an honor to have paid Iacocca's in-house barbershop to cut my hair, even his same barber. Some honor.

Following Chrysler, I moved up to deal with GM, and was puzzled. I listened to upper executives at GM complain that they constantly had to bribe Mexican government officials and border guards for GM plants. I guess they also assumed I already new and accepted that the plants in the late 70's had already begun their exodus to Mexico and other countries. I have always looked at bribery as disgusting and wrong, it was not for me or those who I dealt with, that's among the many good things that a mentor named Jack Bazzy taught me as a young kid. By becoming acquainted with other mentors as an adult, I learned to seek out highly reputable employers and quality knowledgeable friends. I learned how to educate myself, and moved up very high in the scientific and technical industries, all of which I enjoyed.

Although I grew up in Highland Park / Detroit, that was not anywhere near my top focus in choosing Obama. But, it is a simple history for me to recall, amazing how many more details I can give, but the main points have been brought forward. In addition, from being a mutt of sorts myself, to being a self made man, be that what it may, I have no illusions of being great. What I do mean here is that I quickly recognize many of Obama's unique insights, although mine are different but a bit similar in nature. Like many Obama supporters, I have personal experiences on most issues Obama has raised. So, above is just one of many examples that I can personally give.

To better understand manufacturing in America, you can read my other blog:
WHAT SCREWED UP MANUFACTURING FOR AMERICA

Blog members can reply here, anyone is welcome to email me at: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com

Democrats Lose Senate Majority (circa 2010)

Don — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:38:40 EST

(Can I say 'circa' if it's in the future?)

Democrats won't be controlling the Senate after 2010.

They rushed like lemmings to declare they'd never accept Blago's appointee.

A little time and forethought should have enabled them to reason that in order to create the illusion of innocence Blagojevich would be likely to find someone eminently qualified, of stellar reputation and far removed from the (alleged) illegal activities.

That would only be in his own best interests. And if there is one thing we have learned about Blago, it is that his own best interests are his first and last consideration in decision-making.

Senate Democrats have now pitted themselves against the Chicago Democratic Machine. Despite that Dick Durbin has lost touch with reality and thrown in with them, this is a battle Senate Democrats cannot and will not win. In this, there is no winning, only degrees of losing.

Should he be denied, Burris can run against any Illinois Democrat, including Durbin, and win.

As for that silly mausoleum? All politicians are narcissists. He's just 'concrete' about it.

Remember Republican Senator Ted Stevens who actually looked jurors in the eyes and told them he didn't notice people stuffing hundreds of thousands of dollars into his pockets. I dare say Bill Gates would notice if you stuffed a few hundred thousand dollars into his pockets. Ted Stevens,... now THAT'S a big ego!

It is also necessary to remember that this is the same US Senate that gave a seven-time convicted federal felon -- Ted Stevens -- a two-minute standing ovation, and two hours of praise-filled testimonials. And they are claiming to be observing their PRINCIPLES???

Republican and Democratic Senators must think we are stupid, stupid, stupid.

GOP needs America to fail (Democrats helping them)

Don — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:51:49 EST

Imagine what would happen if the immediate and long-term success, and even viability, of the Republican Party depended on Barack Obama failing to pull America back into PROSPERITY. Oh, wait, we don't have to IMAGINE that because it happens to be the current condition.

While refusing to offer any better ideas, Republicans stand in adamant opposition to everything the President-Elect suggests, even without knowing any details. I have to admit, he's been somewhat vague.

History suggests that America's realization of a sense of success by spring of 2012 will mean the GOP will be broadly out of power for one to two generations.

Every month that another 600,000 Americans lose their jobs is the direct result of Republicans acting on what they see is their own best political interests. While one of their many changing SLOGANS last year was "America First", in truth it is plain that they hold the Republican Party's interests above those of America and our people.

Every day that our children continue to suffer from a declining educational system in which mediocrity is celebrated; every day that more taxpayers lose high wage jobs only to go on welfare food stamps and unemployment; every day that more and more Americans are forced to sign up to work at the country's largest employer WalMart whose own accidentally leaked internally study said 43% of their full-time employees are on welfare and food stamps; every day that we lose what little remains of our manufacturing base so that when we next need to really go to war like in WW2 we won't have car factories to swiftly convert to making fighter jets and tanks so we'll have to order them from CHINA which the most likely enemy in a real war; remember that Republicans see that as MERELY another day closer to the time when they regain power over the White House, Senate and House -- which if not for the horrendous disaster they have created over the last eight years might not be so terrifying.

America stopped keeping up with the demands for maintenance of our infrastructure with the Reagan administration. We were told that things like that "the free market" would take care of things like that, but tell that now to New Orleans and their crumbling levees, or Minnesota with their collapsed interstate bridge, or Kentucky with their billion gallons of toxic sludge that spilled out of a mine containment area.

America's best defense against precisely the current financial system collapse, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, enacted not coincidentally in the wake of the financial collapse of 1929, was REPEALED on the demands of deregulating Republicans -- with help from Bill Clinton in 1999. That law alone prevented financial institutions from becoming "too big to fail". That is, it kept each of the insurance, banking and real estate conglomerates within their own area. They could still become behemoths, but it's when they get into all three of those industries and start making up new ones that are totally unregulated like 'derivatives' that the failure of one company can bring down the American economy, even the world economic system.

The only thing the President-Elect can do to get us out of this disaster is to go back the way we came in, by resurrecting modern-day Glass-Steagall style regulations and stimulating the middle class segment of the system while taking back the giveaway tax cuts from the wealthiest 1% that over the last eight years gave money to people who already had more money than they knew how to spend. They squirreled it away someplace, or bought yachts built in Greece. Republicans love to claim that tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy leads to the creation of small businesses. In reality, it's Steve Jobs and Bill Gates when they had nothing who created small businesses that became leading world companies. Billionaires DON'T start small businesses, they BUY huge corporations then fire 50,000 or 100,000 employees to increase productivity and thus profits for themselves and large bonuses for the three to five top executives of each company. Oh, and they CUT wages of the few employees they do have to keep on.

That doesn't grow anything but unemployment and declining wages. Less taxpayers and more people surviving on public assistance.

If we don't stand up to these self-serving Republicans very few of us will have jobs in 2012, and they will be at WalMart. There won't be any real taxpayers to support the public assistance people need to get back into good paying jobs.

I'll get to the CRAZY DEMOCRATS on another post. I'll give you a hint that after 2012 Democrats will no longer be in control of the Senate.

3 Moves In 3 Weeks -- Way to Relocate

Don — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:26:33 EST

“A President must be able to do more than one thing at a time,” said then-candidate and now President-Elect Barack Obama, a few months ago when McCain was trying to weasel out of the big debate.

Evidently, President-Elect Obama CAN do far more than one thing at a time. He and his family are MOVING three times in three weeks! This, the weekend of 4 January 2009, he moves from his Chicago home to DC’s Hay-Adams Hotel. On the 15th, they move to Blair House, then on the 20th, they move into the White House. Yes he can! For most of us, the dreaded process of a single relocation is more stressful than death and taxes. But Superman is tripling-down on it.

At the same time, the President-Elect Obama is interviewing and hiring a government, from cabinet members, agency administrators, secretaries and ambassadors. He’s working feverishly on the economic crisis, the transition and inauguration, as well as homeland security and two wars. Throw in taxes, healthcare, unemployment, social security, Medicare and the crisis of the Big 3 automakers, plus Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, the Palestinians and Israel, plus all those special interest groups here at home, such as the disabled, veterans, senior citizens and gays, and you’ve got an enormous inbox.

After those daily national security briefings in which the President-Elect Obama is beginning to learn just how badly Bush has screwed things up for us around the world, it’s a wonder the President-Elect Obama can sleep at night. He needs all the rest he can get.

Enjoy your vacation, sir, you need all the recharging your batteries can get.

What Page of The Bible?

Don — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:07:57 EST

There are only two reasonable choices.

To evoke the vision of the world economy rising from the ashes of the torched-earth strategy of the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration, BHO should open the Bible to the gospel account of Jesus’ rising from death. Not only will it give us hope, but it will reinforce our knowledge of BHO’s Christianity, helping put aside the invocation guy.

Times are so serious that BHO should keep the Bible closed and put his hand on the whole thing – we’re gonna need ALL of it right now, and it underscores BHO’s whole ‘inclusiveness’ thing.

Welcoming the Ministry of Hatred and Scapegoating

Don — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:08:01 EST

There are always those who make their fortunes playing to the fears and insecurities of people frustrated with their own lives who need someone to blame, someone to hate, and it's easy for them to agree on certain groups to focus on.

Obama is moving America toward the point where those people will realize that if they don't have a good job, they have too little money, too much debt, their kids are in and out of jail and/or on drugs, or failing in school, it's not the fault of some group of "OTHERS". Not the gays, the jews, the blacks, or even those pesky illegal aliens, to name just a few.

It's time for a new era of Personal Responsibility in which we all take charge of our own lives while working together for all of us to achieve the American dream while making government do what it can to enable us.

Rick Warren is just an updated version of the same old Ministry Of Hatred represented by Falwell and Robertson (and so many others).

The coming of that new era is a direct threat to Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and all the other leaders of the Ministry of Hate. Just like the Republicans did during the long two year campaign, they will go down kicking and screaming all the way.

Crisis Briefings: Lies Like Iraq War Pretenses: Bushiness

Don — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:18:41 EST

The President who told at least a dozen lies to get us to go to war in Iraq has conjured up more than a dozen lies to set up President Obama for failure? The most miserable failure of an excuse for a President is leaving directions for the next President?

If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny! If your memory is longer than that of 99% of Americans you know that’s not a line I made up, and you may even know who did. Details.

I’m just saying, George Bush should be planning out where he’s going to hide to keep from being arrested and delivered to the Hague for trial in the World Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

We didn’t let Hitler’s assistants off the hook, and neither can we afford to let Bush’s (the New Hitler’s) people go Scot-free.

We all know that all these recent attempts by Bush to rewrite history are mere hopes that America doesn’t do what’s right. If we intend to restore any sense of moral authority or regain any worldwide respect, we must follow our own laws and those international laws we largely wrote and have been demanding everyone else follow for decades until “W” took office.

If we don’t want our soldiers tortured when they in the future are captured, we must deliver to justice George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, their generals and other high officers who ordered torture and passed on those illegal and immoral orders.

America is a chief signatory to the Geneva Conventions. In fact, before 2001, we liked to claim we largely WROTE it. What good is international law if those who claim to have written it are the worst violators?

America has long had laws against torture of prisoners of war. We cannot allow one power-mad egomaniac (or moron, depending on who is providing the facts, and there are plenty on both sides) to cause us to abandon our Constitution, or it won’t be worth anything, ever.

To put it simply, we cannot defeat terrorism by becoming the worst terrorists on earth. Long before we got to that point, any real President would have caught himself and found a better way. Why? Because Bush’s route could be seen even by people as unworldly as me to be a fool’s plot.

It started with Bush’s WAR-PRAYER-MEETING, right after 9/11. That was disturbing to me THEN, because, as a Christian and an American I wondered if Jesus would say that we should “turn the other cheek”.

What? “Turn the other cheek”. I know. I certainly wasn’t in the mood for that. But that’s what Jesus would have us do – according to the Bible. Those so-called religious Republicans have still never mentioned that, and they would castrate me for mentioning it if they could. (They don’t have the balls for it, so they’ll try to get you to do it, just like the Romans, according to the Bible, were forced to murder Jesus. Just reading it objectively and making no assumptions. NO benefit to me which side you take).

Strange, but when you think about the things that really were surprises, you can’t find any that Bush created that much cohesion to in that short a time. Can you? I can’t.

Almost makes you wonder WHEN Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush KNEW 9/11 was going to happen, doesn’t it? Naaaaaaah. Certainly not. I don’t really know. Do I???

It WAS amazing that five seconds after the first jet crashed into the World Trade Center, Bush’s officials declared they knew it was Osama Bin Laden! Before the first tower collapsed, the Bush administration told us who to blame. I wondered why they didn’t PREVENT it since they obviously knew so much about it in advance.

Worse yet is the fact that for all of 2000, Bush campaigned claiming “America’s military is not ready!” Yet, during all of 2001, he did NOTHING to get our military ready. Why would you TELL our enemies that our military isn’t ready? Then, once in power, why would you fail to GET it ready/ Bush should spend the rest of his days in Guantanamo for that alone.

I always think you can know who caused something to happen by figuring out who BENEFITTED from whatever happened.

But I’ve already gone LONG, so I’ll have to finish the facts later. In the meantime, don’t read into what I’ve typed, anything you imagine I said. You may end up looking foolish by the time I tie it all together.

What To Do About It

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:07:18 EST

Previously, I argued the likely consequences of the collapse of the Detroit automakers. And already my predictions are beginning to bear out in facts. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market.” What could we do about preventing it?Rather than pumping cash into them over the long term, what we COULD do is just take over something like 60% of the healthcare burden of only the pre-2007 retirees of the Detroit automakers.What? That would fundamentally lower the per-car cost while requiring them to bear their own burden of current and future labor costs. They will still have to make reasonable pay agreements going forward, but they won’t have to fire tens of thousands of workers who actually are cranking out cars that are of competitive quality. We CAN and should require that they immediately begin moving at an accelerated pace to make their entire fleet of cars meet California’s progressive fuel-economy standards.Why? Because that’s a smaller hit to the national economy than letting those people go on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. It helps keep those people paying taxes based on good wages. If those companies collapse, Medicare and Medicaid WILL be forced to take on 100% of all of those retirees from every decade. The few of us who still have jobs or own businesses will pay for that.Remember, according to THEIR OWN study, 43% of full-time WalMart workers are on food stamps and welfare. 43%. They are the largest employer in America. We cannot afford to doom another class of workers to that, because it’s costing us dearly.I don’t know if “60%” is exactly the right percentage, or if “pre-2007” is exactly the right year, but that can be worked out soon and by more knowledgeable people. What I do believe is that we can find a way to take on a much smaller share of the burden than the 100% we will inherit if those companies go down. What I know is that the rest of us will be better off with those people working and paying taxes alongside the rest of us than not.Rather than stirring up jealousy among people about UAW wages and demanding they take pay cuts, Republican conservatives ought to be working to get the pay other OTHER Americans increased so that more of us will be paying taxes at that higher rate, thus decreasing the burden on each taxpayer.Walmart workers, who continue to work full-time while having to also collect food stamps and welfare, are a major burden to all American Taxpayers. We need more high-wage jobs, not less. All that money spent at Walmart goes on a long trip, making a brief stopover in Bentonville Arkansas before flying directly to China to create more factory jobs – in China. If they have their way, conservative Republicans will have all Americans working seven days a week in 12 hour shifts making 90 cents a month like the Chinese.

How We Save America By Saving American Autoworker Jobs

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:53:57 EST

Previously, I argued why all Americans, of all political persuasions, will suffer from the collapse the Detroit automakers. What can we do about the problem?I am far from being an apologist for the UAW or Detroit. There have to be consequences for this mess. But right now, we face bigger problems than that.American Taxpayers should consider carefully the consequences of letting another huge block of Taxpayers be forced to become dependent on welfare, food stamps and unemployment. It’s a double-whammy heaped upon the rest of us. Not only will they no longer be bearing their fair share by paying taxes and Social Security alongside those of us who still have jobs, but they also will be draining vast amounts of Taxpayer-funded money and other resources. What other resources? It takes more government employees, thus money, to hand out and track all those handouts. Can you guess who gets to pay for that?I am scared to death at the prospect of both taking on the burden of another half-million or so workers who will lose their jobs every month – like last month – but also paying much less in taxes myself due to the fact that I won’t be making nearly as much money once most of my customers are out of work. Come hell or high water, those people need to keep paying federal taxes just like me, and they can only do that if we keep them working.If you look at recently published studies on Appalachia – basically W. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and northeastern Mississippi – the only place those unemployed people who will be living primarily on government assistance will be spending money is at WalMart* . All that money goes straight to China to create more jobs – in China. (Although it does pass through Bentonville Arkansas on the way.)As a direct consequence, many more jobs will be lost, though probably in northern states among people who tend to vote for Democrats. At least, that must be what Senator Shelby and the other conservative Republicans and southerners who subsidize those Japanese auto-plants down there must be thinking. But there are a lot of Republicans up here too. I voted straight GOP all my life, until November when I had to take an Independent stand. My non-auto-related small business will be killed, as will many others, and lots of individuals. Plus, many of those “plumbers” and others who work for small and large businesses that are not directly linked to Detroit will be financially killed. During the campaign Republicans swore they cared about them more than anything.People like that don’t go out and replace our Lexus or Toyota or other Japanese car or truck with next year’s model no matter where it’s built – even in the south. Moreover, people like that don’t switch parties and start voting with the GOP. People like that, including myself, don’t return to the Republican Party. People like that might not even REMAIN in the GOP. Republicans always campaign about being for plumbers and other workers and small businesses. Once the votes are all counted, the GOP kicks us right in our ‘bleepin’ behinds.From what I have seen, once out of work, those high-dollar hourly workers don’t take lower-paying jobs flipping burgers. Unemployed autoworkers sit at home and live off the Taxpayers, even by resorting to disability payments by making claims, not all of which are legitimate**. Those payments cost money, as do the investigators required to catch some unknown percentage of those making bogus claims. It costs more money to house them in jail, plus they never seem to get caught holding enough money to reimburse the Taxpayers for what they fleeced us out of.The bottom line is that we have to work hard to keep people working – especially those making good wages, thus paying more in taxes than those working at WalMart and McDonalds. We have to CREATE more high-paying jobs like that rather than focus on cutting their pay until they make the 9 cents a month they pay in China. To underline a point I’ve been arguing for quite a while, the Wall Street Journal reported today that “Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market.” *To be fair, the studies show, the Appalachians also spend a great of money on liquor and guns. Those are available at WalMart too, but mostly not made in China. They also tend to spend a lot of time and money in church. These observations are in no way offered as commentary on lifestyles. This is all about where our money goes.**This is a concern based on studies which were not based on large sample groups, so they in no way can be asserted to reflect a majority of the group. Yet, any substantial percentage of this group engaged in this behavior would have a significant effect on an already severely depressed economy. Moreover, autoworkers were only a subset of the skilled workers discussed in the studies in general. No lifestyle judgments are implied.

Keep UAW workers paying taxes, not on welfare

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:17:53 EST

Wall Street Journal: Toyota will delay production at its new $300 million plant in Mississippi, citing a steep decline in the auto market. The company says jobs in the state are "secure."

This is the beginning of proof of what I've been saying all along.

The most important detail not understood by southern voters and conservative Republicans is that they, too, will suffer by causing the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.

It's not only northerners whose non-auto industry jobs will be lost in the fallout. Those millions of former taxpayers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and those around the country, including even the south, who will be dragged down with them, WILL NOT be buying those Japanese cars and trucks being manufactured in those taxpayer-subsidized southern plants.

People won't have the money, won't be able to obtain credit, and won't have the consumer confidence that enable such major purchases.

So all those high-paid UAW people Republican conservatives want to destroy will be merely the BEGINNING of the calamity.

We cannot afford at this time to have high-wage people lose taxpaying jobs while America’s largest employer, Walmart, according to their own internal report, pays wages so low that 43% of their full-time workers are on welfare and food stamps.

Blagojevich? Emanuel? Is that anything?

Don — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:42:47 EST

Blagojevich? Emanuel? Is that anything?

The FBI tapes may end up proving that Emanuel’s talks with Blagojevich only related that the President-Elect would offer the governor nothing more than “appreciation” for nominating one of then-Senator Obama’s “acceptable” candidates. Unless Emanuel “went rogue”. All stay together, and all hang together -- that's how they play it in the big leagues. Over the weekend, Mr. Emanuel apparently sent out his personal operatives – his ‘emissaries' – to put out his own SPIN on his alleged contacts with governor Rod. That would seem to point out that he’s the “weak link” – the person who screws up, then tries to protect himself at the expense of the team. His refusal to go to work last week was suspicious enough.

Innocent people don’t have to BREAK RANKS with their fellow patriots, shun the office so they don’t have to look into the eyes of their colleagues, or hide from the press, rather than just smile at the cameras and say “the Team will have something to say at the appropriate time”.

In addition to that, I do not understand why – if news reports and his statements are true – Mr. Emanuel would be getting threatened, or by whom. Regardless whether he is honest or dishonest, I don’t understand that at all – it seems illogical. Was he lying when he said that? Was the reporter lying about him having said that? I’d like some information on that.

You may not appreciate my questions, especially regarding the alleged claim of alleged threats, but I am someone who has been paying attention. Also, I have a very long memory, especially of politics.

I was just a kid more or less during the 80’s, but right then I was asking why we were crazy enough to be capitulating to the Japanese automakers. I seemed to be the only one in the 80’s who articulated that it was absurd for American automakers to keep making rounds of layoffs of tens of thousands of American autoworkers and then wonder WHY their sales continued to fall. “Who do they think are buying their cars?”, I asked. “The workers who build the cars are their best customers” I argued, “With their wages, they are the ones best able to afford them.”

More than twenty years ago, I could see that you can’t keep putting tens of thousands of your best customers out of work and then wondering why your sales keep declining. If a mere kid could see that over twenty years ago, why can’t beyond-middle-aged voters understand that now? American voters in general have very short memories.

There’s a reason they used to say “what’s good for GM is good for America!” Those workers made good wages. They paid equally large TAXES. They bought only American cars. They spent money only at American businesses that sold only American-made goods and services. One dollar spent on an American-made car meant eight-teen dollars (give or take a dollar) spent in America, to other Americans who paid TAXES in America. It pumped up the economy and created jobs for many AMERICANS.

Right now, we are at best buying cars made at plants in the south owned by Japanese companies that pay LOW wages, sending ALL the money we spend to Japan. Those low-wage workers spend all their meager income at WalMart. That money goes straight to China, where it creates more jobs – in China. Those workers reportedly make 9 cents a month. Do we want to “catch up” with them?

WORSE, when all those high-paid Detroit autoworkers lose their jobs, they will go right onto welfare, unemployment and food stamps. The rest of us will be paying ALL the taxes to support them.

I am terrified at the prospects of MY income decreasing due to the lack of customers directly and indrirectly linked to the Detroit autoworker economy. I am horrified that I will make LESS money but have to PAY MORE to support the government assistance to those people who should have been able to keep their jobs and PAY TAXES alongside the rest of us.

Rather than CUT the wages of union workers, Republican politicians should be RAISING the wages of the rest of American taxpayers, and NOT putting Americans out of work.

21st Century STD and HIV/AIDS Cure

Humanitarian R&D Specialist — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:17:04 EST

There's a movement of citizens inspired by the presidential campaign who are now submitting ideas for how they think the Obama Administration should change America. It's called "Ideas for Change in America." See the latest idea for a 21st Century STD and HIV/AIDS Intervention Cure called, S.A.V.I.O.R.

Southerners Don't See They Will Go Down With Us, Eventually

Don — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:59:26 EST

What's the most important detail not understood by southern voters and conservative Republicans?
That they, too, will suffer by causing the collapse of the Detroit auto industry.
It's not only northerners whose non-auto industry jobs will be lost in the fallout. Those millions of former taxpayers on welfare, food stamps and unemployment and those around the country, including even the south, who will be dragged down with them, WILL NOT be buying those Japanese cars and trucks being manufactured in those taxpayer-subsidized southern plants.
People won't have the money, won't be able to obtain credit, and won't have the consumer confidence that enable such major purchases.
So all those high-paid UAW people Republican conservatives want to destroy will be merely the BEGINNING of the calamity.
Moreover, those newly unemployed UAW members will have to head south, where, with their experience and new-found openness to accept lower wages, they will be the first to get hired at those soon to open Japanese plants if and when they do open. Even those openings in the works will be substantially delayed by the ongoing economic crisis.
But when those UAW people get down there and get the chance to vote, they won't forget which party is to blame for what they will be continuing to go through.
They will continue to vote for Democrats. That will increase the trend toward Red states turning into Blue states that start in 2008.
That, along with Republican tactics, will further ensure that the GOP becomes, for two generations, the party of Appalachia, Utah and Texas -- completely insignificant within the current Electoral College system.
Having just left the GOP last month to become an Obamican, or Independent in 8 years, that's a chance I'm willing to take.
Rather than trying to cut the pay of people who tend to vote for Democrats, those Republican politicians ought to be working to increase the pay of the rest of us. That's the only way we will BE ABLE to buy those Japanese cars over the next five years -- including two federal election cycles.

Blackberry Problem Solved -- Seriously

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:03:05 EST

The President-Elect's communications are recorded and published, so he can't chat candidly on his own, but he can still keep in touch.

He has a close friend who is his new personal assistant. He can chat privately with his assistant, who can chat on his own personal Blackberry, which is private. What Obama's friends tell his assistant -- who is their mutual friend -- also is private. Use of such a go-between renders all that back and forth as mere gossiping, which, if not done on the President's phone or computer are entirely private.

The President's personal, in-person talks with friends can no more be public than the particulars of the bedtime stories he reads to his children. If some word of that got around "through the grape vine" through private channels, that's not the Peoples' business. Likewise, if information somehow gets back to him through a friend when that person just happens to be in the presence of the President, that, too, is his personal business.

President Obama can even sign a rule making it illegal for White House staff and also administration officials to profit from revealing what they learned during their work.

Federal Agent Insults All Illinois Citizens

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:33:06 EST

99.9% of Illinoisans are law-abiding citizens. People who work hard and pay taxes should not be labeled corrupt by federal law enforcment officials, as was done in the announcement of the charges against the governor. Since that official has such a low opinion of Illinois and such a disdain for the citizens he should RELOCATE. At the very least, he should apologize and be fired.

Republcan Senator Ted Stevens is a seven-time convicted federal felon. Republican Senator Norm Coleman is a common criminal who merely hasn't been charged yet but has committed the crimes Rod has been charged with conspiring to committ. Are Alaska and Minnesota "corrupt" states? Should all their citizens be tarred because they've sent a few bad apples into elected office?

Admittedly, Alaska nearly re-elected Stevens, so virtually half of them actually ARE corrupt, one could argue.

Madigan's Blagojevich Blunder

Don — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:23:31 EST

Too bad Madigan didn't take a little time to think through her "evil plan" before acting.
She and other legislators could have drafted some legislation to be passed upon the Governor's temporary removal, and reach an agreement with the deputy governor on who would be appointed to the Senate once Rod's out of the way. Those could be acted on by the deputy governor immediately upon taking over, since it's likely that an appeal by Blagojevich would quickly see him back in his office holding things up once again.
If this wasn't just about furthering Madigan's chances of being elected governor, she would have done that and more. But like Rod's actions, Madigan isn't putting Illinois first because she's too busy looking out for herself.
Beyond that, even a layman can see that the Illinois Supreme Court would be as crazy as Blagojevich to jump into this mess this early in the game. It might set a precedent so that in the future any unpopular governor could have his tenure ended by his politic opponents filing a lawsuit, which is all Madigan has done.
He's not physically disabled, and though it appears so there is no scientific evidence that he is psychologically unfit. There is an unprecedented but good argument that under the circumstances he can't function because his most important business is appointing a Senator and the Senate is unlikely to seat his appointee, but she should have gotten affidavits from 51 Senators attesting to that -- 41 if you want to consider a filibuster. Because of the other claims in the complaint, his other actions, especially finance related, might be considered to be furthering a "crime spree". The weakness in the "inability to function" argument is that the fool keeps going to the office, apparently completing at least minor functions of his office.
Bottom line: I want him out of office, but even I can see Madigan didn't take time to plan this out. The court is likely to decline to take up the case. If they do hear it, there is a chance they could find in favor of the governor, which would further add to the perception that Illinois is lax on crooks in office.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

How to roll back Bush's last minute law changes

Don — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:49:59 EST

While President Obama won’t be able to simply undo every one of the midnight hour presidential signings President Bush is using to change American laws, there is a way to render them meaningless. I would suggest that Obama can simply “amend” Bush’s rules by signing new rulings that create laws or rules contradictory to those made by the previous administration.

Example: Bush says agencies can decide for themselves when to consider endangered species in their decisions on construction and other matters. Obama then states that after an agency makes it’s determination it must then submit that finding to the same body it used to have to go through for the same review process as before.

As for the sale of lands and oil drilling rights, it may be true that the federal government would have to buy back those contracts. However, what Obama could do is sign an order rescinding the sales. That way, the process is quicker and the owners don’t get to negotiate a higher price than what they paid.

Congress would have to legislate to overrule Bush’s changes, and right now Republicans can filibuster in the Senate. Yet, the same is true for Obama’s rule changes. The incoming Congress of Democrats won’t overrule changes that render meaningless the rules made by Bush, and even future Republican Senates can be filibustered by Democrats – in fact, there are some Republicans who don’t want oil companies to rape the land.

Senator Vitter the whoremonger claims moral high ground?

Don — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:14:19 EST

David Vitter the Republican Senator who confessed to being a regular patron of a whorehouse, is trying to claim he's on the moral highground by taking a stand against the workers. The Republicans have once again campaigned saying they are for working people, only to turn against workers right after the election. Those autoworkers are American taxpayers and it's far better for the country for them to keep working and paying taxes than to be unemployed and on welfare, food stamps and unemployment. Because they tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (I wonder why) the Republicans are trying to financially kill them -- but this will take the rest of America down along with them. More petty politics. Republicans didn't learn anything from their losses in 2006 and 2008 elections.

Republicans Play Politics While America Burns!

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:52:51 EST

Or was that "Nero fiddles while Rome burns"? Well, whatever.

So much for "Joe, the Guy Who Works for a Living".

As has been the case all my life, as soon as the election is over the Republican party screws the people it promised to work for during the campaign. That's been no surprise to me for a long time now.

What still confounds me is that there are still tens of millions of people possessing the right to vote in American presidential elections who don't have enough working brain cells to understand that. They fall for it every time.

Fortunately, this time there are enough of us -- people who think for ourselves, rather than rely on Fox Noise to tell us what to believe -- that we overruled the zombies.

Even now, the party in power when the government spent $13 trillion more than it took in now claims that the Detroit automakers don't know how to manage money.

Highest unemployment rate since 1982 -- when Ron Reagan was president!

Even as America is showing them out the door, Republican politicians are nutty enough to be 'warning' the President-Elect about what he should and should not do with respect to the economy.

As they lick their wounds after spending $13 trillion dollars more than they took in, they now are stammering on about being for fiscal responsibility.
It would be funny, if it weren't so serious.

McCain says Bush, Rumsfeld committed war crimes

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:10:46 EST

Senators John McCain and Carl Levin -- after the election -- published a finding cited in a Washington Post article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/11/AR2008121101969.html?hpid=topnews

They stated unequivocably that the orders to tortune prisoners of war were issued from the top of the Bush administration, beginning with an order Bush signed in February 2002.

Next year, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their chief assistants should be arrested and turned over to the World Court at The Hague, where they should stand trial for crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Their actions have made it a certainty that American soldiers captured in future conflicts by enemies WILL be tortured. Unless decisive action is taken by the appropriate authorities, the world will ignore our cries of outrage.

Americans cannot afford failing to repudiate the lawlessness of the Bush administration, which according to Republican Senator John McCain, has "strengthened the hand of our enemies".

As I have always said, we cannot succeed in our fight against terrorism by BECOMING terrorists. George Bush's conduct goes directly against everything Americans stand for -- at least "Real Americans".

By issuing those illegal orders to our soldiers, while writing decrees declaring those orders to be legal, Bush has made himself a criminal of unprecedented notoriety around the world. Only by delivering him to justice in an unprecedented manner can America restore claims of being a land where justice prevails.

The minds of American children have been damaged by the impact of Bush's immorality. How can we teach them that America is ruled by the Constitution and that we abide by the international treaties we sign, while tolerating Bush's blatant violations of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention, of which we are a signatory?

Lastly, every officer who obeyed and passed on those illegal and immoral orders must be court-martialed, as required by the United States Code of Military Justice. We didn't excuse the conduct of Nazi officers who claimed they were "just following orders", and neither can we afford to do so with our own.

Mr. Bush's two terms have been sad days for America. He has destroyed our economy. Let us not allow him to destroy our Constitution, our Justice System, and our military as well.

Even Richard Milhouse Nixon didn't believe he was THIS far above the law.

Blagojevich's state of mind

Don — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:02:25 EST

The President--Elect could open his remarks today by saying, "Look,... how was I supposed to know Blagojevich was crazy? And by "crazy" I don't mean mentally ill. I mean CRAZY. Only a crazy man would do what he is alleged to have done."

Then promise to have more to say about the matter tomorrow and leave the room.

Barack Obama has nothing to explain. The governor called him a "motherf@#$er" who "won't give (the govenor) anything but (his) f@#$ing appreciation", then said "f@#$ (him)".

Before Obama enters the room his aides should pass out a copy of that part of the criminal complaint to put his remarks in perspective.

He has absolutely nothing to explain. The guy who apparently did something said on FBI tape that Obama didn't do anything. Until something different happens, he doesn't need to do anything but remind everyone of that fact.

Just like in the last months of the campaign whe Obama kept saying, "McCain said that 'if we keep talking about the economy, we'll lose',... that's why I keep talking about the economy."

3 things he COULD have said about Blagojevich

Don — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:02:49 EST

Why didn't Barack Obama just say something less 'conventional' when asked about the arrested governor?
I wish he had said: "I want to thank the governor for his kind words... not the ones where he called me an unspeakable name, but the ones where he said I didn't participate in his schemes"
Or: "No one has ever been so happy to have been insulted than I am after hearing the governor's words."
Or: "I've never been so glad to NOT know about something."
When they play the soundbites that's funnier and more dismissive of the entire matter. After reading the quotes in the actual complaint -- yes, I read the entire complaint -- that's really all the President-elect needed to do. There was nothing left for him to confirm or deny.

The Fox Noise political operatives who tell the fascists who have hijacked the Republican party what to believe would not be able to so easily twist any of those quotes the way they have what he actually said. For people who don't think for themselves -- the Faux News watching zombies -- it's not what Obama says, but what the political operatives CLAIM he said that counts. He has to think about their likely talking points before making sound bites.

On the other hand, if he'd followed all my advice, he never would have gotten elected. For example, after those remarks by Rev. Wrong (Wright) I thought it was over. After the election, for the first time I viewed Obama's speech on race, on youtube, because I had to see what on earth he possibly could have said to get himself out of a jam like that. Turns out the truth was all it took.

THE CRISIS IN DETROIT

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:50:00 EST

No car czar named by the same man who appointed those who drove our economy into the New Great Depression. When the first Great Depression occurred, America was not in two wars and was not buried beneath $13 trillion dollars in debt (counting the trillion Bush gave to Wall Street). A "Bush-named car czar is a non-starter".

Those who have run the big car companies into the ground deserve to face consequences -- so, too, do those who ran Wall Street into the ground, including the Bush administration and the Republican party deregulators. Bush and those who helped him rape the American economy are not the ones who should decide what those consequences are -- they are only trying to take the spotlight off their own failures and Mr. Obama needs to do what he did during the campaign -- point out their smokescreen.

The big banks we gave all that money to should be strongly asked by President-Elect Barack Obama to go in and try hard to work out a deal to loan the automakers the money they need, at least for three months until Obama is inaugurated and has time to find a long term solution. Obama should suggest that those bankers "will be sorry" if they don't try very hard to work out reasonable terms. Maybe the free market can ease the transition, especially after we gave Goldman Sachs $10 billion and they turned around and passed out $6.5 billion in "bonuses". Bonuses for what? Going bankrupt. After we gave Citigroup $50 billion then they turned around and fired 75,000 workers right before Christmas.

Mr. Obama should publicly excoriate the Republican senators for playing politics with America's future by refusing to bail out the autoworkers for purely political reasons. Republicans campaigned on the false claim that they were all about helping "Joe the Plumber", but now they are working hard to financially ruin "Joe the autoworker because: 1. they are union workers who tend to vote for Democrats (and now we see why), and 2. southern Republicans believe that if Detroit goes out of business Japanese automakers will build more plants down south.

Republicans are again betraying ALL Americans who work for a living, right after rushing to pump nearly $1 trillion directly into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%. They forced us into giving $12 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% before that. Now they are killing "Joe the guy who MANUFACTURES things, which America does far too little of already.

Further, it would take the better part of a decade before any cars come out of any new southern auto plants. The Japanese will take two years to THINK before deciding to build more plants here or anywhere in this economy (or any economy, that's how they operate). They will take another two years milking tax abatements and other subsidies from American taxpayers by letting southern states "compete" for the plants, one plant at a time. It takes two to three years to BUILD a plant once that's all agreed to. As much as a year to dry run things, making sure the process works by building test cars before pumping out any cars for sale to the public. That's seven to eight years of absolute misery for all Americans while the southern Republicans get their non-union workers.

Mr. Obama should lobby hard for legislation prohibiting ANY tax abatements or other subsidies by any state or local governments for businesses. Why? Those subsidies directly hurt taxpayers and the overall economy by: 1. Paying corporations to move from one town to another, which is of no benefit to the overall economy. If they want to relocate, they should do it with their own money, then they will only do it if it makes sense to their operations. Taxpayers should not be forking out money to shift existing jobs from one American town to another American town. 2. Foreign comanies who decide to build plants in America should not be subsidized. They want to manufacture their products here because it is of financial benefit to them -- they avoid currency exchange costs. Why PAY them for doing something they already NEED to do? Giving them taxpayer money to entice them to build plants in one American town rather than another is of no benefit to the overall American economy, and it directly takes money out of the pockets of American taxpayers who must make up for the losses in government tax revenue. Don't pay foreign companies to do what's already in their best interests -- let them pay their own way.

Tax abatements to corporations are un-American and they harm local, state and national economies. Rather than subsidize individual companies, LOWER taxes for ALL taxpayers, or keep rates where they are -- isn't lowering taxes what those Republicans claim to be for?

KEEP ALL THOSE CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:36 EST

Now is the time for bold and decisive action -- not a rethinking of Obama's priorities. America thought over Obama's priorities for two very long years and now is the time to ACT.

The economy was crashing before and during the election and America elected Mr. Obama, so the bad economy is NO EXCUSE for failing to fulfill Obama's promises. The worst thing Obama can do for the economy is be reluctant to do everything he said he'd do -- he must do it all, and be quick about it.

Work to do everything Mr. Obama pledged to do right away -- in the first 60 days of his term. Why? America somehow elected Barack Obama AFTER two years of Republicans and rival Democrats arguing that we shouldn't let him do what he said he'd do. Obama won, by a landslide of electoral votes -- he has both a mandate and an obligation to carry through on his promises. He didn't get elected on some Nixonian "secret plan". American took two long years coming to terms with Obama's proposals, and we bought into it. I didn't really like some of Mr. Obama's promises, but after a lifetime of voting Republican I voted for Obama -- and all his policies.

One good example is cutting taxes for 95% percent of working Americans AND repealing the Republican tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1% -- those who don't work at all. Republicans will argue that "raising taxes during a recession is the worst thing we can do." Then, when Obama turns things around and gets the economy going again, Republicans will argue that "raising taxes during a soaring economy is the worst thing we can do." It's the same tired old Republican disingenuous argument that America finally rejected in November 2008. Should Mr. Obama fail to immediately strike while the iron is HOT -- while he has this resounding mandate that's fresh in the minds of all Americans -- Obama will lose this opportunity forever.

This is the only moment ever where Barack Obama can do the things he promised to do, and he probably won't be reelected if he doesn't manage to get the job done. Right now, we will have two or three years for things to shake out and level off before the next election cycle. This is the time to take those very bold steps, before Congression Democrats lose what little resolve they have.

Obama will probably have to publicly tell Democrats that they will either vote like Democrats or else when they need money for reelection campaigns they need not line up at the Obama money trough. If they want to show the voters how "independent" they are, they way congresspeople like Marcy Kaptur did right after Clinton took office, they should expect that some NEW candidate will be receiving money from me and others who donated money to the Obama phenomena when it comes time for them to run for reelection.

We need to pick out five or six week Republican senators and fund a recall drive against them. If they have to essentially run for reelection in the middle of their term they and others won't be so quick to do what they always do -- vote against America as represented by a Democratic President merely for the sake of petty politics.

Economy and the opposition

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:47:03 EST

President Obama should not accept ANY advice on the economy from Mr. Bush and the Republicans whom America has convicted in November of destroying the economy by creating the current crisis.

That Republicans are "warning" Obama on their way out the door as to what he can or cannot do is LAUGHABLE, and Obama should publicly castigate them on that issue. They are seeking to rerun the election they lost, and if they want to continue to play politics Obama must call them on that every day in press conferences. Obama WON the election and if Republicans want to continue arguing that they have any authority on economic matters then that is precisely the fight Obama should take them up on. He won that fight and it's the perfect battle to keep in the forefront of American politics during the transition and pretty much his whole first term -- especially while he's using his mandate to keep all those promises he made.

Republicans spent two years losing that war and if they want to spend eight more years losing then they only rational thing for Obama to do is to let them. Help them.

Dear President Elect,

Mike — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:04:23 EST

I think that it is important that I declare a few truths that cannot be denied, so that all who read this can be enlightened about the correct path to true stability. In order to live forever, there needs to be a circle, where the distance between itself (the center) to the ends in which it is established (outer point). To be central, legislation that is necessary and proper, must be equally in effect and obligations to all members. No member should be favored over others.

(Say What?)

The laws of Government should affect the members of that Government equally, and only for the purpose of establishment. If a Government is to Govern conduct between it's members, and uphold the laws equally upon each, as well as those rights that exist in the absence of government. It is the duty of the United States to govern the Conduct between the states, provide for their common defense, and maintain Justice between each. All of which can only be enforced upon members by way of law to acheive the intended end, as long as such an act does not exceed the means to the end.

The Government of the States (The United States) has blurred the perception of the Constitution, which is in effect the "Creator" of that government. It is blurred to take powers never granted during its own establishment from the Government of the People (The State) which has it's own "Creator" it is obliged to observe, and restrict its laws for the purpose in which the existance is necessary. The "God" of one, is not the "God" of the other. They both have members in which they are established to govern, but the governed are exclusively so governed and cannot be within the jurisdiction of the other. A sovereign state must exist before it can be a part of the United States. The sovereignty of the United States relies on the sovereignty found in the state in a related proportion, as is the case with a state.

The political body must always protect the constitution so the principles are maintained and not altered. As the Constitution fixes the Principles, and amendments should only fix any deviations that might come into existance and harmful to liberty, and more. (See Preamble)

How a person thinks, believes, or conducts himself away from the public cannot be the objects of state legislation, but how a person conducts himself with all other persons equally, as long as they contain some form of retribution that is necessary for those acts, should they be found guilty.

How a state enacts policies related to the Government of the People cannot be the objects of Federal Legislative Powers. States are direct members of the Union, and the intended target to be governed. Those conducting business with another state (or modernized, persons in another state other than their own) are bound to respect laws relating to conduct as well as State laws in personal or indvidual affairs.

Those who have attained the age in which they have a right of suffrage, are bound by the laws of the state. Those who have not reached that age cannot be the target of legislation by a state, because it is an obligation of the parent to raise their children so that when they reach the appropriate age, they possess the necessary knowledge required to make a responsible choice. Children are the objects of their parents legislation, which is meant to be tyrannical in nature so that they will recognize freedom and appreciate the benefits found in a democratic form. Members to a Government should seek justice through the government in which they share, and grievances addressed to the same for any inequalities that exist due to the laws they are governed by.

Those laws that are passed must be passed by the two interests affected by the legislation. (Laws relating to race have historically targetted the difference between "white" and "black". If there is no legislative bodies that represents these two groups seperately, then such laws are Unconstitutional, as they do not have their own house under the legislative branch that must have the ability to veto any proposal. There are benefits to an existance of gay persons in the world, because their taxes pay help pay for a part of the education your kids will receive. In order for tax to be Constitutional, the use of such a tax must support the purpose of the Government, as well as result in equal propotions to all states, whose members benefit from Justice maintained between each state.

The word of "God" is Supreme over all others, as is the same with the Constitution that establishes a government. In order to evolve into a better species of Government (People as a whole), they must first treat the space that divides them equally to all, regardless to how small or large, good or bad, respectful or otherwise... The only conduct that should be punishable by law is conduct that infringes on the rights of another. The laws relating to restricting conduct based upon distinct qualities shared by any number less than all should have no place in legislation originating from a government based on the principles of liberty.

Slavery is found in a number of ways, and economic slavery is one of the worst kind to every find a place in this government. The great pyramids in Eqypt being the oldest man made structures in existance gives strength to the concept that exists in nature, and if a global existance is to prevail, it must be based upon the same principles behind fractal art. (geometry) Day should be respected equally to night. Summer to Winter, Spring to Fall. Regardless of preferences that exists, seasons exists, so there is no use in making laws enforcing temperate climates, as they will not likely have an effect.

It seems as if all of what I keep trying to explain is complicated, but there is no simpler truth that exists in nature. Rather than ignore the word of God (that which exists in nature, not claimed by religeous establishements) embrace it, and let those principles guide your judgement, and the judgement of those who will Constitute your administration. My thoughts tend to work much faster than I can ever hope to type, so my apologies if this post has a few grammatical errors.

Thank You for taking the time to associate the circle of life in relation to any existance that should be everlasting.

It's how the political office is used that's really important

Don — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:22:24 EST

The Office of Political Affairs is like any other tool -- it's value or detriment depends on whose hands control it. Reagan and Bush used the office with bad intentions, using heinous tactics, and to literally evil ends.
Now the Office of Political Affairs will be used properly, for the benefit of the American people in the Obama Administration. We have seen in Obama a man who behaves differently from other politicians. He doesn't operate out of the small-minded, abusive motivations of Bush, Rove, Reagan and Rollins.
We mustn't let our memories of the past abuses of the Office of Political Affairs by the Republicans color our perceptions of the future uses of the office.

Way to get beyond the "Clinton Problem"

Don — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:02:31 EST

The Clintons are not in talks with Obama's team because the Clintons are not team players. They have, from the beginning, made every effort to steamroll their way into the position of Secretary of State through leaks of false information to the press that supports her goal while undermining Obama.
The President-Elect needs to bite the proverbial bullet and flat out say that ALL "candidates" for the position must submit to the same vetting process and that the process evidently is too rigorous for the Clintons and that the country's need to get the process completed quickly means he must name someone else immediately.
With the Clintons causing this much trouble now, Obama must realize that should he name her, he will have absolutely NO control over anything related to foreign policy, plus she WILL leak defense and homeland security information to advance their interests.
It's time to wrap this thing up and call it the mistake it has been. Every President makes some mistakes, and life goes on if they don't let them grow and fester.

Mandate For Change

Don — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:42:10 EST

In the context of the current transition process, I am advocating for a more forceful attitude from Barack Obama on pushing through his agenda. Our agenda.

How should he do it? What will stand in his way? What can WE do about it?

I examine the real reasons we arrived at this point and what it means.

FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON FRANCHISING (CABLE TV)

WallyStuart — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:48:49 EST

While the speculation is now who Barack will choose for CIO (Chief Information Officer) for the nation, the Chair of the FCC, and his change in the current Communication Policy ...

http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=HT%3A++Obama+Administration

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the time being, the focus for citizens in support of local access to programming telecom media should now be on Congress, the FCC, and their state legislatures. We need NOT focus on the doings of Barack and his transition team! Here is an introduction and resources to now consider to protect the public's right to participate fullly in using the new media and techologies:

http://www.millervaneaton.com/content.agent?page_name=LEGISLATIVE%20FEATURE:%20Intro%20Page

FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON FRANCHISING

INTRODUCTION; Key Resources

The Bell companies and their allies are mounting a massive campaign in three different venues - Congress, the state legislatures, and the FCC - to eliminate local cable franchising. A Bell victory at any of these levels could effectively seize local property, deprive local governments of needed revenues, leave subscribers unprotected in dealing with large cable companies, and end public, educational, and governmental access. Thus, it is essential that local governments oppose the Bell campaign in all three areas.

In this ongoing feature we will make available key resources for this effort.

Congressional Video Franchise Legislation

State Video Franchise Legislation

FCC Rulemaking on Franchising

Related Legislation

NEW IDEAS TO HELP AMERICA NOW

Ed from Fort Lauderdale, FL — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:43:41 EST

Congrats, even my 80 year old mother in Indiana voted for you which was no small feat.
I am a college professor in Fort Lauderdale and I made sure all my students went out and voted but I want to tell you, I admire your managerial skills, more than anything. One of the main things is getting people involved, when a person believes what they are doing is their idea or benefit to them, they always perform much better. Never before have I seen this applied enmasse as you did with our volunteers and donaters, which brings me to my point.

As a professor, I have noted that you already have a majority of the young people in college with you and now feeling part of our success. They are involved in your presidency and a year ago they did not even know who the vice president was. It is a entire new attitude from the young people, I love it. I have never seen this in 25 years of teaching.

My suggestion.. .offer a scholarship competition for the best energy efficient vehicle design,energy use in building and interior design, new energy sources and so on and so forth. Allow it developed at the university level in team effort so cross over skills in various programs can be utilized. Whenever ideas are exchanged between different majors thats when innovative new ideas occur Have a top 3-5 winner range,reward all members of the TEAM , faculty involved and school and do it annually.

You have a fired up base, students as well as educators. The minds are here to help America solve our energy crisis, competition always leads to perfection,drive and purpose. The reward increases all of these.

I am working in holographic technology we have already took 200 dollars worth of equipment and a couple months ago made a HD TV display the objects as holographs in front of you. This technology would decrease the need to travel by virtually putting someone in a conference room with complete interactivity without being there. If you watched CNN on election night they did this with an alternative method of broadcasting a live person.

This is here and it is available now.

Anyway, all America needs is a push in the educational system to develop it cheaply and enmasse.

If new jobs and new energy is what we need, we need new inovations and lets put our young minds in this manhanttan project and become the technology leaders of the world.

President Obama's Arts, as published in The Huffington Post

Lucia - Team Coordinator for OBAMAWOOD — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:41:57 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/president-obamas-arts_b_136616.html

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ARTS

by Lucia Brawley

At 10 years old, Mordecai Santiago was already the toughest kid at the 52nd Street Project, the renowned Hell's Kitchen not-for-profit where I volunteered as an academic tutor and arts educator. Though diminutive in stature and "held back" in school, Mordecai wielded an authority beyond his years with children and adults alike. Officials at his over-crowded elementary school had diagnosed Mordecai with A.D.D. and wanted to put him on Ritalin. He shared a small, low-income-housing apartment with four other siblings and two parents. They had no computer.

But Mordecai was a natural on the piano. He loved to play Beethoven's Fur Elise by ear on the only piano in the after-school clubhouse. Since he'd never had a proper lesson, his fingering was incorrect, but he hit every note flawlessly. The only way I could get him to finish his homework, was by promising him "piano time" at the end of every tutoring session. He often would rather play his own haunting compositions than go home.

His unadulterated love of music inspired me to ask fellow Harvard alums to donate piano lessons to kids at the program. Offers flowed in by email in overwhelming numbers. However, the administrators of the program, already under-staffed, under-resourced and over-worked, regretfully explained that they could not accept.

In Mordecai, a tough, brilliant, little kid in baggy jeans and a puffy North Face jacket, I saw up-close the precarious fate of millions of American children who might evolve into great artists or great criminals, at the flip of a coin. Without proper funding for programs like the 52nd Street Project, the latter possibility becomes an inevitability for too many kids.

In order to stay true to the campaign's message of hope, progress and action, I would like to see an Obama administration accomplish a broad array of arts policy goals. Arts education must find its way back to American public schools, not only as a proven measure to bring up students' math and science scores, but to allow students a means of self-expression that will save their futures - as well as saving the system the cost of trying and incarcerating many of them. Even if they never go into the arts, a youth's acquired creative problem solving abilities will serve her in any field.

Imagine art and performance exchanges between students from different areas and strata of American society, in order to create dialogue that bridges psychological gaps between demographic groups and regions.

More than an educational tool, the arts offer unique diplomatic opportunities. In the Kennedy tradition, there should be exchanges between students and adult artists from our country and other countries around the globe, perhaps in partnership with the U.N.

Controversially, during the Cold War, the CIA infiltrated Eastern European theater groups, in order to inspire revolt within oppressive regimes and prevent democratic regimes from turning Communist, as illustrated in The Cultural Cold War:The CIA and the World off Arts and Letters, by Frances Stonor Saunders. Whether one agrees with such secretive programs or not, do they not reflect the diplomatic potential of the arts, as an alternative to overt military policing?

Acting in Hungary, a country famed for its great composers, I saw young students well versed in classical music. How wonderful it would be to see original U.S. musical forms as part of every American child's curriculum: jazz, folk music, rock'n'roll, and hip-hop. What could be more patriotic than embracing our nation's cultural contributions to the world? And why not include world music and dance as an integral part of the American-immigrant and global stories?

With an eye toward valuing the contributions of artists, as all other developed nations do, I would like to see artist-tailored unemployment and healthcare insurance for those who can prove a history of work in their chosen field. And, to offer alternatives to a justice system that now reinforces the dehumanization inherent in an excessively stratified society, I would like to see more programs like Rhodessa Jones' "Medea Project," that helps rehabilitate inmates in the Bay Area correctional system, by allowing them to enact their own stories, thereby exorcising the causes of their anger and accepting responsibility for their actions.

Visual art projects helped children overcome the trauma of having witnessed 9/11. Imagine the benefits of music and art therapy for every soldier returning from Iraq who suffers from PTSD.

The arts humanize society, not merely in a spiritual and emotional sense. We have tangible historical evidence of how the arts have directly contributed to the fortification of a troubled America. F.D.R.'s New Deal - especially relevant now, as we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression - included the Federal Writers Project, Federal Theater Project, Federal Art Project and Federal Music Project, each of which employed artists in ways that served and uplifted society and the economy as a whole. In their 1995 essay, "New Deal Cultural Programs: Experiments in Cultural Democracy," Don Adams and Arlene Goldbard state that, rather than homogenize distinct regions with a big government agenda, these projects set forward in vivid relief the unique beauties of each region, inspired progress within the labor movement, and led to commercially viable enterprises.

Today, Barack Obama often speaks of a deficit, not merely economic, but of empathy. He reminds us that, "I am my brother's keeper." Obama's campaign has inspired an unprecedented amount of creativity through songs, artwork, dance and dramatic arts, and captured the imaginations of people worldwide. If a President Obama chooses to utilize his historic grassroots organization beyond the campaign, in order to successfully put forth initiatives that stand up to corporate special interests, he must remember that the arts will be the primary mouthpiece for galvanizing the people's partnership.

Barack Obama

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/president-obamas-arts_b_136616.html mixx.com

Transition Team

linktech Ralph — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:13:29 EST

SENT IN TODAY AS A POLICY MATTER I am interested in becoming a senior advisor on the transition team. I am greatly experienced in national governmental affairs in items of policy, procedures, and plans with much background in regulatory affairs, energy, and protecting the environment; was involved in the initial Reagan transition team and served years in support of the Boeing Public Affairs Office. Expertise is in program management and complex integration. My contact is believed to be Chelsea Waliser for which we have much in common in governmental affairs. I am very familiar with many of the Dept. of Energy Orders and bulletins and have served in most all of their major facilities at one time or another.

A few years back I made an attempt to become the Bonneville Power Administrator via an impromptu campaign within the U.S. Senate and participated in a major meeting involving the trans-Canada gasline. I am very knowledgeable in most programmatic and technical aspects of the GNEP and how it could protect against proliferation of nuclear weapons material.

I am currently semi-retired and maintain a Regional, State, National and International Email network largely directed to the efficient and safe use of assorted energy sources. I serve as a Team co-director of dozens of professionals and organizations dealing with energy and the use of medical isotopes to thwart the cancer scourge; all with complex interfaces with national and local government.

My phone # is 206-933-5755. Good luck tomorrow!!!! rej

Has anyone else shared in such a Team venture?? Perhaps those who developed the Platform or wrote the appropriate speeches dealing with energy and the environment, or nuclear proliferation?? If interested, please let me know per the phone # above. rej 11-3-8

America's Place in the World

Derek — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:29:43 EDT

America's Place in the World

I travel internationally a great deal on business. Once, I went around the world visiting 7 countries in 14 days meeting with the financial firms leaders. I've flown 14 hours for a 12 hour meeting to immediately fly home in order to coach my sons basketball team's practice. I know what it is to be a road warrior.

Common Ground Found in India
On one trip to India, I took a weekend to travel to one of the 4 holy sights in Puri on the coast of the Bay of Bengal. There, I pursued information as to a legend told to e by Indian colleagues that Jesus spent his youth there at the temple. Many Indians there in Puri believed Christ was an incarnation of God on earth as was Krishna. I found that I had more in common with Hindu Indians than we had differences.

Additionally, the poverty I saw there was more than even that I've experienced in the back woods Louisiana where I spent my summers on my grandparent's farm. It broke my heart and forever changed my life to see a small child standing knee deep in mud naked and crying as people passed him by because he was from the untouchable cast. I grew to appreciate the upward mobility America provides its citizens. My great grandparents were born into effective slavery though the civil war had ended years prior. My great grandmother was an amazing woman stressed to my mother and myself the importance of education as the only path to freedom. I honor her in my striving for excellence and knowledge.

God has truly blessed America but do we really appreciate the gifts in this generation. I am reminded of the parable of the talents. Is the baby boomer and now GenX generation the servant given 1 talent that buried it in the ground.

The Gulf between America and Europe

As I travel throughout Europe, I am constantly facing and addressing the negative perceptions of Americans. Europeans tend to blame the average American for the policies of the Bush administration. There is a tangible contempt and loathing with an undercurrent of jealousy for the wealth and opportunity many see America squandering. In essence, we Americans must take responsibility for electing George Bush. It's not the Republican's fault. America stands and falls as a nation undivided.

Europeans also do not understand why Americans hold firm to the right to bear arms. They do not understand that Americans fear our own government more than our government fears to citizens. There is a fundamental distrust of authority. Assassinations of our best and brightest is our legacy. It is the evil that lurks in the shadows. The nail that sticks up gets hammered as they say in Japan.

At times, I wonder if Europeans consider themselves truly allies with the US. The threat of the USSR and facism have faded from the minds of most Europeans it seems as with the role America played in securing European freedom. In the end, once I show compassion for their views and explain the environment and challenges Americans face to safeguard democracy from big business and organized crime, a common ground can be found with those abroad. Once again, we have more in common than that which separates.

World Citizenship

It is clear that the efforts of the past to aid poor countries not with weapons but with education and human resources are far more effective than punitive military actions and a heavy handed foreign policy. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Teaching the world to fish will feed them for generations and build alliances into the future.

Why must America act unilaterally with military strikes? Why are we not providing greater support for regional policing of regional problems through UN sponsored commissions? Americans are citizens of the world and must use our God given gifts to lead by example rather than by dictate or mandate. Compassion and patience is the calling card of a mature state and leading nation.

Show how your plan for America on all fronts (education, military, healthcare, etc) is a template for the world. Can you UN adopt such a template to propagate to emerging nation states? If not, then there may be something lacking in the underlying principles that impairs the ability for a sustainable and repeatable solution to be adopted.

Regards,
Derek LaSalle

Comment on Arnold Schwarzenegger's remarks

Lucia — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:02:19 EDT

I am very disappointed about Arnold Schwartzenegger's remarks at a John McCain's rally in Ohio yesterday. I expecially refer to what seemed to me a superficial mis-interpretation of the past European history and role of socialism, in order to characterize Barack Obama as a "socialist". Defining the policies of Barack Obama as socialist means not knowing the socialism; otherwise, if we are talking about "social" policies, i.e. retirement policies, economic support for the middle class, fiscal burden related to the income, health care policies, some of the policies of some European countries are actually better than the American's and this "social" commitment of Europe derives mostly from its Christian, not "socialist" roots. It would be better not confusing people with wrong analogies.

Latin American Policy Questions for Debate

Heidi Jane — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:01:19 EDT

At a recent event at Florida International University, the following questions were asked to the top advisors of the John McCain and Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors for Latin America.

On a recent visit to Miami at a hurricane benefit, President Preval appealed to audiences requesting TPS status for Haitians during the recovery period. At what point during the Obama administration would you consider approving this measure for the poorest country in the hemisphere?

After much deliberation regarding Colombia’s free trade agreement during the campaign, what exactly was included in the agreement with Peru that was deemed “okay” and approved by the democrats and why hasn’t this been mentioned during the campaign?

Some polls estimate that public security is the most important of a factor to hinder the Americas’ wavering democracy, what will a Obama administration do to help not only US Americans feel safer while traveling but also help Latin American’s feel safer in their own cities?

During the current Bush Administration, USAID funded a reality TV show of gang members in Central America; do you feel this is an appropriate use of US taxpayer funds, why or why not?

The upcoming Summit of the Americas will be held in February for the first time in the Caribbean with the theme of sustainability, how would you personally make the event more successful than Mar del Plata (or previous ones)? What specific policies and or event would you like to implement at the event? Under a Obama administration, how will you make sure the OAS Summit Follow-up agreements are treated?

Urban planning is a major issue for many cities throughout the Americas, what could a Obama administration do to help alleviate traffic, improve decrepit infrastructure and make parks safe for children to play in?

As you may know, Latin Americans of African descendent comprise of nearly 30 percent of the Hemisphere’s population and nearly all of them are poor. What can a Obama administration do to assist Afro Latinos?

There is investment capital missing in Latin America, not just for small-micro businesses, but also for “Jose the Plumber” shops making $US 250,000 dollars a year. What can the US government do to assist to provide this type of capital to middle and larger-size small business to grow in Latin America?

Mohammed Yunus won a Nobel peace prize in 2006 for developing a micro-credit model for women of Bangladesh. Latin America has been implementing micro-credit funds for years. Some countries have state run micro credit and other markets have saturated loans and thus provide “donations” not loans to the poor. Do you believe in regulating the Grameen Bank model for micro-credit of Latin America?

In several of the recent debates both John McCain and Barack Obama mentioned they would use a scalpel to cut earmark spending. Much of this funding goes to develop programs at Universities, which create jobs and student fellowships. How could some of these new cuts affect Latin American programs at public institutions?

Two weeks ago when the dow dropped over 700 points, creating the value of the dolor to drop, many Argentines ran in massive droves to the banks to withdraw their money forming long lines and shutting down the city. What would you tell people in Latin America as the US economy is falling to do with their financial resources?

The gang and drug related violence in Mexico has surged since Felipe Calderon took office, most recently a young American boy under the age of 10 was kidnapped and it is suspected that his grandfather was part of a Mexican drug cartel. At what point do you think the American people will come to the rescue and help Mexico with this invasive problem of crime and drugs? What would an Obama/McCain Administration do to alleviate the problem, beyond the Merida Initiative?

With the US economy in a recession, many Central American immigrants living in the United States are unable to find suitable jobs; many of them are primarily responsible for sending money home to sustain their families. What could an Obama Administration do to encourage these illegal immigrants to go back home and also aid their economies to entice them back?

What would be the spending priorities for USAID programs in Latin America under an Obama administration?

Environmental degradation in the Americas is – as in most parts of the world – a serious concern that affects how priorities would be set in terms of economic development and social policies. How do you envision an Obama administration supporting environmental protection in the Americas? What would be your priorities?

Many people in the Americas believe that the US has turned its back on the hemisphere, how would an Obama administration try to change this view? What would be the first Latin American countries Obama would visit and why?

The Bush Administration set up the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which is currently working in Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, El Salvador, Guyana and Peru. There are several pockets of poverty in other countries, what will the Obama/McCain presidencies do to assist these countries needs when their governments are corrupt?

The Merida Initiative approved in May authorized $1.1 billion for Mexico over three years to help fight crime, but the current Administration of Felipe Calderon in Mexico, requested an additional $450 million budget as part of the 2009. Would the new administration continue to promote such a program or would it re-direct the funding to other programs?

In September 2006, Congress approved the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) to authorize the construction of a border fence and other parries along 700 miles of the US-Mexico Border.” New private citizen organizations to patrol the border have been formed. Would the new administration continue to fund the construction of the wall? Would it encourage private citizen to patrol the border?

It is common knowledge that the US has stronger environmental protection regulations than Latin America. Examples of these regulations include the protection of dolphins during tuna hunting, dumping regulations, and food and drug regulations for products such as sweeteners. How will you protect US industries that follow regulations (in the process raising the cost of production) when competing with Latin American imports that are produced at lower cost because they do not follow the regulations and safety codes during production?

Recently Paul Krugman was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in Economics, explaining why developed countries trade with other developed countries. One of the implications is that there might be a hidden net benefit for developed economies to trade with other developed countries vs. underdeveloped nations. With this in mind will the new administration encourage or fund infrastructure projects, such as the building of public roads, water systems, etc. and education programs in an attempt to increase the benefits we gain by trading Mexico through NAFTA?

What do you believe in? By: Josie Williams aka Shade Law Founder of X~Ray Your Soul~1

Josie from Riverside, CA — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:04:56 EDT

Embattled are we the people from the Government. Embattled are we the people, from laws with no spirit or heart. Embattled are we the people on the Net, from not only TOS, but hidden laws that make no common sense... which incorporate less Spirit with no Balance of good common sense and Heart. Embattled are we the people,....

for more please visit... http://xrayyoursoul1.wetpaint.com/page/What+do+you+believe+in%3F

Economic Recovery Proposal

Brian from Hattiesburg, MS — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:51:41 EDT

Summary:

Future Stock Injection Plans should more directly relieve consumer debt
by replacing mortgages with rental agreements that are easier to pay off.
This can be accomplished by the government owning 51% of some banks.

The maximum lending rate should be limited to 15% and
Derivatives should be taxed at this same maximum lending rate.

The government should also create some new banks free of speculative investments.
All government ownership of banks should eventually be sold at a modest profit to pension funds.

Note: In the first line above, by "consumer" I mean individuals and small businesses suffering from predatory sub-prime loans, not lending institutions or financial engineering firms.

Many economists feel that more debt relief will be necessary to rebuild the economy. I am writing to suggest exactly how debt can be relieved without undue burden to the taxpayer. While it may at seem an odd concept at first, or difficult to accomplish, much debt can be relieved by simply replacing particularly bad mortgages with a lease. More specifically, if all parties agree, any ownership exchange agreement in threat of default can be salvaged by replacing it with a rental agreement consisting of reduced monthly payments (and reduced responsibilities for the renter). In the case of a mortgage, the place of residence need not be abandoned by the residents (with all the trauma that entails). Instead, the dream of ownership is postponed until better times. While this is difficult for the homeowner, the transaction is simple and agreeable if the government owns the bank holding the mortgage, and the result is good for the economy. To state this concept more concisely, debt relief can be exchanged for the expectation of equity.

If You Do Not Allert Your Friends About This Your Idiots! aka Shade Law Founder

Josie from Riverside, CA — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:45:33 EDT

These videos should sink John McCain's presidential dreams

http://xrayyoursoul1.wetpaint.com/page/This+video+that+should+sink+John+McCain%27s+presidential+dreams

jobs, taxes, jobs, social security, jobs, baby boomers, jobs, pork, middle class, jobs, working peole, jobs, special interests, jobs,

Robert from Absecon, NJ — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:52:37 EDT

The rampant corruption - yes, corruption, let's call it what it is - in Washington must end, and it must end now. The corporate plunderers and their puppet politicians have, literally, bled this great nation dry. Our nation's capital has been nothing less than a porkfest picnic ground for many years, and through a number of administrations (of both major parties). We're not just talking about "earmarks", or even "corporate welfare". These are both parts of the big picture, but let's not forget government an defense cotracts, or the actual legislative acts that pander to "special interests". Government has become a "for profit" business.....for private, not public, profit. This must stop, and it must stop now, or the America we grew up in, the America we love, will be just a memory.

We choose to believe, and pray, that Barak will be different, will stay true. He claims to represent the majority of the people, not the majority of the wealth. God, please let it be so. The American majority cannot wait another four years for change. This is the truth that we, the people, know all too well, as our ability to make (the most essential) ends meet has all but disappeared, into the pockets of the "porkers".

But, there remains the question of just how deeply Barak understands our middle class plight. He promises tax breaks, but let's be honest. Most of us would happily pay more taxes, when it would mean that we are earning more. Senator Obama, the people's plight is not about taxes, it's about our incomes. A 15% tax break, for most families, is worth two weeks of medical insurance, maybe. And, at the rate that medical costs are rising, it will be worth two days insurance by the time your tax break is legislated. Because our incomes are in decline, savings are down (or gone), while costs (of essentials) are skyrocketing, and debt (incurred to pay the skyrocketing cost of essentials) is staggering.

We, the working majority of Americans, need jobs. Good, stable jobs that provide living wages. Most of the employment growth has been in the "service sector". While we're being "real", let's also be realistic. The only significant job creation in this country has been in poverty level jobs. Yes, these jobs are necessary.....for kids who need money for their Friday night dates. But, staying "real", these jobs can't begin to support a family, even a two parent family with both parents working two full time jobs. It just ain't gonna happen. Not here, not now.

We need jobs, real jobs. And, we need to fill them with real people. The working people of today's America. The displaced, the downsized, the disenfranchised. These are the people who must be trained for "new" jobs.

Barak, if you could take a survey of all the "baby boomers" who are nearing "retirement" age, you'll find a very, very large percentage have been herein described. They/we are desperate, with falling incomes or unemployment, no savings, and massive indebtedness. Retirement isn't/won't be an option, unless/until forced by failing health.

For them/us, social security looks simultaneously like a supplimental income and a curse. The current laws assume that they/we will have adequate savings when we begin collecting. But they/we don't. And, the pittance allowed (before benefits are penalized) won't be enough.

I am a 59 year old married man. I have a grown son, but I also have a baby daughter who will soon be 2. She will graduate high school (and begin college) when I am 75. I am now earning the same amount (in actual dollars) as I was in the 1970's. My health is failing (which I can't afford because I'm earning 1970's money). I have no savings (because I'm earning 1970's money). I have far too much debt (because I'm earning 1970's money). A tax credit of 15%, or even 100%, isn't going to fix the problem, because I'm earning 1970's money.

I, and the working people of America, of whom I'm sadly representative, are not earning wages that meet the needs of the 21st century. This, Senator Barak Obama, is the problem that must be immediately addressed. We pray you understand, and put our faith in you.

Qbama McCain debate economy policy tonight

Maurice from Villa Park, IL — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:12:54 EDT

Mr. McCain, we must remember that a root of our housing crisis is twofold. First, some people cannot make their mortgage payments. Second, banks no longer receiving those payments must cover those losses with money that cannot be loaned to other borrowers. These two facts have revealed a sick and broken relationship between borrowers and lenders by causing a spiral of declining home values and a credit contraction (an inability to get loans) that is affecting the average person’s sense of security for family, retirement, and working life.

It is true that some people’s dreams were certainly larger than the reality of their pocket books. It is true that some banks made risky loans beyond many borrowers ability to repay. It is true that our present crisis is revealing that enticements such as no money down, no fees, no income verification, and high debt to equity ratios were evidence of a system breaking down. These borrower/lender problems, masked by years of quickly rising housing prices, could be ignored only as long as the house could be sold at ever increasing prices. The real cause of the crisis is the acceptance of ‘poor equity and high risk’ by both sides of the borrower/lender relationship. Equity is the tangible evidence of the borrower’s real interest in the present property. Put simply, equity is what the borrower really puts into the property. Poor equity reveals that, at present, there is little or no real interest in the property and that any real interest in the present property is only imagined as equity projected into the future as something the owner might have later.

What is revealing itself right now is that the financial crisis has infected more than just the housing markets: it is probably in all sectors of the economy to varying degrees. It is signaling that the world wide system of money circulation is damaged. While we in the United States have overextended ourselves as borrowers by importing vast amounts of the world’s goods it could not have happened so easily without others financing our debt by loaning us the money to buy their exports. Money, at home and around the world, is no longer flowing so freely from one place, or person, to another because lenders are simply afraid that they have a smaller chance of being paid back tomorrow on money they could loan today. No matter a person’s, or a country’s, credit score or down payment, it is getting harder to find money to borrow to get a car, a student loan, or a house. The credit score needed, the collateral needed and/or the interest cost of borrowing money may need to go very high during the process of reestablishing a healthy relationship between lenders and borrowers.

We must remember that the real cause of the financial crisis is the acceptance of ‘poor equity and high risk’ by both sides of the borrower/lender relationship. Before spreading, this crisis first showed its ugly head in the housing markets here at home. To begin solving our problems we must first work at restoring a healthy borrower/lender relationship that begins with housing. This is not an easy thing when it is hard to judge the real value of a house in an unstable real estate market. The problem is in finding a way to stabilize declining house values. During the time that takes, more people could lose their homes through foreclosure. Vacant homes depress prices further as they continue adding to the supply of available homes on the market. Rising interest rates would also depress home prices as the cost of borrowing increases. Additionally, there is a growing percentage of borrowers that have a great negative equity in their home; and, if or when it becomes evident that the home will not regain its former value it will make financial sense for many of these borrowers to abandon their property by leaving it to the lenders.

The revolting aspect of just buying these bad loans to take them off the balance sheets of banks is that it does nothing for the troubled borrower or for any other person experiencing their housing value decline. Interest only loans in the hope that housing prices will again increase makes no sense except as a crap shoot. A person owning a house that they cannot afford to live in because of a high debt to equity ratio makes no sense. Continuing mortgage payments on a house that was grossly overvalued makes little sense in the long run. A borrower who has no ability to increase equity in the property has no reason to keep it up. Keeping people in a home in which they have an established and growing equity is the only way to begin to reestablish the healthy relationship between lender and borrower. It must be in the interest, as well as the ability, of the borrower to keep making payments that grow equity; and, it must be in the interest of the lender that the borrower be interested in growing property equity so that the lender has the long term ability to recycle the money loaned.

One way (and it is vital that we come up with other ways) for lenders to encourage troubled borrowers to stay in homes declining in value is to set up a five year program where the lender offers a ‘rent to own’ alternative. Market rents for any neighborhood are still relatively stable and easy to determine. Instead of conventional mortgage payments, offer payments of market rent plus ten percent; of which, that ten percent is to be held in an ‘equity down payment’ escrow account for the borrower. This ‘equity down payment’ account will begin working on the borrowers equity side of the problem and by encouraging people to stay in their homes the lenders assets begin performing again. At any time after participating in the program for at least one year, and prior to the ending of the program in five years, the borrower may repurchase the home at a new fair market price by adding to the ‘equity down payment’ escrow an amount of money at least equal to ten percent of that new market price. During this program, if the borrower wishes to move then the ‘equity down payment’ money moves with them and can be used for the purchase of any other home. With both borrower and lender participation in this program we can: first, begin using rental income as a basis for stabilizing housing values for lenders by keeping their assets performing; second, begin growing equity as a real foundation supporting housing values for borrowers; and third, in conjunction with one and two, the real problem of cultivating healthy relationships between borrowers and lenders is begun. The program is simply encouraging the development of a qualified borrower for a serviceable loan from a lender. Is this simply too good to be true? Not at all! In fact it is the only sane way to do it. Right now, we are coping with the aftermath of our insane lending and borrowing practices. Until we begin to change our poor habits, which are grounded in our unhealthy expectations, money will not flow properly or efficiently; thus, we will continue insanely repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Having the down payment to establish home equity will not in itself reestablish the healthy lender/borrower relationship. The lender/borrower needs a realistic debt to equity ratio for the relationship to succeed. Unfortunately this debt/equity ratio reveals a problem we have barely begun to talk about; which is, that the overall debt of many consumers is too high to be serviced. Evidence of this growing problem can be seen by comparing the flood of credit card offers mailed in our recent past to the present mailing of credit card offers which is now approaching zero. The serviceability problems of auto loans and student loans is also growing and indicating the severity of the problem posed by high debt/equity ratios. Servicing this total debt/equity is a great problem facing us today. Mortgage payments are just the largest part of the debt side of the equation for most homeowners and future home buyers. Actual declining house values are a symptom of this greater problem. The solution to the real economic problem can only be achieved by establishing a workable, sustainable, debt/equity balance: that is the only thing that can create a tangible confidence in the markets and the restoration of a healthy relationship between lenders and borrowers. Right now we have a great debt to equity imbalance and we do not know what the proper balance should be.

Since the bailout bill passed, authorizing 700 billion dollars worth of taxpayer backed funds, my team has come up with one principle step to productively use that money. We are proposing that, on a conditional basis, we immediately freeze home foreclosures and end evictions for the next five years. The borrowers conditions are; first, that the borrower be living in the home; and, second that the borrower agrees to provide equity for a future loan. The lenders condition is that the lender work with the borrower on an appropriate debt/equity ratio that includes realistic mortgage payments, credit card payments, car payments, school loan payments, and any other payments such as medical, utilities, phone, etc. which should have been considered within the terms of the original loan. The meeting of both lender and borrower conditions has the potential to properly restructure a future loan that may be adjusted to future market rates of both principal and interest within the five year period. We understand that people who are in over their heads will be unable to qualify for the new loans as things stand. That is why it will be important for the lender to take guidance of the whole debt/equity reality that the borrower is in and that is why the ‘rent to own with a down payment escrow account’ is the other half of this proposal. It is certainly probable that loans beside the mortgages will have to be renegotiated too. To have the mortgage lender be the only responsible party to the resolution of this debt to equity imbalance is ridiculous, especially when the credit card and student loan companies extended seemingly unlimited amounts of completely unsecured debt to borrowers often only in pursuit of short term corporate profits.

The science of economics was in its infancy during the great depression of the 1930’s. We are probably experiencing the wild and frantic teenage years of capitalism today. Today’s science of economics has matured between the great depression and now and what economics now knows must be taken into account. The current bailout proposal, as it is being talked about, seems to take considerable care of Wall Street lenders and it seems to give only lip service to caring for the borrowers. Based on certain conditions as already discussed the freeze on foreclosures and the possibility of converting the property to ‘rent to own’, is the only proposal now up for consideration that will help create a supporting floor under the housing market based on the rental income of that housing capital. It will also help give us at least one year of time needed for economic scientists to experiment with ways to address the proper balancing of debt to equity.

The economic realities which we are experiencing today will force us to reeducate ourselves regarding the economic values of money, work and property. Our economic institutions as they stood yesterday, the regulations or the lack of regulations set up by congress, and poor or greedy personal habits have all combined with other external events such as war and volatile energy prices to create what seems to be the perfect financial storm. New thinking that will address both sides of the debt/equity balance is demanded in these times. The old thinking will take care of the institutions because it does not know any way to include the borrowing people: the people it makes money from and the people it uses to make that money.

The old thinking cannot measure the pain of the people as individuals or as a community, but it can measure its own pain symbolized by going out of business. That pain of dying as an institution is unacceptable to those in positions of power and they do not like feeling pain. To some extent, the dying of the institutions is unacceptable; but, their painful experience is absolutely necessary and death must be a real possibility. Our institutions are our means of organizing our productive resources. Without them in some form, which may be a new form that is not yet evident, nothing will get accomplished on the scale that will be needed. We have seen in Iraq that wiping out existing institutions and creating new ones from the ground up, with no historical traditions to provide a base from which to do work, simply does not work. Saving evolving institutions is necessary to some degree but not to the exclusion of the people they are here to serve. It is these new economic realities that are forcing a great institutional change in how business will be done in the future across the world. It is the new thinking that is brought into the world by the inheriting generation that must solve these problems. The younger generations must respectfully take responsibility for the living it will be creating for itself from what the older generations are leaving.

Jim Cramer, on his show Mad Money, Friday night, suggested a meeting between Paulson, the Fed, and the major surviving banks in which it would be agreed between parties that all problem loans would be taken care of and that each bank would be given 100 billion dollars to loan out on an immediate basis. In principal that is a fine idea but it only addresses half the problem. If there is no equitable reason to give out the loans then we will just compound the problem by just wishing that equity will be created. Do I suppose that we should just trust the bankers to do what is right for all of us? Not on our life! Never again! We need to stop and take a breath even if only for a day.

Mr. Cramer also addressed the need to go after the powerful people that should be taking greater responsibility for this mess. And that is very, very, necessary; but, recognize that it is a second concern to the overall restoration of the economy. He also spoke about greed and the hundreds of millions of dollars stolen with careless disregard for the consequences. With regard to that greed, I was reminded of Khruschev’s assertion that ‘capitalism is based on greed’. I believe that is completely untrue. Capitalism, as well as any other form of economic system, cannot possibly survive based on greed. Any system that survives survives only as a sustainable system of working relationships based on honesty, openness, equality, and transparency: greed as well as dishonesty, close-mindedness, inequality and opacity ultimately destroy all relationships. Honesty, openness, equality, and transparency foster all relationships including capitalistic ones.

Even though these ideas are very simple and fraught with unanswered questions regarding monetary losses for borrowers, lenders, and society as a whole they will provide a measured step in stopping the bleeding so we can begin the process of recovery. Wasting time playing the blame game just increases the costs and the severity of the injury. Restoring the healthy relationship between borrowers and lenders must start from where we are today accepting that vast sums of money disappeared. So far, all I have heard pundits talk about is restoring the ability for institutions to borrow and lend to each other hoping that some form of healthy borrowing/lending will trickle down to the average consumer once the ability to lend money is restored. We must remember that it is just as important to restore the personal interest for acquiring the property in the first place: that takes equity – for equity is the present measure of economic value personal interest places in the property itself.

Now I would like to see what kind of new thinking would come about with regard to the credit card and student loan industries if they were to be reregulated. They might even be encouraged to come up with some realistic proposals on their own if we consider easing bankruptcy restrictions. Imagine if the right to first payment on various held credit cards was actually based on which card has been held the longest and/or on which card has the lowest interest rate. Imagine that the longest held credit card had a credit rating based on the first ten percent of after tax income and the second longest held card had a rating based on the second ten percent of after tax income. Let us just see which banks want to be third or fourth in line to extend the credit that will be treated as though it were a third or fourth mortgage.

With regard to student loans it might be a good idea if lenders tied loan amounts to a figure based on average pay over five years for someone graduating with a particular major: say a $40,000.00 salary per year. That would require both lenders and students to consider the potential return on the education for that major. The money borrowed ($40,000.00) could also be amortized over ten years insuring that payment would be roughly ten percent of yearly pay ($4,000.00). This would encourage students to carefully consider the relationship between education, work, and wage. This would also begin to reorient colleges toward more productive educations. It would also take away a fixed upper limit loan amount that it can get from students no matter how well or for what employment they are taught. I would bet that if the government guaranteed that any student could get $100,000.00 in student loans for any four year degree every college would quickly find a way to increase costs to around that $100,000.00 limit. Might this actually lower college tuition costs? It might!

By just suggesting regulations such as these, I think we can spur new thoughts as to how to do things differently in Washington in a way which will make a real difference for the average person’s sense of security regarding their family, their retirement and their whole working life.

Thank you,

From the imagine of

Mauruy

Obama-Biden Docs Online

liberal — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:40:48 EDT

They've got all their policies posted here!

http://www.scribd.com/people/view/1616471-barack-obama

Found via http://twitter.com/BarackObama

Just Shut Up

Khaidji — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:49:42 EDT

There has been lots of talk from lots of people about how a Barack Obama Government would treat Israel. Apparently it doesn’t matter what Obama says since he cannot be trusted, at least not by the American who are afraid of a Black man running the Government. It doesn’t not matter that the Black man is a very educated and caring individual, truly concern with making the wrongs of America right. But for all that is being said, worse is when an Activist with the clout of the Rev. Jesse Jackson to be caught in dispute again. This is a man of experience and he is allowing himself to be part of smear campaigns and open mics.

Just Shut Up

Jesse opened his mouth again

Uttered words to fuel McCain

Shameless postulations about policy

Though he is not placed to be

Silence please Jesse, it’s open mic

Have a vacation on us, go ride a bike

Use your time to inhale and breathe some fresh air

The campaign doesn’t need your kind around here

Undoing the harm you’ve done will cost dearly

People just wanted to hear your kind of racial polarity

This and other Acrostic Poetry at The Bajan Poetry Society By Khaidji

My email to friends and family

Chelsea66 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:32:08 EDT

I put together the following email for my friends and family who are undecided about who they want for president, so I thought I'd post it here in case it inspires anyone else to do the same. Since I've been so passionately for Obama these past months I made the email as objective as possible so they'd actually listen to what I said. I've included McCain's political positions as well as Obama's on the three most important issues to me this election: Economy, Health Care, and Education. I passionately believe that once the noise from the spin machines and the mud throwing is cleared away, the policies of Barack Obama speak for themselves, and are very clearly the change that America needs to return to what we once were. Join with me in talking to your undecided friends and family members. Speak out as one voice advocating change!

Here it is:

Hey, I know I've been talking a whole lot about the election these days, but I really think that this election is a critical point to reverse some of the the disastrous policies under Bush.

Since I know it's hard to get the facts straight this election I wanted to send you some links to Obama's official positions on some of the most important issues:

-Economy: http://my.barackobama.com/EconomyFlyer
-Health Care: http://my.barackobama.com/HealthcareFlyer
-Education: http://my.barackobama.com/EducationFlyer

And in an effort at fairness, here are McCain's official positions as well. Information is critical to all of us and you all need to start paying attention to it if you haven't already:

-Economy: http://www.johnmccain.com/EconomyBriefing
-Health Care:http://www.johnmccain.com/HealthcareBriefing
-Education: http://www.johnmccain.com/EducationBriefing

Here's a cheat sheet for the candidates positions (with sources cited in case you don't believe them):
http://ofrecord.com/PolicyPositions

The election is coming up fast, and it's time you start doing some research and taking a stand.

P.S. If you want more information I also found the following from third party websites.

Here's WebMD's summary of the candidate's positions on health care (I couldn't find a comprehensive 3rd party position paper on the economy or education):
http://www.webmd.com/CompareCandidates

However, with respect to science education in this country I did find this:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/14Questions

And just for fun, a list of the biggest "whoppers" of this election season (site that is extremely trustworthy):
http://www.factcheck.org/TheWhoppersOf2008

Third Debate: What Barack Obama needs to accomplish

Davis Lentz — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:19:02 EDT

I noticed from audience responses to the first and second Presidential debates that both candidates failed to mention the specifics that undecided voters wanted to hear. They were disappointed in the responses because they wanted to hear more detail about their plans. That said, I think the third and final debate is a perfect opportunity for Obama to leave a powerful impression on the voters before they go to the polls.

What Obama needs to do whenever he presents a policy is to answer the following questions in a concise, clear manner:

1) What he intends to do, specifically
2) How he is going to pay for it

Rather than promise these lofty, vague improvements to the United States, Obama should provide specific examples of what he will do for each person. Show, don't tell, as MSNBC news anchor Rachel Maddow so eloquently put it. People are skeptical that Obama can accomplish all of these things and manage to pay for it. Persuade them otherwise.

Tell stories that illustrate the points, like:

"You will see your taxes go down about $1000 when I am President. And guess who's going to pay for it? Paris Hilton and Bill Gates."

"Senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year will be removed from the income tax rolls, and I'll pay for it by closing tax loopholes that allow American companies to claim that their corporate headquarters is a P.O. Box in the Cayman Islands."

"If you serve your country, I will provide you with the credit you need to go to college. Think of it as an opportunity rather than a sacrifice. If you invest in America, then America will invest in you. Performing service to your country builds character, morality, respect and patriotism. Those values are just as important as an education."

"I will give American families a $1000 Emergency Energy Rebate. Who's paying for it? Exxon-Mobil will, when I enact a windfall profits tax on them."

Finally, this point has not yet been addressed, but it is highly important. Barack Obama will make a much more effective president than John McCain. Why? Because he will have a strong Democratic congress behind him. If John McCain were to become president, he would face a hostile Congress that would likely become gridlocked on every little issue, just like the one George Bush suffers under. So, vote for Barack Obama if you want things to get done in Congress.

Senior National Securty Advisor, Richard Danzig, for Obama Knows What He Talking About!

Josh and Kade — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:50:18 EDT

Richard Danzig said he believes it would be smart for Obama, if elected, to consider people like Robert Gates who have served in Republican Administrations.

"I personally believe that an administration that took advantage of some of the skills of people who are Republicans, or independents as well, would be a stronger administration," he said. "That doesn't translate to a prediction about Secretary Gates."

www.yahoo.com (article)

(what are the chances the Obama team incorporates all members from different party's into one whole party?

Sounds like a dream come true for my friend Kade, being that it is her who created the Third National Party concept. The TNP members are a combination of key political party members, of differerent afilliations placed into one whole party. Here, she believes, everyone would have a voice, including U.S. citizens.

Over ten years she collected information in order to write the TNP programs and policies. She utilized what isn't working into what will work for generations to come. She pretty much found a way to solve the U.S governments over wellming -policy- problems.

A problem solver is no trouble maker. She is a true public servant, being that she pulled this off by not telling a soul until she was ready.

I was told over a year ago that she proposed the TNP to the intelligence community and both republican and democrats. Which one took interest? it appear the democrats did.

I love it!

Really tho, I think it is time for kade to run for office. She would make one hell of a moderate President, first woman president I might add. Will we be ready for her then? Damn right we will be!

House Repubs: want to reck the Country to reclaim the seat in 4 years.

Omar Dyer — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:57:48 EDT

We are in a moment at a time of leadership: the fire and wood chips have been placed in the House of Representatives. When people start to lose their jobs, the secert room chats start to come out: "House Repubs (Reagan File Republicans) are voting against their own party presidents bill. Whoever is elected is screwed and will carry this big anchor around their neck. The repubs, who really don't care that much for McSame: as they call him (John McCain) anyhow, are pretty sure they are going to lose this election. They are hoping to see a dem fail to have a better shot in four years with a legitimate candidate." -- Former NY Sun Reporter

A rumor on the hill leaked from an out of work reporter stated: "House repubs are now losing lots of money in the market, like everyone else. They are caught between a rock and a hard place and most likely will have to pass this bill, but for all the wrong reasons." -- Former NY Sun Reporter

This country is at a moment in time where you can't sink the country; in order to regain the seat 4 years later. That's not leadership: that's rackateering. This is the time when you see the signs of real leadership. Please remember on election day that Barack Obama's campaign is united his party. While John McCain has divided his party. Here's how we got into this mess, a divided county -- where parties will throw wood-chips in a fire for power. You have many reagan file Repubs, and a few freshman Dems -- voting and creating bills for their friends in Wall Street. They are setting the un-regulated laws that has turned this country into greed. You can't blame them for thinking about greed, yet, I hate to say it but: President Bush dropped the ball. He was so hungry on the axis of evil, and forgot about his own house. Which in tern burnt his country -- maybe G. W. Bush didn't know because: NOBODY LISTENED. This is the change we need in Washington, when everyone knows that they can't beat the system. They can't vote for the regulations in Wall Street, and then say: I didn't make that law: The other party did. It's time to unify both parties, and stop the bickering of you did this and they did that. It's time to work for the American people -- because for once they really need it. It doesn't matter if your from the north, south, east west, middle, off the coast, or a terriorty: YOU are an American product. So if one state hurts, the next territory will hurt. We have 600,000 unemployed Americans, and in Washington they are fill-bustering the bills so they can make a few dollars in the market. Maybe their should be a tax on Congress that uses stock market revenues as campaign contribution. What I mean is they are placing their money into a product on Wall Street, and getting funds. That's how we got into this mess, and it started with the Reagan File Republicans: and when Nacy Pelosi told them the party was over they: wanted to remove her from the seat. That's a shame!

Sen. Obama needs to project values, as well as policies and positions

J David from Novato, CA — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:20:38 EDT

Advisors to leaders as well as researchers in social psychology, communications, and political science predict that the winner of the presidential debates will be the candidate voters like and trust, more often than the candidate who seems to know about the issues.

People usually don't vote based on the issues primarly, nor do facts usually convince people. Instead, people assess issues and candidates based on how they feel about the facts, as they perceive them, subjectively.

For example, George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, in his book, "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics With An 18th Century Brain," writes that the Enlightenment view of reason is that reason is logical, that if you give people the facts they will logically come to the right decision. But cognitive science, neuroscience, and political science have shown that faith in the voters' reliance on reason is misplaced. Voters, like human beings in general, are driven by emotion more than by reason.

Lakoff points out that Sen. John McCain tends to appeal to the values and emotions of voters by answering questions in debates and interviews with a "sandwich". He gives a short answer, framed according to his party's values, then expands that in three or four sentences, then repeats the short values statement. On the other hand, Sen. Barack Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, has tended until recently to give very nuanced answers, focused on a rational analysis of the issue, which often can come across as vague or wishy-washy.

Other research shows convincingly that the candidate who is viewed as having greater confidence and optimism, in particular, is much more likely to win election over a candidate with less perceived confidence and optimism, regardless of how the candidates compare in their knowledge of issues and their actual positions on those issues. In a crisis, such as the recent meltdown on Wall Street, it is predictable that perceptions of confidence and optimism, two core values in American culture, will have greater weight than ever in this fall's election.

Bailout?

KiaF — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:58:17 EDT

As I wake up this morning and sit down for my normal cup of coffee before class, I turn on MSNBC to hear startling news. I can not believe that Obama, my candidate for change, is for this unethical bailout. I understand that our economy is not strong, however why should I be forced to pay for the corporate greed of another. Companies which once were able to boast some of the highest paid CEO's and executives in the world are now asking for my money because they were not fiscally responsible. What does this say? What point does this make? It is not forgiving the actions of an innocent mistake, but approving unsound and potentially unethical business practices.

We are supposed to be a free market. What happened to letting companies die off when its their time, to let new companies with fresh ideals and business practices step in to take their place. Why are we now a country of what the minority thinks is best. I completely understand the concept of globalization and being a part of the bigger picture, but does that mean that our country's systems should be run by congomerates or monopolies that want to decide how much I should pay for car insurance, health insurance or even a simple prescription?

In order to have effective change, I can not possibly understand how bailing these companies out will make us stronger in the future. This country can not afford to take on anymore debt than we already have. We have become a debtor nation in a world where our political, economic and military status has become almost secondary to that of other nations. Further, it is simple arithmatic. You can not spend more than what you have. A continuance of such policies sets this nation up for complete fiscal failure. We can not run an effective government on credit. That is why Americans are in so much debt now. Those that did not qualify for credit, loans or mortgages are now drowning in debt because the financial powers at be decided they would find anyway to make financing available. Now I am not saying that we as Americans should not be held accountable for our lack of fiscal responsibility, but I am sure that the majority of those suffering from foreclosures, bankruptcies and mounting debt were not placed in their position because they were fiscally irresponsible but because of matters they couldn't control such as layoffs, wage descreases and unemployment. $700 billion dollars is a slap in the face to those of us who work hard, pay our taxes and are productice members of society. With this type of action, I am doubting if change will ever come.

To John McCain: We have 100% trouble; your's is a 10% solution

Dr. Jeffrey Kargel — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:02:50 EDT

John McCain: Surely by now you recognize that America, and the world, is in deep trouble. The stewardship of our economic security, our national security, of our environmental security, our direction as a nation and as a people has been so disastrous that even the Bush backers see it. You have tried to recast yourself as a maverick after 8 years of casting yourself as a Bush backer and casting 90% of your Senatorial votes for George Bush's positions. If I do the math, and seeing that George Bush has been wrong about almost everything (I'll leave that to be self evident), that leaves 10% of you that pushes for change, to make the wise choices. That's a 10% solution to attack 100% trouble that is evident with just about every issue that might come up. John McCain, I do believe you'd be better than George Bush, at least 10% wise.

Barack Obama: All that said, remember how George Bush went into auto-pilot as soon as he stepped into the Oval Office? Remember how he didn't even examine the Clinton record and just ordered his people to do everything opposite, to abandon what was in progress, to undo the Clinton achievements? On North Korea nukes (the result: N Korea now has nukes), on Palestine/Israel conflict (result: Hamas is now in power), on Iraq policy (result: an intractable war, a booming U.S. budget deficit, and an empowered Iran), on protections against arsenic and air pollution (result: more allergies to airborne vectors, more asthma, more emphysema, more work time made unproductive, more cancers, more needless deaths), on control of global warming and fossil fuels combustion (result: more oil addiction, more reliance on adversaries, higher trade imbalance, more enrichment of al Qaeda and Hugo Chavez, a more aggressive Russia, higher gas prices, more and increasingly destructive storms and coastal erosion and flooding, more climatic upheaval and agricultural impacts), on logging our old growth national forests and reducing endangered species protection (less splendor, less natural treasure preserved), on social security (result: more insecurity, decreased well being of our seniors), on government balance of spending and income (result: ballooning budget deficit and reduced options for infrastructure improvements and other needs), on just about any issue you can name. On these issues there was pretty much no review of what was actually solid and positive about the Clinton record; there was just a knee-jerk action belying the Bush team's misunderstanding of the world's people, the economy, limits of military technology, and elementary physics. So they just did opposite Clinton or undid what he did; that was their policy, until 9/11 came along, and then they could think of nothing else, they ignored all the other looming troubles, and they didn't even see that other actions undermined the steps they took to try to get al Qaeda, to fight nuclear proliferation, and to make the world safe for Capitalism. We have some very serious undoing to do, but I urge that decisions to undo will be based on a serious level of review and a consideration of repercussive effects of changing course. There are many things to do and push forward on, and those can be pursued right away, without delay, within the fiscally handicapped condition Bush is handing you. In terms of the undoing, review is a good thing, if simply to establish the solid basis for undoing and to identify potential unintended consequences.

Interesting concepts

Joe from Fountain Inn, SC — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:59:32 EDT

Promises are just that and are meant to be broken. How can you deliver what you're proposing when the government doesn't have the money to start with? Where would all this money come from to "jumpstart" everything? You need to increase taxes on foreign IMPORTS to give American's the choice to buy American goods, considering all the stores have foreign merchandise in them. That is the reason American's lose their jobs! Along with foreign investors supplying money here and then pulling it all out when the going gets tough. The economy didn't get this way overnight and it's going to take more than a few years to pull it out. I doubt we'll see any impovement until the American people (government) makes it hard to IMPORT from other countries!

Economic Policy Change

Joe — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:01:30 EDT

It is essential during these tumultuous economic times that the opportunity not be lost to take a new, citizen-focused approach to American economic poiicy.

Since Ronald Reagan and for almost 30 years, the economic policy of the United States has been to assist and aid BIG BUSINESS at all costs. Whether it be the Savings & Loan debacle of the early 80s, or various financial industry bailouts, the Republican philosophy is that ORDINARY PEOPLE must work, but be limited in their access to capital. So for years, big business has siphoned all of the available capital from society by paying extraordinarily low wages to workers in order to retain maximum profits and through enjoyment of a shift of tax breaks from regular working people over to large corporations and the wealthy. With this huge pot of capital, big business has taken to investing it NOT in America, but in risky hedge funds, overseas expansion and each other.

Obama and the democrats need to lead a new economic policy movement that does not shy away from asserting that capital must be shifted back into the hands of ordinary Americans. Despite the Republican elitist theory that only the rich should be entitled to handle and invest capital, economic history shows that the country is far more stable when ordinary Americans collect, retain and invest capital. Small businesses, family-owned investment real estate, retirement accounts and stock investing by individuals is a powerful economic force and comprises the majority of the annual gross national product of this country. It is not safe for any country to centralize its capital into a few banks or a few insurance companies or a few communications companies or a few giant discount retailers.

We've seen what happens when the economy is turned over to elitists and grotesquely overgrown companies who are out-of-touch and inefficient. Furthermore, no small business owner enjoys the prospect of zero risk, of socialized bailout if they fail. When a small business fails, the owner is held accountable and severely punished in the market and by the government.

Take this 700 billion dollars and run it through the Small Business Administration. Start a trust, start an SBA lending bank--whatever it takes. 700 billion dollars given to the PEOPLE will strengthen the economy a lot more than saving malignant and corrupt organizations that have already proven themselves unworthy of existence. We should not be afraid of their failure and we should not feel sorry for them. They failed, that is the way it is in a free market. Return taxpayer money back to the taxpayers and in doing so, you will revive the American dream, you will restore the entrepeneural spirit in this country and you will restore the economy.

Even if that 700 billion was used for the sole purpose of establishing socialized health care, it would still serve to take the "bad debt" of millions of Americans owing medical bills and shift it to the government. With the money Americans no longer have to pay for health care, they could invest, obtain educations, purchase things and revitalize the American economy that way. ANYTHING is better than spending that money on these failed, greedy, corrupt financial institutions. How could anyone think that the only way to save our economy is to give MORE money to companies which had all of the money they could want, but still squandered it? Drug dealers cannot be nominated to get people off of drugs and financial institution officers cannot be nominated to fix the financial crisis.

Senator Obama and democrats must redefine what is going on in today's markets and start leading the charge to return capital back to citizens. Just like Jack crawled up the beanstalk to retrieve the people's hoarded wealth and defeat the giant, we must reach up through this rare opportunity of a presidential race coinciding with historic economic rehabilitation and snatch back conservatorship of the capital generated by the efforts of the American people.

Anti-republican Current eMail Signature for Your Use.

ModerateMan — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:45:41 EDT

Feel free to copy and use any of the comments below. This is my current Campaign '08 email signature.

Abstinence Works: Don't Vote Republican.

Prefer living somewhere where they ban books, there is no separation of church and state, think creationism is fact, everyone has a gun, and women have no choice? Move to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other 2nd century country where religion rules. Or vote for McCain/Palin and let it happen in the USA.

Protect the 1st Amendment; keep religion out of politics.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, now Bush…This is what Laissez Faire government & Trickle Down economics get you -- The fact that the Great Depression began in 1929, on the Republicans' watch, is a great embarrassment to conservative economists. Government regulation of banks was nearly nonexistent. Taxes and regulation were slashed dramatically, monopolies were allowed to form, and inequality of wealth and income reached record levels. The Depression stemmed from the U.S. economy's underlying flaws, aggravated by Republican policies during the 1920s.

W: Failed Neo-Con Nazi Nut-bag to 1 trillion dollar Socialist is eight long years.

The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

We should be careful in supporting the Bush bailout proposal

aaacamb — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:39:25 EDT

I rarely read Paul Krugman's op-eds in the NYT but after reading today's since it is on the bailout, I am very concerned about the interest of taxpayers being lost in the anxiety to avoid the "impending meltdown". If the bailout's goal is to address investor confidence (to avoid precipitating market losses) by providing the massive bank account of the US govt as a source of funds that could ultimately buy distressed securities then that is simply insufficient for multiple reasons. The objectives must include

minimizing losses to the govt, and if possible, maximizing any profits to be made
disallow institutions rescued by the government from profiting directly from the rescue - all potential sources of capital must be exhausted before government money is used to rescue a firm - that includes excessive compensation for managers as well as outrageous bonuses. Afterall the objective of the bailout is to prevent a collapse of the market that drives the economy (credit being the major issue this tim)
minimizing the impact on the govt's bank account given that this account is greatly in arrears anyways (thanks to our friendly, compassionate and (socially-only) conservative president). The national debt today stands at $9 trillion and change. We are in dangerous territory and our global solvency is at the hands of nations that we are not exactly on the best of terms with. Ultimately the hand at the US wheel is what ultimately determines the long-term confidence in the US by our fellow nations and we must not forget their financial interests tied into our economy
At the same time, as Paul K says, we must lose any pridefulness and seek global participation in righting the boat

Barack and co. must carefully scrutinize the proposal and comment on it without getting bogged down in partisanship. Not only will that inspire confidence in our capabilities but such involvement is perceived as necessary given Barack and Joe's roles as senators. Remaining true to the objectives of saving the nation's skin as much as possible will take away from our opponents the ability to make false claims about our campaign's interests.

Will My Taxes Go Up or Down?

Jonathan Juillerat — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:14:10 EDT

My good friend Tim just sent out an email that really breaks down the Obama tax plan versus the McCain tax plan:

Hello all,Most of you already know my political leanings but after this email there will be little doubt. I wanted to take this chance to provide to you all the most recent report from the Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Institute regarding the proposed tax plans from both Barack Obama and John McCain.You can find the whole report here:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/findtables_candidates.pdfBut, I will spare you the gory details and provided a two page file to this email. This file shows two tables lifted from the report. These tables show the tax implications to the average American household under both proposed plans. Look at both tables at the third column, titled "Percent Change in After-Tax Income" and you will find:Obama Plan:

99% of all households would see greater after tax income under the Obama plan.
The bottom 25% would see a 5.5% increase in after tax income.
The bottom 80% of all households will see anywhere from a 1.8% increase to a 5.5% increase in their after tax income.
The top 0.1% (one tenth of one percent) would see an decrease of 8.9% in after tax income.
The Federal Gov't would see an $824 reduction is tax revenue per household.

McCain Plan

The McCain plan shows an increase in after tax income across the board, but the lion's share IN PERCENTAGE AND DOLLARS goes to the top 0.1% of all households
The TOP 0.1% will see a 4.7% INCREASE in after tax income. The most wealthy households the US has are rewarded with the largest tax break (in percentage and dollars) of any other tax bracket.
The bottom 50% of all households will see less than a 1% increase in after-tax income.
The bottom 25% of all American households will see a $21 benefit while the top 0.1% of all American households will see a $290,708 benefit.
The Federal Gov't would see a $7956 reduction is tax revenue per household.
How can the US continue with such a MASSIVE reduction in revenue in a period where spending is at an all-time high? It isn't just the war and it isn't just wasteful spending. The US has committed nearly half a trillion dollars to beleagured financial institutions over the last month and you are kidding yourself if you think it's over.

What does all of this mean?

If you are in the top 1% of all American households in adjusted gross income then you should absolutely vote McCain.
If you are in the bottom 99% of all American households then you are better off economically under the Obama plan.
If you aren't planning on voting for Obama because he is a secret Muslim then no amount of analysis will change your mind and you probably quit reading this email a long time ago.

Obama Needs to Back Off Gun Control

Triscuit — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:20:12 EDT

I've been reading a bit this morning, and I've found people starting to talk about Obama's position on gun control. The gun control issue seems to be returning somewhat, and Obama's support of the Assault Weapons Ban is really hurting him with moderate gun owners.

I think that it is something he really needs to rethink his stance, because the AWB did absolutely nothing to ban automatic weapons, curb violence, or prevent shootings. It is a meaningless piece of legislation that the Democratic Party needs to leave in the 90s. It serves only to drive away gun owners, which are 25% of American adults. 50% of American households have at least one gun.

Obama can't afford to let gun control become a national issue. Both he and the Democratic Party need to drop the issue, support the status quo, and fight other battles. There are very few people who will vote for gun control, and many people who will vote against. It just isn't worth it.

This is the thread that sparked my concerns:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2958956

Why is immigration so hard?

Frustrated Independent — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:36:40 EDT

I don't get the immigration debate. More specifically: I don't understand why it is so complicated to figure out!!

The solution is simple: if you're here illegally, you should be prosecuted and deported. Simple as that. I follow the laws, and I don't have a get-out-of-jail-free card, and I'm a citizen. There are hundreds of thousands of highly skilled individuals who have abided by the process and waited in line to enter this country and lawfully become citizens. Fifty of those people are members of my family. My father and mother waited in line back in the 60's and 70's. The point is that they followed the law! Proximity to our borders and gambling ones life to trek across the sierra nevada should not be an on-ramp to legal work status and certainly not to citizenship. If that becomes the norm, any argument for helping the poor, which is fundamental democratic thinking, immediately becomes "helping the poor and the people that broke the law to be poor but within our borders", which is an idea I (and I expect many independents) will not subscribe to. I'm not a charity. I don't mind helping people out from time to time, but I'm not going to provide free support to anybody that had the guts to cross the border.

I graduated from a highly reputable university. I have *many* friends that are brilliant, law-biding individuals. They could have easy overstayed their visa's and scrounged for some type of job. Instead, they followed the law, left the country, and waited for a corporation to sponsor their H1B visa. By giving amnesty, you are telling foreigners, particularly foreign students, that instead of adhering to the laws and policies of the US, they instead should ignore them and expect amnesty. "Intelligent immigration" is about providing incentives to those with skills and the capabilities of significantly contributing to society (which in part implies assimilation too), should be the objective. Not "charitable immigration".

Amnesty in any form is unacceptable. We need to encourage individuals to follow the law, not give them a way out because we as a government were too stupid to understand how to enforce the laws. More over, we should encourage those who have studied at our universities, graduated with good gpa's, and have quite a bit of promise to stay, work, and contribute to society. The whole mantra of "give us your weak, your poor, ..." made sense pre-depression, but now that we have social services, where our tax money is used in-part to support those that can't support themselves, that ideology no longer is ideal. I refuse to have any of my tax dollars spent caring for those that broke the law and are getting away with. If that's the case, why should I adhere to any law?? I'll walk into best buy and walk off with a playstation and a new plasma tv. Anybody that stops me is two-faced.

To me, amnesty => democrats. But at the same time, anti-immigration => republican. Both are dumb positions. We as a country need to enforce our laws and encourage intelligent immigration policies, where we encourage highly educated people and their families to immigrate to the US and establish their roots. By the way, we need to "import" highly educated people (particularly in math and science) because well, quite frankly, those educated in the US high school system (as well as most of people that graduated from the weaker 50-500 ranked universities) simply don't cut it in the marketplace, but this is for another blog post.

Finally, any candidate that panders to illegal immigrants and their supporters automatically loses my vote. Additionally, anybody that argues the people here illegally are fleeing repression, should go visit India, China, and other countries because my relatives are represessed too, but they are abiding by the law and are waiting (for $50k I could have them snuck over the border tomorrow, but it is *ILLEGAL*). If the candidates for both major parties pander, I simply wont vote at all, and I will encourage as many people as possible to not vote too. It's a matter of pride and being right. I expect this to be a sentiment held by *many* of the first and second generation immigrants in this country, because they are the ones whose family are following the legal process and waiting for US visa's in their home country. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Nothing anybody says can change that fact. Any law breakers should be prosecuted. People that follow the law should be afforded priveledges. Period.

Inspire us with hope

Candice — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:34:17 EDT

Barack Obama, you changed the tone of the campaign this week. You brought it back to politics and policy. With all of the right policies, you should be winning in the polls.

Now look at the electorate. The stock market is in crisis and the Gulf coast is reeling from Hurricane Ike. We are eager for change, yet catastrophic change is already upon us. Now more than ever, we need our leaders to stand up with a message of hope, and deliver.

Again, I say it: Barack, take the highest of high roads. Right now, be the change you want to see.

You want a campaign free of smears? Praise your opponents.

You want a campaign based on truth? Tell us the truth about you. Your plans. Bring it back to you.

Barach Obama, you inspired a nation during the Democratic convention. You inspired us to believe for so many months. We learned all we could about you. We had the audacity to hope.

Then McCain pulled a rabbit out of his hat and inspired his own base.

You have no more rabbits. We all know your message.

All you can bring us is you.

Inspire us again. Speak only kindness. Focus on helping in Texas, even before the financial markets. Go to Texas. Fix things! Be the hope you talk about! Be the change you promise! Start your presidency of hope and kindness and fairness today. Lead us now! Inspire us again. We need you.

Darfur...Now

HeidiB — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:28:21 EDT

Tonight we are showing the documentary "Darfur Now" at our Fair Trade shop at 6:30 pm. And, I wanted to be sure about Obama's position on Darfur before showing this movie. If you can watch this documetary, please do. It is one of the most encouraging films as it portrays people who are from different walks of life that are doing something to end the Darfurian genocide now.

Here is Obama's position on Darfur as stated in his issues tab...go to foreign policy to find out more about his stances in Darfur and throughout Africa.

Stop the Genocide in Darfur: As president, Obama will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force. He will hold the government in Khartoum accountable for abiding by its commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Accord that ended the 30 year conflict between the north and south. Obama worked with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in 2006.

We are the government that called what is going on in Darfur as genocide. And yet, we've done nearly nothing through our foreign policies to stop it. It has been a grassroots effort to divest from Sudan through pension plans, and private individuals have kept humanitarian flights going into Darfur time and again because countries and the UN aren't doing enough.

If you want to know how best to help, read Not on Our Watch by John Prendergast & Don Cheadle. Go to www.savedarfur.org and donate, or educate. But learn how to help through lobbying local, state and federal government officials, and mobilizing your families, friends and co-workers. Have a "Darfur Friday" instead of Casual Friday.

Do what you can now, and pressure Obama to be very active about Darfur once he's elected.

The Energy Checkbook.

Kelson Philo — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:38:32 EDT

The United States has over 3800 oil refineries in the Gulf Coast ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices ). Apparently, the production capacity of these rigs is not enough to keep oil prices down.....oh wait. It's not necessarily about production in the here and now...it's about what oil specualtors think production might be in the future.

You know. The place in spacetime we can only get to very slowly, one second at a time. The place where none of us has a guaranteed pass of reaching.

Obama Sound Bites: Dosing the Message for the Masses

Mark Wiznitzer — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:50:03 EDT

If it is true that the great majority of American voters can only be reached through sound bites. and then only by a limited number of such sound bites, well that's what we'll need to give them.

sound bite - noun, a brief, quotable remark, or excerpt from a speech, made as by a politician and suitable for use on TV or radio newscasts: often a dismissive term implying superficiality.
YourDictionary.com

Eistein utters the ultimate sound bite:

I'm sure you can come up with your own summary phrases to describe Barack Obama's plans for the country. Please add your ideas in the comment section below. But for starters, here are my seven. I hope you'll agree they are appropriately short, sufficiently limited in number and accurately descriptive.

Don't be surprised if you start seeing and hearing bites like these from Barack Obama in ads and the Presidential debates.

A Government that Respects the Constitution
Take the War to our Real Enemies
Restore Fiscal Discipline and Tax Fairness
A Growth Economy Fueled by Innovation and Energy Alternatives
Affordable Healthcare for All Americans
Learn to Value Education
Honor Service to Country and Community

wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat and fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald who writes serious analysis and political satire. If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts a new article join Food Tasters For Obama.

I'm an Astronaut

Angela from Upper Marlboro, MD — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:10:09 EDT

Gov. Palin is knowlegeable about foreign policy because she can see Russia from her home. That means I'm an astronaut because I can see the moon from my home. NASA here I come!

Stuck In The Muck

Steve — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:06:47 EDT

This New Republic article points our that we have a lot of positive substance to focus on:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=47d43e3b-197b-4674-b82b-c5953737f2a9

RNC stands for Really Not Concerned

Ken in Squirrel Hill — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:28:59 EDT

An oldie but goodie from 2004. Amazing how relevant it is in 2008:

RNC stands for Really Not Concerned.

Really Not Concerned about Osama Bin Laden.

Really Not Concerned about security at ports, borders, and nuclear facilities.

Really Not Concerned about jobs.

Really Not Concerned about deficits.

Really Not Concerned about health care availability and affordability.

Really Not Concerned about being honest.

Really Not Concerned about you or me.

Vote Democratic this year because America needs a Government that IS concerned !

Lipstick, the media and serious ADULT tax, $ and policy issues --- Where is America?

George E — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:13:01 EDT

Today, at the same time the fluffy media is rambling about common phrases and lipstick double entendres, Lawrence Summers and former treasury secretary Robert Rubin (at Citicorp now) get on the Charlie Rose show and talk about how:

We are facing a very serious fiscal issue with our deficits, MUCH larger than when Ross Perot was going chart crazy
The American people get their public policy education from the media who does not discuss major issues in depth anymore, if they every did
That Obama ‘gets it’, that to his core he understands fiscal discipline
That the TAX CUTS we currently have were the result of the 2001 recession and where supposed to be TEMPORARY! to be a stimulus, like the small check writing we did this summer
That the TEMPORARY, recession-originated, bush-originated 2001 tax cuts were supposed to be lifted and were NOT
That John McCain used to get it (fiscal discipline) and talked about ending the TEMPORARY, recession-originated, bush-originated 2001 tax cuts but then VOTED to KEEP THEM
That our much larger growing deficit is a TAX on the future and we CAN’T get traction on getting the American people to see this is a NEW TAX
That McCain now wants to INCREASE this FUTURE TAX by billions by extending and creating a bigger tax cut for a narrow % of the American people

And that we have no infrastructure, no media outlet, no mass communication mechanism to get issues like this out to the American people. Or healthcare. Or the wars. Is blogging going to work? Would a fancy new PUBLIC POLICY website get people’s attention like the funny insurance commercials (e.g. www.NOWWHAT.com)? But instead we’ve spent 24 hours in a tiny 2 month election period left talking about lipstick? It’s enough to make someone throw chapstick at the TV. George Woodlanders for Obama Administrator

I don't understand...

SoCalFamilyGuy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:37:00 EDT

I used to be a political journalist in the UK before moving to the US and followed many British elections. My first real involvement with American elections came in 2000 and the recount tale in Florida.

Having studied the current election cycle I fear there are many similarities between 2008 and 2000. Al Gore was an excellent candidate who would have made a great President, just like Barak Obama now. What they both seem to lack is the 'killer instinct', the sense you get from Republicans is that they really really want this. Both Gore and Obama appear as if the Presidency would be a nice thing, not the thing that will affect the lives of every person on the planet.

My advise to Barak is to study the victory on Britain's New Labour Party in 1997.

1. Get a Rebuttal Unit that counters everything McCain says within minutes of him saying it.

2. Control the news cycle. Have a daily press conference, set and control the agenda.

3. Have a set of 'Mini-Mes' people who can tackle the republicans without Obama having to appear negative.

4. Use the TRUTH. Republican lie about everything. Call them on their lies every day.

5. Go and attack the republicans. Obama seems to just be sparring with the Marquis of Queensbury rules, while the republicans are fighting like a gangland shootout with sub machine guns.

McCain has to be defeated before he can finish what Bush started and make America a third world country in order to enrich foreign corporations.

IRAQ; Horror Story Untold: Ethnic Cleansing on a Global Scale

jeffrey — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:07:37 EDT

Barack Obama has been repeatedly chastised -- even badgered -- for opposing the "surge." His attempts to refocus the debate more broadly on the wisdom of invading Iraq in the first place are rudely rejected by Big Media interviewers.

The latest example came during an ABC News "This Week" interview on Sept. 7 when George Stephanopoulos demanded of Obama: "How do you escape the logic that ... John McCain was right about the surge?"

When Obama responded that he didn't understand "why people are so focused on what has happened in the last year and a half and not on the previous five," Stephanopoulos cut him off, saying "Granted, you think you made the right decision about going in, but about the surge?"

In other words, the big-name journalists don't want a discussion about the decision to illegally invade Iraq under false pretenses in 2003 (presumably because they almost all were cheering the invasion on), but instead they want the debate to center entirely on their latest false assumption, that the "surge" has virtually won the war.

In reality, the "surge" of about 30,000 additional troops sent to Iraq appears to have been only one factor and -- according to military officials interviewed for Bob Woodward's new book, The War Within -- possibly a secondary one in explaining the drop-off in the violence that had made Iraq a living hell.

As Woodward writes, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."

Woodward, whose book draws heavily from Pentagon insiders, reported that the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province (which preceded the surge) and the surprise decision of radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr to order a unilateral cease-fire by his militia were two important factors.

A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders. Woodward agreed to withhold details of these secret techniques from his book so as not to undercut their continuing success.

But there have been previous glimpses of classified U.S. programs that combine high-tech means of identifying insurgents -- such as sophisticated biometrics and night-vision-equipped drones -- with old-fashioned brutality on the ground, including on-the-spot executions of suspects. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Bush's Global Dirty War" and "Iraq's Laboratory of Repression."]

Successful Repression

As we've reported previously, other brutal factors -- that the Washington press corps almost never mentions -- help explain the decline in violence:

Vicious ethnic cleansing has succeeded in separating Sunnis and Shiites to such a degree that there are fewer targets to kill. Several million Iraqis are estimated to be refugees either in neighboring countries or within their own.

Concrete walls built between Sunni and Shiite areas have made "death-squad" raids more difficult but alshave "cantonized" much of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, making everyday life for Iraqis even more exhausting as they seek food or travel to work.

During the "surge," U.S. forces expanded a policy of rounding up so-called "military age males" and locking up tens of thousands in prison.

Awesome U.S. firepower, concentrated on Iraqi insurgents and civilian bystanders for more than five years, has slaughtered countless thousands of Iraqis and has intimidated many others to look simply to their own survival.

With the total Iraqi death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands and many more Iraqis horribly maimed, the society has been deeply traumatized. As tyrants have learned throughout history, at some point violent repression does work.

But this dark side of the "successful surge" is excluded from the U.S. political debate. As during the pre-invasion period, the Washington press corps acts more like Bush's propagandists than anything close to skeptical journalists.

The only time they get tough in interviews is with Obama, demanding that he get in line with the rest of Washington's conventional wisdom and hail the media's old favorite, John McCain, for his courage and wisdom.

From Alternet.org

complete story, copy and paste this address: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/98171/?page=1

Strategy for the Next Two Months

Patrick from Littleton, CO — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:00:22 EDT

While I'm not a trained political advisor and have no claims to such expertise, I do sit in my living room, watching political coverage on television along with the rest of America, and I can only react to what I'm seeing.

While the stump speeches draw large crowds and I'm happy to see the Obama campaign continue its momentum in grass-roots campaigning, I have concerns about the way that media and specifically campaign commercials have swung momentum. While it's sad, it's still a fact that voters are more easily swayed by 30-second television spots than they are by reading up on actual issues and policies.

So take this as an arm-chair advisor's friendly advice, even plea. Regardless of whether any of this is new, or usable, these are the things that I -- and the Obama supporters that I speak to -- would like to spend OUR $5 donations on when it comes to advertising.

With only 8 weeks left in the campaign, here are some of the strategies that young, independent and first-time motivated voters would like to see the Obama campaign adopt as we race to the finish line:

Vision for America

One of the reasons that Sen. Obama has been so compelling, especially for the independent and youth vote, has always been the notion that he carries a vision of a better America into politics. While a good chunk of that same voting block has been upset by the Bush administration, the fact is that apathy and disenfranchisement is still rampant, and there is real yearning for a positive vision of America. Simply attacking McCain as an extension of Bush policies is not enough unless it is replaced by an alternative ideal.

The one thing the McCain-Palin ticket lacks is this vision, and this is an area that is ripe for exploitation. Remember that Sen. Obama's 2004 convention speech is what fired up this movement in the first place. This needs to be driven home in the final months of the 2008 campaign, or that vision will get lost in political bickering -- and with it will go some of the motivation of the beyond-party vote.

What we'd like to see:

1. A spot dedicated directly to that vision.

Ignore everything about the opponent. Give us 30 seconds of the potential future of America. A leader in the world in areas of alternative energy exploration, clean-fuel transportation, science, education, and health care. A place where women and ethnic minorities have an equal chance for success and equal pay. A country that comes together to help one another, and the rest of the world. Just the vision - no attacks.

2. A direct address from Obama

At this point in political campaigning, the standard "I'm so-and-so and I approve this message" has become trite and irritating. Amidst all of the campaign ads, the T. Boone Pickens commercials feel refreshingly direct and honest, standing out simply because the man himself is speaking directly to the viewer. If Sen. Obama were to adopt this approach in an ad spot, it would have the same effect. The direct address evokes honesty and even trust in the speaker. An Obama ad that spoke of his intentions to better the lives of Americans in specific policy initiatives and in the form of a direct address would not only serve to distribute this message more effectively, it would overcome the misleading claims of "elitism" and out-maneuver McCain on his "town hall, plain-speak" strengths.

3. America the Beautiful

Celebrate the country and engender patriotism in the one way that is completely beyond party: the beauty of our country. A spot highlighting the bountiful resources we have here at home -- and in which we can find alternative energy sources in ways that preserve our nation's beauty rather than destroy it -- is a vision that all Americans can enjoy. A wind farm spinning above a field of wheat or corn, people hiking through national parks, enjoying the waterways of our country, skiing, and so on. Make the Obama campaign about protecting these resources and you'll strengthen your environmental base as well as appeal directly to the voters who feel strongly that this country is the most beautiful on Earth.

Addressing the Opponents

While concentrating on the positives is a key way to keep people motivated by the movement towards a new America, there's no way to avoid dealing with the attacks of the opposition. However, staying on point with a couple of key messages becomes less and less effective as the two months roll by. Simply hearing about McCain being out of touch on the economy and voting with Bush 90% of the time is not enough!

What We'd Like to See:

1. Reclaiming the message of Change

Certainly the Obama campaign is moving to address this point already, but along with the new ads being run, there needs to be a specific and focused attack on the issues that McCain and Palin would rather sweep under the rug. Point out directly that McCain has completely distanced himself from the laudably bi-partisan McCain-Feingold bill now that he's seeking his party's support. Point out that Palin campaigned FOR the "Bridge to Nowhere" in order to get into office. Make a clear and concise attack: "The only change they know is how to Change Their Mind".

2. Avoid reactionary response

Don't let the Republicans put you back on your heels, spending time reacting to their attacks rather than taking the fight to them. One of the ways that they've managed to be effective in past campaigns is to control the discourse by directing which attacks get aired. This year is no exception. Rather than waiting for them to say something and then spending your resources on responding, the Obama campaign needs to take the initiative or risk looking defensive and uncertain. Find your own specific and new objections, and drive those home.

3. Avoid making Palin an issue

Palin's grabbing of the media spotlight is a coup of sorts, and has been carefully managed by the Republicans to this point. So far the Obama campaign has avoided taking the bait, which is commendable. But the temptation to address her will increase as media coverage builds. Make sure that the focus stays "top of ticket vs. top of ticket" as much as possible. Incorporate Palin into your attack/rebuttal ads, but make sure America remembers that it's McCain they're voting for/against.

There are many unknowns that will come up in the next 8 weeks, and those will likely take precedence as the debates shift things in new directions, but these are the issues that we're seeing in the public, from outside of campaign headquarters, on our television sets in our living rooms.

I firmly believe that a concentration on Vision and Policy will expand the base beyond Democratic Party vs. Republican Party campaigning and draw in those who otherwise simply do not vote. And in November, every vote will count. Don't let the tactics of campaigning turn this into an "election year as usual".

IT'S MY PARTY AND I'LL CRY IF I WANT TO

Kaz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:43:07 EDT

"The republicans win by throwing the first punch. They win by not being defensive. And they win by not punching back. They always start the attack, and follow it up until you cry uncle and admit defeat. They don't get in a defensive posture, mainly because one has to be attacked first in order to defend ones self. And they certainly never go over and over and over what their opponent's talking points are in a whiny, silly attempt to defend ones self!"

"Go, OBAMA, go!! Take them down with those one liner's your so good at. Why does your opponent keep attacking you? Because it works. They win the news cycle and make you look weak because now you have to defend yourself or come off as looking weak. Where are those brilliant come backs? Those one liners that shut them up and make them look stupid! To win the news cycle is to win the day!!"

The first time we lost to Bush was an outrage. They lied and cheated and stole and WON.

The second time we lost to Bush was ridiculous, to know that that many people actually voted for Bush and not Kerry. It was absurd. It was a time of great cynicism in politics and America and the future.

The third time we lose to Bush? I will be so angry at the Democrats for being given the white house on a silver platter. And still losing. I was angry the first two times. Every time I hear about some Republican outrage ( Iraq, Iran, the constitution, the federal corporate bail outs, the lies and indifference about the economy, etc., etc.) I get more cynical and disillusioned. Are there really that many people in this country that don't know a terrorist from a Muslim?

To put salt on the wound is the fact that we now know that they stole the 2000 election. We now know they sanctioned torture. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction and THERE NEVER WERE. We know that Carl Rove and Cheney bullied the press into passively going along with their outing of Valerie Plame. We know that they wiretapped us illegally. And WE let them. So whose to blame for the sad state of affairs? And we seriously wonder why there are so many disenchanted, apathetic youth in this country? Maybe because they see Republicans lying and us Democrats hoping that if we fight for what is right, that people will be drawn and inspired to us. UM...newsflash! This is not working!

Democrats, heck even Republicans are angry at the way this country has been mishandled. We're frustrated.

It's time to teach the world how to win the good fight. Democrats say, don't attack a woman, it's un presidential for the presidential candidate to go after the vice president, people are tired of division and scare tactics. Well, have fun losing another election to a bunch of lying thugs.

Why is it wrong to expose Republicans of all their wrong doing? Why do we think that we can beat them on the issues when the average American on the street doesn't know what Obama's stance on taxes is? Why do we stubbornly stick to the issues and only the issues when no one listens? Have these last eight years really taught us that little? We are tired and angry and fed up. We have not waited this long to see another gentlemanly debate about issues. We want to see them sweat. Heck, after all the money the campaign has raised, you owe it to your supporters to at least go down swinging. This is not some academic historical exercise.

So what do I suggest? Change the topic, please!! Before it's too late. Make this campaign about their failures, not personal attacks, or underhanded viciousness. There are a bazillion ways to show the Republicans' mistakes in a honest, straightforward, no nonsense way. Barak did it during his convention speech. The crowd loved it when he took a punch. It was a punch for all of us who have had to simmer on the sidelines. And it felt good! The crowd loved it. The press loved it.

How is this election going to be won? By who wins the news cycle. Their attacks are going to get more vicious because the press and public are loving it. And they have always worked. Always.

Go, OBAMA, go!! Take them down with those one liner's your so good at. Why does your opponent keep attacking you? Because it works. They win the news cycle and make you look weak because now you have to defend yourself or come off as looking weak. Where are those brilliant come backs? Those one liners that shut them up and make them look stupid! To win the news cycle is to win the day!!

The republicans win by throwing the first punch. They win by not being defensive. And they win by not punching back. They always start the attack, and follow it up until you cry uncle and admit defeat. They don't get in a defensive posture, mainly because one has to be attacked first in order to defend ones self. And they certainly never go over and over and over what their opponent's talking points are in a whiny, silly attempt to defend ones self!

Oh, and don't underestimate Palin's ability to hold her own in a debate or interview. She can't be worse than Bush and he beat Gore AND Kerry.

Change Anyone?

deliziosa: 8 is Enough — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:00:45 EDT

I think it's apalling how the McCain campaign has decided to try to "steal" the change idea. It shows that indeed they really don't understand this at all. When we're yelling "Change", when Obama talks about change, it's not just something cute to say. I can speak for myself, when I'm talking about the changes I want to see, I'm talking about wanting my country and, probably for the first time in my life, BELIEVING my country can change for the better.

I'd like to ask John McCain what changes he's offering, besides, as Biden put it, the billions of dollars worth of change he's offering to put into the pockets of the oil companies. And if there were to be real changes in Washington under a McCain presidency, who would they be catering to? Based on his vice presidential selection, I'd guess the far right, ultraconservatives. I don't want those kinds of changes in my or my son's lifetime.

Double Standard?

Wallace — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:47:00 EDT

The Repuplicans claim that Sarah Palin has been measured with a "double standard" and that she has been unfairly treated by the media and by Democrat pundits. I agree with Barack Obama that family members should be "off limits" in discussions about qualifications for office, but I'm not sure if they are completely off limits in discussions about character. Because our families and our relationships are a major part of our true character.

Even so, I'm not going to talk about Palin's qualities as a mother or even as a female. I believe very strongly in equality and that is a non-issue for me. In fact this blog is not about Palin's own double-standards, such as saying one thing and doing another, or making promises that she cannot keep, or making judgments that she is not qualified to make (such as questioning or measuring another person's experience or qualifications).

No, this is about the double standards of all the people who are suddenly, feverishly, major supporters of Sarah Palin. Case in point: for the same length of time that Palin has been serving as governor of Alaska, GOPers and conservatives across the country have been attacking Senator Obama's experience in public service, questioning his faith, and claiming things about him that simply are not true. Many of the people we have seen in the past 5 days on the Palin bandwagon had never even heard of her before last week, and now are lock-step behind her because she's "Christian", "Conservative", and "one of us". Without question they have claimed her and say that she represents their values even though they don't know about her faith--except for what she has claimed on the campaign for governor and because Dr. Dobson stamped her with his approval, so it must be right and true... More disturbing is what these followers think makes her "one of us" when they know very little about her and don't know her personally (is that a hockey mom "one of us" or something more along racial lines, or just about the one-value "pro life"/war/gun value voters?) For months and months, people have hammered at and lied about Obama's faith (is he a Muslim?), questioned his Christianity (is he "Christian enough"? and by whose judgment?), and questioned his patriotism (again, by whose measuring stick?) But those same people are up in arms because Palin is getting questioned at all about anything.... talk about a double standard.

If we were measuring her political experience, about the only strength I noticed was her ability to smile energetically while lying through her teeth: Palin's most famous quote so far has been "...and as for Washington and that bridge to nowhere, I told them thanks but no thanks, if we wanted a bridge we'd build it ourselves..." which implies that her administration turned down pork barrel money when the truth is that they kept the federal funds that the corrupt Ted Stevens had helped appropriate for that famous bridge to nowhere, and all Palin really did was redirect the $25 million or so (of all of our tax dollars) for other pet Alaska projects. Pretty smooth political scheming and then misleading of the public. Palin should be further measured on her political savvy--she has a high approval rating in Alaska, and you would too, if you took refunds from big oil and put the dollars in the hands of local citizens instead of using those funds for statewide infrastructure (why pay for infrastructure when you can get that paid for by taxpayers from the lower 48 states?) That is kind of like giving "tax breaks" and "stimulus checks" in attempts to appease the public when the government is borrowing from countries like China to pay oil debts to countries in the Middle East... Palin's experience could also be measured regarding her 20 month old administration already under investigation for illegal attempts to fire a state trooper because he was divorcing Palin's sister, and a history of firing anyone who crossed her or got in her way from her time in "city" government up to her current administration.

In her very short tenure as governor, there is plenty to question about her motives, character, values, and whether she truly serves "the people" or is simply serving her own recently skyrocketing career goals. But what I really question, double standard or not, is her ability to represent "all of us" and the best interests of this country and the world as VP, a heartbeat away from the Presidency, the most powerful position in the world. This is one person who believes that the self described "pit bull with lipstick" is NOT the right person for the job.

"Pay no attention to the ground noise and static..."

Wallace — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:47:11 EDT

Last night was a momentous occasion for John McCain, something he had been working toward for a long, long time. I have respect for McCain, though he does not have my vote. I respect his story of bravery in the service of our country, even though I think the GOP had squeezed the last drop of sympathy out of his POW experience long before last night. I respected the pride his 96 year old mother had for her son in the culmination of his long career.

And then I felt a little sorry for McCain. He seemed a weakened shadow of himself, no longer as full of the vigor and veracity he has had in previous years. His window of opportunity passed 8 years ago, when he lost in the primaries to Bush and still could have been considered a maverick... since that time, with his only goal the White House (and not "serving Country First") McCain has become a weakened shadow of himself politically, selling his soul to the conservative base and changing just about every position he used to hold on big oil, big money, the environment, and even his own immigration reform views, while trying to convince the world he was "still his own man" only "fighting for you".

His acceptance speech was interrupted several times by protestors in the audience, and I felt for the old guy as he tried to hold it together, tried to keep his place on the teleprompter and muddle through the speech that had been carefully worded for him, and tried to reassure the "USA" chanting crowd to "pay no attention to the ground noise and static..."

Well, that is just the point, Senator McCain. You have lost your ability to relate with the common middle class people that you say you represent--we have all been reduced to "ground noise" and the GOP wishes that this election was about personalities and not issues--issues like the failing economy and protests against an unqualified and unjust war, and economic and environmental policies that have done more harm than good--your base voters wish such issues were just "static" and perhaps from their lofty perches and conservative crevaces, they have become just that: "ground noise" and "static" because YOU CAN'T HEAR what the the American people are clamoring for: real hope and real change. We are choosing change that is truly "pro-life": ending war, promoting economic equity and health care for all, care for those in need of real opportunities for education, fair pay for work, and a new plan for true energy independence that is environmentally sustainable and safe and an economy that builds up instead of breaking down and bringing more inequality between the "higher ups" and the "ground noise"...

A final word to the GOP faithful: no matter how loud or for how long you chant "USA, USA" over the "ground noise" of protest, you cannot cover up the rising voices from the grassroots of this great country with the sheen of "patriotism". You don't have the handle on that, no matter how angry you get, no matter how deaf and blind you are to common folks, working class citizens, community organizers, recent immigrants, people of different worldviews and orientations. You can't gloss over the truth with any more lapel pins or banners of "Country First" or "mission accomplished".... no, the truth is a movement, and the truth is marching on... it is because we believe in what America can be and will be again, that we are rising up and moving together toward a new horizon.

The way to win Independent voters . . .

Roy Nowlin Jr. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 08:52:59 EDT

As I worked to persuade voters this past week, their key sticking point in not supporting Barack is the belief that he plans to RAISE TAXES. When pressed, these people could not say which taxes they believed Barack would raise. This is signifies that the McCain campaign’s rhetoric is not specific, so we can defeat it. The reason this argument has traction is because of the Bush administration’s lack of fiscal responsibility.

Potential voters realize how much the government has spent on wars over the past 8 years, and they get as angry at the spending, as the misguided war. The strategy to defeat the “raise taxes” argument is simple: highlight Barack’s fiscal policies, and make the case that spending tax dollars wisely will prevent the need to raise taxes. We have to become familiar with the fiscal policies and tell everyone who asks what those policies are:

My personal debate with McCain groupie friends

Shut down this account — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:05:38 EDT

I've had (been having? we'll see. It'll probably continue) a debate with one of my friends about the election. She's decided she's conservative for all intents and purposes right now and very anti-Obama. It began when she posted online arguing about the media being unfairly biased towards Obama and basically treating him like they're schoolgirls with a crush on the coolest guy in school. I had to rebut that Obama has and does face more than his fair share of criticism and scrutinizing in the media. she said that was a thing of the past and he's got it easy now, but I had to say that being scrutiinized in the media and by the public is not a thing of the past for any of the candidates and it's not over by a long shot. She also was highly skeptical of his healthcare plan and his intention to lower taxes. Basically, she figured he's making promises without laying out how he's going to make them happen or else contradicting himself in different policies. I had to point where he actually did lay out spending less money over here where it's not necessary or smart and instead usng it over here where it could do a lot more good. She cited England as her reasoning behind not backing his health care plan. I had to point out that England and plenty of other countries that have health care plans that are more similar to Obama's plan than our current system have higher satisfaction with their hospital systems than we do in America right now. Somehow she figured that compaing us to them was me saying that trying to carbon copy them would solve the problem. I said, "No" but it is intelligent to put where we are and what we're doing in context with the rest of the world and what we'd like to achieve so we can avoid some of their mistakes (hopefully) or try to emulate or even better improve upon some of their successes. Makes sense to me, at least.

She also commented on the media making a deal about Palin's daughter. Media loves dirt, that's a fact. They will try to find it on any and everyone. But I do agree with what every candidate - McCain, Obama, Biden - has said in reponse to it: family, especially children, is off limits. It's just decent. And to me, those who argue about Palin's ability to be an effective VP based on her child getting pregnant, could take a lesson from Aristotle. He said we have to deliberate about the best way to organize our personal lives, the best way to organise our domestic associations, and the best way to organise our community/political lives. And what may work best in one area does not necessarily work best in another. So to question her political ability based on her daughter getting pregant just doesn't cut it. Besides, I dare you to find the parent who raised a child who made every right move so much so that the public could find no fault. You find me that, I'll show you one of the grandest illusions in turn. So, it's back to what the classy folks said: family, especially children, is off limits. Instead, dig into or question her actions as governor or her policies - you know, things actually relevant to the election.

So, that friend is conservative for the moment. I have another really great friend who is so conservative (sorta) she is actually at the RNC right now! (I'm a registered Independent, by the way) And I've got to say I'm proud of them for actually caring and being involved in our political process. They're not even 21 yet, but they're digging into this and being passionate about it. Even when I disagree with them on candidates and what policies we think are most effective, I'm thrilled that they're not just sitting by taking this moment and this privilege for granted. People fought and protested and died for us to be able to do this, so I am so appreciative of it and everytime I see someone really taking it to heart.

Protecting the Polar Bears gets in the way of drilling for oil, says Governor

Colorado "Hussein" Mamma for Obama — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:00:20 EDT

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3987891.ece

This article, in May of this year, was written LONG before Ms. Palin was selected to be VP.

I am speechless.

I, for one, am going to focus on exposing Ms. Palin on her policies and "experience" rather than get distracted (as the Republicans would like) by the Drama of her family.

Please read this article, and pass it on. It really is what is at the heart of this VP's candidates Oil and Environmental Policies.

Do we really want this anywhere NEAR the white house?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3987891.ece

A Pragmatic Energy Policy We Can Vote For

Yatman in California — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:10:37 EDT

Amongst Sarah Pallin's thin resume as a small town mayor and short tenure state governor, we should not overlook her built-in credibility in energy production especially drilling for oil as the sitting govermor of Alaska with 80% approval rating. In an CNBC interview, she suggested that drilling in ANWAR can be done safely and responsibly and given this interview was taped before her arrival on the national scene, this must reflect the views of most of her contituents.

Although no one believe that offshore drilling or Alaskan drilling is the end all solution to our energy independence, it has resonated with voters as something we can control to possibly lower gas price (Buy American). Instead of trying to educate voters unsuccessfully on why we would not vote on offshore drilling in Congress (I watched Nancy Pelosi do unsucessfully in This Week in Northern California), we need to take a bold step on telling voters what we will do to address their short term anxiety and long term needs. My suggestions are as follows:

For 2 days we own Judgment

Roy Nowlin Jr. — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:08:31 EDT

It's very unlikely that Senator McCain knew about the pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter. I think McCain's maverick personna is what led to him not fully "vett" his choice for VP, but instead go with his "gut" instinct. This reckless lack of judgment ties McCain to the failed policies of Bush, particularly in regard to foreign policy. Recall the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. As a consequence, we are afforded an opportunity with a short "window." Barack must outline his policies in detail, illustrate how those policies will be financed, and use the word JUDGMENT as much as possible. Let the audience draw the comparison.

Energy Policy of Barack Obama vs. John McCain

Evan — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:24:10 EDT

The energy of Barack Obama will consist of one that will help our planet and at the same time creating millions of new jobs while John McCain's will consist of sending billions of dollars to foreign countries for oil and spending billions of dollars of oil exploration that will lead to further pollution of our beaches and coastal waters. COMMENT NOW!