Obama Quotes and other stuff he regrets

Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy - An Open Letter to President Obama

2010-11-29T23:05:00.000-08:00

Dear President Obama:

The world was transfixed on that remarkable day in January when, to poetry, song, and dance, you gazed upon Abraham Lincoln's likeness at the Lincoln Memorial and searched for wisdom to navigate these difficult times. Indeed, you have so many things in common with that venerable President that one might imagine you were his reincarnation in different dress. You are both thin and wiry, brilliant speakers, appearing on the national stage at pivotal times. Fertile imaginations could envision you coming back dressed in that African heritage you freed, to help heal the great scar of slavery and prove once and for all the proposition that all men are created equal and can achieve great things if given a fighting chance.

As Wordsworth said, however, our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; and if that is true, you may have forgotten a more subtle form of slavery from which Lincoln tried less successfully to free his countrymen. You may have forgotten it because it has been omitted from our popular history books, leaving Americans ill-equipped to interpret the lessons of our own past. This letter is therefore meant to remind you.

President Obama, we are now met on another battlefield of that same economic war that visited Lincoln and the Founding Fathers before him. For you to finish the work Lincoln started would be a poetic triumph no American could miss. The fate of our economy and the nation itself may depend on how well you understand Lincoln's monetary breakthrough, the most far-reaching "economic stimulus plan" ever implemented by a U.S. President. You can solve our economic crisis quickly and permanently, by implementing the same economic solution that allowed Lincoln to win the Civil War and thus save the Union from foreign economic masters.

LINCOLN'S MONETARY BREAKTHROUGH

The bankers had Lincoln's government over a barrel, just as Wall Street has Congress in its vice-like grip today. The North needed money to fund a war, and the bankers were willing to lend it only under circumstances that amounted to extortion, involving staggering interest rates of 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln saw that this would bankrupt the North and asked a trusted colleague to research the matter and find a solution. In what may be the best piece of advice ever given to a sitting President, Colonel Dick Taylor of Illinois reported back that the Union had the power under the Constitution to solve its financing problem by printing its money as a sovereign government. Taylor said:

"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes...and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also. If you make them full legal tender...they will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."

The Greenbacks actually were just as good as the bankers' banknotes. Both were created on a printing press, but the banknotes had the veneer of legitimacy because they were "backed" by gold. The catch was that this backing was based on "fractional reserves," meaning the bankers held only a small fraction of the gold necessary to support all the loans represented by their banknotes. The "fractional reserve" ruse is still used today to create the impression that bankers are lending something other than mere debt created with accounting entries on their books.

Lincoln took Col. Taylor's advice and funded the war by printing paper notes backed by the credit of the government. These legal-tender U.S. Notes or "Greenbacks" represented receipts for labor and goods delivered to the United States. They were paid to soldiers and suppliers and were tradeable for goods and services of a value equivalent to their service to the community.

The Greenbacks aided the Union not only in winning the war but in funding a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Lincoln's government created the greatest industrial giant the world had yet seen. The steel industry was launched, a continental railroad system was created, a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted, free higher education was established, government support was provided to all branches of science, the Bureau of Mines was organized, and labor productivity was increased by 50 to 75 percent. The Greenback was not the only currency used to fund these achievements; but they could not have been accomplished without it, and they could not have been accomplished on money borrowed at the usurious rates the bankers were attempting to extort from the North.

Lincoln succeeded in restoring the government's power to issue the national currency, but his revolutionary monetary policy was opposed by powerful forces. The threat to established interests was captured in an editorial of unknown authorship, said to have been published in The London Times in 1865:

"If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. According to historian W. Cleon Skousen:

"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."

The institution that became established instead was the Federal Reserve, a privately-owned central bank given the power in 1913 to print Federal Reserve Notes (or dollar bills) and lend them to the government. The government was submerged in a debt that has grown exponentially since, until it is now an unrepayable $11 trillion. For nearly a century, Lincoln's statue at the Lincoln Memorial has gazed out pensively across the reflecting pool toward the Federal Reserve building, as if pondering what the bankers had wrought since his death and how to remedy it.

BUILDING ON A SUCCESSFUL TRADITION

Lincoln did not invent government-issued paper money. Rather, he restored a brilliant innovation of the American colonists. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was the colonists' home-grown paper "scrip" that was responsible for the remarkable abundance in the colonies at a time when England was suffering from the ravages of the Industrial Revolution. Like with Lincoln's Greenbacks, this prosperity posed a threat to the control of the British Crown and the emerging network of private British banks, prompting the King to ban the colonists' paper money and require the payment of taxes in gold. According to Franklin and several other historians of the period, it was these onerous demands by the Crown, and the corresponding collapse of the colonists' paper money supply, that actually sparked the Revolutionary War.

The colonists won the war but ultimately lost the money power to a private banking cartel, one that issued another form of paper money called "banknotes." Today the bankers' debt-based money has come to dominate most of the economies of the world; but there are a number of historical examples of the successful funding of economic development in other countries simply with government-issued credit. In Australia and New Zealand in the 1930s, the Depression conditions suffered elsewhere were avoided by drawing on a national credit card issued by publicly-owned central banks. The governments of the island states of Guernsey and Jersey created thriving economies that carried no federal debt, just by issuing their own debt-free public currencies. China has also funded impressive internal development through a system of state-owned banks.

Here in the United States, the state of North Dakota has a wholly state-owned bank that creates credit on its books just as private banks do. This credit is used to serve the needs of the community, and the interest on loans is returned to the government. Not coincidentally, North Dakota has a $1.2 billion budget surplus at a time when 46 of 50 states are insolvent, an impressive achievement for a state of isolated farmers battling challenging weather.1 The North Dakota prototype could be copied not only in every U.S. state but at the federal level.

THE PERENNIAL INFLATION QUESTION

The objection invariably raised to government-issued currency or credit is that it would create dangerous hyperinflation. However, in none of these models has that proven to be true. Price inflation results either when the supply of money goes up but the supply of goods doesn't, or when speculators devalue currencies by massive short selling, as in those cases of Latin American hyperinflation when printing-press money was used to pay off foreign debt. When new money is used to produce new goods and services, price inflation does not result because supply and demand rise together. Prices did increase during the American Civil War, but this was attributed to the scarcity of goods common in wartime rather than to the Greenback itself. War produces weapons rather than consumer goods.

Today, with trillions of dollars being committed for bailouts and stimulus plans, another objection to Lincoln's solution is likely to be, "The U.S. government is already printing its own money - and lots of it." This, however, is a misconception. What the government prints are bonds - its I.O.U.s or debt. If the government did print dollars, instead of borrowing them from a privately-owned central bank that prints them, Uncle Sam would not have an eleven trillion dollar millstone hanging around his neck. As Thomas Edison astutely observed:

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."

A WAKE-UP CALL

Henry Ford observed at about the same time:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Today we the people are starting to understand our banking and monetary system, and we are shocked, dismayed, and furious at what we are discovering. The wizard behind the curtain turns out to be a small group of men pulling levers and dials, creating an illusory money scheme that, behind all the talk and bravado, is mere smoke and mirrors. These levers are controlled by a privately-owned, unaccountable central bank called the Federal Reserve, which has recently dispensed billions if not trillions in funds to its banker cronies, without revealing where these monies are going even under Congressional inquiry or in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As Chris Powell pointed out recently in conjunction with an FOIA request brought by Bloomberg News, which the Fed declined to comply with:

"Any government that can disburse $2 trillion secretly, without any accountability, is not a democratic government. It is government of, by, and, for the bankers."2

There was a time when private central bankers were the heavyweights in control, able to run their ultra-secret agenda with impunity; but that era is coming to an end. The bankers are scrambling, trying to patch up their crumbling creations with schemes, bailouts and sleight of hand. That effort, however, must ultimately prove futile. As investment adviser Rolfe Winkler said in a recent article:

"The great Ponzi scheme that is the Western World's economy has grown so big there's simply no 'fixing' it. Flushing more debt through the system would be like giving Madoff a few billion to tide him over. Or like adding another floor to the Tower of Babel. To what end? The collapse is already here. The question is: How much do we want it to hurt? Using the public's purse to finance 'confidence' in a system that is already kaput may delay the Day of Reckoning, sure, but at the cost of multiplying our losses. Perhaps fantastically."3

The bankers are on the run, feverishly trying to use the collapse of the current system to steer us toward an "Amero"-style North American currency, or a one-world private banking system and privately-issued global currency that they and only they control. We the people will not accept those solutions, however, no matter how bad things get. We demand real solutions that empower us, not further enslave us.

Abraham Lincoln had such a solution. President Obama, you can finally bring his monetary solution to fruition. Manifest the vision of Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, and we the people will make sure you are placed in the pantheon of our greatest leaders and are revered for all time. America's greatest days can still be ahead of us; but for this to happen, we need to expose and root out the deceptive banking scheme that would enslave us to a future of debt and increasing homelessness in this great country our forefathers founded. The time has come for democracy to rise superior to a private banking cartel and take back the power to create money once again. Such a transformation would represent the most epochal and empowering shift that humanity has ever seen. As you recently said:

"This country has never responded to a crisis by sitting on the sidelines and hoping for the best. Throughout our history we have met every great challenge with bold action and big ideas."

Your words are a timely reminder of our long legacy of action and bold solutions in the face of adversity. Can we do this? Yes we can.

____________________________________

1. Congressman Charles Binderup in a 1941 speech, "How America Created Its Own Money in 1750: How Benjamin Franklin Made New England Prosperous." Binderup quotes historian John Twells on this point.

2. Chris Powell, "Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion," GATA (December 12, 2008).

3. Rolfe Winkler, "More Debt Won't Rescue the Great American Ponzi," Option Armageddon (March 9, 2009).

Originally posted on Yes! Magazine Online April 7, 2009. Special thanks to CC for his invaluable help with this article.

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In "Web of Debt," her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com/ and http://www.ellenbrown.com/ Her eleven books include the bestselling "Nature's Pharmacy," co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies; and "Forbidden Medicine."

Hillary Warns Obama Voters About Al-Qaida

2010-11-29T18:09:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton has warned voters not to elect Barack Obama. The reason: Because the Al-Qaeda is watching the US elections. According to Clinton, America could not risk electing an inexperienced candidate as Obama to president as this would exacerbate the threat of a terrorist attack from the Al-Qaida.

Clinton pointed out how, days after Gordon Brown took over as the British Prime Minister, terrorists had planted bombs, which, incidentally failed to go off. She was referring to the two devices, which, however, failed to explode, and the car, which crashed into the Glasgow airport in June 2007.

"I don't think it was by accident that Al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," the New York senator said. "They watch our elections as closely as we do ... they play our allies," she added, quite evidently attempting to playing on the issue of national security to her advantage. With Obama predicted to deal her a second defeat at the New Hampshire primary, to follow on the earlier one at Iowa, Clinton's move could reflect her desperation.

"Let's not forget, you are hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says he or she will do in an election," Clinton said, adding "You are hiring a president who will be here when the chips are down, and problems pile up, because that's when you really need somebody who knows exactly what has to be done, to make the tough decisions."

"I hope I don't face any of those in my first 100 days, but if I do, I think I will be ready," Clinton said, in a reference to her long career in US public life. On the other hand, Obama, she argued, was a freshman senator from Illinois who was too much of a novice to serve as US commander in chief.

Obama retorted by questioning Clinton's foreign policy expertise. He referred to Clinton's flawed judgment, regarding her vote during the 2002 Senate authorizing President George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.

Earlier, former president Bill Clinton, referring to the 9/11 tragedy had also argued that the next president of the US would have to be ready for sudden, national security challenges. "You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough... to deal with the unexpected," he said, adding "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign."

Senator Hillary Clinton - latest information and collection of flip flop videos about her election campaign, speeches, and quotes.

Emma Johnson has majored in American History. She writes on politics and current affairs.

Red Franco Sarto High Heels Trounce Hawaiian Print Rubber Slippas

2010-11-29T14:20:00.000-08:00

Around the time President Obama was delivering his speech "A New Beginning with Muslims" in Cairo, Governor Sarah Palin was making introductory remarks for main speaker Michael Reagan to an audience in Anchorage. Though Obama's oration was approximately 17 times longer than Palin's and focused on Middle East foreign policy, Palin's informal comments contained more understanding of the nature of Islamic extremism and the forces that motivate it than Obama's entire homily.

In one speech, Obama managed to apologize for:

o The Cold War, "in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations"-as opposed to the aspirations they fruitfully pursued under a leader like Saddam Hussein

o Western "colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims"-as opposed to the rights they have under a leader like former colony Syria's President Bashar al-Assad

o Not having enough "mutual respect"-as opposed to the fawning respect Islamists shower on women, Jews, Christians, gays, and Westerners

o Not saying "openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors"-as opposed to the constant warmongering that glides so effortlessly off of Obama's tongue

o Believing in "any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another"-rather than viewing those who uphold liberty the same as those who stone women for being gang raped

o Having nuclear weapons and putting other countries at great risk-like when the Soviets whupped our butts in the Cold War and turned the rest of the world Communist

o Defining our relationships with terrorist-sponsoring regimes by our "differences"-we say tomato, they say tomahto; we say Israel has a right to exist, they say dropkick Israel into the sea

o Having the gall to use our military-Obama quotes Thomas Jefferson: "The less we use our power the greater it will be"; note to Obama: not using it at all does not mean we are therefore infinitely powerful

In the meantime, Palin said, "Those of us so proud to be Americans acknowledge that no, we're not a perfect nation, but never, never do we have to apologize for being proud of our country. When [Reagan] fought socialism and any sort of tyranny that he knew would ruin us, he stood strong on his knowing that the framework for positive change was freedom. America is the greatest nation on earth, because our foundation is freedom." Sometimes simpler is better-ya know?

Obama scolded us for:

o Viewing Islamic countries as hostile to American ideals-he added that the dancing in the streets after 9/11 was actually their version of Cinqo de Mayo; "Once de Septiembre," I think we'd call it here

o Citing verses in the Koran that incite violence against nonbelievers-as opposed to the ones that talk about Bambi and blue jays

o Seeing Iraq as a "patron" rather than a "partner"-because Iraq was on the brink of ousting Hussein and establishing parliamentary elections just as we sent our foot soldiers into Baghdad and got in the way!

o Believing that some forms of government are superior to others-though admittedly, I haven't noticed too many ethnocracies or kleptocracies flourishing lately

o Believing we should have a say in "which nations hold nuclear weapons"-because Nicolas Sarkozy could turn out to be as crazy as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; who knows?

Meanwhile Palin snapped, "Screw political correctness. Be loud and strong. [Don't] shy away from the tough issues. Reagan's ideas were the right ideas, and all we have to do is look back at his national security record to know that. Remember how refreshing it was with his outrageous directness that Americans loved and praised and deserved? His vision for the Cold War? We win, they lose. Why, today, do we feel we have to pussyfoot around our troublesome foes, the terrorists who still seek to kill Americans and destroy our allies? Terrorists are still dead set against us and are set on destroying Israel. It is war over there so it will not be war over here, and it had better still be our mission that we win, they lose! Some in the press want to put anybody who dares speak up back in their place. Those are the folks that want to tell me, want to tell you, to siddown and shuddup. We will not do so." Drill, baby, drill!

Over on camel terrain, Obama lectured us with a straight face that America and Islam share principles of "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings"; that "throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality"; and that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance"; all of which is kinder than what Al-Jazeera regularly has to say about the religion in their nightly broadcast.

Up in moose country, Palin mused, "What we're being fed today, it seems, is a steady diet of select, misrepresented news. Why is it, considering how fast the world is spinning, and world-changing events that go on all over the globe, that it's the same, big three, supposedly competing networks that have the same news content every night, and virtually the same exact viewpoint being spewed night after night after night?" Go Aces!

Given the choice between (1) off-the-cuff remarks in an Anchorage auditorium by a hockey mom and former VP candidate who understands that rejection of liberty precludes our enemies' being on the same moral plane as us; that courage in recognizing and labeling evil is needed to fight it; and that tossing around flowery language won't reform an opposition who refuses to change; and (2) a scrupulously photographed, eloquently written (by someone else) bag of what could generously be called bromides, clichés, and chestnuts if they weren't so blatantly wrongheaded-I know which I'd choose.

Israel, the Jews, and American Foreign Policy

2010-11-29T10:04:00.000-08:00

American foreign policy since the end of the cold war has been focused primarily on the Middle East and to an alarming extent on the defense and promotion of Israel. Why has Israel become so central to our foreign policy and what advantages does the United States gain from the relationship?

Israel is not an important trading partner for the United States, in 20th place, behind Venezuela and Thailand. Israel has no significant natural resources, nor is Israel an important defense ally. None of its neighbors pose any significant threat to the United States or American interests. There is not an important Israeli American population. If we equate American Jews as somehow "Israeli" because of the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, than we are still only talking about a population of 6,444,000 approx. (2007) 1.7% - 2.2% of the US population. This is less than the number of Polish Americans, approximately 10,000,000 people and well below the number of Irish Americans, over 30,000,000.

Yet Ireland never received anywhere near the attention that Israel has in the media, in political debates, in foreign aid or in foreign policy efforts, even when a full blown civil war was occurring in Ulster.

The attention Israel receives in the United States is completely disproportionate to its strategic, commercial, or political importance. For example, in reference to the 2008 presidential elections, Shmuel Rosner at Slate wrote,

"in the vice-presidential debate, Israel's name was mentioned 17 times. China was mentioned twice, Europe just once. Russia didn't come up at all. Nor Britain, France, or Germany. The only two countries to get more attention were Iraq and Afghanistan-the countries in which U.S. forces are fighting wars.... A week earlier, in the first McCain-Obama debate, Israel was mentioned seven times, fewer than Russia but still more than China or Japan or any country in Europe, Latin America, or Africa."

In regards to American foreign aid, the amounts are striking. According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain."

It's fascinating to compare American foreign policy in Mexico, a country of over 100,000 million people (Israel's population is around 7.5 million) and a very important trading partner with the US. Issues like immigration and drug trafficking with Mexico have palpable daily effects on the lives of Americans, yet Mexico receives less the 2% of the foreign aid that Israel gets, less than 40 million dollars compared to Israel's almost 3 billion. And the over 28 million Americans who are of Mexican ancestry? They are apparently, for politicians, much less important than the less than 7 million Jewish Americans.

In the sphere of politics the tone and attitude of US politicians sounds as if their careers depend on how they speak of Israel. Joe Biden during the Vice Presidential debate, "Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion."

And Sarah Palin, "But I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Sen. Biden. I respect your position on that."

And President Obama this summer said, according to the New York Times, "that he is committed to Israel's security but does not believe it is essential for him to avoid all disagreement with the Jewish state."

This type of language can only be considered pandering. Why are they pandering to Israel? During the 2008 presidential election, John McCain said he would not sit down with the Spanish government because of the way they pulled their troops out of Iraq. It caused a minor stir, but never became an issue of any importance. Do you think either Obama or McCain could have been elected if either had said that they would not sit down with Israeli leaders due to continued new settlements in the West Bank?

Israel is considered to be a nuclear power. Few if any deny that Israel has nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction. Why does Israel receive no pressure at all from the United States to become a non-nuclear power? Would this not be an excellent bargaining chip with Iran? Iran is a country of over 70,000 million people with a tremendous history and culture, yet they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, but Israel is? It is easy to understand the Iranian objection to this double standard. It's very unfortunate that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to spew ridiculous, anti-Semitic diatribes that completely distract the attention of the world from the real issues of the Middle East and reduce his country's credibility. Again, Mearshimeimer and Walt write, "Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda."

Why is it impossible to have a sensible, open debate in the United States regarding our relationship to Israel? The clearest example of why it is not possible occurred in 2006 when John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published a white paper about the power of AIPCAC, the principal Israeli lobby in the US. The ensuing debate was not centered on the issues of the white paper, quite the contrary; both academics were accused of everything from lack of professionalism to anti-Semitism. The White Paper made very clear arguments about the power of AIPAC and their silencing of Israel's critics. Mearsheimer and Walt pulled no punches, "For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?"

The authors received a drubbing and were quickly silenced. Alan Derschowitz as well as Eliot Cohen of John Hopkins both accused Mearsheimer and Walt of anti-Semitism and bigotry.

When Jimmy Carter came out with his book about the Israeli-Palestinian question, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, the debate again became about him, not the plight of the Palestinians.

Increasingly, the war in Iraq is being attributed to the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican Party that had a very influential role in the Bush administration. For most of the world this has been obvious, but in the US it has been a taboo topic. Michael Kinsley is quoted as saying "the connection between the invasion of Iraq and Israeli interests had become 'the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.'" The Neo-Cons had for years been itching to invade Iraq. The general theory was that by changing the regime in Iraq, regime change would occur in Iran and Syria, clearing the way for a new Middle East and a much friendlier atmosphere for Israel.

What occurred on 9/11 gave them the opening they had been looking for, and they cunningly convinced the US population that somehow Iraq had some connection to 9/11. This was a blatant falsification of the facts advanced with the help of AIPAC and important supporters of Israel in the media. The Israeli angle for the war in Iraq is the mainstream explanation in much of the world but rarely discussed in the US.

America must be able to openly debate what has become the main focus of our foreign policy, and our largest benefactor of foreign aid. At the moment we are not able to do so. When academics or politicians question Americas support for Israel, they are branded as anti-Semitic. No member of either party is willing to openly question our relationship with Israel out of fear. Our academics are branded as anti-Semitic when they question the power of AIPAC. Something undemocratic has taken over a part of our government, and the most important part of our foreign policy. America has lost and continues to lose credibility in the world as many see US foreign policy in the Middle East as under at least partial control of Israel.

Let us imagine that the United States had 'divorced' Israel 20 years ago, considering it a foreign policy liability. Would we have much better relations now with the Arab world? Would 9/11 have been avoided? Would we have avoided entering the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars? Would Israel have been forced to make an equitable deal with the Palestinians out of fear of being ostracized from the international community? Would the US have focused much more energy at the end of the cold war on improving relations with the nations of the former Soviet Union including Russia? Would the world be a better place?

The United States foreign policy has been hijacked, and our leaders and thinkers have been intimidated by a foreign government and its apologists. Somehow, discussion of the special American relationship with Israel has become taboo. This has been carried out by supporters of Israel who use the media and AIPAC to intimidate politicians, journalists and intellectuals. Our thinkers and leaders are afraid to openly discuss the US relationship with Israel out of fear of being branded anti-Semitic and being ostracized. This is a form of McCarthyism that must be immediately rooted out like the cancer that it is. American has lost part of its freedom of expression, our most sacred gift from our founding fathers, the cornerstone of our republic and our prosperity. It must be taken back.

Robert Bonomo is a novelist, journalist and blogger. He has lived and worked in Madrid, San Francisco, Miami, Buenos Aires and New York.

He writes a blog, Cactus Land: Cactus Land Blog.

He has recently published Cactus Land on Amazon: Cactus Land on Amazon.

Robert has also worked in online marketing for over 10 years.

Barack Obama's Path to History (Conclusion)

2010-11-29T06:55:00.000-08:00

PALIN'S INTERVIEW WOES

Palin's popularity was slipping in the polls and she failed to make matters any better during her disastrous interviews with ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson and CBS news anchor Katie Couric. In the former, Palin was criticized for not knowing what the Bush doctrine was, which was to a degree understandable. But she showed that at times, she could get lost in her own attempts at answering questions she had no real answers for.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: As for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.

GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table...

Again Herbert stepped up to the plate: "How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?...You can't imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless. Ms. Palin's problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor's office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history."

Herbert continued. "I feel for Ms. Palin's son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting 'the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.' Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?" (Source: " Bob Herbert, She's Not Ready, New York Times Op-Ed Column, Sept. 12, 2008).

The CBS debacle was by far worse and in some circles, funnier. When Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout and whether she supports it, Palin offered the following circumlocutory response: "I'm all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson's proposal, really I don't believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind's blowing? They're waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal."

COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie--that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about, the need to reform government.

COURIC: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

PALIN: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you

Palin was obviously unprepared and subsequently was lampooned unmercifully on late night talk shows and other comedic venues. One such show was Saturday Night Live, where Palin's dismal performance was skewered by Tina Fey. For the better part of a week clips of that skit would appear on various news programs.

During subsequent interviews, Palin would appear on-camera with McCain. This includes a hand-holding session with Sean Hannity on Fox News that was more embarrassing than enlightening.

No one was buying the idea of Palin as "fiscal conservative." Eugene Robinson wrote,

"She represents herself as a fiscal conservative who abhors pork-barrel projects and said no thanks to the "Bridge to Nowhere" - a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport across the Tongass Narrows. But as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,780), she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon. And as a candidate for governor just two years ago, she supported both the Ketchikan bridge and the congressional earmark that would have paid most of its cost." (Source: Eugene Robinson, The Cynicism Express, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 2, 2008).

The GOP attempted to effect damage control. Palin supporters dismissed the attacks as sexist bantering from the elitist, liberal media. They argued that Sarah was a reflection of "small town America," and that the only things voters cared about was whether or not she could assume the duties of the President in the event of McCain's incapacitation or death. They ignored the fact that most in their party felt she couldn't.

McCain had additional problems. For starters, he admitted that he'd sided with the President "90% of the time," which the Obama campaign repeated ad naseum. They also pointed out that McCain first denounced Bush's tax cuts and now talked of continuing them. In the first debate, Obama also made a point of McCain's support for the war In Iraq and that the Arizona Senator had declared that the war was not only the right thing, but would be over quickly and America would be greeted in that country as liberators. None of those things happened, as America remained in Iraq some three years after President Bush declared "mission accomplished."

Obama asserted, "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...of judgment..."

THE BEAT GOES ON...

As Congress began debating a $700 billion bailout package for the ailing finance industry, McCain campaign operatives continued to shoot themselves in the foot. Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's top economic adviser and co-chair of the campaign, said in an interview with the Associated Press, ""You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet. We have sort of become a nation of whiners...You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Gramm's comments were widely condemned. McCain denounced the remarks and nine days later, Gramm stepped down.

McCain seemed unable to gain any traction, even after the first debate. It was supposed to be a debate that would be advantageous for him, one that centered on foreign policy-his storing suit, and where he claimed Obama was weak and lacked leadership. The debate took place several days after McCain announced the suspension of his campaign to focus on Wall Street's mortgage crisis.

When McCain arrived in Washington, he had several photo ops, including one at the White House, where he and Senator Obama, along with several other members of the Congress had convened at the request of President George W. Bush. A day later a vote was taken and the bailout package failed. Democrats voted for it, but several Republican Senators were miffed by ill-advised comments of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who blamed the GOP for the fiscal mess. McCain was seen as someone who could not rally the troops, and amidst criticism flew to Oxford, Mississippi for the debate.

Obama remained poised throughout the debate, while McCain came off as irritable and throughout the debate reiterated in a condescending tone, "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand..."

OBAMA: ...We cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan. So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan. And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front--that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan...

MCCAIN: We've got to get the support of the people of Pakistan. He [Obama] said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government...And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan...So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said. And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out. Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy. And, John, I--you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is...

MCCAIN: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power...I have a record. I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm's way...

OBAMA: ...The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.

(NOTE: Debate remarks were edited for brevity).

With their differences spelled out, the post-debate polling by ABC indicated that more than half of those queried said Obama won. About one-third called McCain the winner. CBS saw it Obama 39%, McCain 24% and 37% thought it was a draw.

As the election drew near, the personal attacks on Obama intensified. Sarah Palin accused the Senator of "palling around with terrorists." She rationalized her remarks by saying Obama needed to further explain his relationship with Bill Ayers, for he had not been truthful about it. Few noted that she used the plural terrorists. There were also accusations of Obama being a "socialist," after he told one voter (who became immortalized by the McCain campaign as "Joe The Plumber") that he planned to tax those making $250,000 or more and "redistributing the wealth."

Rove, et al. called Obama's tax cuts "government handouts," saying most would go to people who did not work and thus, paid no taxes. At rallies where these claims were made, some in the crowd made threatening remarks toward Obama, such as "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" McCain downplayed it and countered, "You should hear some of the things said about me at Senator Obama's rallies."

Nor even Fox News produced clips to back up McCain's assertion.

Again, polling indicated that voters were not interested in such "issues." Their top concerns were the economy (in particular the high prices of food and gas), the mess on Wall Street, healthcare, the war in Iraq and taxes. They favored Obama on the economy and gave McCain a slight edge on matters of foreign policy, even after Obama's choice for vice-president, Joe Biden, "guaranteed" that Obama would be tested "within the first six months" with an international crisis.

McCain suffered a damaging blow when Republican stalwart and former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Obama. More bad news was forthcoming. "[An] NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll gives Obama a 10 point lead nationally. 60% of respondents in the CNN poll think McCain's attacks on Obama are unfair, a figure that hurts McCain's chances further with independent voters. Reuters/Zogby has an 8 point Obama lead in its latest tracking poll. And the Pew poll, which takes into account cell phone users, has Obama up by 14 points. The prediction here is that these totals will go up in the next couple days as the impact of the Powell endorsement fully hits the polling results." (Source: Steven Reynolds, Palin Is Sinking The McCain Campaign, . alternet.org, Oct. 22, 2008)

Palin and McCain continued to insist that Obama would leave the country vulnerable, and there were some in the Obama camp who worried that the Senator from Illinois was not fighting back. Responding to the criticism, Obama countered with an ad that labeled McCain "erratic" and "out of touch" on the economy. The campaign also reminded the electorate that McCain, some twenty years earlier, had been involved with convicted financier Charles Keating in the S and L debacle. While McCain was not found guilty of any wrongdoing, the Senate ethics committee did find that he exercised "poor judgment."

Polls showed the race tightening in traditionally Republican states. Critics of the GOP nominee voiced concerns that McCain was giving away the election by not bringing up the Reverend Wright issue, showing the videotape of Wright shouting, "Not 'God bless America,' but God DAMN America!" Another problem, according to McCain staffers, was that Palin would not listen to them; that she was adamant about doing things her way. There were whispers that McCain realized his error in judgment at selecting her and Tom Ridge, an adviser to the campaign, told interviewers the ticket would have been better served if McCain had chosen him.

PALIN: AIRHEAD, DIVA

Even though she had held her own with Joe Biden in the lone vice-presidential debate, the bar had been set low. The Democrats and most pundits expected a major gaffe from her. She managed to make it through the debate without making such a Gerald Ford-like boner, but there was criticism that she blatantly ducked several questions and her winking to the audience smacked of immaturity and frivolousness.

"During the vice presidential debate on Thursday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced that she 'may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear.' In fact, 'On at least 10 occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it.' On NBC's Meet The Press today, debate moderator Gwen Ifill said that Palin 'more than ignored' her questions. 'Blew me off I think is the technical term,' said Ifill." (Source: Ifill: Palin 'Blew Me Off' During Debate, . http://thinkprogress.org, October 5, 2008).

l

Palin continued to make embarrassing gaffes, including her inability to explain the duties of the vice-president. When asked by a third-grader what a vice president does, Palin responded, that the vice-present "runs the senate" and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." The facts are, in the event the President can no longer carry out his duties, the VP takes over. The only other duty the second-in-command has is to preside over the Senate and cast the decisive vote in the event of a deadlock.

DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY

Obama's war chest (more than $700 million) allowed him to advertise heavily in states that w=George Bush won in 2000 and 2004. This forced McCain to allocate resources to areas he never thought he would have to. McCain was playing a prevent defense, and Obama was driving toward pay dirt.

It was no secret that the Democrats had no southern strategy on which they could rely. So they planned to organize a western blitzkrieg. This was important for two reasons. McCain being from Arizona was strong out west and had an ally in Mitt Romney, a Mormon, who could help with that segment of the vote in both Utah and Nevada. Second, in 2004, George Bush garnered wins in four states with Democratic Governors (New Mexico. Montana, Wyoming and Arizona). "These states, along with Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Nevada want to vote as a bloc. They form an aggregate of 53 electoral votes, almost as many as California's 55-which is solidly Democratic. Add this 108-vote bloc to New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which have all gone Democratic in each election since 1992 (73 electoral votes total), and the Dems would be 2/3 of the way to the White House." (Source: Timothy N. Stelly, Sr., Go West, Young Men: The Future Of The Democratic Party, . Useless Knowledge, July 30, 2005).

Bill Richardson understood the power of the Hispanic voting bloc, saying "These are changing political times...We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better. We have to be more politically minded, we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past."

His efforts paid off for Obama in New Mexico, which went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but went for Obama 57-42. Other Western and Southwestern states that went for Obama included Colorado, Montana and Nevada-and as expected, California, Oregon and Washington. The only state that Obama lost with sizeable Latino populations were Arizona and Texas. It was estimated that Obama was the choice of 73% of Latinos. His percentage of the black vote received exceeded 90%.

DISCORD IN THE McCAIN CAMP?

Rumors abounded that Palin was being "difficult" and did not want to study. McCain staffers would later tell Carl Cameron of Fox News that Palin did not understand basic civics, misunderstood the function of state and municipal government, couldn't name the three countries that make up NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), nor could she name all of the countries that make up North America. It was rumored that she thought Africa was a country and not a continent. According to these unnamed McCain staffers, she thought South Africa was the southern part of the "country." Late night talk show hosr David Letterman would later joke, "She thought NAFTA meant "Need Another Fofty Thousand for Accessories." (Source: The Late Show With David Letterman, . Nov. 5, 2008).

Whether it was true or not, if it made the news, chances are a lot of people would believe it, and that's damage Palin will likely be unable to fix. Palin called the anonymous critics "cowardly," adding, "If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context. That's cruel, It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks..." (Source: Dan Joling and Sharon Theimer, Palin Denounces Her Critics As Cowardly, . yahoonews.com, Nov. 7, 2008).

Earlier in the week, Palin blamed campaign staffer Nicole Wallace for her poor showing during her interview with Katie Couric and for her negative public image. Republican strategist Ed Rollins said of Palin, "[she] definitely is going to be the most popular Republican in this country when this thing is over." (Source: Dana Bash, Palin's Off-Script Remarks Irk McCain Aides, . cnnpolitics.com, Oct. 27, 2008). In an interview with NBS'c Matt Lauer, Wallace defended Palin, Saying "[She] did nothing wrong. She is perhaps the most un-diva politician I've ever seen." I(n reference to McCain choosing her, Wallace said, "It was a wise choice that will look wiser as time goes on." (Source: Video: Nicole Wallace Vigorously Defends Palin To Matt Lauer, . msnbc.com, Nov. 7, 2008).

There were rumors that staffer Randy Scheunemann had been fired, only to be reinstated by McCain, who feared that stories of campaign discord would hit the newswires just days before the election. After the election, Fox News defended its girl Palin, insisting the stories were the grumblings of disgruntled aides making excuses for McCain's defeat so they wouldn't look bad and could get jobs with other campaigns.

Meanwhile, blacks held their collective breath and hoped for the best, but expected the worst. They believed that if the Republicans could steal an election from other white men (Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004), then they would go to even greater lengths to sink an African-American candidate.

Associated Press writer Jesse Washington wrote, "Obama's potential victory represents a previously unimaginable triumph over centuries of racism. But beneath the hope and pride lies fear: of polling inaccuracy, voting chicanery, or the type of injustice and violence that have historically stymied African-American progress." (Source: Jesse Washington, Cautious Joy As Blacks Imagine Obama Win, . Associated Press, Nov. 2, 2008).

The decision would be announced early, just before 9 p.m. PT, as Obama hit the estimated 194 electoral vote mark. There was no doubt he would win Washington, Oregon, California and his home state of Hawaii, an aggregate 76 votes. Moreover, he had won over working class whites in Pennsylvania and Ohio. By that time, McCain knew the death knell had sounded. The campaign chose not to post the Pennsylvania results at McCain headquarters, but anyone with a blackberry or a cell phone had already heard the death knell.

NOV. 4, 2008

Overcoming steep odds-defeating the Clinton machine and surviving the GOP attacks-Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the Unites Stated and the first African-American elected to that post.

His success was due to his bringing in an inner circle that stayed true to him. There were no leaks and he earned the moniker "No drama Obama." Obama simply ran a smarter and more efficient campaign, coupled with the flaws and failures of the Clinton and McCain machines. This is not to say Obama "backed into" the White House. He won over the American public and did more to earn their trust. He won over white men and the white female segment that pundits were sure would turn on him. He benefited from Hillary Clinton's help and a smart campaign manger, David Axelrod.

One columnist wrote of McCain, "the McCain we got in the general election was not the McCain we had come to know. He was partisan, he was petty, he used a lot of gimmicks (the suspension of the campaign, Joe the Plumber, the celebrity commercial). He didn't rise above partisanship, he didn't go with his instincts. He was handled by his advisors to the point to where his objectivity was clouded. Had he have run a disciplined, issue-focused campaign, with a loyal running mate that he believed in (CT Sen. Joe Lieberman or MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty), the substance of this race would have been much different and the battlegrounds down the stretch would have been much more competitive. He would have had a stronger ability to shape debate, rather than just react to it." (Source: My Super, 5 Reasons Why McCain Lost, demconwatchblog.com, Nov. 5, 2008).

Both Clinton and McCain can look back and see what went wrong. They ran into a more masterful politician, whose grit they underestimated. They also failed to acknowledge America's desire for change and the intelligence of the voting public. Distortions, fear mongering and character assassination would not work. Obama never panicked and he stayed on point with the issues.

Obama won the popular vote, 52-46, or 65,293,083 votes to McCain's 57,325,487 the second-highest total in history and enough to win in any other election year. Obama won both the male and female vote, 49-48 and 56-43 respectively. He won the 18-29 demographic, 66% to 32% and won in every age group except those over 65, which went for McCain 53-45.

The final tally: Obama 365 electoral votes, McCain 173.

Timothy N. Stelly, Sr. is a poet, novelist, essayist and screenwriter who resides in Northern California.

Perception, Persuasion, and Politics in Media - A Look at How Politicians Can Legally Rig Elections

2010-11-29T02:50:00.000-08:00

It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency. George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

The Case Study

Making someone, or indeed something, persuasive is much more complex than it may initially seem. We know what appeals to us to make us align with someone, but we are not always aware what the 'x factor' they possess really is; in other words, we can warm to someone without fully understanding why. The following example, from psychological literature, sheds some light on the matter. During the American 1984 Presidential campaign between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale an experiment took place for eight days. Lead researcher Brian Mullen, of Syracuse University, videotaped three national, nightly news broadcasts featuring news anchors Peter Jennings of ABC, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Dan Rather of CBS. Mullen viewed the tapes and excerpted every reference to both candidates, leaving him with thirty-seven segments of roughly two and a half seconds in length. A group of randomly selected participants then viewed the tapes with the volume muted so they were unaware of what the broadcast pertained, removing the chance of political bias. The participants were asked to rate the facial expressions of each news anchor on a 21-point scale, with the lowest number being "extremely negative" and the highest being "extremely positive".

The outcome proved enlightening. Dan Rather of CBS scored 10.46 and 10.37 when talking about Mondale and Reagan respectively, meaning his expression was perfectly neutral, offering no advocacy over one candidate or the other. Tom Brokaw of NBC scored 11.21 for Mondale and 11.50 for Reagan, making him slightly more positive for both than Rather but still remaining balanced for both. The enlightening part came when analysing the results of ABC's Peter Jennings. His results showed him speaking more positively about Mondale than both his counterparts, at 13.38, but for Reagan he became so enthusiastic he scored a very high 17.44 - less than four points off the maximum. The study's researcher Mullen acted in accordance with his scientific duty and tried to determine if there was an explanation for this beyond candidate bias, such as the possibility that he was just more animated and expressive than the other broadcasters. To conclude whether or not this was the case, the same participants were shown control segments from the same broadcasters as they spoke about a happy topic and a sad topic (namely, a medical breakthrough in treating a congenital disease and Indira Gandhi's funeral respectively). Of Jennings, Brokaw and Rather, Jennings not only failed to score higher, but appeared to be the least expressive and by no means had a happy expression as his usual one. So much so that he scored only 14.13 for the story of the medical breakthrough, which was considerably lower than both other newscasters. Therefore, Mullen had no choice but to conclude that Jennings did, in fact, have "significant and noticeable bias in facial expression" when talking about Ronald Reagan.

Of course, this information is useless by itself and so Mullen, along with his colleagues, needed to find a way to determine whether or not this facial bias actually impacted voting choices. Their method to do this was to phone people who regularly watched the evening news, in various cities all across the country, and enquire who they voted for. The results were quite remarkable: in every phone survey ABC viewers voted Reagan much more than those who watched CBS or NBC. For example, a full three-quarters of the Cleveland ABC watchers voted Reagan, compared to 61.9 per cent of CBS or NBC viewers; over 71 per cent of ABC viewers in Williamstown, Massachusetts, voted Reagan compared to just half of the other two networks; and in Erie, Pennsylvania, it was 73.7 per cent for Reagan and 50 per cent for Mondale. So not only did Jennings subtly influence voting behavior across the nation, but also in staggeringly similar numbers.

Somewhat predictably, and no doubt but for the sake of its public image, ABC vehemently disputed the study, indeed the study researcher Mullen is quoted as saying "It's my understanding that I'm the only social scientist to have the dubious distinction of being called a 'jackass' by Peter Jennings". It is possible that Mullen's conclusion got the cart before the horse, that rather than Jennings influencing viewers it is simply that Republicans watch a station that is more sympathetic to their party of choice, and rather than Jennings tempting over 70 per cent of viewers to vote a particular candidate, those 70+ per cent watch Jennings because they like his stance. Yet, as obviously plausible as this is, Mullen argued - with no short supply of likelihood - that it simply was not the case. To validate his claim, he referred to the fact that ABC was actually more hostile to Reagan than Mondale and so cannot be considered necessarily a pro-Republican station. Not leaving the issue there, four years later he proved his initial findings were not merely flukes, because when Bush was competing against Dukakis for Presidency Mullen repeated the experiment - with the same outcome. He said of this second experiment that "Jennings showed more smiles when referring to the Republican candidate than the Democrat" and that in another phone survey like before "viewers who watch Jennings were more likely to have voted for Bush"

Source: Adapted from: The Psychology of Consumer Behavior & The Tipping Point

The Takeaway

It is common knowledge that the media has a profound effect in shaping elections and some would argue it is a useful tool for social engineering. Yet despite knowing the effect exists, few know exactly how it works, except those with esoteric knowledge on the subject - and they are probably exploiting it already. This research has direct implications on how a politician can leverage his position by specific manipulation of the media which can, in turn, have a profound subconscious effect on the choice of voters. Implicit in the above study is the view that if all newscasters covering politics just so much as only exude a positive expression regardless of what is being said when covering or discussing certain politicians, the perception will have a measurable effect come election time. This is subliminal persuasion to say the least, as what is being said is not as important as how it is being said - from a visual perspective that is. A positive slant can be obtained from a neutral or mildly negative story if it is delivered with enthusiasm or positivity, without viewers even consciously comprehending the effect.

Assumptions

As Mullen showed, the independent variable is the facial expression of the newscaster, while the dependent variable is the perceived emotional content of expression i.e. positive or negative. The key word here is 'perceived'.

Assumptions made in this study are therefore:

a. Newscaster's preference for a politician is positively correlated with his facial expression

b. Viewers have not misread his expression i.e. if he came across as positive, that is because he is feeling positive, as opposed to appearing positive because his job essentially demands as much.

c. Viewers who were exposed to positive facial expression of a newsreader covering a certain politician are much more likely to view that politician in the same light.

d. Viewers who perceive a politician in a positive light are therefore more likely to vote for the same candidate come election time.

Each assumption is the sine qua non for the next (i.e. for b to be true a has to be true, for c to be true, b has to be true (so a has to be true as well) and so on)

Mullen et al. were careful to draw any conclusion as noted in their statement: "Jennings exhibited a significant and noticeable bias in facial expression toward Reagan" which neither gives away nor explicitly implies Jennings's political preference.

Perhaps there is really only one way to confirm the above study and put it beyond any reasonable doubt: to look at Peter Jennings' voting ballot. Since that is illegal, it seems that the only person that will ever know for sure is Peter Jennings himself. However, t is unlikely for Jennings to ever reveal who he voted for for two reasons; a) this is a powerful knowledge to have (if confirmed) and b) the backlash for ABC and Jennings is unthinkable.

Implications

Mullen et al. found that people who watch Jennings were more likely to vote for Regan than people who watched Brokaw or Rather. Newscasters can have much more influence than they either believe or admit. Such findings are disturbing to say the least, for they purport that we are effectively governed by what we see. In everyday life, political discussions rarely lead to a changed opinion, and yet tacit, subconscious influences can have profound effects. To quote Mullen once more: "When people watch the news, they don't intentionally filter biases out, or feel they have to argue against the expression of the newscaster...it's much more subtle and for that reason much more insidious, and that much harder to insulate ourselves against."

A second implication of these findings is that visual, nonverbal cues are equally, or more, important than verbal ones. As validated countless times by body language experts, how we conduct ourselves matters. This is further proven when we simply consider that Jennings did not litter his newscasts with pro-Reagan speeches - in fact, as mentioned previously, ABC was openly more hostile to the Republican party than NBC and CBS.

The third, final and arguably most important implication is that persuasion works in ways we often do not appreciate, or even understand. For instance, visual expressions of happiness such as smiles and nods are not subliminal, they are visible and apparent. However, they are very subtle and the way in which they are used gets processed in our subconscious and then relayed in our conscious with a message that such-and-such is good. In this instance, Jennings smiling each time he mentioned Reagan subtly influenced viewers to believe Reagan was a good choice to vote for. Yet, despite this link, no viewer would ever accept it is the reason they voted for Reagan; no, they would argue that they liked Reagan's policies, or thought he was doing well so far or even his charisma, but never that they were influenced by a newsreaders smile. Yet it is very apparent that persuasiveness works beyond eloquence and choice of words; it works very well with subtle, nonverbal communication too.

Recommendations

· A politician seeking power will benefit from newsreaders displaying positive expressions when covering news pieces that relate to him or her.

· To avoid accusations of a biased media, this strategy can be undertaken covertly (e.g. the director of the news company can encourage the 'right' newscaster to smile more often when covering a certain subject. That way, the newscaster does not even need to be aware of their own effect on viewers/voters). This will reduce any likelihood of the newscaster exposing the tactic at a later date.

· When times are good, a politician in power can use this knowledge as a tool for gaining public approval for his agenda or pushing through his policies.

· When times are bad, it can help with PR or falling popularity.

Discussion

A politician's winning smile is often mentioned. The above study is clearly consistent with the disturbing possibility that a smile might be able to elect a president! Granted, that is farfetched even for the most naive wannabe believers. 'Smiling' alone may not elect a president, but when used in conjunction with many other media manipulation techniques, the outcome of an election can be all but certain.

Below is just one of many examples on how clever media manipulation can be used for political gains. White (1972) described how Franklin Roosevelt cleverly removed Thomas E. Dewey from the stimulus situation for an evening during the 1944 presidential campaign. Roosevelt had reserved a fifteen-minute segment on NBC radio and Dewey subsequently reserved the following fifteen-minute segment in order to capitalise on Roosevelt's audience. However Roosevelt spoke only for fourteen of his allocated fifteen minutes and left the last minute completely silent. Reportedly, listeners across the country believed that the NBC network has gone off the air after the president's speech and all of those listeners began scanning for other stations. As a result, the millions who had listened to Roosevelt a minute before were not listening when Dewey came on the air.

Although Roosevelt's action had less to do with persuasion and more to do with underhand tactics, the results are equally profound as the public/voters were not aware that they were being 'manipulated'.

For a more recent example on perception, persuasion and politics in media, consider Barack Obama's presidential campaign. We have the benefit of a retrospective view on Obama as a politician, therefore it is vital to consider the following scenario from its given time frame of prior to the election. In October 2008, Wall Street Journal Online reported that Obama had made a decision not to sport an American flag pin on his lapel. When asked in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens:

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest, instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism. (Taranto WSJO)

During the campaign trail, Obama's pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, gave a speech (later referred to as "God Damn America") that was racially polarising and could easily spell the death blow for Obama's White House aspirations. Rev Wright was alienating white voters (amongst many other anti-patriotic criticisms) with his rhetoric, and to the viewers and voters, Obama was guilty by association.

This prompted Obama to issue a TV ad denouncing Wright's statements. His "major speech on race" was also necessitated by the revelation that his "spiritual mentor" had among other things called on God to damn America. Critics noted that Obama "did the right thing", that his TV ad statement and speech were well crafted and "did the job" considering the extent of the case, and the campaign's aim of damage control.

Most people may not realise that Obama's TV ad has the American flag carefully placed in shot, and he gave his "major speech on race" amid a row of eight American flags! They were placed directly behind him as he stood at the lectern. (This is perhaps the most liberal use of subtle tactics uncovered by Mullen.)

Critics were quick to notice it, with James Taranto of the WSJ noting:

...in light of his October comment, what are we to make of his extravagant use of the Stars and Stripes on Tuesday (Major Speech on Race)? If a flag pin on a lapel is "a substitute for true patriotism," is that not also true of eight flags on a stage as a backdrop to a political speech? Obama proclaimed himself too good for cheap symbolism, but resorted to it the first time he faced a real crisis. Is he really any different from the run-of-the-mill politician?

In the context of this paper, a critical reader will not ask "what the flag symbolises" but rather "how such symbolism and visual aids can be used in media for the attainment of specific purposes".

This is not to take anything away from Obama as a politician. But to ignore the impact of carefully crafted media images (i.e. images of Obama eloquently denouncing Wright against a backdrop of American flags beamed to millions of American voters) will be blatantly taking credit away from the media's contribution to Obama's campaign.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is no surprise that Obama's campaign has successfully leveraged the power of media. It is also no secret that his campaign's online media strategies - his personal website, Youtube channel and social networking site - were well crafted and credited for Obama's election success. For further insurance, Obama's camp had hired Facebook's co-founder Chris Hughes to coordinate their online efforts.

This does not mean people such as Jennings, and the media as a collective, are unwitting tools in the political game. At least, not explicitly; they can be with the right circumstances. If a US politician aspiring to the highest office goes on national television and fails to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade, no amount of media persuasion or manipulation can save their political campaign. In fact, it will further speed up their political demise. Consider the following example: In the run up to the 2008 US presidential election, Republican vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was ridiculed after her interviews with CBS's Katie Couric. In the interviews, the then Governor of Alaska appeared stumped by relatively easy questions regarding Supreme Court rulings and foreign policies. At one point, in response to Couric's question: "...when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read..?" Palin could not, or at least did not, even name one newspaper that she read.

As one can imagine, when the interviews aired, the media had a field day at Palin's expense. The key point here is not how Sarah Palin carved her own downfall by appearing incompetent or how Palin jokes making the rounds among newscasters and late night talk-show hosts were making her look bad; but rather the 'message' the newscasters have imprinted on their viewers. A newscaster may be presenting news on the Grand Old Party as professionally as he possibly can, but his personal sense of disbelief, whilst irrelevant to the news, is somehow transported into the mind of viewers through the subtle, the hidden and the unspoken.

The fact that such a seemingly incompetent woman could one day be President of America should the Republicans win the election and anything happen to John McCain hit home to viewers, without the newscaster intending as much. Accordingly, Palin suddenly became the talking point of citizens who up until that point had little to no interest in politics. The 'Jennings effect' therefore can also work the other way round: negativity from a newsreader can cause disillusion with the party.

A politician with such knowledge and the right skills can theoretically push the right buttons, tick the right boxes and win our votes. Isn't that what a politician is supposed to do anyway? Isn't that his job, to use the media and any available tool at his disposal to convince us? Yes, it is, just like it is a magician's job to convince us of the seemingly impossible. It is one thing watching a magician perform and applauding him, but another to reveal the secrets to his tricks. In some ways, a politician is similar to a magician as they both have to perform in public, they both have to gain our approval to win us over, they both use perception and persuasion techniques and they both have to sometimes convince us against overwhelming odds. The only difference is that when it is all said and done, when the performance is over a magician has no say over the forces that influence of our lives and country.

To take this crude analogy further, a street magician can use all the tricks up his sleeves to manipulate members of the public for good or bad intentions. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop these people using it for their own personal gains. We, the public, are aware of this and call them 'conmen' or 'scam artists'. This is not to say that all street magicians are scam artists or that politicians have their own agendas; an overwhelming majority of them have good intentions and politicians are there to serve the public trust.

The premise of this paper is not to identify politicians with street magicians. Any criticism directed at such comparison is missing the point. It is one thing to watch a magician manipulate an audience, it is another to reveal the tricks, and yet entirely another to replicate it (perform it). Similarly it is one thing to watch Jennings on ABC news, another to be able to link viewers voting preference with his facial expressions, and yet entirely another to be able to methodise it and incorporate such methods to affect the outcome of an election.

Perhaps knowledge really is power. But the great Napoleon Hill once wrote that "Knowledge is only potential power. It becomes power only when, and if, it is organised into definite plans of action and directed to a definite end." [p 75 (2004) Think and Grow Rich]

And so, with the above information in mind, I propose the following questions to the reader:

As a voter,

How would you view the next political message you come across?
How would you analyse it or read into it?

As a politician,

How would you devise your next campaign?
How are you utilising the media to maximise the effectiveness of your message?

More importantly, what would one do with knowledge that can shape the outcome of an election? Is such knowledge applicable elsewhere? Is it already in use? Have I been affected by it? These are the questions that are central to the premise of this paper.

The methods discussed so far represent only the tip of the iceberg, the size of which remains undetermined. Therefore, in future, if a reader watches a political campaign and recalls the discussion and questions set forth earlier then, suffice to say, the author has achieved his original aim when he set out to write this article.

Conclusion

In conclusion, consider the following fictional work by suspense author Robert Bloch. The story presents a nameless professor who has arranged a secret meeting with the head of the nation's largest advertising firm. The reason for the meeting is to propose a means of developing the most effective type of politician.

When I began to study these things you've mentioned - how people from the entertainment would have gradually infiltrated politics as advisors, producers, technicians; how they've tried to train our politicians and office holders to become like actors. And it occurred to me then- why not use actors?... You said yourself that almost any man who starts with a clean record and a noncommittal attitude can be built into a political figure by means of present-day psychological techniques. The trick is to teach him to speak, to handle himself properly when on public display. So why waste time on tired old men or egotistical prima donnas who can't cope with their roles? If politics is show business, why not put the right actors into the parts to begin with? (Bloch, 1959, Show Biz p.66)

The notion is probably somewhat fanciful, but certainly interesting - that an effective politician could be produced merely by using an existing actor who knows how to "play to an audience", as evidenced perhaps by Clint Eastwood becoming Mayor or Carmel in the 1980s. Or, maybe even Ronald Reagan's rise to presidency.

As Bloch's writing shows, it seems that reality can sometimes draw inspiration from fiction. Or is it the other way around?

David S. Wong is the Head of Corporate Communications at Asia Media. He has been with the company since its inception in 2007. He is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Brighton where he specializes in entrepreneurship and management practices of IT and media firms. David also works as a management and IT consultant. He is a Microsoft certified systems administrator. A Malaysian native, David studied Civil Engineering at University of Liverpool where he obtained an honours degree. He subsequently read postgraduate Management at University of Brighton where he graduated at the top of his class with Distinction. David splits his time between living in London and Kuala Lumpur. His current interests include advertising, digital Out-of-Home media, management and entrepreneurship research. In his spare time, David enjoys managing his own portfolio: trading derivates and shares on the UK and US stock market.

Supreme Court Nominee - Elena Kagan

2010-11-28T23:10:00.000-08:00

Much like President Obama himself, his newest Supreme Court nominee has little experience for the task at hand. Current Solicitor General Elena Kagan has never been a judge before, and this fact alone I find a bit concerning. When it comes to the selection of a Supreme Court justice, the historical prerequisite has been the nominee's judicial record. Solicitor General Kagan does not have one. Anyone can say, "I can follow the law and rule accurately and impartially." Of course, the liberal spin-doctors have touted her thin record as an asset. As much as I disagreed with the nomination and subsequent confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at least she resided on the bench for almost 20 years before her nomination.

A Supreme Court confirmation is nothing to take lightly. It is the highest judicial body in the United States and comes with lifetime tenure. Presidential legacies are built from these nominations and the Supreme Court literally shapes our government, as we know it. With the average length of service being 26 years, it is imperative that the wrong person is not chosen. Yes, there is an extensive vetting process and she will have to sit through numerous questions and interrogation from the Senate, but with a liberal majority, it really is just a technicality. Having two nominations so close together is a rare occurrence and I can't help but notice the blatant hypocrisy that the liberal media is bestowing upon us. For instance, Justice Sotomayor's extensive justice experience and legal publications were at the time touted as an asset, only months later, these same qualifications, or lack thereof in Kagan's case are downplayed and even considered a detriment.

In the first few days after word broke of her nomination, the only substantial profile that one internet savvy blogger could conjure up is that she was the first female dean of Harvard Law, she adamantly opposes the U.S. military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and she did everything in her power to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus. She continued with her anti-military stance by claiming that military recruitment taking place on her campus violates anti-discrimination policies. The issue was eventually litigated before the Supreme Court in conjunction with a number of other liberal educators. Thankfully, the group lost in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts who, ironically, was eventually confirmed to his spot on the Supreme Court after President Clinton had previously nominated Kagan for the same position before his departure from office. Obviously, Kagan was forced to comply with the decision. This process was performed under the veil of a backhanded complement by Kagan noting her respect and admiration for all the U.S. military does. When military recruiters go to Harvard Law, they obviously are not looking for gunnery sergeants. I can understand and even sympathize with the anti-war movement (for very different reasons), but to disallow our own military looking to recruit bright young minds for the JAG Corps is just plain wrong.

Elena Kagan is not a mainstream or even moderate democrat. As evident by her statement regarding the 1991 ban of using federal money for abortions, she is staunchly pro-choice. She said that the ban amounted to "government hostility towards some ideas." In addition to her prior statement regarding abortion, her nomination to the Supreme Court was recently endorsed by Planned Parenthood. She has also made her opinion known on the topic of gay rights. I previously mentioned her stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." She referred to this controversial policy as a "moral injustice of the first order." Furthermore, in a column written by Maggie Gallagher for the National Review, Gallagher writes, "a vote for Kagan is a vote for gay marriage." She has not shied away from her desires to create a more liberal America. Her senior thesis, while a student at Princeton, focused on the demise of the Socialist movement in the early 20th century. Kagan referred to the demise as "...a sad but also a chastening one for those who, for more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Her supporters claim it was just a college paper with the purpose of examining the socialist movement, but with quotes such as those, it is hard to make an argument that personal opinions didn't somehow make their way into her paper. Also while a student, she authored a piece for the student paper entitled "Fear and Loathing in Brooklyn." In her article, she claims to have effectively aligned her beliefs with liberal policies early in life, and blasted the current political success of the right. She was quoted as saying that she longed for a time when a "more leftist left will once again come to the fore." Unfortunately, her wish now has come to fruition and she is right smack dab in the middle of a perfect political storm. She has the support of both the White House and the Senate. No doubt, even with her non-existent judicial record, her confirmation will go through without a hitch.

Daniel Hawes
http://www.TheGenesisReport.com

When Did The Term "Racist" Turn Into A Political Tactic?

2010-11-28T18:18:00.000-08:00

I had always thought that being a racist was a bad thing. The dictionary defines a racist as someone who expresses "hatred or intolerance of another race or races." In my understanding, a racist considered a certain set of people to ALL have the same negative or undesirable characteristics, without exception. Hate, intolerance, stereotyping some people as being all the same without considering, respecting, and celebrating the individual, all very nasty stuff.

But now I am not so sure my understanding of what constitutes a racist is correct any more. These days, it seems you are a racist by simply disagreeing with someone, especially if you disagree with a politician. Consider the following examples:

- In early April, 2010, New York Congressman Charles Rangel, during the debate leading up to the passing of Obama's health care reform legislation, said: "The group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, they looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South."

- Around the same time, also in relation to the opposition to Obama's health care legislation, Texas Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee said: "All those who wore sheets a long time ago lifted them off to wear tea party clothing." (an obvious reference to the virulent racism exhibited by the Ku Klux Klan)

- According to an Orlando Sentinel online article, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson recently said on a radio show that: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago." (another reference to the Klan and in response to the questioner stating that those attending the Glen Beck rally were" mostly old, white, mostly McCain-Palin leftovers.")

- When Arizona passed its illegal immigration law in the spring, there were numerous accusations that those supporting the toughened enforcement requirements of the law were racists and against Latinos.

- Recently there were two dueling rallies in southern Manhattan, one supporting the construction of the Muslim mosque on the current site and one calling for it to be moved some distance away from the Ground Zero 9-11 site. The Associated Press article covering the events quoted one of the people at the rally supporting the mosque at the current site. In her opinion, those against building the mosque on its current site were racists.

So let me see if I get this right. In this new world:

- You are a racist if you honestly disagree with the passing of a piece of legislation such as Obama Care even though you have serious doubts of whether it will work or not since it never addressed the underlying core problems of rising health care costs, it is becoming even more obvious that it will increase the Federal deficit, and it will criminalize millions of Americans if they do not purchase health care insurance as mandated by the political class. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hate or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to disagree with a piece of legislation.

- You are a racist if you attend a political rally whose ideals and principles are in conflict with a politicians' view of the world. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hate or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to attend the "wrong" political rally.

- You are a racist if you are old or if you are white. Not only did the talk show host above make this insinuation, but many on the left side of main stream media have made that same assertion. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to be light skinned and a senior citizen.

- You are a racist if you are concerned about the human trafficking and drug smuggling going on across the Mexico border with the U.S. and the potential for violence and crime that comes with it. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to be concerned about your safety and the safety of your family from illegal immigration.

- You are a racist if you are against a state law that is trying to protect the safety of its citizens in light of the inability of the Federal government to both control illegal immigration or come up with a coherent, rational immigration plan. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to object that the Federal government is not doing its job in the illegal immigration arena.

- You are a racist if you are a relative of someone who died in the 9-11 attacks and have asked for a little compassion and understanding that building the mosque close to Ground Zero would be very difficult for these relatives to cope with, given what they experienced on that Tuesday nine years ago and would appreciate it if the mosque was moved a little further away. In this case you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to ask for a little compassion and understanding of what Ground Zero means to you personally.

Wow, I think I got it now. Objecting to government policy, attending a political rally, being old, being light skinned, and asking for some compassion now make you a racist. My, how the world has changed.

Dr. Martin Luther King would be so out of place today. He thought, as did I, that a racist actually was an individual that displayed irrational hate and intolerance of another race or races, that a racist stereotyped all members of a race as having the same negative traits, that a racist could never view an individual for their personal traits and assets. Back in 1963, Dr. King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. King felt that once content of character was the only judgment of an individual, we would emerge from the abyss of racism.

Today's politicians would disagree with Dr. King. We have allowed our politicians to define anyone or any group of Americans as racists who disagree with their view of the world. Consider some more words from Dr. King's speech and how far we have strayed from his advice by naming anyone with a different opinion as a racist: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." Our current politicians do not drink from the mere cup of bitterness and hatred, they drink directly from the keg of bitterness and hatred. If any of them achieved a high plane of dignity and discipline, most would probably faint from attaining such lofty principles for the first time in their political lives.

Why do politicians act like this, using whatever despicable descriptions and accusations they can to divide America along racial, religious, political, sexual orientation, wealth, and other demarcation lines? They do it to get elected over and over, without concern as to what it is doing to the fabric of the country. It is more important to "energize their base" then it is to solve the problems facing the country. If the other side gets branded as a racists, that's fine, as long as they get elected. There is no dignity, there is no discipline, only the breeding of hatred and intolerance, which really makes them the present day racists, not the American citizens honestly voicing their concerns on issues that affect them and their families.

Before closing out, please take the following quiz to test your ability to identify the racist:

Who stated that President Obama was "a light skinned African American...with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Was it:

a) Sarah Palin

b) Rush Limbaugh

c) Sean Hannity

d) Glen Beck

e) Bill O'Reilly

f) None of the above.

If you selected f), you are correct. The statement was actually made by Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid. Talk about a racist comment, attributing a man's skin color and his way of speaking to his race. Thus, the people we have in office even stoop so low to degrade and debase their fellow politicians along racial lines, imagine what they think of those that have a different opinion from their positions.

There is only one way to get out of this rut and elevate the political discussion to the levels Dr. King pined for back in the 1960s. Come November, all incumbents must go and be replaced with individuals that celebrate diversity, recognize the individual, and will focus on solving our problems and not "energizing their bases." Longer term, we must institute Step 39 from "Love My Country, Loathe My Government," a step that would institute term limits on all Federal politicians. Only then will be able to return the word racists to its former despicable place in the world and remove it as an election and campaign tactic.

Walter "Bruno" Korschek is the author of the book, "Love My COuntyr, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class," is available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in American canbe joined at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.

Best Health Insurance Through Schemes

2010-11-28T13:47:00.000-08:00

Many people are still apprehensive over the recent health care bill of the Obama administration. For one, it hinders them from exercising democracy, whether to subject themselves to insurance policies or not. They are, after all, compelled to purchase an insurance policy either from the government or from a private insurance company. Moreover, there is the continuous rise on health insurance costs. Health insurance through schemes may just be an option.

Health insurance is vital. Without it, there is no clear support on the increasing prices of health care in the country. It is the immediate contingent plan that can be implemented in times of emergencies. Besides, there are different health insurance schemes to choose. It is much easier to pick one that sounds more affordable and practical:

PPO

This stands for Preferred Provider Organization. It is composed of health care professionals and facilities that have signed a contract with the insurance company. They guarantee they provide the necessary services to their clients based on the fee schedule. The main advantage of a PPO is you already have a good idea of doctors who can render medical services at a much lesser cost. Though you still have to shoulder a portion of the total amount, you are still going to enjoy savings for every treatment. More health care services are also added every year.

HMO

HMO or health maintenance organization is a very popular health insurance plan. It is the one usually given by companies to their employees as one of the fringe benefits. The insured individual can go to a clinic or a health care facility that is approved or under the HMO plan. He or she can approach only those health care professionals who can accept your chosen HMO. One of the biggest advantages of the HMO is its very low premiums. The insurance premium can be subdivided among the number of enrolees. Moreover, many insurance companies offering HMO are offering lifestyle programs to their clients to ensure that they do not get sick or meet emergencies often.

The downside is that the health care services may be quite limited. If you want to obtain an HMO plan, always check the number of health care facilities and services you can take advantage.

POS

It means point of service plan. It shares certain attributes with HMO and PPO. It is like the former since primarily you can only ask for medical help from their list of doctors and facilities. However, should you require specialized assistance, the doctor can refer you to those who do not belong to the network--just like in PPO. The good news with POS is you have more control on the professionals you want to deal. Moreover, you can ensure you can give yourself the right kind of treatment it deserves. The only disadvantage is you have to pay extra every time you work with an out-of-network professional.

When you are in the process of selection, make sure you can talk with a reputable insurance agent or broker. This way, you have better understanding of your options, and you can choose the one that fits your present needs as well as preferences.

Explore your insurance options and make sure you are Buying Individual Health Insurance that best suits your needs.

The Recession Was Avoidable

2010-11-28T09:36:00.000-08:00

Basically what has happened to our economy, the means of exchange has decreased significantly.

The Committee For Economic Reform and a Better Economic Future has developed an Alternative Economic Stimulus plan to restart our economy. It does not require the Federal government to create a huge deficit, to return consumer's deposable income.

CSUB Professor of Economics Mark Evans was quoted as saying, we are going to have to live with large deficits for a long time, and there is no other way. We disagree with that statement. The Committee believes that there is another way. President Obama is relying on Keynesian Economics. John Maynard Keynes policies put governments into massive debt, to stimulate the economy and return people's disposable income. Over time more government programs are created, increasing the size of government, as our economy cycles through periodic periods of recession and inflation.

Consumption and home creation represents 75% of the economic activity in our economy. The economy will not fully recover until the consumer's financial condition and confidence improves. Investor confidence, in making long-term investments, needs to improve also. This will happen as the economy improves and when we enact the Zero Inflation Taxation Policy.

When the Federal Reserve lowered the Fed rate and the banks and other financial institutions could not follow the Fed' lead, of lowering the cost of the means of exchange, the collapse of employment and the stock market occurred. If lower interest rates had been available, for credit worthy borrowers, the money supply would have quickly expanded, creating enough of the means of exchange for our economy to continue to work.

The recession would not have gotten out of control, causing the massive layoffs, decreasing people's disposable income, there-by causing the economy to continue its downward spiral. Consumer and investor confidence was thus lost.

The enterprise economic system cannot operate efficiently, without the correct amount of the means of exchange (money) being in balance with available supply.

They are asking you for your endorsement and support of the Alternative Economic Stimulus Plan. They are asking you to please review it at their web site. They also want you to read the other economic policy papers first, so you will obtain a complete picture of why we are repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. Without the changes we need to improve our economy, we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

They said that we could make this happen. We have the opportunity to leave our posterity a more secure and stable future. We are a nation of free people. We are responsible for the laws that are enacted and for the policies that guide our economy. We can make a difference. Do it for your grand children and great grand children. End the recession now, without a huge federal government deficit and another cycle of inflation.

Committee For Economic Reform and a Better Economic Future web site is http://www.economysflaw.wordpress.com/ The Committee is made up of noted economist, retired Economic Analyst, Businessman, Financier, Investor, Author, and former candidate for the California Congress.

Creating an Image - Can a Speech Do It?

2010-11-28T04:52:00.000-08:00

Many reading this would have watched Barack Obama address the Chicago crowd on the night he won the US Presidency. I do not live in the US, but listening to this speech certainly moved me. Others I have spoken to had a similar experience. His story of Ann Nixon Cooper, the 106 year old lady and the changes she has experienced in her lifetime, was simply brilliant.

So this is probably an appropriate time to look at the impact a person's public speeches (such as a CEO or electoral candidate) has on the audience.

Through social science research, we have known for some time that the use of rhetoric, imagery and metaphors can positively impact how the audience perceives and acts on the message. However a recent study has now taken this one step further. The results of the research by James J Naidoo and Robert G. Lord in the June edition of the Leadership Quarterly, suggest that not only does the use of such tactics impact audience behaviour, used well, they also have a positive affect on how we perceive the charisma of the speaker.

Listen once again to some of the rhetoric, imagery, and metaphors candidate Barack Obama used in his now (almost) famous race speech in March ...

"I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters."

In a poll taken shortly after this speech, Obama was shown to be leading Hilary Clinton in the Democratic nomination race by 53 to 41 per cent. The behavioural impact stats are there, but did the speech impact our perception of Obama's charisma?

Press reports concerning the advice being given to Obama at the time included; "get specific - lay out concrete plans", "describe your experience in government - make Americans comfortable with you as their CEO", "hammer your opponent above and below the belt". None of this advice had anything to do with charisma - it's all about facts, logic and detail.

The other presidential candidate, John McCain used very little rhetoric, imagery and metaphor, but a lot of reason and logic in his speeches. For example, in his address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in March, only his opening paragraph gives any imagery or metaphor concerning McCain as a person. The remaining 34 paragraphs all talk about reason and logic, saying nothing about the character of the man. As one press report concluded; "McCain appears dependent on a teleprompter, delivering even the most personal passages with an odd detachment. In his telling, his difficult five-and-a-half years as Vietnam prisoner of war might have happened to someone else." However, McCain did do well in less formal settings, like town hall meetings and one-on-one conversations. But his discomfort behind the podium was a distinct disadvantage as he struggled for national media attention.

Initially, the race between the two presidential candidates was well and truly led by Obama. Audiences loved his charisma. Then the race became much closer. Audiences were starting to listen for what was behind the message in terms of the reason and logic that was likely to affect their day to day lives. The research by Naidoo and Lord bears out these poll results. They say that "high speech imagery will result in higher state positive affect in followers, compared to low speech imagery". So it appears as if Obama's advisors were now on the right track - he'd developed an appropriate charisma in the eyes of the voting public, then it was time to move to reality.

What advice was given to McCain?

More importantly for us mere mortals as managers and in particular for CEOs, what's the message from this latest research?

There are three . . .

Firstly, when speaking publicly, a manager or CEO needs to use personal imagery and metaphors, so that the audience can see and feel the character of the person.

Secondly, such imagery works best when the situation is critical or the audience perceives they are in a crisis. People want the big picture and in particular, to hear and feel how the speaker has lived through similar times him or herself.

Finally, the detail - the reason and logic - is best handled one on one and in small group settings. For CEOs this means a very structured process of explicit communication down through the organisation as to how the big picture will translate locally.

Looking back at the successful Obama campaign, his strategy clearly is in line with the research. People loved the charisma of the man. But they also knew what his policies were. Watching sound bites of potential voters in the US, Democrat supporters were more often able to quote Obama's specific policies. Republicans were more often unable to do so.

Communicating and connecting with large audiences is a fascinating challenge!

Bob Selden is the author of the newly published "What To Do When You Become The Boss" - a self help book for new managers. He is currently researching topics for his new book on teams. Please email your suggestions for inclusion to Bob via http://www.whenyoubecometheboss.com/

Government Deficit Spending Means More Taxes, High Inflation, and a Weak Dollar

2010-11-28T01:28:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that Government spending today will mean higher taxes tomorrow. Far fewer realize that the huge budget deficits being created now will almost certainly bring us high inflation, even hyperinflation, and a significantly devalued dollar. This year the Government will need to borrow at least $2 Trillion, and if the Obama Administration has its way, trillions more will be needed during the next several years. However, regardless of Mr. Obama's appetite for spending, the magnitude of U.S. public debt and its size as a percentage of our gross domestic output are projected to grow at astounding rates during the next several decades

How will we pay it all back? Historically, the Government raised money by issuing debt that Americans and foreigners alike eagerly held as investments. Currently, Americans, including our Government, and foreigners each own half of our public debt. According to a recent report by Fox News, China alone owns a quarter of our debt and is seen as the most likely buyer going forward, given its rapidly expanding appetite for our debt in recent years. But China too has its own economic problems and is getting serious reservations about increasing its exposure going forward. The other method of repaying debt is to raise taxes, but doing so in any meaningful way during this recession would be ill-advised. So where will the money come from?

The Government will likely have no choice but to print the extraordinary amount of money it needs, which will be highly- if not hyper- inflationary. (There is no agreement on a definition of hyperinflation but suffice it to say that if you quote monthly, rather than annual, inflation rates you're probably there.) Checking inflation won't be easy either. Normally, during periods of high inflation, especially inflation induced by expansionary monetary policy, the Government raises interest rates to choke off inflation. But this time its hands would be tied by a seriously debt overburdened American public that would suffocate from the proportionately greater impact that higher interest rates would have on its household finances; finances dominated by high levels of mortgage, auto and consumer credit. Consequently, the Government is unlikely to curb our prospective high inflation by potentially pushing our economy into another Great Depression.

Needless to say, deficit-spending-induced high inflation will devastate our currency. The likely combination of high inflation and a weak dollar will further diminish the purchasing power of all Americans, especially retirees living on fixed incomes. Many economists believe that a good proxy for an economy's stability and strength is the stability and strength of its currency, so a weak and unstable dollar will likely tarnish America's star status in the world economy. America will also be seen as a riskier place to invest and cause many investors to flee our capital markets; effects that will further raise our interest rates and weaken our dollar.

I am hopeful none of this will happen, but many believe it will, at least to some degree, if we don't change our spending habits. Given the risk of this scenario playing out, it would not be surprising to see investors favor inflation-hedges such as gold and other commodities and U.S. companies with significant exports abroad. Investors will also shy away from dollar-denominated investments by generally diversifying globally. The implications for our policy makers should be crystal clear: be extremely careful when spending our money, especially money we don't have and need to borrow.

More articles by this author are available at http://joedelcasino.blogspot.com Books are available at http://www.Xlibris.com

The Real Pro-Gay Party

2010-11-27T21:30:00.000-08:00

Two ineluctable facts stand out when scrutinizing politicians' actions on gay issues over the past 30 years: (1) Republicans are not anti-gay and (2) Democrats are not pro-gay. By 2009, there are few differences between Republican and Democratic politicians on gay issues, except that Democrats are more likely to jerk gay voters around and Republicans are more likely to quietly favor pro-liberty stances. There may have been a difference between the two parties once, but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

In 1978, California governor Ronald Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative, which would have barred gays from teaching in public schools. In an op-ed penned as he was beginning his presidential campaign, Reagan wrote, "Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." This, in the late 70s, while Jimmy Carter was publicly refusing to meet with gay groups. The initiative was overwhelmingly defeated, mostly due to Reagan's efforts, and this momentum was instrumental in forming the Log Cabin Republicans.

Reagan was the first president to invite two openly gay men-interior decorator Ted Graber and his partner-to spend the night at the White House. Washington Post reporter Robert Kaiser called Reagan a "closet tolerant." If Reagan was closeted, it was because no one asked him his views, not because he was hiding anything.

The number of gays discharged from the military dropped every year under Reagan. In contrast, the number of gays discharged increased every full year under Bill Clinton except one, doubling from 617 in 1994 to 1,231 in 2000. The number of gays discharged decreased again every full year under George W. Bush except one, halved from 1,273 in 2001 to 612 in 2006. Gay rights groups report the number of gays discharged over decades, but they never break it down by administration, because the numbers make Democrats look bad and Republicans look good.

More recently, Obama claimed he would repeal the ban on gays in the military-and has spent precisely zero time working to fulfill this promise. He refused to issue an executive order staying the investigation of gays until the law is changed, and is content destroying through inaction the military careers of servicemen like Arabic translator Dan Choi.

Our Gay Marriage Opponent-in-Chief kicked off his inauguration with an invocation by Rick Warren, robust financial sponsor of the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. Happy days are here again!

Independent Gay Forum reports that around the 100-day mark of Obama's presidency, WhiteHouse.gov removed discussion of almost all gay issues from its Civil Rights page including mention of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, cut its number of "promises" to gays from eight to three, and slashed discussion of gay issues from half a page to a few sentences. After bloggers objected, some material returned but not the promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act or a quote about gay civil rights. "Change we can believe in" apparently means we can be confident that campaign promises to gays will get scrubbed from Obama's website on a regular basis.

Similarly, in Washington D.C., former Democratic mayor Marion Barry recently woke up from a nap to realize he had accidentally voted with a unanimous City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, and subsequently asked the council for a do-over so he could take back his vote.

Meanwhile, gay-friendly candidates and policies are making inroads even in the religious wing of the Republican Party. In the 2008 presidential primaries, televangelist Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani, the most pro-gay major Republican candidate, a man who shacked up with a gay male couple after his divorce and promised them if New York ever legalized gay marriage he would preside over their ceremony.

Focus on the Family, James Dobson's group, recently expressed their openness to a gay Obama Supreme Court nominee: "The issue is not their sexual orientation. It's whether they are a good judge or not." Sexual orientation "should never come up. It's not even pertinent to the equation."

If, in 2009, gays want to support the Democratic Party because they happen to agree with every one of their non-gay-related positions, fine. It's a bit suspicious that so many gays tout the full Democratic Party line, from global warming to Guantanamo Bay. But if they're voting for Democrats because of their superior stance on gay issues, they're not getting much out of the bargain.

How about these "pro-gay" positions? Republicans are more aggressive than Democrats in the war against Islamic extremists, who are extraordinarily harsh in their condemnation and punishment of gays.

Republicans are tougher on law enforcement than Democrats-a boon for gays, who are more likely to suffer bias crimes. Republicans are more likely to support gun rights, as in the recent D.C. gun law Supreme Court case, which included as plaintiff a gay man who wanted to protect himself against anti-gay violence.

Republicans favor lower taxes than Democrats, and gays have more disposable income than heterosexuals.

Why is the Republican Party the real pro-gay party? The fact that Republican politicians aren't anti-gay and Democratic politicians aren't pro-gay helps. The fact that Republican positions make more sense than Democratic positions on some gay issues (e.g., opposing "hate crimes" laws for preferred minority groups) also helps. But the main reason is that the Republican Party is more inclined to protect individual liberties, inarguably in economic realms, and even in some social realms (e.g., smoking and nutrition-related). They're more likely to support tough law enforcement that allows liberties to be protected. And they're more likely to support national defense, which allows us to maintain a country that protects rights in the first place.

If the Republican Party is better for this country, and the party that is better for this country is better for all of us, then the Republican Party is the real pro-gay party.

Know About California Health Insurance

2010-11-27T18:25:00.000-08:00

California Health Insurance is at an all time popular high. Over 87 percent of California residents have medical insurance, whether it is direct through their employer, through the state or through themselves individually. California State has devised a program which aims to help people find the best possible health insurance. It is one of the first states in the country to do but has received very mixed results from the program which you will see below.

In contrast to other states if you in dispute with your California health insurance company, e.g. your insurance company refuses to pay out, or does not pay out as much as they agreed in the original contract etc, the state has a team of people designed to help you out of this tricky situation. They are meant to do everything for you, including taking the insurance company to court in order for them to pay out to you. And best of all its completely free of charge to California citizens.

Even though health insurance in California is one of the most complex systems of its type, there are many organizations which can help you through the hassle. Medical, Medicare, and Healthy Families are such companies which help you out and can show you the best plans for your needs. They are completely neutral, so you know you will be getting a fair quote.

However as a whole, the government plan to give medical insurance to everyone in the state at fair prices failed quite miserably. Although the majority of people in the state do have California health insurance, the larger companies are still raking in all the money, whilst the smaller companies are struggling to get by. Barack Obama wants to use California "fail" on health insurance policies to influence the United States on things which made the system collapse as is has done.

One of the main problems of the Health insurance in California was the dispute with the Mexican citizens. Mexican newspapers were advertising that Mexican people could get health insurance from just crossing the border at a fraction of the price they were being charged. And when the Mexican citizen get sick in California they go to the hospitals; insured or not. As the hospitals cannot turn anyone away who has a medical emergency the state starts to lose money, as because the Mexican citizen are not citizen of the United States they cannot be forced to pay the hospital bills, making the taxpayer pay them.

As you can see the medical insurance system in California is very much in chaos. There are plans to correct it and return it to how it should be, but so far none have been properly implemented, and thus the Mexican people keep coming up and effectively stealing from the United States citizens. Unless something is done soon ordinary people may have a hard time getting approved for medical insurance, or even in the worst cases get turned away from hospitals because there is simply not enough room.

California Health Insurance Quotes
For instant California Health Insurance Plans visit http://www.healthratesus.com

The Repositioning of the Black Male

2010-11-27T14:44:00.000-08:00

In the first presidential debate, Senator John McCain repeatedly accused former Senator Barack Obama of lacking experience, being naive, and most ironically, not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy. It was a portentous allegation.

On Super Tuesday, after watching the Maverick and war hero (a.k.a.) McCain go down in defeat, state after state, one thing was abundantly clear: "that one" (a.k.a. Obama) not only knows the difference between tactics and strategies, but has mastered them. It proved that you don't have to be a former prisoner of war to effectively use tactics and strategies to accomplish your goals.

This article focuses on how black males can use the same tactics and strategies employed by President Obama to reposition themselves to achieve success in their professional endeavors and add momentum to the black male movement.

First, let's define terms to ensure that we are on the same page and are speaking the same language:

Tactic: a device for accomplishing an end.

Strategy: a careful plan or method; a clever stratagem b: the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal. (There are many war references made in its alternate definitions; thus the reason for McCain's arrogance.)

The commonly used and often misunderstood term "position" was created by marketing pioneers Al Ries and Jack Trout in the 70s. According to them, position simply means to occupy a unique mental position in one's mind. We are all positioned in one way or another. Positioning is the deliberate effort of establishing and controlling one's position. To reposition is to change or improve one's original position. The act of positioning and repositioning should be thought of and used as an element of strategy.

Now let's move on to the specifics of how the repositioning of black males can be accomplished through lessons provided by President Barack Obama's historical campaign run.

First, I have to say that while both blacks and whites adroitly handled racial issues in this election with stunning diplomacy, we all know - whether we care to admit it or not - that race, like sexuality, is always an issue. It's the big elephant in the room that we are aware of, but try to ignore, as I try to ignore the fact that I now have over a decade of experience working in corporate America and have yet to work alongside another black male. With the election of our first black President, hopefully a trickle down effect will take place and employers will be able to transcend any racial issues which may alter my situation (or isolation), and an increase in black male presence will occur.

No doubt we've crossed an epic racial barrier - but we still have many battles to be fought. We can't be naive; racist issues (not to be confused with racial issues) still exist and they will undoubtedly surface during Obama's Presidency. Many of the racial issues which pertain to and specifically effect black men, can now be dealt with openly and politically since they were eclipsed by universal concerns during the election. Focus upon them would have created the appearance of an imbalanced perspective for Obama. After all, black issues are esoteric.

Obama's campaign team, lead by David Plouffe, and his chief strategist David Axelrod, have acknowledged that one of the key tenets of the campaign was, in fact, to avoid discussions focused on race. From polling and interviews, the campaign concluded from the outset that it was imperative to define Obama's candidacy in terms that would transcend skin color.

Who were their first efforts aimed at? Blacks. Apparently, they deemed it imperative to get blacks to move beyond their "natural" skepticism that one of their own could indeed become president. They knew that Obama would have to position himself to be chosen as a leader because leaders don't choose their followers; followers choose their leaders - regardless of race.

In a report on MSNBC.com by Adam Nagourney, Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, Obama's campaign team made the following quote, "The biggest race problem we had to solve was not with the white voters," Mr. Axelrod said, "but with African-American voters, a deep sense of skepticism that this might happen."

How about that?

These are called interracial issues. They offer a window, if not a measurement, into just how long the roots of negativity and its insidious effects can have on the psyche of an oppressed people. Were we really skeptical? Yes, initially, but we were not doubtful of Obama's competence; we were doubtful of his chances based upon our system, and our individual and collective black experiences.

After identifying the hurdles to the White House, Obama's camp had their agenda, a mission, and a message. They were all set to execute a textbook course on repositioning Obama, and offer America's black men invaluable lessons that they could use to transform their lives and achieve greater success in their professional endeavors.

This brings us to lesson 1 in repositioning the black male: remove skepticism - primarily your own - and identify the hurdles to your success.

With Obama's campaign mantra of Change you can believe in, and Yes we can!, they created a strategy that would enable them to fuel hope and engender allegiance at a time when our nation is at war and in dire economic straits, while simultaneously instilling optimism into the psyches of African Americans, and the vast majority of Americans, in the process.

The strategy was brilliant, but not surprising when you consider that Obama wrote a book entitled The Audacity Of Hope, in which he wrote: "Hope is that thing inside of us that insists, despite evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it, and to work for it, and to fight for it." The tears that flowed so copiously during his acceptance speech were tears of hope. He clearly understands that one can not have hope without optimism. He may want to entitle his next book The Benefits Of Optimism.

Lesson 2 in repositioning the black male: understand the mental and emotional state of the people you will serve in order to inspire optimism. Build a bridge from them to you (not the other way around).

Psychologist Martin Seligman, author of the book Learned Optimism, says that optimism has been defined by some researchers as simply seeing the silver lining and suggests that your explanation for why something happens has a major impact on how you will act in the future and what result your actions will bring about. This in turn has an eventual impact on your self-esteem and self-image. Optimists expect the best outcome, even during setbacks, and they're more motivated to bring it about.

This is the reason why a record number of blacks, youth, and first time voters shed their apathy and zealously headed to the polls in record numbers which accounted for 13 percent of the electorate.

The significance of optimism is not to be understated. Since studies show that black men live 7.1 years less than other racial groups, have higher death rates than women for all leading causes of death, and experience disproportionately higher death rates in all the leading causes of death, they'd be interested to know that increased optimism has health benefits. The May 2008 issue of Harvard Men's Health Watch explores possible reasons for this connection.

Among the report findings: Highly pessimistic men were three times more likely to develop hypertension, and people who display positive emotions had lower blood pressures. In one study, the most pessimistic men were more than twice as likely to develop heart disease compared with the most optimistic. That's welcomed news since 40% of black men die prematurely from cardiovascular disease as compared to 21% of white men.

The report concludes: These results argue persuasively that optimism is good for health. It is possible that optimists enjoy better health and longer lives because they lead healthier lifestyles, build stronger social support networks, and get better medical care. In addition, optimism itself may have biological benefits, such as lower levels of stress hormones and less inflammation.

Because I know that many black men are church-going folks, they are sure to revel in the fact that the Bible also contains scripture on optimism and its effects. (Matthew 8:25-27) Pessimism results from lack of faith. Pessimism is born of doubt; optimism is born of faith. The repositioned black male will have more faith in himself and will prove to be adept at garnering the faith of those who were once reluctant to give it. Being extraordinary will be the norm.

Cornell Belcher, a pollster who worked for Obama's campaign and studies racial voting patterns said to the press, "It would be difficult for an African-American to be elected president in this country; however, it is not difficult for an extraordinary individual who happens to be African-American to be elected president." Obama made mention of this in his acceptance speech when he said, "I was never the likeliest candidate for the office." But he ran anyway. And he ran unlike any other presidential candidate in history because he had to. Analysts say he ran a perfect campaign that was extraordinary in its execution.

Lesson 3 in repositioning the black male: understand that being qualified begins in your mind with your own self-image; the least likeliest candidate can still get the job. Also, you are no longer the least likeliest candidate.

Like Obama, you must make it your mission to get employers to become comfortable with you and the role in which you will play in their company by demonstrating your ability to handle the challenges within that role. If your values are aligned with theirs, all you have to do is effectively manage expectations and deliver - which is what the world is waiting for Obama to do next.

It was obvious from the outset that Obama was a proficient politician, but he got better during the election in the same manner that any talented and driven athlete gets better as their season progresses. He became superlative during the playoffs of politics, the election run, and was simply indomitable in each of his debates. He didn't just win the election, he restored faith in the integrity of the presidency while repositioning himself and showcasing solid character.

Lesson 4 in repositioning the black male: showcase solid character at all times.

Where does the process of building character begin? At the very beginning of your journey: at home with your parents and in college. It intensifies when you are pursuing the experience and skills necessary to successfully navigate through your career when entering the workforce. It doesn't matter where you want your vocational journey to take you because most people can't imagine where they are going to end-up; they just need to be prepared to succeed when they get there.

Chances are Obama didn't imagine being president when he was working with victims of housing and employment discrimination. That experience, along with teaching at the University of Chicago Law, and landing a spot in the senate clearly helped him acquire the skills, knowledge, and experience necessary to navigate through the slippery slopes of the political process without getting tripped up - despite the disproportionate lack of experience he had in comparison to McCain.

Lesson 5 in repositioning the black male: lack of experience does not equate lack of opportunity unless you allow it to.

As previously stated, for many Americans character takes shape in college. For black men, college attendance - on the community college and university level - is dwindling. According to the spring 2006 Integrated Post secondary Education Data System survey (IPEDS), Black, non-Hispanic male students had the lowest three-year graduation rate - 16 percent - among all minority male community college students.

In an article published in 2007, Disappearing Acts: The Vanishing Black Male On Community College Campuses, Lorenzo I. Esters and Dr. David C. Mosby write: What is most alarming about the current state of the Black male on America's community college campuses is that those who are in positions of leadership have been slow to recognize the situation as a state of emergency and have been almost reluctant to own up to their responsibility to take corrective action. The accumulated research studies on the subject of Black male student retention may be a source for community colleges to gain some insight as to how they may appropriately respond to the epidemic.

Over the past 33 years, black women have enrolled in four-year colleges at higher rates than have black men, according to the results of a new study conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA's Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. In 2004, black women comprised 59.3 percent of all first-time, full-time black students attending four year institutions, compared to 54.5 percent in 1971.

With this type of research and data, why haven't there been any special initiatives or greater outreach from colleges to address this issue? My research found a potential answer:

Black male enrollments are shockingly low at many colleges and universities, even those with good track records at attracting a diverse student body. While some demographers have noted this situation for years, many colleges have shied away from dealing with the issue head on, fearing that doing so could reinforce stereotypes, offend women, or draw conservative criticism.

Perhaps Obama will put this on his ever growing list of priorities. He's well aware of the problem and has referred to it on several occasions, the first in his Democratic National Convention speech when he stated: "Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents (and) that government can't turn off the television and make a child do his homework...that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children."

Last year, at the NAACP forum on July 12, 2007, he was also quoted as saying: "We have more work to do when more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America." That is incorrect. The media has perpetuated that myth by reporting the total number of incarcerated black males, in comparison to the the total number of college-age (18 - 25) black males. Accurate statistics reveal that since 2005 there are, in fact, more college age black males enrolled in colleges and universities than there are incarcerated in the same group.

Lesson 6 in repositioning the black male: increase and expand your education with the goal of becoming smarter. That includes, but is not limited to, enrolling in school. Education builds character and is a crucial tactic in our overall success strategy. Education shapes values, alters perspectives, and fosters altruism. Studies show that there is a direct link between increased education and decreased levels of crime and violence - even within the prison system.

Education is also the fountain from which the tactical resolutions to the previously stated problems and those which have plagued us for centuries will be spawned. The repositioned black male must encourage the next generation of black men to take interest in pursuits other than sports and entertainment at a younger age. We need to deepen our talent pool of future policy makers who can instigate and sustain change. A generation of young men, who like Obama, will be efficient at using tactics and strategies to get results.

That's the crux of President Obama's success. Success is within closer reach for the repositioned black male who comprehends that positioning is an art, a psychology, and a science. It's not just for the artful, the psychological, or the scientific; it's for determined visionaries who want better lives and a greater share of resources for their families, their communities, and themselves.

And while we have reached our most significant milestone as black men, we must now look ahead to the future and prepare for it in the present, the way Obama did when he contained his emotions, less than 30 minutes after being elected, and had the presence of mind during his shining moment, to take the opportunity to manage soaring expectations by remarking in his acceptance speech:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there...there will be setbacks (see paragraph above on optimism and setbacks) and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."

Final lesson in repositioning the black male: always see the big picture and your place within it.

Gian Fiero is a seasoned educator, speaker and consultant with a focus on business development and music/entertainment industry operations. His affiliations include the United States Small Business Administration (S.B.A.) as a business advisor, and San Francisco State University as an adjunct professor.

Political Class - Voodoo Economic Myths and Lies - Myths #1 and #2

2010-11-27T11:14:00.000-08:00

Infamous Nazi Joseph Goebbels once said that if you tell and repeat a lie enough times, it will eventually become the truth. So it is with politicians and economic behavior and theory. We have been told so many lies so many times by the political class, that the lies become the reality in a lot of people's minds, preventing them from considering alternative approaches and alternative views of reality. This article will explore two of these myths as perpetuated by the political class. The following information needs to be viewed with an open mind since the findings to be revealed are likely in conflict with what you have been told over and over again by the political class. In other words, do not fall into the Goebbels trap: the repetition of a lie causing it to become the truth.

However, before preceding, we should consider the question of why would the political class lie about the truth relative to economic matters. There are a few theories, all or some of which are likely true. First, consider a quote from Ivern Ball: "A politician is a person who can make waves and then make you think he's the only one who save the ship." By making economics and the world seem more complicated than they are, the political class can step in to take over more control of our lives. They want to convince us it is impossible for us to understand how to fix the economy, we must leave it to the experts, namely the politicians. But consider what we have lived through the past two years: the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression but no one in the political class saw the crash coming until it hit them flush in the face. If they could not foresee the biggest collapse in decades, what makes anyone think they can manage the day-to-day doings of the economy? They want all of the control, which restricts our individual freedom, but have none of the expertise to do any kind of decent job.

By spreading lies about the economy, they can energize their base and demonize those with a different opinion. This helps to keep themselves in office by pitting different American groups or tribes against each other over myths that have nothing to do with reality and nothing to do with solving the economic problems facing the country. By throwing around myths like "the rich do not pay enough in taxes" or "governments can create jobs", we end up fighting with each other while the myth makers sit back and get re-elected regardless of how poorly they perform while in office.

Whatever the cause, political class myths about the economy divide America, restrict freedom, and prevent anyone from determining the root cause of economic problems and prescribing the right remedy. If the myths were shattered, the political class would lose control over a population that was finally thinking coherently about the reality of our economic situation.

Myth # 1 - The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Caused the Recession and Our Massive Federal Government Deficits

Let's first deal with the myth that the so-called "Bush tax cuts for the rich" caused the economic downturn, resulted in massive deficits, and they need to be restored in order to get our national debt under control. Now, I never voted for Bush or thought he was much of a President. However, this position of the political class is nothing but a myth:

1) The economic downturn started in late 2007. Until that year, the United States economy recovered nicely from the economic downturn left over from the Democratic Clinton administration and the 9-11 terror attacks. For most of the Bush Presidency, unemployment stayed between 4% and 6% (a performance that Obama would kill for today) and the GDP of the country grew every year during his Presidency. Also, remember that beginning in 2006, just before the onset of the economic collapse, the Democrats took over control of both houses of Congress. They have controlled Congress now for three and a half years and have controlled the White House for the past year and a half with the following results: a severe recession and unemployment hanging around 10%. Thus, there is no reason to believe the myth that the Bush tax cuts caused the economic downturn since the economic reality of the numbers, unemployment and GDP, do not support the myth.

2) The next component of the myth is that the Bush tax cuts caused massive deficits. While it is true that the highest dollar deficit during the Bush Presidency was also the highest dollar deficit up to that time, it was only about 3.6% as a percentage of GDP. When measured this way, the highest Bush deficit is only the third highest deficit of all time. Plus, the 3.6% is only slighter higher than the international benchmark 3% that is generally recognized as the maximum safe amount of deficit spending a nation should get to. Obviously, any deficit is bad but to say the Bush tax cuts resulted in massive deficits is must a myth.

And remember, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration, when the highest Bush deficit was incurred. If they were so worried about deficit spending, they could have forced the government spending levels to be reduced and the deficit reduced, given they controlled that part of government where Federal budgets are developed, Congress. Compare the Bush deficit maximum at 3.6% of GDP with the 2010 Obama deficit of about 10%, three times the amount that should be incurred before a nation seriously starts heading towards insolvency. Bush tax cuts for the rich did not cause massive deficits, massive spending by the political class, both political parties, caused massive deficits.

3) Probably the most obnoxious part of this myth is that by raising the tax rates on the richest Americans to the pre-Bush tax cut levels, the current sky high deficits will be solved. This is nothing more than the Democrats demonizing the rich to cover up their wasteful spending and their attempt to blind most Americans to the reality that taxing the rich, at just about any level, does not get America out of the death spiral of escalating government deficit spending. Don't believe me, let's do the math:

- Obama has stated so many times that he wants to raise income taxes on those households making over $250,000 a year so let's take him at his word and assume the increased, restoration of pre-Bush tax cuts will begin at $250,000.

- The highest marginal tax rate reduced by the Bush administration was 3.6% (from 38.6% to 35%) so let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he will raise the highest tax rate 4%.

- According to the IRS, the number of taxpayers in the highest Adjusted Gross Income bands for 2008 (the latest data available) are as follows:

$200,000 - $500,000: 3,476,747 taxpayers (2,897,290 adjusted)

$500,000 - $1,000,000: 577,618

$1,000,000 - $1,500,000: 140,635

$1,500,000 - $2,000,000: 59,460

$2,000,000 - $5,000,000: 86,329

$5,000,000 - $10,000,000: 21390

$10,000,000+ - 13480

- The lowest bracket above was reduced by one sixth in order to take out the number of people making less than $250,000 since they would not be affected by the Obama promise, i.e. raise taxes only for those making over $250,000 a year. Probably more than that should have been removed since it is likely that there are many more people in the $200,000 - $250,000 range than in the $450,000 - $500,000 range but the calculation assumed a uniform distribution across the whole $200,000 - $500,000 range. This uniform distribution assumption gives every benefit to the myth.

- Although a more accurate estimate would have been to have access to the raw IRS data, we can get a realistic estimate, and a statistically valid estimate, by assuming that the people in the above brackets earned, on average, the midpoint within each range. For example, for the calculations, assumption was made that the 86,329 taxpayers in the $2,000,000 - $5,000,000 range each earned $3,500,000, the midpoint of the range.

- The only open ended income estimate is the average income from those making over $10,000,000 since we do not have enough information from the IRS to do a viable estimate. Thus, lets started with a $30,000,000 estimate and then change it as a variable (see below).

- Once you make these assumptions and run them through a spreadsheet, you estimate that the Obama desire to tax the rich will result in an additional $68.7 billion in tax revenue for the government. Given that the Obama budget deficit in 2010 is about $1.4 TRILLION, restoring the Bush tax cuts by 4% will pay off only about 4.9% of one year's of Obama's budget deficits. Thus, the myth of taxing the rich is about as effective as a burp in a hurricane, it will not come close to offsetting the massive and wasteful spending of the political class. It will only help divide America across income lines or tribes.

- But hold on you might say. Those earning over $10,000,000 a year might be making closer to $50,000,000 a year. Okay, plug that in to the spreadsheet and you see that the rich would only pay off 5.7% of the Obama deficit. If you want to be truly ridiculous and take the average income to $100,000,000 million a year you see that this ludicrous number still only pays off 7.6% of the Obama deficit.

Remember, at $30,000,000 a year for the richest, the 4.9% estimate is a percentage of just the deficit, not the total Federal budget. It would be less than 2% of the total Federal budget.

Thus, myth destroyed: sticking it to the richest Americans does not significantly cure the out of control spending of the political class. It only postpones the inevitable insolvency of the country by insisting, incorrectly, that the rich can pay their "fair share" and economic miracles will happen. Now, if you believe that the rich do not pay enough in taxes, that is certainly your right. But please do not perpetuate the myth that this action will cure the national debt, that is a myth and the numbers above prove it.

Forget the myths for a second and consider a real life economic situation. I have a friend who operates his own financial services business and has done so for several decades. He sells and manages health care policies and life insurance policies and is also a licensed broker of mutual funds and other investments. He works very, very hard, probably putting in more than 60 hours a week at building his business. I do not remember the last time he took a real vacation. Thus, I do not begrudge him anything he earns from his hard working style.

However, in anticipation of Obama's economic policies when he was elected, this friend started to make some cuts in expenses. His one recreation outlet is to spend time fishing on his boat and maintaining a small vacation home at the New Jersey shore. Rather than sacrifice that part of his life to pay for the Obama tax increases, he decided to fire his housekeeper of many, many years and he and his wife have significantly cut back on the amount of money the spend on restaurant dining. Thus, as a result of this tax the rich myth, here is a real life example of how that myth worsens the unemployment rate in the housekeeping and restaurant industries while having a minimal impact on reducing the Obama budget deficits. This type of behavior and reality never seems to enter into the economic myths of he political class.

Combine these reality-based numbers with the recent and absurd Nancy Pelosi public quote where she stated that high unemployment is the best way to generate jobs, and you see how inadequate the political class is from an economic reality perspective. Their myths divide the country, worsen our economic condition, ignore real life economic decisions by individuals and businesses, and restrict our individual liberty without solving any problems. Certainly not a good economic deal for America

Myth #2 - Social Security Is The Best Retirement Approach For All Americans

Let's move onto another major and long standing political class economic myth, namely that the Social Security system is a great financial plan for Americans and that investment of our Social Security taxes in the stock market is a stupid idea. By keeping this myth alive, the political class can continue to plunder our paychecks and keep tight control over our retirement income, reducing every American's freedom.

However, if you look at your individual situation, you are likely to find the same results that I found. I took my entire Social Security history, as provided by the Social Security Administration, and developed a simple economic model to estimate what would have happened to my retirement savings if I had been in control of my life time historical Social Security payments and not the government. My assumptions in the model are quite straightforward:

- I calculated what I paid into the system every year from the first year I started earning a paycheck and then doubled it to account for the same amount that my employers paid into the system in my name.

- I assumed that I saved this entire sum in a non-taxable, IRA-type account from the very beginning.

- I assumed that this account took my earnings and invested them in an S&P stock index mutual fund that earned exactly the returns of the S&P index over the past four decades, i.e. horrors of horror, I invested in the stock market.

- I assumed that I saved in the S&P fund until I was 56 years old (2009) and then converted the accumulated funds into a conservative bond fund that earned 4% a year, a standard move to do, get more conservative as you approach retirement.

- As I withdrew money from the account, I assumed the remainder in the account would continue to conservatively earn 4% a year until there was no money left in the account.

- The Social Security Administration estimates that I would receive about $1,300 a month or $15,600 a year if I retired at age 62.

- I assumed I would start withdrawing money from my theoretical account at age 62.

The output of the model is very interesting. By ignoring the myth from the political class that investing my Social Security earnings in the stock market is a death knell economically, my simple model shows that by following the investment path above, I would be able to withdraw $31,200 a year, every year, from age 62 until I was 102 years old. Thus, I could have doubled what Social Security will be paying me if the political class had allowed me to control my own retirement plan from the beginning. Although my retirement savings would run out when I was 103 years old, that would be a chance I would be willing to take.

Another run of the model assumes that I withdraw $39,000 a year from this theoretical retirement account, or two and half times what the government will be paying me in retirement. In this case, I run out of money when I am 87 years old. I little riskier but other savings could more than make up the difference if I lived beyond 88 years old (personal savings, house equity, 401k plans, other IRA plans, etc.). Up until 88 years old, I have two and a times more money than what the government will pay.

Thus, the myth that Social Security investment in the stock market, the option that the political class loves to demonize, is a fraud and a lie, at least for me. Since I consider my self pretty typical middle class, I would bet similar results would occur for most Americans. Not only would I have more wealth in retirement, the wealth would be under my control and in my accounts. I would not be subject to the whims and actions of the political class as they manipulate the rules and payouts of the system. It's called freedom and the political class hates it when citizens have control of their personal destiny.

But someone might say that they find investing in a stock index fund as being too risky for them. Let's give them control of their money but invest it in one year T-Bills and see what happens. I reconfigured the model to include the annualized payout in one year T-Bill over the past four decades instead of the S&P index historical results. The model handles the calculation easily and shows that if I had been able to keep all of my Social Security earnings in a one year T-Bill account, and left the other assumptions the same as above, I could withdraw $20,800 a year, or 33% more than what Social Security will pay me, until I was 95 years old. I could withdrawal $23,400 or 50% more than what Social Security will pay me, until I was 88 years old. I could then use other savings to cover my expenses if I lived beyond 88 years old. In this case also, I would control my earnings in my account, and would get substantially more than what the government will pay me under he current system.

The other good thing about this approach is that in either case, S&P or T-Bills, if I should die before I use up my funds, I can designate where the remaining funds will go to (e.g. heirs, charities, etc.) since the remaining funds are in my account, the government is not holding onto them. In other words, I have the freedom to move my earnings to where I want them to go, not some government agency bottomless pit.

Alas, the government and the political class never gave me these options. They forced me to handover my earnings and the earnings of my employers in my name, to a government program that is rapidly approaching insolvency. In the process, they restricted the life style choices I would have been able to make in retirement, they control my retirement earnings, they pay me less than what I would have earned if I had kept my earnings, and they control my earnings even after I have passed away.

While we can now consider the myth destroyed, having control of our Social Security earnings for our own investment in either the stock market and/or T-Bills would have been much better option than participating in the Social Security program, the truth is we cannot go back. We need to fix what is causing the current system to lurch towards insolvency in order to preserve even the smaller amounts promised by the current Social Security arrangement. Once the current system stabilized, we can only hope that analyses like the above can be deployed and implemented to return control over Americans' lives and their retirements to themselves and break the contract with the political class that has enslaved and worsened the economic retirement lives of most Americans for decades.

Our new book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Our daily blog at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com discusses the status of freedom in America from various perspectives.

Why Life Insurance is the Key to Financial Security - How to Prevent Financial Disaster After Passin

2010-11-27T07:16:00.000-08:00

Life insurance is one of the most important aspects of an individuals financial portfolio. It can avert and prevent financial disaster by protecting your family long after you pass away. Consider this scenario. John is a financial analyst and has made good money at a corporation for nearly 3 decades. His family has enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle with his steady income and his daughter is getting ready to leave for college. Tragically, John suffers a heart attack and passes away. John signed up for life insurance when he started working as a financial analyst for the corporation. Since John signed up for life insurance years ago his family is going to continue their lifestyle thanks to his life insurance policy that will support them financially for years to come!

There is a multitude of reasons that adding insurance will prevent a financial disaster for your family; here are a few:

1.) A good insurance policy for life will allow your family to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle long after your passing.

2.) Insurance after passing away is relatively cheap compared to the financial burden it could provide for your loved ones after passing away.

This article has articulated the argument that life insurance is one of the most, if not the most, important financial instrument to carry to protect your family from financial disaster after passing. It is clear that the Obama administration is paving the way to make health insurance universal, however life insurance is not. This means that it is important to carry insurance for life early on in your career to prevent financial turmoil for loved ones.

In summary, it is important to carry insurance for life to prevent a tragic financial situation for loved ones after your passing. Make sure to sign up for insurance for life early on in your career to ensure your family is protected.

Ryan Golembiewski is a seasoned financial expert in the insurance industry. He spent his collegiate career studying Economics and Statistics at The Ohio State University. He has a wealth of experience working with life insurance quotes websites and certainly recommends using a life insurance quotes comparison site prior to signing up for a policy.

I recommend using these guys from my experiences to compare life insurance quotes and find a legitimate life insurance agent to deal with: Compare Life Insurance Quotes.

The Twilight Zone World of Joe Biden

2010-11-27T03:48:00.000-08:00

The Vice President has always been good for a quote, or in many cases, a misquote, when it comes to explaining the reality of our world. However, many times you wonder if he and the rest of us are living in the same world and reality or we are stuck in some sort of twilight zone world where reality takes on a distorted sense of truth. This twilight zone image came to mind earlier this week when the Vice president acknowledged that while the recovery from the recession was proceeding slower than expected, there is "no doubt we are moving in the right direction."

If he thinks we are moving in the right economic direction, than he and I are stuck in some sort of distorted reality, given what is happening in my economic world:

- The Commerce Department reduced its estimate of the nation's second quarter GDP growth from 2.4% to 1.6%, a 33% decrease.

- Unemployment continues to linger between 9.5% and 10.0% even though Joe's administration predicted that unemployment would go to 8% unless the President's economic stimulus package was passed. It was passed and we did not go to 8% unemployment, we went 15-20% higher.

- The stock market is down about 10% from its recent 2010 peak in April and does not appear to be ready to rise any time soon.

- This week we heard that the sale of existing houses dropped 27% in July vs. June, the biggest monthly drop in the four decades that the statistic had been kept. Guess the administration's housing incentive program for first time buyers did not have much staying power.

- Also this week in the housing market, we found out that the sale of new homes was down over 12% in July vs. June and was down over 32% vs. the same time period in 2009. The annual sales rate of 276,000 new housing units is one of the lowest levels ever measured.

- This week we also found out that almost half of the people enrolled in the administration's mortgage recovery program had dropped out of the program for various reasons, not the least of which was inefficient and and ineffective paperwork processing procedures. The number of home foreclosures in 2010 could be as high as one million with several credible sources estimating that the foreclosure number could increase 50% in 2011.

- On Thursday we heard that new weekly unemployment claims continue to linger between the 450,000 to 500,000, i.e. about half a million people a week are now filing for unemployment benefits for the first time. Hardly sounds like the economic turnaround we are told is coming even though the Vice President told the Washington Post on April 23, 2010, over four months ago, that the economy would soon be creating 500,000 jobs a month. Not quite there yet.

- The Vice President did not mention that the Federal government has incurred unbelievably high, record setting government spending deficits over the almost four years that the Democrats have had control of both houses of Congress and the almost two years they also controlled the White House.

So, in Joe's world or twilight zone, shrinking economic growth rates, housing industry woes not seen in a long time, high unemployment, feeble private sector job creation, sky high national debt and mortgage foreclosures, and a falling stock market leave "no doubt we are moving in the right direction."

Seriously, this administration has no clue on how to turn around the economy, resulting in one of the longest and weakest recoveries of all time. Their reaction? Spend more money on dismal, failed incentive programs (Cash For Clunkers, first time home buyer incentive, Cash For Caulkers, Cash For New Energy Efficient Appliances, mortgage rescue, etc.), spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts of financial institutions that either did not need to be bailed out (since most have already returned their TARP payments) or who deserved to fail due to their bad management (Citigroup, Bank Of America), spend hundreds of billions of dollars via an economic stimulus program which stimulated nothing (it has gotten so bad with this program that the administration has evolved from estimating how many jobs the stimulus created to how many jobs the stimulus created AND saved to how jobs created, jobs saved AND lives touched by the stimulus program), and the old favorite, blame Bush.

Bush has been gone for almost two years, the Republicans have been in the minority for almost four years in Congress and during part of that time, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate while also controlling the House Of Representatives. The result of this recent history? We are stuck in an economic ditch and to those of us in the real world, we have no doubt we are NOT moving in the right direction.

What is the root cause of our economic distress? Could it be that consumers and business are uncertain of the future and as a result, have hunkered down in the face of that uncertainty? What are we are uncertain about:

- Could it be we are uncertain how much more in health care taxes and health care costs we are actually going to have to spend on employees and ourselves since the majority of America feels that the recently passed health care reform legislation will not solve our health care cost problem but will certainly increase what we pay for our health care?

- Could it be we are uncertain what this administration will do tax wise, with the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts being just one area where the tax bite on American businesses and consumers could rise significantly?

- Could it be we are uncertain how much more we will have to pay in energy costs with the proposed onerous and ineffective cap and trade carbon program that could be passed?

- Could it be that we are uncertain if Social Security and Medicare will be saved from insolvency and how much that might cost?

- Could it be that we are uncertain when Washington politicians will actually get down to tackling the major issues of the country as opposed to just calling each other names and worrying only about their own re-election?

- Could it be we are uncertain that Washington politicians are actually able to solve a real problem (especially since they have never really solved a major problem) when one of the leading members of the Federal political class thinks everything is fine and moving in the right direction despite every indication it is not?

This administration has introduced so much uncertainly into the market and economy that people and businesses have decided to hunker down and protect their assets rather than go out and invest or spend their assets. And given this mind set, interest rates cannot go low enough stupid sales incentive programs cannot be rolled out to failure fast enough, and no amount of stimulus spending, especially the ridiculous programs from the first stimulus program, will solve the lack of credibility, lack of faith, and uncertainty problems we all currently have with Washington. That is why these incumbents need to be sent home in November and hopefully we can replace them with people that have the skills to remove the uncertainty in the country today.

Until November, consider the words of Rod Sterling, the creator of the TV show, "The Twilight Zone" in light of Joe Biden's view of his world:

You are about to enter another dimension.

A dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind.

A journey into a wondrous land of imagination, next stop, the twilight zone.

Joe, indeed, must live in a wondrous land of imagination in another dimension where good is bad, dark is light, and we are all moving in the right direction despite all economic indicators.

Walter "Bruno" Korschek is the author of the book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class," which is available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Join our daily dialog on freedom in America http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.

Private Health Plan - Getting Health Insurance Quotes Over the Internet Can Save You Plenty

2010-11-27T00:13:00.000-08:00

Even though you are saving money for a rainy day, it is still worth the expense if it all goes to saving up for the future. This is the case with health insurance. You may find it a heavy burden to pay for the monthly bills and the monthly payments for your insurance but in the long run, it will help you save money.

President Obama has stated that the health cover in the US needs to be reformatted and the administration will make sure that everyone will have the right health insurance.

What you need to do is to find a private health plan that enables you to compare different quotes of different insurance companies. You can actually do this through the internet. You can search a large number of health insurance providers for affordable plans available for consumers. And you can easily compare both the coverage and the rates of each policy.

There are a lot of reasons as to why searching for quotes over the internet can be very beneficial to you and for everyone.

1. You will not be giving your personal information that you may regret in the future. You will also be spared from all the sales calls and the junk mail found in your email that you find so annoying.

2. You are saved from all the paperwork you need to fill before you get the quote you want.

3. Going through the internet offers you a lot more choices than you ever thought you could have. You can save up to 40 percent on a health insurance plan compared to what you are currently paying by searching for the right plan on the internet.

This is due to the fact that insurance companies compete with each other and none of these companies have fixed rates for their insurance plans. By going through the internet and using an insurance comparison site you can have a clear idea of which private health plan has the lowest rates and which ones are the best for you.

Here is the best resource for a Private Health Plan, for the best health insurance just click here

The Inanity of the 30-Second Sound Bite and "People of Certainty"

2010-11-26T19:38:00.000-08:00

For more than a few years, there has been a chorus that all we need do is, "Drill Baby Drill." This vocalization has been the watchword for several politicians and talking heads. In fact, recently one of the more famous, or perhaps soon to be, infamous of those "people of certainty", who happens to be an ex-politician, stated that we do not need any more studies, we need action.

She is right. We need action. We need people who know, through rigorous study what the fallout may be from the opening of millions of acres of offshore areas to simply, "Drill Baby Drill." We need people who are able to produce with a level of certainty, the possible outcomes, good or bad. And we need to follow the safer course, not the course that results from a 30-second sound bite issued by one who knows very little of substance about most of which she speaks. She is one of the "people of certainty." And she is a leader to some.

However, an ecological disaster is not something that is recovered from in short order, no matter how certain one might be. In fact, the clean-up in Prince William Sound is not even complete to this day. And if the Exxon Valdez had been a double hulled vessel - another of those pesky safety features designed to protect the environment, there might not have even been a spill, much less one of the magnitude we came to see.

Now we have another shorting of environmentally sensitive means and another disaster is looming off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi and Lord knows where it might end up. The final tally cannot yet be realistically estimated, much less known, but if it is going to take literally months to drill relief wells and the "round up" of the oil slick is not going particularly well based on the high flow, high seas and multiple leak points that have been cited, one can only hope that this causes those "people of certainty" to rethink to true impact of their words and the effects on subsequent public policy.

Reality is often quite different from the sound bites and public speeches "people of certainty" and politicians make. Real world catastrophes resulting from short-cuts and by-passing safety measures are rarely, if ever, sound policy. But when you have two men who had experience with the oil patch, although Mr. Cheney knew little of the oil industry when he was named CEO of Halliburton, sound policy wasn't even a secondary consideration much less primary in nature.

But on to the current problem. British Petroleum is the beneficiary of loosely enforced standards that are the result of years of loosening of regulations and requirements. They have operated on the "Honor System." They have had the benefit of simply being granted carte blanche based on their word of honor.

Let's take a look at their honorable word. When asked for their assessment of a worst case scenario for the drilling rig that now sits somewhere in pieces on the floor of the Gulf, the BP folks estimated that in a catastrophe the well would leak an estimated 1000 barrels of crude oil daily. The reality is that this blown pipe is spewing an estimated 200,000 barrels of crude into the environment each day and even with the full force of the federal government, it looks as if the crude oil is going to reach the shores of the Gulf and with likely horrific effects. So much for the honorable word of BP, where is their control of this event? It went out with their honorable word.

It has been said also that the technology being used on this particular drilling rig was not of the latest vintage. I include this simply because if this rig were off the shores of any of dozens of other nations, BP would have been required to include a security blow-out preventer that allows a blown out well to be capped remotely before it could inflict heavy environmental damage on the shores off which it is drilling. But, of course, they did not include this $500,000.00 dollar device. There was no need for this device, we had the word of British Petroleum!

Why should other nations require such safety devices, but not the United States? Primarily because much of the world understands the fragile nature of the environment where we in the United States have many people who have trouble believing that inevitably day follows night as night follows day, but more so because regulations have been decimated over the last thirty years and this allows for larger margins and greater profits. When you can increase your return on investment, why worry about some silly environmental issues.

Of course, based on costs that are going to go through the veritable ozone layer once assessed, I guess a $500,000.00 dollar safety feature isn't such a bad idea afterall. But again, we have all those people who "know" and tell us they "know": They are the "people of certainty."

Well, it may be that the technology is there, but there is not where it is needed. It is needed in the Gulf of Mexico to avert one hell of an environmental disaster. And if these "people of certainty" are able to operate in such an absolute world where their certainty is without fail, why are they not able to explain what their agenda is for making everything oh so right? Forget the negative. You certainly must have some positive agenda that will make everything all right. Don't you? The latest attempts are to sink three multi-story caps on to each leak point and then pump the oil to barges. A key point - this is an untried technology in such deep water and there is no guarantee it will work. If it does, all the better for most parties. If it does not work, however, the continued flow could end up in a current that will push the slick around the Florida peninsula and up the East coast. What will be the overall effect at that point?

These same "people of certainty" cite as weakness recent U.S. involvement with the Russians in a nuclear arms pact or treaty that will reduce the overall number of nuclear warheads in our nations. These "people of certainty" must not know that Ronald Reagan had his administration involved in similar negotiations and George H.W. Bush signed a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) during his administration. So, the goal of making the world safer by reducing the overall number of nuclear warheads is a sign of strength only when a republican administration is at the helm, apparently.

They have no compunction against blowing smoke where only rock and ice exist and they cite the strength of the current administration as weakness. The free fall that our economy was in during the end of 2008 has been quelled, at least for now. The stock market was back over 11,000, until today - and still those "people of certainty" cry the sky is falling. Many of them decried the odious and unconstitutional nature of the recent medical bill that became law, and then they went home on recess from the Congress and took credit for passing it despite having voted against the bill.

Here is another reality: You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to be against everything, you cannot take credit for voting for it. If you believe it is such horrific and unconstitutional public policy, why would you want to take any credit for it? Did you recall that several of the provisions included had been put forth previously by Richard Nixon?.

The party of "No" or "Hell No" has been, overall, obstructionist. And then they whine when they feel left out. When you get pissy and take your ball and go home, you should expect to be left out. When the Obama administration took office more than a few "entertainers" cited their desire to see him fail. Apparently, they do not believe that duly elected officials are to be granted the power of their elected offices or that if, and when, any administration fails, we fail as a people and as a nation. Unless, of course, the elected official is seated as a result of the Supreme Court making the call rather than the electorate.

We live in a land that lauds divergent viewpoints, or at least we used to. Today, the very people who claim to be all for smaller government and fewer taxes forget that not so long ago to even speak against the then president was tantamount to treason. You would have been labeled a "traitor," or worse. If you would have been adjudged an enemy combatant by the then president, you could have been put in a hole and left there with no legal recourse. The Writ of Habeas Corpus had been abolished, remember... Tolerance is now back in vogue but sadly, it has been taken down a path from which no one will likely return unscathed. The intolerance voiced by the smaller government, fewer taxes fools brands them as little more than "people of certainty." All the more so since the real federal tax rate on most of those complaining has either gone done or stayed pretty much the same for the last thirty years. To quote one of their favorite heros, "...Well, there you go again."

The life of Duane Houy - that's me, has taken many a turn and today I am working to provide information and education materials to anyone with an interest in personal security and safety, or the safety and security of your family, your home or your business. In addition to educational materials, I market high quality, fair-priced, non-lethal and legal security tools that come with a top-flight guarantee on materials and manufacturing.

It is my hope that you will come and visit and if you have any questions, you will contact me personally either through email or phone call or snail mail.

I am providing personal security products and non-lethal safety weapons at http://www.nowpepperspray.net.

We look forward to meeting with anyone to discuss their personal security or home or business security interests.

US Retirement System - The Next Obama Overhaul?

2010-11-26T15:59:00.001-08:00

"A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore."

If you're a baseball fan, you'll likely remember Hall Fame Yankee catcher, Yogi Berra, who became best known for his humorous, cracker-barrel one-liners, including the above quote. His point, although made in the 1940's, is just as true today. Uncertain future inflation and the erosion of future purchasing power is one of many factors which make financial planning for retirement so extremely difficult and why the government is feverishly studying how to secure today's very shaky retirement system.

While the country attempts to digest the long-term impact of the recently passed healthcare bill, today's administration has its eye on another major problem and much needed overhaul: the retirement system. In fact, government studies and recently proposed legislation cite the need for major changes in today's retirement system in order to pre-empt financial disaster for middle class Americans, not just a disadvantaged few. Perhaps because the "tsunami" hasn't hit, we have yet to see media headlines regarding the impending retirement crisis, but the government is working feverishly to devise, at least partial, solutions.

A number of potentially disastrous issues have the keen attention of the White House, including the following: (1) the largest generation in the history of the nation, the baby boomers, has begun entering retirement and will continue to do so for another fifteen to twenty years. In sheer numbers, the "belly of the python" should enter retirement in the year 2016. Some estimates forecast the number of retirees in America to double within the next generation, while the number or workers supporting them will significantly decrease; (2) the decline in the value of financial assets has been coupled with an equally dramatic decline in home prices across America, which has further diminished workers' retirement security by eroding the value of the largest single investment for many middle-class families; (3) the shift from defined-benefit pensions to 401(k) and other defined contribution plans has left more workers than ever before to plan their retirements for themselves and to bear the risk of retirement investing alone; (4) Social Security is expected to meet a mere 40% of income needs for most retirees; (5) even for workers who save at recommended rates for their entire lives, dutifully stashing away funds into their 401(k) and IRA plans, the possibility of another market "disruption" always poses serious risks, as the recent financial crisis so tragically illustrated; and, finally, (6) the predominate use of defined contribution plans (unlike the good old days when retirees received a gold watch and a pension check for life from employers) leaves retirees and their savings exposed to the three great unknowns: (a) an unknown life span; (b) an unknown investment return; and, (c) an unknown future inflation rate.

With such tremendous financial vulnerability in retirement, those high up the government food-chain are researching how to avoid a potential train wreck. Translation - our federal government can't afford the expense of providing huge supplements to Social Security in order to ensure our seniors avoid impoverishment. With little fanfare to date, the federal government has been carefully studying the above issues. In early 2010, the White House Task Force on the Middle Class produced a report which confirmed its worst retirement fears and stated, "The current system does not provide sufficient retirement security for millions of Americans." The report went on to suggest promoting the availability of guaranteed lifetime income products, which transform at least a portion of retirees' savings into guaranteed future income, reducing the risks that retirees will outlive their savings or that their standards will be eroded by investment losses or inflation.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in a July 2009 report, noted that, "Workers covered by defined contribution plans, in particular, risk making inadequate contributions or earning poor investment returns, while workers with defined benefit plans risk future benefit losses, due to lack of portability if they change jobs." The "Retirement Security Needs Lifetime Pay Act of 2009" was proposed on June 8, 2009 by Congress (H.R. 2748) and reaffirmed on June 18, 2009 by the Senate (S. 1297). The two bills are nearly identical and propose to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage guaranteed lifetime income payments from annuities by excluding up to 50% of lifetime annuity payments received under one or more annuity contracts, up to a maximum of $20,000 and otherwise includible in gross income in a taxable year. Some are suggesting the creation of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs), which would give workers a simple way to invest a portion of their retirement savings in an account which is free of inflation and market risk. Finally, the Department of Labor included in a recent agenda an initiative by its Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) to promote annuities for all workers as part of 401(k) and other retirement plan benefits. Studies performed by other credible sources, such as Ernst & Young, confirm the impending retirement disaster.

All studies seem to agree on one partial solution: Americans need to supplement Social Security with more guaranteed lifetime income. In other words, while Social Security is the government's lifetime income to recipients, it now appears that the government wants Americans to supplement Social Security with their own "private layer" of guaranteed lifetime income. Essentially, the message from policy makers is to encourage Americans to take some portion of their defined contribution plans and purchase an added layer of guaranteed lifetime income to supplement Social Security. The size of the additional "lifetime income" layer is something which each individual needs to determine, based upon needs and resources.

Whether Republican or Democrat, for or against government management or interference in our private lives, we all care about the fate of those in retirement, particularly if that includes us, or soon may. Though lifetime income via private annuities is unlikely to become a legislative mandate, I believe it's a positive for the government to offer incentives to Americans who buy them. Consider this: if you had the resources available, wouldn't it be wise to purchase enough guaranteed lifetime income, adjusted annually for inflation, such that, when added to Social Security, guaranteed income would cover your basic needs for as long as you live? Any extra funds you could then use for vacation and fun or bequeathing to heirs, but you wouldn't have to lose sleep over the prospect of winding up in the poor house. If able to cover the great financial unknowns, why would you gamble with your financial future?

Ironically, and regardless of government initiatives, the most challenging retirement hurdle may lie within our human nature. The psychology that seeing a lump sum of money in your monthly statement feels better than seeing a modest monthly income check, even if you live to be 105, is difficult to overcome. And, until the time arrives, it's so difficult to see ourselves as old or to understand how swiftly savings can waste away. But, unless you are extremely wealthy, the great unknowns (investment returns, inflation, longevity and major market disruptions) may just bring you to your financial knees, should you live long enough. The real question is, "Can you take the actions dictated by prudence and wisdom or will your feelings dictate your financial future?" I welcome your opinions.

Dean C. Lovett is a Wharton MBA and President of The Annuity Foundation in Charlotte, NC.

Dean C. Lovett is a Wharton MBA who worked as a CPA early in his career. As an entrepreneur of twenty years, he has created and operated approximately ten businesses. He launched The Annuity Foundation, LLC, dba AnnuitySpeak (www.annuityspeak.com) to promote awareness of fixed lifetime annuities and the importance of incorporating such annuities into today's retirement planning as the only way of ensuring that income lasts as long as a lifetime.

Obama's Stimulus Package Arrives - So Will it Work?

2010-10-22T02:10:00.000-07:00

As the jobless rates continue to rise all across America, many people are listening to the heralding event of a new stimulus package with keen ears. Obama's stimulus plan arrives seemingly just in time to aide the ailing recession, raise the unemployment rate and give hope to the ones that need it the most. With this stimulus plan promising to spur the economy, create millions of jobs and revitalize the ever-sagging recession, many people sit with hands on hearts waiting for the relief. Obama's stimulus plan is implemented to jump-start the economy and many Americans seem to be swayed over to Obama and his big designs for this economic stimulus. Many have started to listen and become mesmerized by his speeches proclaiming that his stimulus package will be the end to all economic strife.

Obama's stimulus plan lays down the promise to put money once again in the hands of America's blue-collar workers and food on their tables, and clothes on their children's backs. This stimulus plan, which consists of tax cuts and government spending, is a multi-billion dollar package to support or revive an economic recession. This stimulus plan will entail the cuts of tax cuts for businesses and middle-class workers that will total 40% of the overall total package. Democrats are allowing that the cost of Obama's stimulus plan would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. While Obama is urging Republicans to rethink their opposition to his stimulus package, he says that the package would be an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability for where the money is spent.

To the American people he has been quoted as saying, that not only does he want the stimulus package to deal with the immediate crises, he wanted it to also lay the groundwork for long-term sustained economic growth. He still maintains that things may get worse before they get better. Something most Americans can certainly attest to. This two-year stimulus package is a use of fiscal policy government spending or tax measure stimulus package that will bring relief to America, but add to the trillion-dollar debt for America's future children.

Obama's stimulus package plan promises 2.2 5 million jobs in the future, providing tax cuts, funding for educational programs and other incentives that will hopefully not only strengthen the American way of life, but allow for the pursuit of its happiness also.

For tips and facts about how you can benefit from Obama's Home Stimulus Plan or to find out if you qualify, visit our no nonsense home stimulus guide: http://ObamasStimulusPackage.net.

Obama's Insurance Policy - How the Obama Administration is Helping Consumers With Insurance

2010-10-21T22:39:00.000-07:00

The current administration, headed by President Obama, has faced a lot of criticism the past year. All the problems the country has been experiencing landed right smack on his lap and he has not been given any wiggle room since then. There is, however, some good news. Despite all the troubling year the entire nation has had to contend with, the Obama Administration, in one way or another, has made insurance more affordable for the average consumer.

How so? In indirect ways, the administration has provided the consumers with opportunities to get more cash on hand. The most obvious way this was done was through the federal stimulus package. This was initially enacted by the former administration, with American taxpayers receiving stimulus payments. The amounts received by consumers were not much, but at least they were receiving something. The federal stimulus package continued with the Obama Administration - with major improvements. The current administration provided funds to bail out struggling corporations and the financial institutions to keep the economy afloat.

The effects of are coming to fruition and the economy is starting to recover. Many people have lost jobs, but there are some who are going back to work. Employment means an increase in income. This money, together with the payments from the stimulus package, and the other savings the consumers have gotten through the federal government's aid in mortgage payments and restructured loans, can now allow consumers to have enough money for something important - insurance.

Today, life insurance has become far more affordable for the ordinary citizen. The economic downturn has, indirectly, made policies more affordable since insurance companies, as with most large corporations today, are struggling in the destabilized market. Competition between insurance companies also helps. Insurance companies, in the hopes of getting more clients to boost their business, are lowering their rates radically. Programs are also offered with large discounts; and policy holders are being treated to better benefits and privileges.

The economy is still not as stable as one might like, however, it is getting back on its feet. It is high time for individuals to start shopping for life insurance policies while the market is advantageous to consumers. As they say, there is no time like the present. So, contact an agent or look online. Find insurance policies now, get quotes and rate estimates, compare benefits and coverages, and start your way into a more secure future.

It is important to compare insurance quotes before getting signed up with an insurance policy. When you compare insurance quotes you can rest assured you are saving both time and money because you are guaranteed to get the lowest insurance quote.

Given the current recession it is important to make sure to prioritize your money and compare insurance quotes online. A good place to state would be an online website that actually allows you to compare insurance quotes online for free.

A good site to compare insurance quotes online can be found here: Find Cheap Insurance Online

Obama's Health Insurance Plan - How to Use Government Money to Find Cheap Health Insurance Providers

2010-10-21T17:50:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration has expressed interest in making a health insurance plan and policy universally available for consumers free of charge, however this could create serious potential problems for our current budget deficit and make interest rates sky rocket for loans. In this article I will take as a given that the Obama Administration is going to make a health insurance plan universally available and explain how to use government money to find cheap health insurance policies.

It is important to understand that even though the Obama Administration is positioned to make a health insurance policy universal and free for all American citizens we will all be paying for this one way or another. I say this because in order to make insurance for health free for all citizens we will undoubtedly be paying higher taxes. Thus, since we will all be paying higher taxes I feel it is our duty to find the health care insurance provider that can quote us for the lowest price. If everyone does their part to find the health care insurance company that is willing to offer the lowest quotes then we can decrease the tax burden for American citizens.

So the question stands. How do you go about using government money to find cheap health insurance providers when Obama passes this plan? It is simple; find a website that offers multiple quotes from multiple companies. This will ensure that you are both doing your part to make sure taxes don't rise too much and you are finding a respected and reputable health care insurance agent in your area.

So, in summary; if the Obama Administration does indeed pass the bill that will make health care insurance universally available then every American citizen should do their part to lessen the tax burden by comparing health care insurance quotes to find the cheapest policy. Taxes are sure to rise if a health insurance plan is free across the board and you the consumer have the ability to lessen the tax burden for all citizens!

Ryan Golembiewski is a seasoned financial expert in the health insurance industry. He spent his collegiate career studying Economics and Statistics at The Ohio State University. He has a wealth of experience working with health insurance quotes websites and certainly recommends using a health insurance quotes comparison site prior to signing up for a policy.

I recommend using these guys from my experiences to compare health insurance quotes and find a legitimate health insurance agent to deal with:

Compare Health Insurance Quotes

Can Small Businesses Survive This Recession?

2010-10-21T13:55:00.001-07:00

Tougher times are expected for small and medium sized business. Business failures are expected to rise by a staggering 50% which means that failed businesses could peak around 32,400 in 2010; this would be the highest level recorded since 1992. The Federation of small businesses said that they had recorded a dramatic increase of 214% in the amount of calls to their legal advice line on redundancies from concerned small businesses in the fourth quarter of last year.

Their members are concerned about jobs and how to hold on to jobs; small businesses are usually the last businesses to make employees redundant. The calls are asking how to make employees redundant, how do I do it, what action should I take, this is extremely worrying when it is thought that 32,400 business may go bust. On average each small business employees approximately 5 members of staff; this means that 150,000 people could lose their jobs from small businesses this year.

The federation of small businesses is the voice of small and medium-sized businesses in the UK; they have over 215,000 members, who employ more than 1.3 million people with a combined turnover of £10billion. The federation of small businesses are proposing a five point plan. They believe that small business can help to get us out of this recession if the government were to give small businesses more contracts, the government improves employment paperwork, government improves access to traineeships or apprenticeships and improves the position of the banks giving money to small businesses. This will rely on the bank mangers releasing and relaxing the money supply to small businesses and not having a knee jerk reaction to this recession. As quoted by Stephen Alambritis.

This government under Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling need to realise that small businesses are the back bone of the economy and that they need to ensure that this recession is as short as possible. To do this they need to spend copious amounts of money to implement a massive job creation programme to keep unemployment down and taxation revenues up. Then hopefully we may ride out this recession!

It's not just a case of the government supporting the Banks and the Car industry; we need more far reaching initiatives for employment across the economy. The recent incentive released by the government was to assist employers recruiting people who had been unemployed for six months or more. This initiative is flawed as the government will provide £2,500 to employers for training any new recruits as long as the new employee has been unemployed for more than six months. So now employers may be tempted to only recruit people who have been unemployed for six months or more for the additional money that is available.

Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling should look across the pond to Barack Obama's newest policy to create 3 million new jobs in America. This initiative is expected to cost some $850 billion to implement along with other help offered to their car industry and the banking sector.

Contributing author Mark Aucamp has been providing Talk Money Blog with regular Money Saving Expert advice and comments. Mark has extensive experience in providing Debt Management and Quick Mortgage Advice and solutions. He is recognised as an authority in the field of debt management and mortgage advice.