This week it was reported that Senator Barack Obama has done some interesting work as a director of a charity. Fellow board members of the Chicago based nonprofit Woods Fund include the notorious Weather Underground terrorist leader turned university professor, Bill Ayers. Ayers and his wife, former FBI fugitive and Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dorhn, have hosted a get to know the candidate Obama event in their home.

The Woods Fund gave money to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) during Obama's tenure. The AAAN was co-founded by Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, a fund raiser for Obama. Khalidi has documented ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

It is time for Obama to be truthful about his association with these known terrorists and to demonstrate to the American people that he fully understands who these people are and what they have done.

Questions on Iraq

One of the questions the junior senator from Illinois needs to address is who will his advisers be in an a Barack Obama administration? Given his recent statements on Iraq, one can only hope that he will shed his foreign policy advisers for people with a greater understanding of the current Middle East situation.

In the Democrat Party debate Tuesday night, Obama was asked whether he would reserve the right to redeploy the troops after an American pull out of Iraq. His answer was illustrative of his inability to grasp the current ground truth:

"As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al-Qa'ida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

What? Is he unaware that Al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) has formed the Islamic State of Iraq in 12 provinces led by its own emir? Does he think that AQI is staging in Afghanistan and Pakistan waiting for the American exodus before establishing themselves in Iraq? Exactly what does he think AQI is doing and where?

In exchanging foreign policy barbs with McCain through the media, Obama demonstrates further ignorance when he made the following remark:

"They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be Al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."

While it is debatable as to whether the Iraq invasion was a mistake, there is now overwhelming evidence demonstrating the incompetency of Al-Qa'ida's (AQ) jihad.

Conclusion

As both incidents indicate, Obama would be better served by staying on point with the "hope" message than demonstrating to the world the foreign policy inexperience of the Democrat front runner.

By: Samuel Brown VI
Samuel Brown VI is the Director of Operations at the Non Governmental Intelligence Agency (NGIA) http://www.thengia.org and provides analysis about information he finds the website Thinking Points (http://thinkingpoints.thengia.org). NGIA is committed to provide a pure analysis of current and ongoing situations in the world, while applying historical lessons learned for a comprehensive view of how that may impact our lives. This analysis is conducted without any political, administration, organization and/or agency bias, agenda, goals or gains. NGIA goes beyond the headlines and the sound bites to better educate and inform the public, business and government sectors on what they can do to recognize the threat and protect themselves.

Elliot Spitzer, the former Attorney General of New York, Current Governor of New York and Prostitution Ring Organizer, stated he apologizes for his actions. Interestingly enough, as Attorney General he closed down and prosecuted several high-profile, high end prostitution rings and numerous street level prostitution rings. So, was he just trying to get rid of the competition, apparently so, and yes, there is a lot of income to be made in the prostitution sector, as it is one of the oldest industries known to mankind, but why is the Governor of New York so busy supporting it?

Getting rid of the competition or his political opponents by hook or by crook seems to be a repeating theme in Elliot Spitzer's play book. If you will recall during his run for mayor he had his political opponent tailed by the New York State Police to find something embarrassing, they did, and that ended up in the New York Times a week before the election. Big City Politics as usual and yes you can find it in Illinois or New York. Elliot Spitzer makes Rudy Guiliani look like a Saint and makes President Bill Clinton's famous blow-job look like child's play.

Apparently, high class women in Elliot Spitzer's prostitution ring went for $1,000 to $4,500 per hour, well, that is a lot more than Monica Luewinski's free-bee servicing of the President, just another day at the office. Elliot Spitzer was considered the epitome of the strength of the Democratic Party in the New York and the North East, a shining star of hope to root out our corruption, but now, it shows to what extremes the arrogance of power takes in Big City Politics.

Elliot Spitzer was both friends to Barack Obama and to Hilary Clinton, who he was forced to endorse for President due to the political hierarchy in New York, even though he is much more similar in style, poise, speeches and rhetoric to Barack Obama. Some say Elliot Spitzer's climb in politics was leading to a potential run for the White House after Hilary Clinton's eight years in office and this is why he endorsed her. Who knows, but this is a very sad day for politics and political corruption in America. This is unforgivable, and now many are asking that Elliot Spitzer resign immediately, the rest want to see him do a significant amount of prison time - forthwith!

By: Lance Winslow
Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance Winslow's Bio

Hilary Clinton is back on the war path and back in the political fight, perhaps she has just had enough of the Song and Dance as she sees it. Barack Obama, has indeed danced his way into the deep pockets of the MoveOn.org PAC and danced into the media's favorite candidate category, but now many are getting tired of the side show and would Barack Obama to answer some serious questions. If you will recall Barack Obama in one of the earliest presidential candidate debates stated that he would very soon after taking office go and visit Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jon Il and the President of Iran, whose name no one in the Western World can spell.

Many who understand the US Diplomacy Policies and the State Department strategies, were completely mortified by his statements and Hilary Clinton stated that such a notion was simply naïve. Indeed, it was a silly thing to say, but it puts question marks out there on Barack Obama's inexperience abroad, which Hilary Clinton once again brought up recently. In fact, in looking at Barack Obama's overseas and abroad travels, it appears to me that Hilary Clinton made a slight error in her accusations for Barack Obama's lack of qualifications and inexperience.

It is not that Barack Obama is inexperienced abroad, but rather he has NO Experience abroad of any true value to running the US diplomacy policies. If we look at his prior statements at the first debate, you have to wonder, did he just make a mistake, slip of the tongue or does he have absolutely no clue as to what he is talking about. Surely, someone running for President of the United States has more experience than that? Well, those are my opinions on this issue, I sure would like to debate foreign policy on TV with Barack Obama, but I bet his handlers wouldn't like the results.

By: Lance Winslow
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

There are 300 million citizens living in the United States. There are estimates that 20 million illegal immigrants are also residing in our nation. When one out of every sixteen people is here illegally, there is good reason to be concerned. But, is this situation as big of a threat as some say, or is it, if anything, an advantage to our economy?

Even living in New York, you can see that there are illegal immigrants taking part in our everyday lives. From construction workers to gardeners, there's a good chance you've seen an illegal immigrant working, even if you did not realize it at the time. Many people say that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, and causing American unemployment. But, with a 5% unemployment rate amongst citizens, pretty much anyone who wants a job can get it. In fact, one may argue that illegal immigrants are simply taking up the jobs Americans don't want. But, what happens when our country's unemployment rate increases, and many more people are out of work? Then, Americans would be losing jobs to illegal immigrants and the immigrants would lose jobs and go hungry, creating problems for our nation. So, though at the moment, there does not appear to be an economic problem with illegal immigration, we don't know what the future has in store for us.

Every illegal immigrant has broken the law; they came here. Though this may seem like it is not a horrible crime, the fact that they broke the law once has some concerned that they will break it again. But, does this mean that they are destined to have a criminal future? Yes...and no. The majority of illegal immigrants are well-intentioned people who want to earn a living. Some are criminals, but some Americans are also criminals. But, generally speaking, illegal immigrants work in unskilled occupations; the first jobs to go if the economy slows. So, if many illegal immigrants are out of work, and living on the streets, there is a much larger chance that they will resort to crime. Although most mean well, both their economic situation may encourage a few to break the law.

When an American worker earns a dollar, they generally spend it within our borders, in effect helping out some other person. However, many illegal immigrants came here to help their family, which is often still in Mexico. As they earn money, they send a large portion of their income back to Mexico to support family members. This is taking away money from American businesses, and hurting many. Though this impact can hurt people, the size of the illegal immigrant population's income is proportionally smaller than the United States as a whole, so this issue is not as large as some claim it to be, but still harmful.

The economic implications give a mixed, though probably negative, picture of immigration. However there are still the national security issues. To me, this is the main reason why we should crack down on illegal immigration. If a lone illegal immigrant, with no money, can simply walk across the border, into our country, and stay here for the rest of their life, why can't a terrorist, or group of terrorists. It would be much easier for a terrorist to go through Mexico into the U.S. than simply going to our country directly. This is a huge threat. We've seen the destruction which a few terrorists can cause, and must realize how large this threat is. If we do not secure our borders, we are not safe.

Though the economic implications of illegal immigration are not necessarily a significant problem, the threat to our nation's security should make everyone want to secure the border. No matter which party you are in, it is your obligation to do everything possible to protect your nation. If we do not secure the borders, we are slacking on our duty.

By: John B. Phillips
http://www.petitionearth.com/blog/?p=6.

Hillary Clinton is the former First Lady and Current Senator from NY. There is no politician that polarizes opinions in the US more and from my observations that is more misunderstood around the globe and even in a little the US. The reason why Hillary tends to be understood outside the US is really the media's fault and the way she is portrayed and the limited access to information. Most average people know her as Bill's wife who was the victim during the sex scandals of the 90s and now as strong woman Senator who has the best chance yet of a female leading the US. In some ways this is true but in reality Hillary more resembles Mitt Romney on the Republican side as someone who is very calculating and changes opinion based on situation and polls (her Iraq positions and current stance on Iran and voting in Senate about Iran).

In 90s unsuccessfully tried to bring a universal health care campaign to US under Bill's reign and now has put forward a new plan under her current campaign. However she is the only major Democratic candidate who receives massive donation from Drug and Health Insurance companies (more than any Republican actually even) and these are the people she lampooned in the 90s and she must fight and essentially take away billions of dollars in profits from to bring any universal health care plan forward. She has a carefully crafted PR image a strong decisive woman not afraid to make tough decisions and that she can operate in a male dominated world, but has stayed with Bill despite 20 years of documented infidelity with numerous women essentially for political reasons.

In fairness to her she has to operate in a system where a single man let alone a single women on any side would probably be unelectable. She has been re-elected as a senator with a massive majority in NY and generally performs well in debates and also has improved her public speaking delivery (you have to feel sorry for he as she is compared to Bill and rival Barack Obama who are both dynamic on the big stage making her look awkward by comparison as most people would). She is the consummate politician with her vague answers and has strong experience on the global stage and would have an amazing advisor in her corner in Bill.

However if elected would represent at least 24 and potentially 28 years of presidency passing between 2 families and most likely more of the same if not more vicious bickering that occurred in the 90s. She would represent a giant leap forward showing that a women is electable but as I said the reasons why people seem to hate her are largely unfounded as as the reasons that people like her as they are based on misinformed assumptions and inaccurate facts. She is the candidate that many Republicans are hoping for as she could energise their base better than they could themselves and she is also despised by the hardcore left of her party as drifting to far right and conservatively economically. Is the overall favorite and the candidate talked about the most on both sides by far. (expect a lot of documentary Michael Moore style movies anti-Hillary to come out next year if she is the Democrat nominee which are in production now in anticipation).

By: Chris Jacob
We provide real Economic Choices in this crazy political and financial climate allowing you to make the best decisions for you and your family.

In the United States for the most part there are two prevailing political parties one of them being the Republican party (which I mention first because I am one) and the Democratic party. This holding true even though there are several other parties as the United States is a democracy that allows other parties though it does not really do much to encourage them. These other parties being the Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, Independents and others. As for the primaries they are basically what could be classified as an internal election within the Republican and Democratic parties (among those voters who are registered in the party) to chose which of their candidates will represent the party in the "General Election" which is the one that actually determines who will occupy the "White House" for the four years to follow.

This for the most part is a great thing about the American system that it actually allows the people or in this case the registered voters of each party to vote for the candidate they feel they want to represent their party in the general election as opposed to having the candidate picked out for them by a small group of people within the party. This system in a way even guarantees that the person chosen to represent either the Republican or Democratic party will at least enjoy the support of most of his or her party and therefore stand a better chance of winning in the general election then a candidate who is chosen by the party leaders. However I always ask myself can there be a downside to this system?

I believe there to be one flaw in all this and that not being so much in the system itself but in the way in which Americans tend to vote. If people vote for a candidate who has the same political views as they do or the one whose views come the closest out of all the candidates to their own then an errant choice can never be made. This if what I have stated happens. unfortunately however in many occasions this does not because party rivalry in America is so strong that it often occurs that when choosing a candidate to represent their party many an American will chose someone more for the reason that they stand a better chance of winning in the general election then any other reason. Meaning to them it is better to chose someone who will win for their party then someone who upholds their political ideology.

Of coarse I am not claiming that there is no importance in having ones party win the election but does this line of thinking not defeat the basic principle of voting for a candidate in the first place. To my way of seeing things the best and only logical reason to vote for a candidate is because the person whom we are voting for represents our political ideas or at least comes the closest from all the candidates to doing so for what is the rationale of voting for someone simply because he or she stands a better chance of winning? When thinking in this manner we should also not rule out the idea that if enough people refrain from voting for a candidate because that person might not necessarily win then it is almost certain that he or she will not as he or she will have lost perhaps millions of possible votes just because of this philosophy.

However it is unfortunate and sad that in the United States of America the country which in its relatively young history has had more leaders democratically elected then any other country on earth that many people do not vote for someone simply because they do not approve of that person's chances of winning. There is even a sense some people get that they are throwing away their vote if they give it to someone who has "no chance of winning". This as if casting a vote were like betting on a horse at the track where the object is just that, to pick a winner.

I even remember back in 1992 when my fellow Republicans (like Democrats alike in 2000 apropos Ralph Nadar) were telling some not to vote for Ross Perot not because he would not be a good man to lead the nation but because he stood no chance of winning. The arguments always returning to the same "why vote for someone who has no chance of winning?" or "don't throw away your vote". I however ask isn't the whole point of voting to do so for the man or woman whom we think is the best qualified to run the country rather then to just to have ended up on the winning side?

When it comes to this issue I have even noticed that in America, it is even a matter of shame at least for some to have voted for someone who did not win as if the point had been to pick a winner which obviously they did not. I for my part do not wish to tell people for whom to vote for or for whom not to vote for but to tell them that we should vote for the candidate and not for his or her chances after all we are casting a vote not laying down a bet.

By: Gianni Truvianni
http://www.new-york-society.com/nyos_salespage.htm
My name is Gianni Truvianni, I am an author who writes with the simple aim of sharing his ideas, thoughts and so much more of what I am with those who are interested in perhaps reading something new. As for the details regarding my life I would say that there is nothing that lifts them above the ordinary. I was born in New York City in 1967 on May 21st and am presently living in Warsaw, Poland because my wife happens to be from this particular country that was also the birthplace for my only daughter. My daughter being the star of "Little Opera Singer" which was my first ever completed story.

Contributed by:
Stan Warner
Attorney Directories - Find An Attorney