SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (35624)7/20/2008 7:44:46 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224724
 
From The London TimesJuly 21, 2008

The Europhiles are not the future, Mr Obama
Most US Presidents share the common American view that Europe will naturally evolve into a United States of EuropeWilliam Rees-Mogg
It begins to look as though the real presidential election in the United States may have been the primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton's passionate fight for the nomination will still be remembered in a generation's time. As a result, Senator Obama, having defeated Mrs Clinton, looks almost unbeatable in the presidential race itself.

Of course, unexpected upsets happen in elections. No US presidential election becomes a certainty until the Electoral College has voted. But the McCain campaign, though refreshingly decent and rational, has attracted little attention. Americans admire John McCain as a war hero, but that is not enough. He seems cast to play the role of Pompey to Obama's Julius Caesar. The Fates, having taken their decision, are reluctant to change the cast list.

That makes Mr Obama's visit to the Middle East, Afghanistan and Europe particularly important. He is being treated as virtually the President-elect. He will inevitably form first impressions that may remain with him in his years of power. There will be foreign statesmen who impress him, and others who do not. He will make his own judgment of the prospect of success in Afghanistan and Iraq. He will better understand that the problems of the Middle East and Europe are more complex than they had seemed in the briefing rooms of Washington.

Most US Presidents start with a preconception about Europe. They usually share the common American view that Europe is destined to follow American constitutional development, and will become the United States of Europe. The European nations will progressively transfer power to the EU and the European Court of Justice, just as the individual states transferred their sovereignty to the federal government and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over time, most Presidents come to see the limitations of this view. They have to recognise that such a Europe would not be a particularly reliable partner for the US. They come to understand the serious cultural hostilities to the US, particularly in France. They are taught by events - as in Afghanistan - that Britain is the only European power that can be relied on as an ally which possesses significant military capacity.

In his visits to European countries, Mr Obama will meet very few critics of this federal concept of European development. He is not likely to meet many Eurosceptics, though, in David Cameron, he will meet a party leader opposed to the federalist Lisbon treaty, and, in Gordon Brown, a Prime Minister who as Chancellor blocked Britain joining the euro. But in general he will meet Europhiles who are unlikely to tell him of the true hostility to this European project among the European voters.

American policy towards European integration should be based on the principles of the American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Americans should not help European bureaucrats to impose on us a European constitution that they would not dream of accepting for themselves. Thomas Jefferson, an over-ardent advocate of the French Revolution, even during the Terror, defined the American Constitution in terms of liberty and democracy.

The EU admits to a democratic deficit which has not been made good by the Constitutional treaty or by the Lisbon treaty. The essential facts that Mr Obama needs to know are that the Constitutional treaty was rejected by referendums in France and the Netherlands, that the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty, with much the same content, and that the British have been refused a referendum on the Lisbon treaty despite manifesto promises at the last general election. Eighty per cent of British voters want a referendum; the British feel cheated by their Government.

The Lisbon treaty is the one European constitutional proposal still on the table. Since the Irish voted “no”, it has been kept alive on the pretext that the Irish - the only nation to have had a referendum - can be forced to change their minds. Despite the pressure from Nicolas Sarkozy of France, that is unlikely to happen, if only because of the timing. The French are already in their six-month term in the chair of the EU. President Sarkozy only has until the end of this year to make the Irish change their vote. France will be succeeded in January by the Czech Republic, which is relatively Eurosceptic, and has neither the will nor the power to change the Irish vote.

Next June will see European elections, in which Declan Ganley, the man who organised the successful Irish “no” campaign, is considering running 400 candidates as a Europe-wide referendum against the Lisbon treaty. In May 2010, there will probably be a British general election, in which the Conservative Party will be committed to a British referendum on Lisbon, if European ratification is not complete. Britain is a big European power and will almost certainly vote “no”.

No one can know how events can develop. It is not necessary, or desirable, for Mr Obama to take an immediate view. The constitution for Europe is a matter for Europeans, as the Eurosceptics argue. Yet it is important that the senator should not take the wrong view. It would be a serious mistake for the US to base its policy on the expectation that the Lisbon treaty will in the end be ratified; there is at least an even chance that it never will be. Or it might disrupt Europe's vulnerable unity.

The next President of the United States may have to deal with the Europe of Brussels or with the Europe of the Nations. He may have to deal with a looser Europe or with a core of European countries moving to an exclusive federation, led by France and Germany. He might even receive a proposal for a European free trade area to join Nafta. He should keep an open mind and open options on these European issues.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (35624)7/20/2008 9:34:56 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Respond to of 224724
 
Obama's uncertain if Pres term is 4 or 5 years:
Message 24775381



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (35624)7/20/2008 10:09:26 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
Bush Failures May Force McCain, Obama to Make Like FDR in 2009

By Matthew Benjamin and Heidi Przybyla

July 21 (Bloomberg) -- When George W. Bush became president in 2001, his main goals included restoring ``honor and dignity to the White House'' after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, raising school-test scores and figuring out how to spend a record budget surplus.

The next White House occupant will inherit the deepest housing recession in a generation, growing fears of bank failures, a sinking dollar, $4 gasoline and an economy bleeding jobs. He'll confront wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting tensions with Iran and the U.S.'s flagging international reputation.

Historians say the economic and foreign policy crises in Bush's wake will present either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain with the biggest challenges to a new president since Herbert Hoover left office during the Great Depression.

``What a burden the next president is going to confront,'' says Robert Dallek, a presidential historian and biographer of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. ``It'll be like Franklin Roosevelt coming in, in 1933.''

The list of problems facing the nation means that campaign promises -- Obama's universal health care, middle-class tax cut and immigration overhaul, or McCain's corporate and individual tax reductions and energy-independence plan -- will likely be put on hold while the president focuses on more immediate concerns, especially the economy.

Waking Up Quickly

The next president is ``going to wake up very quickly to the fact that the economy so overwhelms everything else,'' says Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

In 2000, the last time no incumbent was running, consumer confidence was at record levels and the economy had created 1.3 million jobs in the year's first six months. In August 2000, 89 percent of Americans said the economy was doing well, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.

With the expansion then in its 10th year, the contest between Bush and Vice President Al Gore centered on topics like education, prescription-drug coverage for the elderly and --with President Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern fresh in voters' minds -- morality in the Oval Office.

The Times survey showed that, after education, the issues that concerned Americans most were Social Security and health care, as the nation debated how to use a $5.6 trillion surplus the Congressional Budget Office projected the government would generate over the next decade. During the campaign, Bush promised to return the surplus to taxpayers through broad-based tax cuts; when the nation entered a recession in 2001, he shifted gears and said the reductions would stimulate the economy.

Wiped-Out Surplus

After that recession, some $2 trillion in tax cuts and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government has produced only deficits since 2002. Bush's budgets have added $1.7 trillion to the national debt. The CBO, which estimates this year's shortfall will reach $396 billion, projects the red ink will flow through at least 2011.

Today, 82 percent of Americans say the economy is doing badly, and voters consider it the most important issue, followed by the Iraq War, health care, terrorism and illegal immigration. Education ranks sixth.

``People tend to ignore the economy when it's doing well and pay a lot of attention to it when it's not,'' says Arthur Miller, a political science professor at the University of Iowa and author of a research paper on issues in the 2000 election.

Job Losses

In June, employers cut jobs for a sixth straight month and the unemployment rate stood at 5.5 percent, a four-year high. Home prices in 20 cities dropped 15.3 percent in April from a year earlier, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index.

Oil prices have set records due to global demand and tensions in the Middle East. That's pushed gasoline prices up 92 percent since January 2007 and increased the cost of filling the tank of a Chevrolet Suburban by $62, to $131.

Consumer confidence has fallen to its lowest level since 1992. Many economists expect a recession to begin later this year and continue into the first quarter of 2009, when the next president takes office.

The top economists on both presidential campaigns agree the economy is the priority, and each seek to affix their domestic agendas to that goal.

McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, touts the Republican candidate's energy-independence plan, the ``Lexington Project,'' as one key to jumpstarting growth. Obama adviser Jason Furman says his candidate's energy, health and tax plans represent a pro-growth blueprint: ``If you can bring down the cost of health care, that can help the economy. If you bring fairness back to the tax system, that can be expansionary.''

Fannie and Freddie

An early issue facing the next president will be what to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-created mortgage-financing companies that together buy or back half the U.S.'s $12 trillion in home loans. While Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has floated a plan to shore up the two, fundamental change isn't likely under Bush, says Chris Mayer, director of the Paul Milstein Center for Real Estate at Columbia University in New York.

``Democrats in Congress are worried about giving Bush a blank check to fix this,'' he says.

The next administration will also have to deal with a host of foreign-policy issues that were largely absent in 2000.

Eight years ago, after a decade in which the country enjoyed the benefits of a ``peace dividend'' -- U.S. military cutbacks after the collapse of the Soviet Union -- the biggest concerns were forging peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the emergence of China as a strategic rival and whether the U.S. should engage in ``nation-building,'' as it was doing in places such as Bosnia and Haiti. Bush entered office pledging to pursue a ``humble'' foreign policy.

Wars and Weapons

Come January, the new president will face the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear power, and the dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program.

U.S. casualties in Iraq have declined this year, taking some of the edge off public opposition to the war. Still, Bush has yet to set a timeline for withdrawing the 150,000 American troops, leaving it to his successor to decide whether to pull out and how fast.

Violence has risen in Afghanistan, and more troops may be needed. Attacks by extremists made June the deadliest month for the U.S. and its allies since the conflict began in 2001. In Iran, the U.S. is trying to convince the country to suspend uranium enrichment, and impose penalties if it doesn't. Even so, tension has increased, with Iran test-firing long-range missiles and Israel conducting a drill of its warplanes in what some military analysts saw as a rehearsal for a strike on Iran.

Road Map

And in North Korea, the U.S., China and three other nations are trying to establish a ``road map'' to outline how the Stalinist regime will abandon its nuclear weapons programs.

Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, or McCain, 71, of Arizona certainly won't be the first president to be sworn in amid simultaneous financial and foreign-policy turbulence. Kennedy began his term in 1961 nine months into a recession and with an invasion of Cuba already being planned; Ronald Reagan took office six months after the end of an economic slump and a little over a year after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan.

The current problems may pose an even bigger challenge as anger at income inequality and ``greedy'' corporations threatens to undermine Americans' confidence in the system, says Dartmouth College political science professor Linda Fowler.

``The country is facing a crisis in capitalism,'' she says.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (35624)7/21/2008 6:40:41 AM
From: lorne  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
Document forensics expert: Obama "birth certificate" a "horrible forgery"
By Israel Insider staff
July 20, 2008
web.israelinsider.com


The purported Certification of Live Birth published by the Daily Kos left wing blog and claimed as genuine by the Obama campaign features a security border that differs dramatically from security borders on COLB documents before and after the one supposedly printed out for Obama in 2007.

Barack Obama may be on a world tour surrounded by a fawning media, but Sunday an expert in electronic document forensics released a detailed report on the purported birth certificate -- actually a "Certification of Live Birth" or COLB -- claimed as genuine by his campaign. The expert concludes with 100% certainty that it is a crudely forged fake: "a horribly forgery," according to the analysis published on the popular right-wing Atlas Shrugs blog.

The purported birth certificate was published by the left wing Daily Kos blog on June 12 in response to unconfirmed reports that Obama was not in fact born in the United States (Canada and Kenya were suggested as the possible locations of his actual birth). Since he would in that case not be a natural born US citizen (his mother was not present in the US sufficiently long as an adult to pass American citizenship on to him automatically), he would not be eligible to be president. Israel Insider has followed the story in five previous articles (the previous one here) and uncovered evidence, most recently, of admitted forgery among Daily Kos bloggers, tolerance of electronic forgeries on the blog site, as well as efforts by a blog administrator to conceal the admission of forgery.

The latest examinaton of the purported documents is by far the most detailed and technically sophisticated to date.

Atlas Shrugs publisher Pamela Geller reports that the expert analyst, who goes by the screen name "Techdude", is "an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, American College of Forensic Examiners, The International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, International Information Systems Forensics Association -- the list goes on. He also a board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer-based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then."

Perhaps the outspoken Israeli press corps will be able to do what their fawning American counterparts have failed to do so far. Obama's visit this week to Israel will be an opportunity to begin asking the tough questions -- however unpolitically correct -- about his apparently forged birth certificate and what that means for his citizenship status and Constitutional fitness to be the next leader of the free world.


The pseudonym was apparently inadequate to prevent Techdude's identity from being exposed. He reports that last week one or more persons "decided to track me down and vandalize my car and hang a dead mutilated rabbit from my front door in a lame attempt to intimidate me from proceeding with releasing any details of my analysis. They did succeed in delaying the report by a few days but instead of deterring me they just really pissed me off. To their credit, if I had not taken a few days off from the analysis I would have missed the most damning piece of evidence -- the remnants of the previous security border."

Techdude's detailed report, which runs more than 3000 words and 20 pages with extensive magnified illustrations and comparisons, reaches the following conclusion about the documented that was first published on the Daily Kos extreme left-wing blog and subsequently publicly endorsed by the Obama campaign, both in statements by official spokesmen, and featured on its "Fight the Smears" website. Here are some of conclusions:

"The (Daily) KOS image security border pattern does not match any known specimen from any known year. It does not match the pre-2006 nor does it match the post-2006 certificate patterns. The placement of the text in all of the pre-2006 and post-2006 certificates are almost identical pixel location matches while the image?s text placement does not match any known specimen from any known year. The shape and kerning of the fonts used in the 2006 through 2008 certificates are identical while the shape and kerning of the fonts used in the image does not match any known specimen. The KOS image shows clear signs of tampering such as the mismatch in RGB and error levels, visible indications of the previous location of the erased security border, easily detectable patterns of repeating flaws around the new security border, EXIF data that says the image was last saved with Photoshop CS3 for Macintosh, and finally a technician from Hawaii who confirms it just looks wrong."

The evidence, he says, allows for two possible scenarios by which the document was fabricated:

"There are two obvious scenarios used to create the image that can be ascertained from evidence. Either a real COLB was scanned into Photoshop and digitally edited or a real COLB was first scanned to obtain the graphic layout then blanked by soaking the document in solvent to remove the toner. After rescanning the blank page to a separate image the graphics from the previously obtained scan could then be easily applied to the blank scan after some editing and rebuilding. It would also explain why date stamp bleeds through the paper and the various bits of toner located around the image as well as the remnants of the previous location of a security border."

The purported birth certificate was published by the Daily Kos on June 12 in response to unconfirmed reports that Obama was not in fact born in the United States (Canada and Kenya were suggested as the possible locations of his actual birth). Since he would in that case not be a natural born US citizen (his mother was not present in the US sufficiently long as an adult to pass American citizenship on to him automatically), he would not be eligible to be president.

After more than a month of controversy and demands that the Obama campaign produce a paper birth certificate for analysis, this damning new evidence raises the stakes for the democratic party and its front-runner.

Will Obama and his people continue to stonewall in the facing of the mounting evidence of forgery, and provide paper proof of an authentic, original birth certificate or even a genuine secondary Certificate of Live Birth? And will the mass media and mainstream pundits -- which so far have hesitated to touch the hot potato -- finally address the loaded issue of his possible unfitness to meet the basic Constitutional requirement for a President?

Perhaps the outspoken Israeli press corps will be able to do what their fawning American counterparts have failed to do so far. Obama's visit this week to Israel will be an opportunity to begin asking the tough questions -- however unpolitically correct -- about his apparently forged birth certificate and what that means for his citizenship status and Constitutional fitness to be the next leader of the free world.

This is the sixth of a series on the purported Obama birth certificate. Here's where you can find Part 1, 2, 3 4, and 5.