Obama´s First 100 Days: Homage to Islam and Pander to the Jobless

I was watching Wolf Blitzer´s Situation Room on CNN briefly last night (sorry, no Fox news in Europe) and noticed for the first time that one of the “best political team on TV” made an honest unbiased comment. Campbell Brown (whom I enjoy watching during Elections coverage), made a remark about how Obama´s cautiousness during the Primaries is now reflected on the so-called 2.5 M jobs he promised to create. Now, Obama said 2.5M jobs to be “saved”. Like she said, it doesn´t really mean anything. In my world, it just meant, he pandered just like most politicians who say what the voter wants to hear. 

THE AUTO INDUSTRY BAILOUT

GM, Chrysler and Ford are now doing another run to convince U.S. Congress to give them a $34bn Bailout. Their argument is that if they don´t get the help, America will just throw $300bn development and investments made in the past. It is a very tough decision to make. If you help them, they are still going to be doing the same structure and if not…well, no one wants to know. But the reality is, with the global financial crisis, people are not buying cars. As of today, HONDA even pulls out of Formula One racing since it is a luxury item for them to spend $300M with 700 employees (snaps for them!). I personally have not seen what these Big Three Automakers are proposing on paper (yet), but there needs to be serious cutbacks. 

Clinton Appointed as Secretary of State

Then you have Obama switching from creation of jobs to saving jobs. The man has never made a decision in the Senate and just ticked a lot of PRESENT on bills. What do you expect?

THE APPOINTMENTS

He keeps saying he is bringing change to Washington, so far, he has put most Clintonistas and to top that cake, he selects Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State (with Bill tagging along). Smartly stupid, I´d say.  The saying, “Keep your enemies closer” is definitely taken into new heights.

SPEECH IN CAIRO, EGYPT…MAYBE?

In an effort to mend rifts between the U.S. and the Muslim world, Obama is seriously considering making a major foreign policy speech in an Islamic capital, CAIRO, Egypt. My initial reaction is WHO is paying for this? His campaign? How is delivering a speech somewhere mend deep-seated issues between countries? I find it quite naïve if he does this without a plan. This is not anymore campaigning. But this here sounds like a photo-op for me.

But the question really is that why Obama feels it necessary to give a speech so early in his new administration. During the presidential campaign Obama indicated U.S. foreign policy was too skewed in favor of Israel and that he would seek to balance that approach in his administration. But then when McCain painted him as naïve about the Middle East, he then strongly backed Israel in his first foreign policy speech when he addressed American Israel Public Affairs Committee. 

Using process of elimination, I find it hilarious how they chose this place. Obama’s foreign policy advisers ruled out Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and other capitals around the Persian Gulf. If he does the  speech in Baghdad, it would appear to validate the Iraq war (which he of course opposed).

Going to Damascus, the Syrian capital would be rewarding them (not a good idea to start with),  

Tehran in Iran? Haha, too soon for tea and urugula.

Amman, Jordan? They are not interested as they did the show their before.  

Ankara, Turkey? Too boring.

How about  Islamabad, Pakistan? Well, after his speeches about Pakistan during elections, I don´t think he will come out alive. 

Ramallah on the West Bank would be futile because Palestinians have been demanding Jerusalem as their capital.

Jakarta, Indonesia? Obama´s Childhood place? Good for him, not cool enough for the media.

A MUST REASON

Remember when he kept dodging he was a secret Muslim? (Take it easy, Ret. Gen. Colin Powell. I am not anti-Muslim. I got a cousin who is one and wonderful Muslim friends). The truth is, Obama had been raised a Muslim and converted to Christianity after meeting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his 20s after he moved to Chicago.

 

Obama was born to a Kenyan father who was a Muslim. His mother divorced this man and later remarried an Indonesian muslim who became Obama’s stepfather. The couple moved to Indonesia with the young Obama. There he was registered at two schools as a Muslim student, Barry Saetoro.

 

Obama´s Indonesian School Record

In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama mentions studying the Koran and describes the public school as “a Muslim school.” 

My own process of elimination? Obama wants to be pay homage to his roots. It´s perfectly fine for me, but it would be better to be upfront and honest to the American people what exactly he has in his head of his. As hired CEO of the Free World, he needs to be accountable.

2008 U.S. Presidential Elections Synopsis Part 2

The 2008 U.S. election proved that a new dawn for politics has arrived. We now have seen the power of web 2.0 and how it can shape a political landscape. We also saw how the Millenials are engaged. How did this all happen? The answer is two words: MARKETING and MONEY. The rule of the game (anywhere) is the one with the bigger war chest, wins. But there is something else about this election that was also not seen in a long time: STRONG MEDIA BIAS.

We can go on and on (which I will because there will be other things I will be ranting about this election), but for the sake of this page, I can safely say that Obama won because he vastly outspent McCain. Even Chris Cilizza of Washington Post (one of the newspapers who endorsed Obama) agrees with many of us who observed the political circus. 

According to Nielsen Company, from June through November, Obama ran 419,667 ads in local markets while McCain ran 269,992 ads — a difference of nearly 150,000 ads. In the final month of the election, the ad difference was even greater with Obama’s campaign running 210,425 local ads as compared to just more than 97,000 for McCain. Obama also had one-and-a-half times as many spot TV ads than John McCain during the general election season (6/08 to 11/08), double when he started running ads in January during the Primaries.

SPOT TV ADS: June-Nov 2008

Barack Obama	419,667
John McCain	269,992

 

Local Ad Spending by Both McCain and Obama

Other notable campaign facts from Nielsen’s research

• Obama’s ads were on the airwaves over twice as much as McCain’s in the final month before the election (210,245 vs. 97,023 ad buys).
• McCain took early advantage of Obama’s long primary battle with Hillary Clinton, which ended on June 3rd. McCain bought over three and a half times more spot TV ads than Obama in June (26,594 to 7,251), the only month that McCain beat his opponent in that category.
• McCain made a major push with national buys in September, out placing Obama 10 to 1 in cable and network ad buys.
• The two candidates alone combined for almost 850,000 total ad buys dating back to January.

 

Here are some statistics presented by ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group: 

 

Daily Tracking versus Actual Popular Vote From ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

This figure show results of the daily tracking polls, and the actual popular vote (blue). Main pollsters are colored, so that relative bias can be seen. The trend line is a less smooth through all points. 

 

State tracking results from ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

The result for each state (blue, red) and polls for each state over the week leading up to the election are shown as a dot plot. From top to bottom, the order of the states is from most Republican to most Democratic.

Median is represented as a black dot, all polls as large white dots, and median of last week’s as a grey dot. Vertical lines mark 5% points difference. 

 

Obama tracking results from ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

 

McCain tracker from ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

These figures show the daily tracking results separately for Obama and McCain, and the actual result. Tracking polls low-balled the McCain %.

So, how fair was U.S. Elections this time compared to the 2000 or 2004?

Lesson learned here is that politics still truly local and money greases the machines. It is a dirty world we live and work in.

Facebook RE-instated my Account with Warning Attached

 

Warning after an hour of posting around 20 messages to friends. A web 2.0 nightmare for a person with circa 2000 friends!

So it goes…after 58 hours and awesome sweet political Conservative and Liberal friends later, Facebook re-instated my original profile which I have had for years with the following email:

 

“Facebook has limits in place to prevent behavior that other users may find annoying or abusive…Unfortunately, we cannot provide you with the specific rates that have been deemed abusive. Your account was disabled because you exceeded Facebook’s limits on multiple occasions when sending links and making Wall posts, despite having been warned to slow down. Please be aware that if your account is disabled again, we will not be able to reactivate it. Once logged in, please slow down the rate at which you share links and post on group Walls.  We appreciate your cooperation going forward.”

First off, HOW exactly was I annoying and abusive? By having too much traffic and activity on my site because my FB friends are very much engaged in the posts that I put on my walls? Isn´t the idea of web 2.0 is SOCIAL NETWORKING? Why is being SOCIAL penalized? Is SOCIAL and INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY in social sites unacceptable? The ANSWER is NO. 

If I am annoying and abusive, what about those people that go to my site and attack me directly for my opinions out of nowhere? (They are not even in my list of friends!)

Some “hate mails” I have been receiving lately shows intolerance of other people´s views:

From Micah Weiss: ”Your Stand on politics is the worst ever !!! you dont even live here .. and you have those views about Obama … makes me sick to my stomach … im sorry .. not narrowminded !!”

From Todd Lytle- a Screenplay Writer in Hollywood: “shows your ignorance and honestly coming from a hard core conservative doesn’t surprise me you would have that kind of mentality. I shared your comment with a few of my friends who were and weren’t Jewish and they all said you were just being nasty trying to piss me off. I will not stoop to your pathetic level of insults based on a generalization. Instead I will just let people know who you really are…and give them the heads up on your ignorant nature. After all you cannot help it…DITTOHEAD!!”

From Alex Demyanenko, (who asked me to remove his Title and Employer, hmm) : “Your funnies (political cartoons you post) are offensive and further proof that GOOD finally won out over EVIL. Karma, baby! Rovian = Evil.”

From Trevor Capon: “I don’t know how I see your pictures but you are an idiot. You really think intelligence is the mark of a Republican? You who vote for Sarah Palin and you who’s hero is Joe the Plumber? John McCain finished at the bottom of his class and Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review. If you look at all of the polling college educated voters went 4 to 1 to Obama. Please try to back up your arguments with facts.”

I have allowed people to write me things like this (and decided to be above it because liberals have always resorted to personal attacks rather than substantiating their arguments). I also wanted to let everyone know that I am not the Conservative leaning chick who just deletes people because they think different than I do. I am NOT that judgmental. I got friends from all walks of life: Homeless, Filthy Rich, Educated with Ph D, Dropouts, Business owners, Social Welfare Milkers, Handicaps, Sports jock Olympians, Musicians, Tone-deafs, Conservatives, Liberals, Confused and Apathetic people. But I learn from all of them. I live in the same planet as they do and they ALL matter to me because each has their own way of viewing the world I do not see.

I understand that politics is personal but seriously, how come others are able to handle and accept other differing views while others resort to give insulting remarks. I have had worse emails than that too with people using profanities but I guess the slandering to other people´s pages calling me “idiot”, “offshore terrorist”, “moron”, or “stupid” are ok to write people instead of putting notes to facilitate debates. Do I get hurt? Not really. People are FREE to express their views, regardless of the degree to where it leans: Positive or negative. But I do take pride in the fact that I am touching them somehow and make them think or defend their ground, which is what I am after. Nothing is worse to me than people with no opinion, belief or purpose. You might as well be dead if you don´t want to grow. 

Facebook ought to pay me for such intellectual activity that I have started. The only people who appreciate are those are truly “educated” from life because they understand that we are all individuals with different backgrounds that shape our ideologies and values we live by. 

When I started with Facebook, I thought it was exciting to keep in touch with your college friends and stuff, but now that they allow all developers to create these annoying apps, I found it so cluttered. Excuse me that I do not want to clutter my page with those apps that I find useless. I want my FB platform to be purposeful and since I am a practicing political strategist ( I eat politics for breakfast and late night snacks), I want to do something on MY page, what I want to do: DEBATES. I want stimulating conversations with my friends and learn from all sides of the spectrum. I get that, but apparently Facebook is not the place for these types. All the more I am convinced that iCampaign.tv NEEDS be unleashed for people like me.

In a nutshell, iCampaign.tv will be a tool ( web , mobile and desktop ) to empower any campaign for all types of industries which will use Open Social platform. Stay tuned!

For those who do not agree with me, don´t worry. I will not delete you. Just show some respect in giving your opinions. But you are free to delete me. It is not my problem that you cannot handle people who think different than you. But you know, I don´t know if I want to be your friend anyway, because I find that being around all “Yes- People” are boring. Look at Obama with his choices now, at least I am grown up enough to find common ground with the guy. He is not after “Yes-People”.

Facebook says, “Continued misuse of Facebook’s features could result in your account being disabled.” How is posting content on your OWN group walls and notes be MISUSAGE? Who made these stupid rules? This is like curbing my voracious appetite for putting my own content in a box.

Puh-leeeze, don´t bother boxing me in because I am going to find a way to crawl out of it. I don´t like boxes, the air gets too stuffy inside.

Facebook Disabled my Account without Warning

Last Friday, I posted a note called The Gospel of Obama (I shall post it here too so you know what I am talking about) and like most notes that I post there, I got quite a lot of hits from my circa 2000 friends. I have recently used my Facebook account to facilitate intellectual debates about everything under the sun and welcomed all sorts of ideas from people. I am shock to find out the next day that the company disabled my account. I have been a FB account holder since 2004-2005-ish and this is the first time that I have experienced this. The only thing I could think of is the fact that there are people who do not agree with my views that petitioned I be removed. 

I understand that politics is personal, but I find it stupid that people cannot handle hearing other people´s opinions. Since when are we allowed to really pass judgment on people based on the fact they are different. Well, forgive me that I am not like you. I take pride in the fact that I do not think like most people. I like to form my own opinions.

Someone even called me “offshore terrorist” or “Arab lover” because I read Al Jazeera. I happen to like reading and watching news from all sources like ABC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Economist, TIME, Fox, The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg to name a few. Why would that classify me as a terrorist just because I want to read all sources and learn from everyone. 

A VP of MTV wrote me on Facebook once that he detest my views and considered me stupid because I liked McCain-Palin or even the conservative platform.

I happen to be moderate independent with Conservative leanings like on fiscal policy, but I am moderate in social views. Why does it matter anyway? Why can a minority woman like me not have a political opinion in peace? I let people with differing views argue with me and I only moderate when profanity is used and do personal attacks that does not add to the discussion. 

Anyway, for a company who lobbyied and marketed to politicians in Washington D.C. to use their site, I find it very odd they would do such a thing.

The Gospel of Obama

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth – for the first time – to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taliban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Borrowed from Gerard Baker from Times UK

Media Bias Towards Obama

The mainstream media’s support for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.

Last week, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin called the media’s performance during the campaign simply “disgusting.”

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.”

He added, “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time’s political site “The Page,” zeroed in on two New York Times articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

“The story about Cindy McCain was vicious,” Halperin said. “It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.”

But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is.”

Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama’s presidential campaign.

“You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy,” Halperin said. “There were a lot of good stories. He was new.”

Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1.

The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing. McCain kept his promise to do so.

During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect.

Columnist David Limbaugh noted: “Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama’s shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations.”

Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama’s “obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage.”

Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias. The Washington Post’s ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.

Republicans WILL Rise from the Ashes and Emerge Stronger

If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year.

Simply put, all hell is about to break loose in the markets and the economy.

The mortgage crisis will likely be followed by defaults in credit card debt, student loans and car loans. We will probably be set for two years of zero growth, according to economists with whom I talk. And the federal efforts to protect the nation from the worst of the recession will probably lead to huge budget deficits and resulting inflation. We are in for stagflation that could last for years.

Had McCain won, he would be the latter-day Hoover, blamed for the disaster that unfolded on his watch. Now it is Obama’s problem. With the Republicans suffering a wipeout in congressional elections (although not as bad as they feared), the ball is now squarely in the Democratic court. Good luck!

If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic Caucus or you won’t get our support. Crossing the aisle to get Republican votes, even including the GOP in negotiations, was a no-no for which the president would pay dearly if he transgressed.

The result was predictable. Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments.

Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork (like a provision for midnight basketball courts in urban areas) to get unanimous caucus backing.

Obama will have to move left to appease his caucus. He will become their hostage, and they his jailers.

This dynamic will produce extreme-left-wing governance, which the Republicans can blame for the continuation of the recession and for any worsening. The party will recover, fed by anger at Obama’s policies, and will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever.

But the Republicans must learn the lesson of MoveOn.org. Founded in the bleak days of the Clinton impeachment, MoveOn developed a grass-roots Internet base. Building up its e-list of activists and contributors, MoveOn laid the basis for the incredible Internet appeal of the Obama campaign. At last count, Obama has 4.5 million donors, most online.

Conservatives cannot count on the Republican Party to fight their battles for them, and certainly cannot count on them to win. The right needs to develop cyber-roots conservative organizations to rival the power of groups like MoveOn.org.

The stellar efforts of Newsmax.com and its ally, GOPtrust.com, illustrate the power of such efforts. Together, these groups raised $10 million for an independent expenditure on media in swing states featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American bombast.

And their efforts worked.

Virtually all the polls agreed that Obama would win 52 percent to 53 percent of the vote, but the surveys varied in the amount of undecideds they found.

On Election Day, virtually every undecided voter went to McCain, and Obama’s final vote share was no more and no less than the 52 percent to 53 percent the surveys had predicted. This unanimity among undecided voters is attributable to the endgame of groups like GOPtrust.com and Newsmax.com.

These groups have to lead the way in running media to battle against the leftist legislation that will undoubtedly emanate from the Obama administration and the liberal Congress America has just elected. Then they can become the basis for a Republican resurgence, just as MoveOn.org was this year for the Democrats.