We sit at the table of crisis but also at the table of opportunity. Clearly we must bail out the mistakes of “Wall Street”. Let’s fix it all for good.

One Trillion dollars for stabilizing the markets…why stop there?

How about printing TEN TRILLION DOLLARS and shipping all of those dollars to those that hold our National Debt?

The underlying problem is that the price of real estate is sliding. The solution to fixing this is to create inflation so that real estate stabilizes and rises.

Printing more money will create that inflation.

Paying off our National Debt will create 30% more available money in our National Budget and allow us to fix Social Security for good.

Most of the debt is held by foreign entities…if we ship actual “cash” overseas it will come back very slowly if ever. What it will do is establish the “dollar” as the global currency because so much of the trade that will occur overseas will be done in the “cash” dollars that we ship to pay off the debt. We limit visitors to our country to transporting no more than $10,000 in cash at any one time. With the Patriot Act we make it difficult to move money into the country… so this TRILLIONS of dollars would hit us slowly.

We deregulated everything. Now “Wall Street” has created derivatives on everything… this cannot continue. This needs to be fixed. “Margin Requirements” need to be placed upon every form of leverage… taking an asset and leveraging it 30 to 100 times its worth just isn’t prudent. It is time that we get back to sound banking principles. We switched from the “Gold Standard” and replaced it with a “Real Estate” backed currency… it is time that we make this more than just implied. Merge Freddie and Fannie into one entity and clear the log jam by allowing a mortgage to any person or entity regardless of credit history as long as they put up 30% of the value of the property – 20% if there are solar panels on the roof contributing electricity to our power grid.

Now if we end our dependence on foreign oil over the next five years we will have surplus money to begin spending on building our failed infrastructure.

Sincerely,
Michael Douglas Carlin

Carlin is the author of “A Prescription For Peace” (available at Amazon.com) He is credited with the quote: “Our work will not be done until every man, woman and child alive has three square meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to quality health care, personal security, an education, and a job.”

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/fix-it-all-1325095.html

We can have peace in our lifetime if we all do our part.

This must be a partnership of every individual, non-profit organization, corporation, and government – all working together to bring the basic needs to all of humanity.

It is time for humanity to grow up. Our “Identity Crisis” is ridiculous. We run around like little spoiled brats sweeping our messes under the carpet rather than deal with them in a forthright manner. Turning a blind eye to problems like homelessness ends up costing more than facing the problem with housing, meals, and services that recycle lives and get them back on the road as productive members of society.

The debate between Socialism and Capitalism continues because of the merits of both systems. We hear the entrepreneur say, “I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps and was never given a thing…why should we give them anything?” We also hear those that have been helped by social programs say, “I reached out to the government for help during a time of crisis in my life and now, I own my own business.” The engine of capitalism cannot be refuted. It is what has driven the global economy. The benefits of socialism cannot be refuted either. That is why the debate is so compelling.

The overused phrase, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime” also has merits. We need to assume nothing during the education process that teaches men, women and children to “fish”. We need to understand that in today’s complicated world the process of teaching men women and children to fish is a process that may take time. Not everyone has the ability to fish while learning. The reason why we should help people that can’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is that it is the right thing to do. Helping people while they learn is more humane and costs less than sweeping them under the carpet.

Let’s put the debate of Capitalism and Socialism to rest. Turning a blind eye to people who have no ability to “fish” is no longer acceptable. A layer of socialism where not only do we teach men, women and children to “fish” but where that burden is shared by government, corporations, non-profits, and individuals, fueled by Capitalism for those who take personal responsibility and want all that capitalism provides. Two systems living side by side coexisting and flourishing.

Let’s move the debate forward to renewable systems that prepare and plan for the next thousand years.

This is A Prescription For Peace:

1. Food
2. Shelter
3. Health Care
4. Personal Safety
5. Education
6. Livelihood
7. Empower Women
All leading to HOPE

Thomas Jefferson wrote the words: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

If we have the right to life then we have the right to three square meals a day, a roof over our head, access to quality health care, personal security, an education and a job. For how could we ever begin to experience liberty or pursue happiness without the basic needs being met.

Sincerely,
Michael Douglas Carlin

Carlin is the author of “A Prescription For Peace” (available at Amazon.com) He is credited with the quote: “Our work will not be done until every man, woman and child alive has three square meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to quality health care, personal security, an education, and a job.”

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/capitalism-vs-socialism-why-not-have-both-1325103.html

WHY did Obama win the peace prize? What is it that he has done as president in NINE months?

Despite less than one year in office and leading two wars, President Obama snatched the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, stunning the world one week after failing to win an Olympic bid for his adopted hometown. Maybe the award is based on HOPE, on a future PROMISE, rather than a reality.

The Nobel committee’s decision was motivated by Obama’s initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism. Motivated by “initiatives”? Good intentions are, well you know that phrase. The choice was stunning given that the nomination deadline of Feb. 1, less than two weeks after the Obama presidency began.

What’s up with that?

The Norwegian Nobel Committee lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation but recognized initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change. There’s no fruit, but we’re voting on HOPE for fruit?

Yes we can! 

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” said Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee. Still, the U.S. remains at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress has yet to pass a law reducing carbon emissions and there has been little significant reduction in global nuclear stockpiles since Obama took office.

That sure puts the pressure on Obama to NOT send more troops to Afghanistan!

Sincerely,
Ernie Fitzpatrick

As a spiritual-futurist, I have a BA degree majoring in history. One cannot know the future without knowing the past which holds clues to what is on the horizon. The world is in such a rapid expansion of knowledge that we are close to entering a tipping point that will forever change earth as we know it.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-1320362.html

The contention of the Middle East’s most prized land has been a stalemate for peace since before Christ, not the artificial 1948 or 1967 which is most commonly used in current modern political debate, and one of the staples of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Since his inauguration as President he has continually sided with the Islamic world and it has frightened many Jewish and Christians alike. Please note that I distinguish between secular Jewish and Christians, by name only, from those who actively practice the faith. His first interview as President was with Al-Arabiya network and his first major diplomatic speech was made to Cairo, Egypt. In his speech to Cairo he legitimized the control of the Temple Mount by the Muslims with the following quote: ”…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer (1). ” The story of Isra is key to this argument.

Last week to the United Nations he called for talks without preconditions while setting forth preconditions, not logical , but typical Obama fashion. ”The time has come — the time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues, security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security; a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.(2)” It is obvious in this situation that the demand for a contiguous state prior to 1967 borders are preconditions, but why would a ‘Christian’ be so adamant to create Palestine to pre -1967 borders?

A day after his announcement he was the first President of the United States to Chair the United Nations Security Council and two days later in unison with the world powers he laid forth a condemnation of Iran for their secret nuclear programme. The Israelis and Iranians have been in a constant war since the inception of the modern state of Israel in 1948. Iran funds Hezbollah from the North in Lebanon and Hamas from the West in Gaza and has openly stated the desire to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. They are currently creating a secret nuclear programme for ‘peaceful’ purposes only and pose an existential threat to Israel. So…, Barack Obama is condemning them, how could he be a siding with the Muslims? This is the point where Barack Obama is playing chess and the current arguments have been unable to address.

By condemning Iran and acting from a perspective that he is hard on the Islamic Republic he will force Israel to make concessions in the peace efforts with the Palestinians. He will then use the peace that he creates with his Islamic brothers to create a contiguous Palestine pre-1967 borders through the new US policy in the United Nations. This will essentially wipe Israel off the face of the earth, without the nuclear holocaust proposed by Iran and in unison with the International community. Checkmate.

Sincerely,
Anthony DeFazio

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Anthony_DeFazio http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Creation-of-Palestine—Barack-Obamas-Checkmate&id=2993629

Many Arabs in the Middle East are dissatisfied with their autocratic leaders who had promised heaven but delivered filth and tyranny. And possibly this demonstrates that democratic governance in the eyes of lay people in the Middle East is a possibility that has nothing to do with their Arab and Islamic culture. Like their counterparts elsewhere, Arabs have strived for liberating themselves from political totalitarianism, for the most part unsuccessfully because their powerful dictators were supported by the West. Yet, the lay people in Iraq viewed the US troops as liberators from the oppressive ruling of Saddam and his autocracy.

Indeed, Islam complicates democracy. Even after its defective elections, Iran, a long-standing theocracy, demonstrates an extraordinary democratic vigor. Some of the toughest Arab elections have been held by Palestinians under Israeli ruling and by Iraqis after the US invasion. So, in a way, Islam has allowed democracy to its territories. On the other hand, Arab leaders hold on to their power through a distrustful combination of bullying and intimidation. Occasionally, they allow hollow parties organize counterfeit elections, which then return them to power. When they are given the chance to participate in genuine elections, they know what is at stake and what is going to be possibly split between Islamist movements and secular movements that are scared of Islam. Most of the cosmetic reforms that were made under the ‘freedom agenda’ of Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks have been rolled back. So, in a way, Islam chooses when to prevent and when to allow democracy.

One of the most common obstacles in democratic transformation in the Middle East is religious freedom. Islam emphasizes that people are free to choose to believe or not. Muslim history documented many debates in mosques about the existence of God, particularly in the first three centuries. Besides, Qur’an emphasizes on justice and consultation (shura). According to many political analysts, in the absence of clear institutions to identify how consultation should take place in the Muslim culture, many Arabs failed to interpret the message. Hence, the interpretation of some elements of Islam as liberal is rather unfortunate.

Another element that should be taken into consideration is the fact that in many Arab countries regimes are quite permanent. Hosni Mubarak is the President of Egypt over the last 28 years; Muammar al-Gaddafi is the de facto leader of Libya since 1969; Hafez Assad was the President of Syria for 30 years. After his death, his son Bashar rose to power. After the failure of Bush administration to promote democracy, president Obama promotes respect in his talks with the Arab world. No matter what that means to the Muslims, democracy is a long shot for the Arab nations because Arab leaders won’t be able to control the masses like they do now.

For the Arab world, democracy implies education, institutions, free press and tolerance. Like in the Western countries, in the Arab nations, women are becoming educated, fertility declines, businessmen participate in the economy and the media have shifted from the state-run media to the revolution of the satellite television that forces leaders to explain and justify and explain themselves in public. All this transformation is not enough to cause a big change and it’s definitely not welcome from the rulers. However, it creates an agitation that alters the setting of corruption and totalitarianism of the old Arab governments.

In reality, it appears that the Arabs want to maintain the status quo because a free media that will awake the Arab people to the brutality of the regional governments won’t be to the best national interests of the Arab nations.

Sincerely,
Christina Pomoni

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Christina_Pomoni http://EzineArticles.com/?Democracy-in-the-Middle-East—Why-This-is-a-Frightening-Prospect-For-Its-Rulers&id=2988828

Highly paid government bureaucrats will be descending in masses on Copenhagen in December of 2009. They all have instructions to defend the status quo and make sure that the world will follow the outdated and ineffective recommendations and provisions of the ill conceived Kyoto Protocol.

Only a few, if any, officials have any concept of the coming horrors that continuing overheating of our planet has in store for its trusting citizens.

For two centuries, coal has powered the rapid industrialization of many countries. These countries are enjoying the countless benefits and the increased wealth that advanced industrialization has bestowed on them.

Since the midst of the twentieth century, a potentially fatal flaw of accelerating industrialization has become visible. Planet Earth is heating up. This phenomenon was barely visible early on, but is now escalating at a quickening pace.

Physicists can easily explain this rather sudden rise in global temperatures. Oceans and lands were capable to originally absorb huge amounts of heat and carbon dioxide with only minor indications of global warming and acidification of surface waters.

This period is ending while combustion of fossil fuels is increasing at continuously accelerating rates, caused by the explosive growth of energy consumption across the world.

China has become the most prolific user of coal for generating electricity and for supplying energy to its extremely rapid and successful industrialization efforts. This growth will accelerate further. Other countries are following the example of China and are beginning to produce and import more and more energy for powering their quickly growing economies.

Europe and Japan have been trying to reduce energy use and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Such efforts are rarely successful in creating wealth and economic growth. Adhering to Kyoto Protocol provisions seldom makes economic sense.

Several countries may continue to follow Kyoto concepts. Others like the BRIC countries, made up of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, will be better off to abandon Kyoto and continue with their intensifying energy utilization. Following the axiom of “do as they do, not as they say”, these countries are entitled to imitate highly industrialized and wealthier nations.

But will such advice not accelerate global warming even further? Yes it will. However, as long as the major industrial countries cannot find the will to stop fossil fuel burning altogether, it is hypocritical to prevent less fortunate countries from joining the establishment.

Instead, the most prosperous countries can and must be the first to establish a concept and a plan for saving Earth from continuous warming. World energy supplies must be changed completely from fossil fuels to renewable and economical energy sources. Otherwise, the Earth will overheat severely long before the end of the twenty first century.

The consequences of severe overheating will be devastating. Climates will change and will spawn more violent windstorms, more destructive floods, and more severe droughts. Most dangerous and most damaging will be the indefensible rise of sea levels. Low-lying coastal lands will be submerged, precious and irreplaceable infrastructures will disappear, and large populations will have to flee to higher grounds.

Does the world really have to watch helplessly as it is being destroyed by the greed and stupidity of its most powerful nations, its clueless corporations, and its powerless governments?

The world’s most dominant economies, the USA and the European Union, have all the resources, the infrastructures, and the skilled workforces that must be mobilized to improve and deploy those advanced energy supply technologies, which can still rescue our Earth. A few, critical technologies are still missing but can be fully developed within one single decade.

World economies can continue their essential growth into the next century only, if the US and the EU decide to act decisively and soon.

It will be scandalous, shameful, and contemptible if the two, industrially most advanced, and wealthiest superpowers will wait for China to snatch the world from otherwise inevitable economic collapse.

It will be a moral disaster if the Earth’s wealthiest nations cannot agree to leave a better world for future generations!

Sincerely,
Klaus H Hemsath

Dr. Hemsath’s books, Climate Change-Gold Rush or Disaster? and Clean Energy For Centuries, offer a comprehensive plan for saving Earth from overheating. He is now writing a follow-on book, Petroleum Substitutes From Biomass. For fifty years he has worked on advanced energy technologies as scientist, engineer, inventor, Corporate R&D Executive, CEO, entrepreneur, and author. He holds more than 60 US Patents. Go to http://www.thermalexpert.com

Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/copenhagen-can-open-new-era-of-clean-and-economical-energies-1289126.html

As the world celebrates the life of Michael Jackson (MJ), we have a Congressman who posted a video on You Tube, demeaning the life and legacy of “The King of Pop” Michael Jackson (MJ).

While I respect Congressman King’s right to free speech, I find it unfortunate that he is amongst a number of right-wingers who take this opportunity to spread hatred. Let’s break down the speech. King said,

“Let’s knock out the psychobabble. He was a pervert, a child
molester; he was a pedophile.”

Rep. King, MJ was found ‘not guilty’ of child molestation. He was acquitted in one case and settled out of court in another. In America, there is a trail by jury before declaring a man guilty.

One of the so-called victims, Gavin Arvizo, was 13 years old in 2005 when the alleged crimes occurred. If one paid attention to how the prosecution presented its case, it was almost seemed as if the acquisitions were fabricated. The jury felt that way too and found MJ innocent.

King, during the O’Reily show said,

“An adult male who sleeps with young boys is a child molester,

if nothing else, is abusing their psyche…”.

Rep. King, sleeping in the same bed does not constitute molesting a child.

If you think that that way, why not present a bill that would declare sharing a bed with a minor as child molester. I guess in your view, foster parents, nannies, older brothers, and caretakers can now be officially declared as child molesters.

You should know that Gavin Arvizo, his sister Daveline, brother Star and mother Janet were “upfront” and asserted that inappropriate behavior had “absolutely not occurred”. Janet in fact, asked her boys to call MJ a father figure. The Arvizo’s had insisted that while they slept in MJ’s bed, MJ himself slept on the floor. To further the rebuttal Janet Arvizo issued the following statement:

“The relationship that Michael has with my children is beautiful,
loving, father-son and daughter one. To my children and me Michael
is part of the family.”

Janet Arvizo is the same woman who made a fool of herself on the witness stand which included snapping her fingers and staring at the jurors.

Wade Robson and Brett Barnes are two other boys who shared a bed with MJ, and who also denied any inappropriate behavior had occurred. The same holds true for actors Macaulay Culkin, his younger brother Kieran.

Then there was young, Jordan Chandler, the benefactor of a reported $20 million dollar settlement. MJ, under advisement from his friend, which included Lisa Marie Presley, decided to settle out of court. Smart move. A long drawn out court case would have cost MJ many more millions of dollars in legal fees and undue stress for him and Chandler. Sources now believe that Chandler never told the truth. Congressman King, a settlement is not an admission of guilt!

Here is another thing King said.

” He may have been a good singer, he did some dancing. Bottom line is, would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson?

Mr. King, are you with the times? This is the same man honored by the Republican demigod, Ronald Regan, at a visit to the Whitehouse. MJ’s life is glorified not because he was a ‘good’ singer, dancer, and entertainer. No, he was a phenomenon.

He was a humanitarian. While you politicians aid the rich and stand by while children starve all over the world, MJ gave millions to charities to help such less fortunate children.

As an entertainer, he has the number 1 best selling album of all time, the greatest dance videos of all time, and he would sell out a 100,000 plus seating concert venue in a matter of minutes!

Rep. King, you are all the way in New York. The events of MJ’s passing are here in California. So why should it bother you? Do us a favor and focus on events that matter to the people who unfortunately elected you. Let the media do it’s thing and you do your thing, like trying to rebuild the Republican Party.

50 years from now, MJ’s legacy will be as strong as it is today.

However your legacy, Mr. King will be known not for your service to New York, but as the man who criticized ‘The King of Pop’ during the days of his memorial service. You have added a tremendous weight on your shoulders for your next election.

Sincerely,
Jim Hague

Hague is an author, lecturer, owner of Crystal Digital Images LLC, has no party affiliation and is a moderate. He is the author of ‘Abandoned Son: Roe vs. Wade is overturned.’

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/rep-peter-king-of-ny-wrong-about-michael-jackson-1289253.html

Sincerely,
Gene Eplett

The Barack Obama racism issue in America is one that threatens to tear this nation’s core values apart. Whether you are a red or blue state follower is less important than the values that we bring to our children and our children’s children. If any one “race” has “claim” to the U.S., it’s the indigenous Native Americans. Other than that we are all immigrants here.

As an American born Chinese growing up in San Francisco, I saw firsthand how cultural differences caused misunderstandings, distrust, and sometimes even hatred. But, I never understood how these cultural barriers began. I was called everything from “Chink” to “Slanty-eyes” to “banana.” The funniest part of that was being called “banana” by even some of my own race. Banana refers to being yellow (Asian) outside, but white on the inside.

Dissecting “white on the inside” a bit further, it means not truly acting “Chinese or Asian.” How is an AMERICAN born Chinese / Asian supposed to act? None of us spoke Chinese, so by default we were American, wouldn’t you say?

The Barack Obama racism issue also holds no logic. Here is an AMERICAN born black person with degrees from Columbia and Harvard, Magna Cum Laude, no less. How many Americans, forget about whether you are Yellow, Brown, Black or White, have that type of pedigree? Couple that with the fact that he was a respected Senator who dedicated his life to public office.

I find it interesting that the 2008 US Census doesn’t even know how to “categorize” people. While the overwhelming category in the U.S. is 79.8% White, the definition includes peoples of Europe, Middle East or North African descent. In some people’s calculation North Africa means you’re African American. Let’s also look at the Asian category, which according to the 2008 bureau stats is about 4.5% of the U.S. population. They include people of Indian and Pakistani descent. Yet, knowledgeable PhDs believe that they should be considered “white.”

The categorization of Middle Easterners as “white” would suggest that the “white” culture should have no issue with accepting people from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, to name a few. Yet, we know the prejudices or predispositions that we ALL bring to the table when we meet someone who is culturally different or appears to be different from ourselves.

At a minimum this tells me that the Barack Obama racism issue itself is one that makes no sense whatsoever. Whether we like it or not, the U.S. was founded on the principle that “all men are created equal” and we pledge as Americans to “liberty and justice for all.”

With all of the other problems that we face here in America, the one of race prejudice is one that we don’t have time to wage. Education is at an all time low, unemployment at an all time high and health-care completely inadequate.

In America, we don’t need to wage a war based on racism. We’ve waged enough wars both abroad and our own soil to last multiple generations. The time for sensibility, openness, and yes, civility is a time that’s come. In fact, it’s way overdue.

Sincerely,
David K. Chan

Chan is a high tech professional who consults on business development, leadership and marketing opportunities. Read more about [http://davidkchan.com/barack-obama-racism]Barack Obama Racism and leave your comments on this issue.

Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_K._Chan http://EzineArticles.com/?Barack-Obama-Racism&id=2965725