One year ago, President Barak Obama gave his inaugural address to record crowds. His campaign was run on the promise of hope and change. With the anniversary of his speech upon us, it’s time to reflect on the past years events in order to take stock of where we are in our lives. What has Barak Obama done for this nation? By some estimates: nothing. But by others: everything.  What did that speech change about the lives of Americans?

The presidential inaugural address was a call to action for the American people. Obama made it clear that in our current situation it would take the help of each individual American to make a change within our nation. Obama said, “what is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American” and “starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

With that call to action came a wave of response. American volunteerism surged and is still running strong. Immediately after that speech was made, food banks that were critically low began to slowly fill back up. Homeless shelters received much needed donations and charitable organizations that were nearly defunct due to high demand were given hope for tomorrow.

But, nearly a year later, some of those donations and food drives have slowed. Due to the economic recession and the war, our nation is facing times some are comparing to the Great Depression. That is why the Blanket America charitable organization was formed. The Patchwork Heritage quilt was created with the idea of uniting America under one blanket. Blanket America has come up with the perfect response to the presidential call to action.

When Obama said, “we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness,” Mesh Gelman and his design crew created the Patchwork Heritage quilt to benefit charity. For every quilt sold, a new fleece blanket is donated to charity. Gifts in Kind International, one of the largest charitable organizations in America, is acting as an intermediary to distribute the donated blankets to Americans in need. Their goal is to help one million Americans in need throughout the next year. To learn about how you can help, visit <a target=”_blank” href=”http://www.blanketamerica.com”>America</a>.

Blanket America is about more than blankets. It is about changing the way charity and business works. For every quilt sold, Blanket America will donate a blanket to an American in need.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obamas-inaugural-speech-inspires-change-1767924.html

Although Arlen Specter spent 44 years as a Republican, in April 2009 he let everyone know that he was returning back to becoming a Democrat. If he didn’t return to becoming a Republican, he would have had a hard time beating Pat Toomey in the 2010 Republican Senatorian Primary. His voting record switched to a more center-left since switching political ideologies. This year he’ll be competing with Joe Sestak in the 2010 Democratic Primary.

Arlen Specter was born in Kansas in the city of Wichita. He took classes at the University of Oklahoma. His major was in International Relations. He was also an officer in the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War with the Office of Special Investiations. Later he graduated from Yale Law School, an Ivy League school and passed the Pennsylvania State Bar Exam. Later that year he settled down and opened up a Law Firm called Specter & Katz.

He also took a role as part of the investigation of the assasination of John F. Kennedy. Arlen Specter took a big role on the Single Bullet Theory, which mentions that the fatal gunshot wounds to Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were both inflicted with the same bullet. This theory basically implies that there was only one, not two assassins involved in the John F. Kennedy murder.

No Senator has held a Senate Seat as long as Arlen Specter has in the State of Pennsylvania, running a full 5 terms. His approval rating with democrats is quite a bit higher than republicans respectively. T.J. Rooney who is part of the Democratic Party suggested that Joe Sestak drop out against Arlen, and that he would rather see Joe Sestak in Congress and would hate to lose such a good Congressman.

Let Brian Garvin & Jeff West teach you more about the Japanese Katana Sword and the Ancient Beastly Sword on our website today.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/a-review-of-us-senator-arlen-specter-1762698.html

Usually the Politician who has the most well financed campaign is the one who gets elected. And who controls most of the money in this country? It’s not the government itself or the politicians, it’s big business. So this ruling is in direct contradiction to the McCain & Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law which was established to limit the amount of influence a Corporation could have in the past.

The US Supreme Court struck down this law, saying that it limited the amount of free speech Corporations could have regarding the public debate in the political process. The decision was 5 to 4 in favor of this new law. So what lies ahead. Many critics are very concerned that this will allow big business to monopolize the entire political process and think this is the very worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made.

Also of concern is an avalanche of Corporate Spending, which is a tax write off anyway, of big business. Expect to see many more TV ads, political ads in magazines on flyers and even promotional gear during future political elections. Although the people ultimately will decide who goes into office, hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising will go a long way to influence their opinions on who they should vote for.

President Obama seemed to also be opposed to the decision. He mentioned just like I said above that it helps them to continue to wield their power everyday so they can continue to drown out the voices and opinions of your average, hard working american citizen.

Let Brian Garvin & Jeff West teach you more about the Japanese Katana Sword and the Ancient Beastly Sword on our website today.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/how-will-the-supreme-court-campaign-finance-judgment-affect-us-1762803.html

How many times must we endure Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh blather on and on about how we can’t trust our own selves, the government?  We can’t trust ourselves with tax dollars, we can’t trust ourselves with health care and we most certainly can’t trust us the government, to decide a convicted felon shouldn’t be armed to the teeth with every bazooka-type weapon imaginable.

Apparently, the so-called conservative “right” can’t even get our own Constitution right.  The idea of democracy isn’t to openly condemn ourselves by claiming we can’t trust the government.  Rather, the idea is to elect leaders to represent us and, to replace them when they instead, become right-wing corporate stooges and vote against our best interests. 

Besides pretending to care about the unborn while totally screwing the already born, what the right-wing agenda really amounts to is, “we don’t believe in spending tax dollars to actually help taxpayers”.  Rather, their goal is to use tax dollars for enhancing the bottom-line of the military industrial complex and otherwise, enriching corporations at the expense of us the taxpayers. 

Any and every use of taxpayer dollars that will actually benefit taxpaying citizens is branded as “socialism” over and over again, the new all-purpose ”red scare” bait-and-switch term of the 21st Century.  The now entirely discredited Joe McCarthy appears “fair and balanced” alongside these Savage Nation and Coulter forty-five toting, hate-mongering meglomaniacs. 

Education is supposedly high on the right-wing “safe issue” list, but conservative legislators consistently vote against increased spending for education.  Whatever they can’t eliminate because of political popularity, such as Medicare and Social Security, they try to “reform” into oblivion, creating huge funding black holes designed to funnel trillions of taxpayer dollars into big pharma and other deep corporate pockets. 

Otherwise, the right-wing agenda is to convince average Joe Americans that all regulation of any kind is evil.  When in fact, wise regulation is what keeps tainted meat from ending up in all-American hamburgers, Joe American construction workers safe on their jobs and American Air Lines planes from falling out of American skies. 

Wise regulation is the reason banks were relatively sound under Eisenhower.  While deregulation is obviously why they began their substantially crooked turn for the worse under Reagan, controlled by bloated greedy bastards of mass deception by the time Bush Junior was finished cutting a final slice out of the deregulation corporate mega-pie.

Is branding human beings “illegal” and blaming them for job losses and contagious diseases any different than what gave rise to Adolf Hitler and Auschwitz?  What is the real agenda of slave masters?  What is the agenda of pure evil?

What is the real right-wing agenda?  You decide. 

Links to documentation for this article:
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/contents.html

Richard Aberdeen
Nashville author, songwriter and homeless advocate.
www.RichardAberdeen.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/what-is-the-real-rightwing-agenda-1335204.html

Nothing illustrates this need better than the current crop of malfeasant corporate pawns who represent us.  Since the Democrats regained control of Congress in January, 2007, neither party has done a single thing we the people obviously need and want.

Other than passing a minimum wage law that was over ten years too late and as many dollars too low, lack of health care, education costs, poverty, infrastructure decay, joblessness and homelessness have all dramatically increased since then.  Rather than keeping campaign promises, Democrats have instead engaged in endless bend-over political charades. 

Under their watch, Congress has increased rather than reduced troop levels and war funding, signed away even more of our quickly disappearing rights and, allowed mega-media corporations to gobble up ever larger shares of radio and television airwaves that supposedly belong to us the public.  And beginning in 2008, our so-called “representatives” began selling our children’s future down a no-strings-attached, golden-platter river of unprecedented corporate bailout malfeasance. 

Because the business heading Supreme Court will always otherwise, declare any and all manner of corruption-eliminating reform “unconstitutional”, the only way to get rid of big money influence is by constitutional amendment.  Attempts at other methods of reform have left a long historical trail of tears of utter frustration and defeat.  Any semblance of half-measure reform that does somehow  manage to make it’s way into law is quickly shot down by the highest court in a false pretense of upholding the Constitution.

We need an amendment making it punishable by life in prison without parole, for any organization or group of people of any kind, for any reason, to contribute one penny or anything of higher value, to one small-town city council office seeker on up to president of the United States.  And we need to limit individual contributions to 1% of the median income per candidate per year, including candidates themselves; approximately $480 in 2009 dollars.

In order to be licensed for broadcasting on what are theoretically “the people’s” airwaves, we need to require all radio and television stations to grant free equal airtime to “qualified” candidates; qualification determined by obtaining enough signatures of registered voters, amount determined by office and number of people represented.

And, we need to eliminate the electoral college, elect everyone by popular vote, hold all party primaries on the same date and require a verifiable paper trail. There is much tweaking necessary for the amendment proposed here, but this sketch outline is sufficient to grasp the basic idea. 

No law will eliminate all corruption, but what is suggested here would eliminate well over 90% of the current problem and, would allow the majority of we the people to actually have a voice.

Will the bottom-feeding miscreant corporate-puppet juvenile delinquent treasonous reprobates of Congress ever be eliminated and put in federal prison where they belong?   You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/congressionalreform.html 

Richard Aberdeen
Nashville author, songwriter and homeless advocate.
www.RichardAberdeen.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/can-congress-be-reformed-1335140.html

The word “gun” is found nowhere in the Constitution, a very carefully worded document.  It should also be noted that in the Consitution’s pre-amble, one of the main purposes listed is to “insure domestic Tranquility” (also capitalized).  To honestly and correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything that follows the Preamble, including all ten original amendments soon added, must be viewed in light of the Constitution’s stated purpose.

For many years, the NRA has been guilty of drawing a non-existent, artificial line down the center of the 2nd Amendment, limiting the debate to guns, knives, grenades and similar small arms.  To contend that the 2nd Amendment permits unlimited unregulated private ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to pretend that the 2nd Amendment allows unlimited private ownership of chemical weapons, nuclear bombs and space-ray weapons, which are also modern ”Arms” unknown to the framers.

In order to engage in an honest Constitutional debate, the NRA must admit that, according to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we have just as much right to own private  nuclear bombs and Anthrax as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.  If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not “if” we are going to restrict the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict it.

For the record, if any living Americans have the right to argue in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment, it is Jim and Sarah Brady.  And, as the “founding fathers” wisely allowed for, we can always amend what they originally wrote down.  A perhaps better and much saner idea would be to amend the NRA, entirely and altogether, by forcing our reluctant media to point out their deceptive and entirely irrational position.

The NRA has no more rational or Constitutional right to limit the 2nd Amendment to an issue of small Arms ownership than the ACLU has a right to restrict the 1st Amendment to their Constitutionally, historically and scientifically irrational interpretation of the known evidence.  Perhaps Thomas Jefferson’s re-write of the New Testament, while he was a sitting president, would today include the following wry observation:  If conservatives and liberals crawl into a similar dark bed of deception, they will likely both end up in the same bottomless black hole, accordingly.

Does the NRA really defend the 2nd Amendment?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article: http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/secondamendment.html

Richard Aberdeen
Nashville author, songwriter and homeless advocate.
www.RichardAberdeen.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/does-the-nra-really-defend-the-2nd-amendment-1335096.html

During the so called Jihad era Russia knew very well the hideouts of Mujahadeens. But she tried to avoid blaming those countries that were providing safe heavens. Even today studding Russian newspapers we hardly find allegations about those countries that supported Mujadahadeen.

But when we see our politicians, establishment and media, it gives a very gloomy picture of their understanding the current situation. By pointing our fingers at others what we have achieved in six decades. Does the world believe us? If yes, so is there any one who can point out any achievement by blaming India, Israel and America? But rather we have isolated ourselves in the world. The recent statement issued by Chinese leadership after Prime Minister Gillani visit to China, must open our eyes. They have promised to help us fighting terrorism only if Pakistan is serious in this matter.

Recently our media and establishment threw their harpoons of fear and doubt in all directions. The world will surely laugh at us. Let me tell you one example of this foolishness. Just after attack on GHQ, we targeted India and even some ex-army defense experts threatened India to be ready for division of India in dozens parts. But the very next moment we ask India to open the doors for negotiations and find out the solution to curb terrorism. What we are going to discuss with India? The people who attacked hotels in Mumbai are still at large. And last day court has settled some cases in their favor.

Not alone India is targeted but triangle of India, Israel and America is considered to be the nexus of all evils. The question is why we ask America to settle our issues with India. If America is India’s friend in destabilizing Pakistan so why they will bother to solve problem for us? If America is enemy, why we are prayerful for American aid? We even don’t feel shy to ask for help the same America that we blame for supporting some Taliban groups and India.

This is not the way to get attention of the world. Have any one paid attention to our allegations? Even China passed normal comments on GHQ episode. If it would be the joint effort of India, Israel and America to attack GHQ and destabilize Pakistan, surely we would receive serious comments from countries like China, Iran and Russia. Our Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has asked a strange question from Indian leadership that why India has so large embassy in Kabul? What are their interests In Afghanistan as they have no common borders with Afghanistan?  He raised this issue in the USA. For his kind information the USA too has no common borders with Afghanistan, why she is deploying more troops in Afghanistan? Can he ask the same question from American Leadership? He must not. Because even the neighboring superpowers are not asking this question. If he thinks that American presence in Afghanistan is for the eradication of the root cause of terrorism so the India also claims the same. If we will always ask India to provide more evidence surely India will try itself to get to the root causes of terrorism. The money we are waiting for in the shape of Kerri Lugar Bill (per year), India has invested more than that in Afghanistan. And India is invited by the Afghanis. How we can ask a self-governing nation to expel some one out of their country? Is this fair and logical?

If we would have done any good for Afghanistan, Afghanis would love us. But they don’t. And we all know this fact. Why Afghani hate us? We must think over this question. And we must plan our propaganda in such a way that the world should give it preference.

The author is a column writer. His Articles can be seen at www.thefrontierpost.com . He supports democracy and human rights.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/illogical-blame-game-1339317.html

Discrimination has been one of the rampant reasons why someone qualified, yet who happens to be from another race, just can’t snag the opportunity for something better to hold on to. A good life has become a dim hope to get with this problem. Presently, although the United States has become open about people from other race, with seeing blacks in fields like entertainment, sports and as Obama proves, politics, the case of Racial discrimination has become more of a public, “caught in the act” moment and has given it quite a stir in the nation’s populace giving still a doubt as to whether America has moved on from the illness of discriminating.

If we check the background of Sotomayor, the nominee for Justice at the Supreme Court is but Hispanic meaning that she is a Spanish American.  She belonged to a Puerto Rican family who resided at the Bronx. Her father doesn’t speak Spanish and worked at a factory.  At present this judge has a chance to take a seat in the Supreme Court as per nominated by the president Barrack Obama. Although she is considered as someone who has won favors from both parties, still there are people who have continuously commented on her nomination and have detested her to take a seat because of her race.

Public records show that racial discrimination started to manifest as Jews were killed during World War II. Last January it was noted that 74 percent of blacks in an ABC Post poll said that they still experience racial discrimination even with laws made against such actions. About sixty-eight percent of those who are non-blacks (from another race) also experience discrimination.

When Barrack Obama became president change was at hand. There is no denying to this fact, though there are still public records of unequal treatment of cops and employers, giving proof that there are still people who are not open to change. Still, in the case of Sotomayor, she might be receiving criticisms in accord to her nomination but like Obama change can be inevitable and she may become the first Hispanic to take a seat as justice to the Supreme Court.

This composition aims to provide readers significant procedures and importance in public records. For more information, check out BackgroundPI.com

Emma G. Fox is a freelance writer, with experiences working as a marketing executive in a leading authority on the web when it comes to conducting background check and especially the people finder, with the largest database consisting of over 26 billion government records is provided.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/going-for-change-1339694.html

Jefferson edited the New Testament while a sitting president and, attempted to have his version become the official U.S. government-endorsed version, ensuring it would be read in every public schoolhouse of his day.  Madison stated he believed the 1st Amendment would aid in the spread of Christianity and, Franklin openly complained the framers were not seeking God’s guidance enough while drafting the Constitution.

Many so-called “experts” interpret “religion” to mean belief in God, while it is far more likely it meant institutional religion to the framers.  Regardless, protection of free expression has nothing to do with what is actually true about God, science or anything else.  Whether modern evolutionary theory is true or just a poorly constructed fairytale, is not relevant to 1st Amendment protections.

According to various polls, over 80% of adults and 50% of American educators believe in a Designer.  Though several major living scientists believe the evidence indicates design, the ACLU refuses to protect their highly credentialed scientific viewpoint.  Instead, they demand American educators deliberately lie to our children by omission, leaving out the known fact that major historical and living scientists and every Declaration signer believe(d) the scientific evidence indicates design.

The “God question” is central to the scientific thought and inquiry of virtually every major historical scientist, including Darwin himself.  Still, so-called “progressives” pretend God is not a question for science.  To allow only one myopic viewpoint is to teach children questioning what is true is not relevant to education. These are the same ‘progressives’ who are angry over the one-sidedness of talk radio.

Modern evolutionary theory does in fact, address the “God question”.  Any theory assuming that everything in the universe is a result of “natural” unguided processes is stating there is no God, not to mention, scientifically completely wacko.  Nobody from our perspective could possibly know the overall process is unguided.  Atheism has no more protection under the 1st Amendment than Catholicism.  Is freedom of speech or science really being served when only a non-evidenced based superstitious assumption is allowed to be taught?

According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Albert Einstein said:  ”I have a deep feeling of faith, a deep religiosity that comes from my appreciation of the way the Lord made the universe.”  Every signer of the Declaration of Independence agreed the evidence of a Creator is beyond all rational dispute.

Should we forbid Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Einstein and leading DNA expert Francis Collins to teach a public science class?Or, should we petition our Creator to toss the ACLU into a bottomless black hole and throw away the key, allowing our children a proper education without any further undue hindrance from the feeble-minded?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article:
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/firstamendment.html

Richard Aberdeen
Nashville author, songwriter and homeless advocate.
www.RichardAberdeen.com

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/does-the-aclu-really-defend-the-1st-amendment-1335067.html

The call to action was clearly intimated  when he stated  that “We have to
 manage some of the natural disasters that occur in our regions” prior to the conference. (i)  His thrust on climate change and in the same spirit, disaster management, resonates well with those international agencies and institutions already deeply involved in providing humanitarian assistance to recent disasters in the region. At the conference , the Malaysian Prime Minister aptly drove home the point that climate change posed a major challenge to the present generation and not just those in the distant future. Its impact was clearly illustrated through the recent experience with major natural disasters and catastrophes, including the earthquake in Padang, Indonesia, tsunami in Western Samoa, hurricanes in the Philippines and the major floods in Southern India. These calamities remind us on how fragile the world is, and how interdependent our world has become. (ii)

The emphasis is on sustaining the quality of life for mankind for future generations, and focussing on need for a strong global commitment and action to address the adverse effects of climate change. In essence, our survival rests on the world community’s willingness to address disaster management challenges and related issues collectively and with concerted will. He has long recognized that countries beset with natural disasters should expedite steps to mitigate the impact of disasters and with the increasing magnitude of calamities faced, it behooves comprehensive collective action. It’s rare indeed to see a leader showing a sustained and avid interest in disaster management and this is clearly reflected in Datuk Seri Najib’s purposeful tabling of the issue at such forum. Throughout his tenure as a Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister, he has on several occasions been on the forefront of promoting initiatives in that direction. In June 2006, during a high-level security forum in Singapore, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak called for the setting up of a regional based humanitarian relief centre to be mobilized in the event of disaster.
 
The call for collective action on disaster management is not new.  Yet, inititiatives in this area is seldom seen vested in the leadership nor governments.  At the 7th Asian Security Summit , held in June 2007, at the heels of natural disasters which befall Myanmar and the People’s Republic of China, he called for collective action, with initiatives for the former spear-headed by ASEAN ( Association of South-East Asian Nations). Datuk Najib subscribed to the idea that disaster risk should be taken seriously  and the severity of natural disasters impact on lives and livelihoods as well as the development of nations could no longer be ignored and. Grounded as an economist, he recognized that marginal investment in incorporating hazard resistance could have protected property and assets. Without appropriate mitigating measures, development achieved over years of investment could be completely wiped out in a natural disaster. Acknowledging that vulnerability rest with the communities at the ground level, building effectiveness of disaster management at the community level was of utmost importance since local needs and risks could be adequately assessed and managed. Highlighting disaster risk reduction measures, he placed emphasis on community based initiatives to minimize vulnerabilities. He fully recognized the wider collective responsibility of stakeholders and the importance of partnership in handling disaster risk reduction.

At that stage he was already pronouncing consideration to incorporate
disaster risk reduction elements in new development plans and ensuring community resilience in facing natural hazards. Integrating disaster risk reduction into plans, programmes, and development projects together with developing or modifying policies, laws, and organizational arrangements are aspects which need to be undertaken, according to him. The negative economic implications on development arising from natural disasters are enormous. Datuk Najib reiterated the Malaysian government’s commitment to disaster risk reduction through continuing its efforts towards implementing the priority areas of the Hyogo Framework for Action. In addressing disaster management, the Malaysian government since the 1990s had put into place policy, infrastructure and operational mechanisms to ensure coordination and partnership with all pertinent stakeholders.

With human catastrophe resulting from natural disasters reaching similar level of conflict situations, calamities certainly deserve collective attention and action. (iv)  It’s hightime that governments and the leadership take the lead in disaster management.   It’s heartwarming when leadership is perceived to grasp the elements and dynamics of disaster management and taking a proactive stand.

References:-

(i)  BERNAMA. October 05, 2009.  Najib To Raise Natural Disaster Issues At Unesco . Leslean Arshad.
(ii) New Straits Times . Wednesday, October 07, 2009, 12.03 PM.  Prime Minister’s speech at the 35th Unesco General Conference in Paris.
(iii) The Star Online . The Star, June 4, 2006.  Malaysia calls for regional humanitarian relief centre.
(iv)   The 7th IISS Asian Security Summit   Shangri-La Dialogue . Singapore. Sunday 1 June 2007. Restoring Peace in Complex Emergencies.

Author had extensive experience in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance with 28 years service with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Involvement included assignments to Iran, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, China, Mongolia and also emergency missions to Pakistan, Romania,and Sri-Lanka.

Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/collective-action-for-disaster-management-1351490.html