donaldtrump's Blog

VERY FEW MOVING PARTS, VERY LOW MAINTENANCE, ADAPTABLE, ADJUSTABLE, AND IF YOU WANT TO DRIVE A 59 LICOLN, YOU CAN!
Check this:From Wichita, Kansas we get this report: A 1959 Lincoln Continental repowered to be a self charging electric vehicle by a small group of engineers and local services, is now achieving up to 65 mpg in informal tests. Work there continues. The goal of the project is to attain up to and beyond 100mpg for the biggest and heaviest car made in 1959. The car has been driven in California and Kansas and shown to over 15,000 people. In an audience of 12,000, one tenth of the people raised their hands when asked if they would like to have a car like that. That Lincoln represents a future for Detroit. It is the possibility of Big Clean cars that do not promote Global warming. Let's build them now, as well as economical small clean and green electric cars and let's put people to work. We already have the existing tooling and the facilities and manpower.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-young/so-you-want-
a-big-electri_b_145077.html

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday the Pentagon is developing plans to get troops quickly out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to battle a more confident and successful Taliban.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Associated Press in an interview that the military can make the changes President-elect Barack Obama wants in both wars.

"I've been listening to the campaign, and I understand," Mullen said. "And he has certainly reinforced that since the election, so from a planning standpoint, we are looking at that as well."

Mullen, once a critic of Obama's plan to pull combat forces from Iraq in 16 months, said the Pentagon has already identified and practiced travel routes out of Iraq along exit routes through Turkey and Jordan.

The governments in those two bordering countries are U.S. allies, and Mullen said they support the withdrawal planning effort.

Mullen, who is halfway through a two-year term, said he expects to stay on next year as the new administration takes office, adding, "We all serve at the pleasure of the president. I'll serve as long as he wants me to."

Obama has said he wants to assemble a national security team quickly. He has not yet named a candidate for defense secretary _ the top civilian leader at the Pentagon.

The current defense secretary, Robert Gates, is often mentioned as an option for Obama. If Gates stayed it would provide the continuity and stability Obama has said he wants in his national security operations, but neither man has discussed the possibility publicly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/top-us-militar
y-officer-m_n_144766.html

AT FIRST I THOUGHT PROP 8 WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. 
Because the right to be married is being denied to a group of citizens. These people, I believe, should have the same " civil rights"  as anybody else. It seems totally hypocritical for the christian church to push for this to pass and especially hypocritical for the mormons who, because they were not allowed to molest multiple children in other states, were allowed to create Utah, and do it there. They dumped 20 - 25 million dollars on prop. 8, in a completely different state?! Stepping back  though, it all becomes clear. The real issue is the separation of church and state, or lack thereof. Why have we been getting flooded lately with everybody's religious beliefs? Don't  push that stuff on me! Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. Believe whatever you like, but you can't tell me who or what to worship and I can care less who or what you believe. The reason this proposition passed, I believe, is because the Yes on 8'ers were organized and well funded. i saw those signs everywhere. Right on, good job. But, the no on 8'ers were slow to react to the massive number of religious voters who were, while at a tax free church, told to vote yes on 8 which is not a separation of church and state.
 If the churches  are gonna tell people how to vote, then they need to pay taxes.

JULY 4TH, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.







Why post this section of the declaration of Independence? Because it's the catalyst which propelled us forward, hurtling  into the unknown. 232 years later could our brave forefathers have envisioned this version of their dream? 37 states later could they begin to fathom the possibility of a succession of new beginnings? The Civil war, and the ensuing healing that took place. The first and second world war, and the resulting charter of the United Nations. From every struggle comes growth. The form of the challenges might change but the effort it takes to overcome these hardships does not. It's a belief, an ideal, that started a long time ago, and is carried forward by people like you and me. 


IT'S A GOOD TIME TO BE AN AMERICAN.  

I HAVE A DREAM . . . 

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

                                                     MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

 

delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

 

IT'S 5:32PM TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4TH, 2008 AND HISTORY IS BEING MADE.

 IF YOU DO NOT FEEL THE GRAVITY OF THIS MOMENT, YOU ARE TRULY BLIND.

FOR ONE MOMENT PUT YOUR PETTY REASONS ASIDE, AND FEEL THE HISTORY THAT IS UNFOLDING BEFORE US. 

WE HAVE OVERCOME. 

I'M VERY  PROUD OF MY COUNTRY. I WAS BEFORE, BUT DON'T MISINTERPRET, RIGHT NOW I'M FRANCIS SCOTT KEY PROUD. I'M NATHAN HALE PROUD. MY HEART OVERFLOWS WITH HOPE AND OPTIMISM.  THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY REAFFIRMS MY WANING PATRIOTISM,  MY FAITH IN MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN, AND MY CORE  BELIEFS, THAT PEOPLE DOWN DEEP ARE GOOD AND WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR EVERYBODY. NOT JUST SOME.  THE WORLD COMMUNITY REJOICES FOR US AND THEMSELVES. THEY SEE US PULLING OUR COLLECTIVE HEADS FROM WHERE THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE. YES THERE IS STILL CORRUPTION, YES THERE IS STILL HATRED, YES WE STILL ARGUE BUT WE JUST KICKED IT UP A NOTCH. A BIG NOTCH.

GOOD FOR US. 

THIS IS A STORY THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN AMERICA.  

If, by some chance, the McCain/Palin ticket wins/steals this election, we the blue states have composed a goodbye letter. It goes like this: 
Dear Red States: 
  
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California. 
  
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft, and Apple, you get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. 
  
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families.  Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. 
  
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Berkeley, Cal Tech and MIT. 
  
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you. 
  
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties. 
  
Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico 
  
Peace out, 
                
Blue States

An incredible thing happened to me yesterday. I lost a friend of thirty years because of politics.
So I have known this guy and his brother since my family moved near his in Fullerton, Ca. (about 27 miles due east of Downtown L.A.) in 1976. we all grew up skateboarding and listening to great music like the Cars, Led Zeppelin, Devo, etc . . .. We were all on the same page, and for the most part, still are. None of us has moved away, and we are all in the same demographic. My brother and I and he and his brother are white males between 35 and 45. He and I are the married ones, our brothers are still both single. Politically we do not see eye to eye. My brother and I are voting for Barack Obama, He and his brother are not. No biggie to me. I have many friends who are not voting for Obama, and we can joke about our differences. Except for this one guy. He is actually pretty militant and maybe he is just koo koo, I can't tell the difference. We have all been in bands and play instruments. we have been talking about putting a side project together, involving three of the four of us. My brother can't make it because of scheduling conflicts with practices and shows. So this guy who has chosen to no longer be my friend, is a great drummer. And yesterday he sent me some e mail that was a bit condescending and rude. i wrote back and said, " in the interest of jamming together and hopefully writing and performing some good music, let's ease up on the political "BLEEP-for-tat". He responded with this gem, "I don't keep liberal friends anymore. Some things are just far more important than keeping liberal friends. Like my children's future. If you had any children yourself you might understand that. In case you haven't realized by now, the emails I've been sending to you are not out of friendship but really more indicative of the beginnings of a much larger war on the horizon.
I've already made it clear to my brother and (the bass player) that I will not be playing music with liberals nor from a liberal point of view. In fact I'm only interested in donating my musical abilities for something that will really matter. They have expressed that they are on board with my ideas for a conservative hard core punk rock band. It is my hope that we will dress in American Revolutionary War era soldier costumes complete with bayonets and if possible knock some sense into more than a few liberals who are not too far gone. Kind of like Rage Against The Machine but more punk rock and from a 180 degree opposing perspective. An American conservative activist position if you will. It may not be too late for you to get on board if you'd kindly consider waking up. It may help if you start here:

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/entrylist.asp?source_id=3
8

or here:

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/

or here:

http://michellemalkin.com/

or here:

http://www.anncoulter.com/ 

I was blown away. I was pissed off at first, and then kinda sad. I have done nothing wrong to this guy and I think he is a tad unstable. Maybe not, I'm no expert. I talked to his brother who said that he is nuts, so maybe he did me a favor but it got me thinking. How many friendships have ended because of politics?I believe one of the most beautiful things about the USA is our freedom of expression, and full spectrum of opinions. I would not like to live in a country that had neither.

WE ARE WATCHING HISTORY, BUT MIGHT NOT KNOW IT  . . . . So I'm already voting for Barack Obama. Many people know that, and many of them do not feel the same way. That's their prerogative. I hold no ill will towards those who do not see things as I do. Except when i see people hating. What logical reason exists . . . . that makes a person hate? i do not hate McCain, Palin, Joe the plumber, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh etc, etc. Hate is a waste of time. I do not see eye to eye with them but that's part of what makes our country so cool. At least to me. So I'm watching Obama's infomercial and it gets to me. Makes me tear up a bit. I admit it.  Why?Because I LOVE THIS BEAUTIFUL FU@#ING COUNTRTY!!!!!I LOVE THE USA!!!!!I LOVE THE MENTALITY OF ETERNAL OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.OBAMA EMBODIES THAT FEELING. IT'S AN INTANGIBLE, AND TO SEE THAT IN A CANDIDATE NOW, MAKES ME A VERY PROUD CITIZEN. 

Reporter Covering Obama: He's 'Sort of a Bore' Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:03 PM By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Nicholas has spent months covering the Barack Obama campaign for 18 hours a day, and his overall impression of the candidate is: He’s pretty dull. Comparing Obama with Hillary Clinton, whose campaign Nicholas covered before switching to the Obama effort, the reporter recalled casual conversations Clinton had with reporters on her campaign plane. “As her prospects dimmed, her accessibility grew. Sometimes she was off the record, but you can’t say she wasn’t fun,” Nicholas wrote. “Not so with Obama. One of the striking ironies is that a man who draws tens of thousands of people to his rallies, whose charisma is likened to that of John F. Kennedy, can be sort of a bore.” Obama has waged his campaign with “dogged professionalism, but with little show of spontaneity,” the reporter observed. “After all this time with him, I still can’t say with certainty who he is.” Obama does engage in some “light banter” with reporters on the plane, but when someone pulls out a tape recorder “pretty soon we’re back to a recitation of his stump speech,” Nicholas wrote. Dean Reynolds of CBS News, who spent 12 months covering Obama’s campaign, also found the candidate lacked a real rapport with the press, holding news conferences but seldom chatting with reporters. Reynolds, son of legendary anchorman Frank Reynolds, added that Obama’s campaign plane is “cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time.” Nicholas concluded: “Ironically, those of us who were sent out to take [Obama’s] measure in person can’t offer much help in answering who he is, or if he is ready. Barriers set in place between us and him were just too great.” 

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.  


Yep, he's a bore. He is one week away from becoming the first black president! I'd be a bore too.To become president you must mind what you say, to become the first black president of a country that has a problem with black people getting ahead, you must walk on egg shells. He did it for TWO YEARS! Think he's gonna blow it now? Not this Harvard Grad! Sure, he could have fun, but this ain't about "fun". 
We are in deep doo doo, and I don't want a "fun" preisdent. we had a president for 8 years had had lot's of "fun". Every time you turned on the news, he was not at work! He was off having FUN!!The hell with "fun", 4 YEARS OF BORING IS A GREAT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!!!  

Dear God, it's me, one of the heathen's that does not fall in lockstep with the righteous Christian POV. I am sinning as we speak, because I am using my own mind to form opinions that others may find un-American.  I know I should take yours and Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's word as Gospel, but I can't. Why? Because you, of all people, have endowed  me with a brain. 
Can you believe that? 
Of course you can, you're YOU!
By the way, you made gay people gay, right? There is nothing you did not make or do, right?
And the truly religious folks know this. They must because they know that you know everything, and made everything.
So why are they so against everybody getting a fair shake in life? 
They hate the Muslims too.

THE END OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AS WE KNOW IT?
Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation.By Tim Shipman in Durango, Colorado 
Last Updated: 3:25PM GMT 26 Oct 2008

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats Photo: EPA

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection20
08/barackobama/3260074/Republican-fears-of-historic-Oba
ma-landslide-unleash-civil-war-for-the-future-of-the-pa
rty.html

Miss. Seline Muluzu Williams
Dearest One, 
 
I know that this proposal will come to you as a big surprise considering the fact that we have not had any formal acquaintance before or met in person but all the same I want you for the sake of God to give this an immediate attention in view of the fact that the security of life and possession is at stake.
 
I am Miss. Seline Muluzu Williams a 24 years old girl from war ravaged SIERRA LEONE but presently leaving in Abidjan Ivory coast with my brother David who is 16 years old. My father Dr.John Muluzu Williams who before his untimely assassination by the rebels was the Director of SIERRA LEONE Diamond corporation (SLDC).He was killed in our government residential house along side two of my other brothers, two house maids and security aid, fortunately for me and my younger brother including our mother we were on a weekend visit to our home town. A as we got the news of the tragedy, we immediately managed to ran into neighboring Ivory 
coast for refuge.
 
In the same vain, as Faith would have it we lost our dear mother after a month we lost our father (may soul rest in peace) as a result of what the Doctor called cardiac arrest.
As we were coming into this country ,we had some documents of a deposit of $ 28,500.000.00 USD (Twenty Eight million Five hundred thousand USD ) made by my late father in a security and trust company, according to the note we found in our father brief case, he intended to use this fund for his international business transaction after his tenure in office but was unfortunately murdered.
 
We have located the security company where the money is deposited with the help of an attorney and established ownership having been told that the consignment is been held at their head in Europe for security reasons. Though, our father did not declare the deposit as real cash rather as family treasures/valuables Worth US$28.5M. Please considering the bitter experiences we had in our country and the war still going on especially in diamond area which incidentally is where we came from plus the incessant political upheavals and hostilities in this country Ivory coast, we desire seriously to leave here and live the rest of our life into a more peaceful and politically stable country like yours hence this proposal and request is made to you.
 
I therefore on behalf on my only brother seek your kind assistance towards helping us to claim the money from where is deposited. My attorney will work out a change of ownership to your name so that you will be legally empowered to represent me claim the money from the company. After the conclusion of the transaction, you will help us to invest the money into a lucrative business and also assist my brother get a college admission to further his education.
 
Please I know that this letter may sound strange and incredible to you but the CNN and the BBC African bulletin normally have it as their major news features .Therefore for the sake of God and humanity kindly give an immediate and positive consideration.
I will willingly agree to any suitable percentage of the money you will propose as your compensation for your assistance with regards to the above .please in view of our sensitive refugee status and as we are still conscious of our father's enemies, I would like you to give this a highly confidential approach. I await your response.
If you are interested to help me responds via this e-mail: (selinwillia@yahoo.com)
 
Thank Regard.
Miss. Seline Muluzu Williams

Despite some strong personal feelings, I have attempted to keep politics out of our discussions here, but the current tactic being used by John McCain and his surrogates serves as a great example of the fundamental difference between the philosophy of a bureaucrat and that of an entrepreneur.Apparentlydesperate to derail the Obama momentum, John McCain has jumped on comments Obama made to “Joe The (faux) Plumber” on your right.

In the course of a short encounter Obama told Joe that his philosophy was to “share the wealth” with all Americans. McCain now seeks to twist this remark in an effort to paint Obama as nothing but a godless, dreaded Socialist. McCain wants us to believe that such a philosophy has no place in America. And that anyone who would utter such a belief is, as McCain surrogate Congressperson Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) said, is “anti-American.”

I beg to differ. From my point of view the comments of Barack Obama actually expose him as a dreaded “E” person. The fact is Barack Obama’s comments reveal a philosophy very close to that of most real entrepreneurs.

 

The essence of the “American dream” is to have the opportunity for everyone to share in the wealth of the nation. America has always been held out as the land of opportunity where the wealth of the country can be “shared” by anyone who has the ability to create wealth. That is what Obama actually said to Plumber Joe (see for yourself).

The truth, the very core of a true entrepreneurial philosophy is the concept of sharing the wealth. It is the bureaucrat who seeks to concentrate the (power) and wealth in the hands of the very few at the top—those who also determine how wealth should be distributed. It is this stilted bureaucratic philosophy - endorsed by McCain and profligated by minions like Bachmann - that is destroying the balance of wealth, economic competitiveness and financial future of this country.

If Barack Obama is an anti-American socialist then I am as well. It has always been my philosophy in business to share the wealth. It is a philosophy I have lived and preached for decades and is called creating “parallel interests.”

When I helped to found LifeUSA, the primary operating concept of the company was to “share the wealth” with those who helped create the wealth. To achieve the objective of putting all those associated with the company in “parallel” so they could share the wealth, everyone become an actual owner of the company. If the company was successful then everyone benefited and one could not benefit unless all benefited.

LifeUSA was a start-up life insurance company and the only difference between it and other insurance companies was the concept of “share the wealth.” With this philosophy LifeUSA became one of the fastest growing and most successful companies in the industry. When Allianz acquired LifeUSA for over $500 million, everyone associated with the company shared the wealth. Nothing could dissuade me from the belief that the primary reason for the success of LifeUSA was the “socialist” concept of sharing wealth.
My belief is that, if people have the opportunity and ability to add value, they will be encouraged to do so if they are allowed to share in the value they help create.

On the opposite side of the coin is the attitude of the bureaucratic corporate culture that believes the few at the top know what is best, have all the answers, and are the sole reason for the success of the organization. With this philosophy is it any wonder that we have seen the compensation of senior executives become so bloated and out of line with the compensation of the people actually doing the work? Is it any wonder that employees lose incentive and a desire to see the company become successful?

The Political Dividing Line

Of all the differences between Barack Obama and John McCain, this philosophy of “share the wealth” is the starkest. Sharing the wealth of opportunity is what America is supposed to be about and it should hold sway in our corporate world as well as society overall.

John McCain seems to endorse the corporate bureaucratic concept of concentrated wealth and to legitimize it across American society. Barack Obama seems to endorse the very concept that made America strong: everyone has the equal opportunity to create and share the wealth. It is this philosophy that provides incentive for people to add value and build wealth.

Despite what John McCain would want us to believe, the philosophy of “share the wealth” is not socialism nor the dreaded “S” word. It is the greatest and most powerful form of entrepreneurialism and Americanism.

http://bobmaconbusiness.com/?p=103

ENOUGH!!!!!
Are you reading the same posts that I am? Everybody is well versed in the "I HATE OBAMA" rhetoric. Don't forget "I'm scared" and "he's a Muslim" he's a socialist". ENOUGH!!All that talk is hate. It's ignorant. It's smearing the next PRESIDENT of THE UNITED STATES!!!!  Very unpatriotic. WORSE THEN NOT WEARING A FLAG PIN, 
WORSE THEN BARELY KNOWING BILL AYERS.
WORSE THEN BEING SMART. 
The racism is rearing it's ugly head too. 
This is our country, our planet. Let's be adults. And smart ones at that. 
There is NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING MUSLIM BY HE WAY. 
DAMN IT ALL!!!!
It is frustrating, because it's like being on the Titantic  and the two party's are the guys in the crow's nest arguing over which way to turn, while the iceberg looms straight ahead.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain 

control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital 

interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled 

by any means necessary, including military force. 

–President Jimmy Carter, Third State of the Union Address, 1978 

The United States requires freedom of action in the global commons and 

strategic access to important regions of the world to meet our national 

security needs.  The well being of the global economy is contingent on ready 

access to energy resources...current trends indicate an increasing reliance on 

petroleum products from areas of instability in the coming years, not reduced 

reliance.  The United States will continue to foster access to and flow of 

energy resources vital to the world economy. 

–Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2008 

High gas prices and a prolonged war in Iraq have made energy security a key 

issue in the Presidential elections.  Despite the rise in gas prices, what 

Americans pay at the pump does not reflect the true costs of filling up their 

cars and trucks.  Each year, the U.S. military commits resources to securing 

access to and safeguarding the transport of oil and other energy supplies. 

These costs do not show up in the market valuation of gasoline, heating fuel 

or other end uses, but are paid for instead by American tax dollars.  

Knowing the military costs of securing energy is important for a few reasons. 

For one, U.S. soldiers’ well-being is put at risk in the pursuit of securing 

energy.  Secondly, the tax dollars spent on enhanced military activities have 

opportunity costs; in other words, the same tax dollars could be spent on 

improving education, repairing bridges, or addressing other needs, even 

other national security needs.  Third, since the market price does not 

indicate the true cost of production and consumption, it results in market 

failure and overconsumption of energy.  If the market price reflected the true 

cost, the quantity demanded by consumers would decrease, leading to more 

conservation, and making renewable, non-polluting energy alternatives more 

viable.  In short, the true price of energy supplies would facilitate a transition 

away from fossil fuels, lead to greater energy independence and lessen the 

impact on the environment. 

While energy security is a vital national interest and has been incorporated 

into military objectives and strategies over the past half century, the task of 

putting a dollar amount on the proportion of military resources devoted to 

defending energy resources is complex.  The link between military strategy 

3

and budgeting is not readily apparent and military resources are multi- 

purpose with respect to missions and strategies.  

Still, this is not the first analysis of its kind.  Researchers from conservative 

and liberal perspectives as well as government organizations have published 

studies over the past twenty-five years.  Previous studies are based on 

outdated military budget breakdowns, or focus solely on Persian Gulf oil.  As 

national security strategy increasingly stresses diversifying energy supplies 

across regions and types of energy, we have modeled our study on the 

global pursuit of all energy supplies. 

We employ two different methodologies to estimate the range of possible 

military expenditures for securing access to energy supplies for fiscal year 

2009.  Our results are based on a range of primary materials including the 

Department of Defense budget materials, unclassified military strategy 

documents, and posture statements and other testimony by Department of 

Defense officials.  We also estimated the dollar amount without including the 

costs of the Iraq War, and then with a portion of the cost of the war.  Our 

findings are: 

Peacetime w/ Iraq War 

Method 1 $97.0 billion $208.9 billion 

Method 2     $103.5 billion $215.4 billion 

This report is released in the context of the National Priorities Project’s work 

on energy, the goal of which is to issue a rigorous analysis of the link 

between U.S. military strategy and the global pursuit of energy, and to 

propose alternative policies including increased funding for the development 

of renewable energy. 

The implications of this study are clear:  If we are to decrease our global 

military footprint and reduce the potential for future conflict, we must 

decrease our dependence on non-renewable energy supplies.  This must 

coincide with a national campaign for a significant and sustained investment 

in clean, renewable energy and conservation.  Not only will this reduce our 

military budget, but will also decrease our nation’s contribution to climate 

change. 

The complete project of the National Priorities Project can be found 

at http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Energy_Security. 

4