Barack Obama, the US Democratic presidential candidate, arrived in Afghanistan yesterday, amid tight security on the first leg of his high-profile tour of war zones and foreign capitals.

The tour, aimed at boosting his foreign affairs credentials with voters at home and introducing himself to world leaders for the first time, started with visits to American troops on the front line.

On the way to Afghanistan, Obama stopped at Camp Arifjan, the main US military base in Kuwait and a major gateway for US soldiers moving into and out of Iraq.--Guardian

Read more here.

A day after he arrived in Afghanistan, as part of a congressional delegation, the Illinois senator met US troops at a military base in Kabul, the Afghan capital, before meeting Hamid Karzai.

To James Bays, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Kabul, it was likely Mr Karzai would have discussed with Mr Obama a string of Nato offensives where civilians have been killed or injured.

"In the last few days, Karzai went to the scene of an incident where there were civilian casualties at a wedding party in the east of Afghanistan, to console survivors and give compensation from the government. I think civilian casualties will be on the agenda", he said.

And James Bays reported that Barack Obama has concerns about the quality of leadership in Afghanistan : "Obama has been critical in the past of Karzai and the Afghan government. This is a government that many in the international community see as having too many corrupt elements to it."

Troops from Iraq to Afghanistan

On Saturday, Mr Obama (photo, from aljazeera.net) and other senators travelling with him, have met military leaders at the Bagram base north of Kabul, who told them about their efforts to combat Taliban forces and other fighters opposed to the US-backed Afghan government.

Then, at Jalalabad airfield, the congressional delegation met more US soldiers and the governor of Nangahar province.

Afghanistan is the central front in the so-called "war on terror", said Barack Obama, who is expected to call for more US action to rout the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The Democratic candidate already said that if he is elected in November, at least two more combat brigades, up to 10 000 extra troops, would be committed to Afghanistan, while reducing the number of US forces in Iraq.

But the pledge to commit more US troops to Afghanistan is already proving divisive, said James Bays.

"Nato commanders and US military commanders have said that they would welcome extra troops. Nato commanders know that American troops are useful to them because they can send them anywhere in the country – many other Nato troops will not send their troops to more volatile areas of Afghanistan.”

"But Afghan citizens and Afghan politicians may not want more troops ... Many Afghan politicians will tell you that they do not think more troops is necessarily the answer."

Republican rival criticism

The Democratic nominee’s lack of experience in the region has been criticised by his Republican rival, John McCain (photo), who mocked his current trip on Saturday.

"Senator Obama announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on a fact-finding mission that will include visits to both those countries", he said in a radio address.

"Apparently, he is confident enough that he will not find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable."

Barack Obama, speaking on the jet, before it landed in Afghanistan, said : "I am there to listen, but there is no doubt that my core position, which is that we need a timetable for withdrawal, not only to relieve pressure on our military but also to deal with the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and to put more pressure on the Iraqi government."

It is time to respect the wishes of Iraq as a sovereign government and start withdrawing troops, said the Illinois senator, addind that it is in the strategic interests of the US.

Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi prime minister, has been quoted in German news weekly Der Spiegel as saying that he backed Mr Obama's plan to pull out US troops within 16 months, if he becomes president.

"We feel that this would be the right timescale for withdrawal allowing for minor adjustments", Mr al-Maliki said in the interview to be published on Monday. And he was quoted as saying that US forces should leave the country "as soon as possible".

But on Sunday, Ali al-Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, denied that Mr al-Maliki had made such a remark. He said that Iraqi prime minister’s comments to the newspaper had been "misunderstood and mistranslated and not conveyed accurately".

Photo from Huffington Post

John McBush should be more careful what he whines about.

He complained that Obama had not visited the battle zones, met the troops or talked with the generals, giving Obama full license to do so with immunity from charges of political grandstanding.  The photo ops for Obama are priceless.

Well done McBush.

Matt Taibbi, The Rolling Stone, July 19, 2008

I am a single mother with a 9-year-old boy. To stay warm at night my son and I would pull off all the pillows from the couch and pile them on the kitchen floor. I'd hang a blanket from the kitchen doorway and we'd sleep right there on the floor. By February we ran out of wood and I burned my mother's dining room furniture. I have no oil for hot water. We boil our water on the stove and pour it in the tub. I'd like to order one of your flags and hang it upside down at the capital building... we are certainly a country in distress.

-- Letter from a single mother in a Vermont city, to Senator Bernie Sanders

The Republican and Democratic conventions are just around the corner, which means that we're at a critical time in our nation's history. For this is the moment when the country's political and media consensus finally settles on the line of bullshit it will be selling to the public as the "national debate" come fall.

If you pay close attention you can actually see the trial balloons whooshing overhead. There have been numerous articles of late of the Whither the Debate? genus in the country's major dailes and news mags, pieces like Patrick Healy's "Target: Barack Obama. Strategy: What Day is it?" in the New York Times. They ostensibly wonder aloud about what respective "plans of attack" Barack Obama and John McCain will choose to pursue against one another in the fall.

In these pieces we already see the candidates trying on, like shoes, the various storylines we might soon have hammered into our heads like wartime slogans. Most hilarious from my viewpoint is the increasingly real possibility that the Republicans will eventually decide that their best shot against Obama is to pull out the old "He's a flip-flopper" strategy -- which would be pathetic, given that this was the same tired tactic they used against John Kerry four years ago, were it not for the damning fact that it might actually work again. (I'm actually not sure sometimes what is more repulsive: the bosh they trot out as campaign "issues," or the enthusiasm with which the public buys it.)

Naturally we'll also see the "Patriotism Gap" storyline whipped out and reused over and over again. There will also be much talk emanating from the McCain camp about "experience," although this line of attack will not be nearly as fruitful for him as it was for Hillary Clinton, mainly because the word "experience" in McCain's case also has a habit of reminding voters that the Arizona senator is, well, wicked old.

The Obama camp, playing with a big halftime lead as the cliché goes, is going to play this one close to the vest, sticking to a strategy of using larger and larger fonts every week for their "CHANGE" placards, and getting the candidates' various aides and spokesgoons to use the term "McCain-Bush policies" as many times as possible on political talk shows. Obama will also use this pre-convention period to do what every general election candidate does after a tough primary-season fight, i.e. ditch all the positions he took en route to securing the nomination and replace them with opinions subtly (or sometimes not-so-subtly) reconfigured to fit the latest polling information coming out of certain key swing states. Both sides as well as the pundit class will describe this early positioning for combat over swing-state electoral votes as a "race for the center" (AP, July 3: "Candidates Courting the Center"), as if the "political center" in America were a place where huge chunks of the population tirelessly obsessed over semi-relevant media-driven wedge issues like stem-cell research and gay marriage, even as they lacked money to buy food and make rent every month.

Read More Here

Either way conditions have become complex for the political and cultural right. The White House---the seat of the conservative movement's waning power---its last remaining center of influence having lost both houses of congress in 2006---has become a Bush family fuherbunker. The shocked and awed cabinet secretaries and political appointees of this broken administration are everywhere retreating on, or reversing themselves on, every principle they once held.

[...] "An exhausted Dubya is now doing everything he once said he would not," writes Gordon G. Chang for Commentary Magazine's Contentious Blog blog burst titled Is the Bush Administration Crumbling?

The President, for example, is rewarding North Korea prior to surrender of its nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, the administration agreed to talk with Iran even though the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium and undoubtedly maintaining a covert bomb program. And on the same day, it was revealed that the Bush White House is undermining democratic Taiwan to please communist China by refusing to sell the former defensive weapons. Next month, the President will be joining the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe to honor Chinese autocrats at the opening ceremony of an event recently described as the “Totalitarian Olympics.”

Mr. Bush probably won’t have to sit next to Sudan’s Omar Bashir–seating is said to be alphabetical for attending heads of state–only because the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on Monday asked for an arrest warrant for the genocidal ruler.

The American leader who believes so much in freedom and democracy has done more than any autocrat to support the strengthening coalition of authoritarian states. Getting little in return, Bush is yielding on almost every request from Beijing and most of them from Moscow. In doing so, he is abandoning American allies and undermining critical American goals. By reversing course on major initiatives, he is eroding American credibility. Now, it seems every foreign policy of the Bush administration is, well, Kerryesque [...]

Also:

[...] "last week the Bush administration abruptly refined that position--as Barack Obama might put it," writes Stephen F. Hayes in a www.weeklystandard.com article titled 'Stunningly Shameful'; The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran

Without any indication that Iran was suspending its uranium enrichment program, the State Department announced that Burns would be heading to Switzerland for direct meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators.

So what changed? Very little [...]

[...] It has been a dispiriting few weeks. Several conservative political appointees have said that they are embarrassed to be working in the Bush administration. One called the new policies "preemptive capitulation." Another suggested that whatever credit the Bush administration deserved for keeping Americans safe in the seven years after 9/11 would be offset by the blame the administration will have earned for emboldening America's enemies with its reflexive weakness. And a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice said: "This is stunningly shameful."

But, our diplomats were not finished. In his appearance on Capitol Hill, Burns was asked about reports that the United States is considering opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran. He declined to talk about internal State Department deliberations but reported that such a move--one that would bring the United States one step closer to the "more normal relationship" Condoleezza Rice promised back in January without any indication that Iran intends to stop or even slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons--is under active consideration.

The Iranians have certainly been paying attention to this kinder, gentler Bush administration and its sudden embrace of the thank-you-sir-may-I-have-another school of diplomacy.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei understands that aggressive rhetoric is effective. "The positions of the Islamic Republic and the red lines of the Iranian nation are very clear and if the parties of negotiation negotiate within this framework, the authorities will engage in dialogue. But the condition is that no one threatens the Iranian nation," he said last week, according to a translation published on NationalReviewOnline. "The Iranian nation will cut the hand which is raised against the dear Islamic Republic. .  .  . There are those who say that the American president would do something in his final months of presidency. .  .  . [T]he Iranian nation will punish him, even if he is out of office and no longer has any official responsibility" [...]

So, what is the sum of all this? Where do these paths lead? Is the party over?---by this we mean the GOP. Or is more than just the party over? Will anything rise up in its place? Our hopes too must rest on the person and presence of one Barack Obama. Sen. Obama must somehow provoke enough resistance to organize a coalition coherent enough to defeat him at the polls in November---however narrowly or even on a split decision like 2000. Or once in office stay true to his promises and govern from the left flanked by Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi. This alone could resuscitate the political right. One would hope.

How sad, however, that our destiny is no longer our own.

...The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand ...

N.

Frank Rich, The New York Times, July 20, 2008

The best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

In 2000, he told an interviewer that he would make up for his lack of attention to “those issues.” As he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. McCain was still saying the same, vowing to read “Greenspan’s book” as a tutorial. Last weekend, the resolutely analog candidate told The New York Times he is at last starting to learn how “to get online myself.” Perhaps he’ll retire his abacus by Election Day.

Mr. McCain’s fiscal ineptitude has received so little scrutiny in some press quarters that his chief economic adviser, the former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, got a free pass until the moment he self-immolated on video by whining about “a nation of whiners.” The McCain-Gramm bond, dating back 15 years, is more scandalous than Mr. Obama’s connection with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Mr. McCain has been so dependent on Mr. Gramm for economic policy that he sent him to newspaper editorial board meetings, no doubt to correct the candidate’s numbers much as Joe Lieberman cleans up after his confusions of Sunni and Shia.

Read More Here

McCain is fit, qualified, tested and ready to be President and Commander in Chief. Obama is fit, qualified, tested and ready for bu tone job: Poseur in Chief.

---Media Lizzy

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."

###

To be honest he should not be here doing this. Am I the only one that detects a hint of absolute arrogance in thinking that Europeans what to become another American battle ground state for public opinion? I assure you they do not. In the end they cannot vote in the election and if Europeans think Americans care about their public opinion they are crazy. Americans could care less if Germans or the French liked or disliked their president. I think the last 8 years has proven that much.

In continuance, if he were coming here to Europe for reasons related to his duties as senator, I would give him the credit of doing so, yet he is not. He is coming to smile and shake hands with presidents and prime ministers and give campaign speeches. Am I the only one seeing this as a dangerous precedent for all Europeans to accept? Once all the leaders of Europe meet with a presidential candidate are they not setting a precedent to have to do the same for all of the candidates now and in the future? Imagine if McCain goes to Europe next month and all of a sudden PM Brown cannot fit him into his schedule. What would that mean? I can hear the media buzz already. Imagine what kind of campaigns will we have in 4 years, worldwide trips an all 7 continents (there is a science station in Antarctica) looking to prove that everyone else on Earth like me the most so elect me? No, I say. Campaigning is supposed to be on American issues and we have a lot of those right now to say the least. Candidates are not supposed to be running around the world proving their popularity, yet rather trying to prove to Americans they can solve the problems at hand.

I don’t want to seem condemning of Obama and my issue is not with him directly. It is with the fact that any presidential campaign thinks they have the right to do this. I would be saying the same if McCain where coming to England. To prove my point, do we see the candidates of any other country visiting other countries and their leaders and would leaders greet them and give them an audience? The brief answer is no. So why would people accept this? Europeans talk about making the USA understand they are part of the world like the rest of us, yet in doing this they are once again playing to the USA mentality of superiority and that our campaign means more than the rest of the world’s campaigns. I think it is a disgrace and Obama should reconsider what he is doing. I also think European leaders and citizens should think twice about the signal they are sending to the world and American citizens mentality and views.

The audio is a little tough to hear, so to clarify, McCain insisted that “we have succeeded” in Iraq. In fact, he said it multiple times:

“I am happy to stand in front of you to tell you that this strategy has succeeded. It has succeeded. It has succeeded.”

I've been wondering when there would be a big trademark kerfuffle concerning Cafe Press, and I think the fact that there hasn't been so far says something good about their legal team and attempts to police their user base for infringement. But here it is, finally, and who's yelling fire? The Republicans!

Of course, what I think is pretty amusing about the whole thing is that whereas the Republican party does own the trademarks to "GOP," "Grand Old Party," "Republican National Committee," "RNC" and the official GOP elephant logo, it's not as if it's for the purpose of making money. If someone wants to put the Republican logo on a shirt, the majority of the time it's because they want to show their pride as a Republican. You know that I call that? FREE ADVERTISING. Or at least, free campaigning. I mean, there's a reason that candidates give out bumper stickers for free, right?

According to Wired blogs, the Cafe Press attorneys are making that exact point. If you look through the site, yes, there are some products that use the GOP trademarks in a critical way, but most are positive. (In the example above that I found with a quick search, we actually have a positive use of the Republican trademark and a negative use of the Democrat one.)

Does this matter? Legally, probably not. I expect Cafe Press will just end up taking down the infringing materials. I just don't get why the Republican party chose this particular battle to fight. Isn't there a bigger one going on right now?

The body of a woman, found at the apartment of a Pennsylvania woman who arrived at a hospital with a newborn infant this week, had been partially eviscerated, and her uterus had been cut open, an autopsy found.

A placenta was found at the scene, the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, medical examiner said.

The body "was in a state of moderate decomposition" and the woman had been dead for about two days, Medical Examiner Karl Williams said in a written statement.

The woman's hands and feet were bound by duct tape. The cause of death remains undetermined, Williams said.

The body was found Friday at an apartment in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, belonging to Andrea Curry-Demus, 38, according to CNN affiliate WTAE.

Curry-Demus is charged with endangering the welfare of a child, a felony, and dealing in infant children, a misdemeanor. Court records show that she was arraigned on the felony charge Friday and is next set to appear in court on Thursday. She is being held at the Allegheny County Jail, WTAE reported.

According to a criminal complaint, Curry-Demus was taken by ambulance to a local hospital Wednesday with the baby, claiming it was hers. Tests at the hospital proved that she was not the mother, and police were notified.

In the complaint, Detective Rich Grande said he interviewed Curry-Demus, who told him she purchased the baby from a woman named Tina for $1,000.

It’s been reported that most likely President Karzai will discuss a string of Nato offensives that have resulted in civilian casualties with Obama.

"I think Karzai is going to make it clear that mistakes by Nato and the Americans are not acceptable. He says that each time there is a civilian casualty it just adds to the support for the Taliban," a Kabul reporter said.

"In the last few days, Karzai went to the scene of an incident where there were civilian casualties at a wedding party in the east of Afghanistan, to console survivors and give compensation from the government. I think civilian casualties will be on the agenda."

Obama is expected to raise the issue of the quality of leadership in Afghanistan.

"Obama has been critical in the past of Karzai and the Afghan government. This is a government that many in the international community see as having too many corrupt elements to it. I think he will ask Karzai to do more to take control of the situation."

  At the Bagram base, north of Kabul, military leaders on Saturday told Obama and the other senators travelling with him about efforts to combat Taliban forces and other fighters.

The congressional delegation then met more US soldiers at Jalalabad air field, as well as the governor of Nangahar province.

Obama has said that Afghanistan is the central front in the so-called "war on terror," and he is expected to call for more US action to overthrow the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Obama has said that if he wins the US presidency he will commit at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan while reducing the number of US forces in Iraq.

If Obama is elected president and takes office in January 2009, then the Afghan elections will be one of his priorities because Karzai is facing elections in the next year.

(NC)—While most women have heard about folic acid, less than half know it's of benefit to women of childbearing age, according to the Folic Acid Alliance of Ontario. In addition, many women don't know whether they need to take folic acid, and if they do, how much they need or what are its sources.

(NC)—While most women have heard about folic acid, less than half know it's of benefit to women of childbearing age, according to the Folic Acid Alliance of Ontario. In addition, many women don't know whether they need to take folic acid, and if they do, how much they need or what are its sources.

Folic acid, the synthetic form of folate, is a B vitamin that contributes to the healthy development of babies. In Canada, it is estimated that four out of every 1,000 children born have a neural tube defect. These are birth defects that affect the brain and spinal cord. They occur shortly after conception, often before a woman knows she's pregnant. The most common defect is spina bifida, which results in the spine not forming completely early in the pregnancy.

Studies show that women who eat a diet rich in folate or foods fortified with folic acid and who take a multivitamin containing at least 0.4 mg of folic acid before pregnancy can reduce the risk of neural tube defects by up to 70 per cent.

It's recommended that women take folic acid at least three months before they get pregnant and throughout the first trimester of their pregnancy. Since not all pregnancies are planned, all women of childbearing age who are sexually active should try to eat foods rich in folic acid, like dark green leafy vegetables, bananas, nuts, and asparagus, as well as foods fortified with folic acid, such as certain breads, rice, and pasta.

Since it is challenging to get folic acid through diet alone, women should also consider taking a daily multivitamin containing a minimum of 0.4 mg folic acid, like Centrum Forte®. For more information on vitamin and mineral supplementation, visit www.centrumvitamins.ca.

- News Canada

About The Author News Canada provides a wide selection of current, ready-to-use copyright free news stories and ideas for Television, Print, Radio, and the Web. News Canada is a niche service in public relations, offering access to print, radio, television, and now the Internet media, with ready-to-use, editorial "fill" items. Monitoring and analysis are two more of our primary services. The service supplies access to the national media for marketers in the private, the public, and the not-for-profit sectors. Your corporate and product news, consumer tips and information are packaged in a variety of ready-to-use formats and are made available to every Canadian media organization including weekly and daily newspapers, cable and commercial television stations, radio stations, as well as the Web sites Canadians visit most often. Visit News Canada and learn more about the NC services.

This man stands for nothing yet promises you the world. How can

anyone seriously take anything he says for more than a grain of salt?

I know I can not. I find he can not be trusted. God only knows since he is like this now what would possibly take place should there be a major catastrophe? Would you in all honesty

Trust him to make the right call or would you be afraid that he would say one thing then go another route leaving all the American people in harms way?

I am afraid just writing about it. He has left his life long relationships, so we think, but will Mr. Wright continue to be his Spiritual Counselor should Barack win as President?

I have several concerns.

I think that Obamas only objective in this race hands down is to win.

His mind is not on the welfare of our Country or our soldiers by any means ad I will prove why I say this, because he is a liar. He is not trustworthy, nor can you count on his word.

He will say and do whatever is needed to win.

He stomps on his fans as it is already and that is what prompted me to start the web site http://www.barackobamafansite.com/

It is a different kind of fan site it is one that clearly lets these people which are filled with passion

towards Barack Obama that they are to good for him, since he uses and manipulates and out right lies to his fans, no fans deserve that.

Barack Obama is no different than the bad salesman you hear about on your local news stations that warn you about being ripped off in the local town neighborhoods. That salesman that goes door to door selling himself, taking your money the runs leaving them with nothing but broken promises and empty pockets.

This man stands for nothing, he has horrible morals as he has proved while bashing the beautiful Hillary Clinton he stomped all over her and even Bill Clinton then had the nerve to want them to help promote him, what a joke! He has lied to the public on several occasions and he plain out has no good intentions.

Look, you all have heard about on the news him wiping his web site clean of all his own fans bashing him and telling him they were done with supporting him, as a matter of fact a few of Barack Hussein Obamas supporters asked for their money they invested back! Since he went through the trouble of cleaning all those facts up on his site that goes to prove just how evil this man really is.

Why try to hide everything as if it never existed? Does he not realize that he is making himself out to look like the biggest scam artist ever? That is how I look at him now, as a scammer.

I do not trust Barack Hussein Obama for the life of me, here is a nice simple example for you all. The most important thing about my life at this very moment is my children, and people out there need to ask themselves, would you trust leaving your loved one, your children ,heck your dog for one week solid with Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama?

Would you feel safe dropping your loved one off at their home this very second and drive away leaving your loved one with him and her & their two very unhappy children? I know you say what say the are unhappy, because I am a Mom and I can see in 90% of their photos with their children that those gorgeous little girls are very sad, they are not happy just look at them they seem so lonely.

Would you worry about Michelle Obama spewing hateful blurbs at your loved one while in their care? Would you worry about one of Barack Hussein Obamas friends stopping in unexpected, like say rev. Wright or better yet Ayers?

If you feel for one split second that you would honestly have a second thought then why on earth would any of you ever consider leaving His family in charge of each and every one of us here in the United States? If you can not trust him with that you simply must realize that he is just no good.

In all honesty I would not think or let alone blink an eye over my two children being left with John McCain and his wife and children. Look at the solid family they have. They love each other they would love my children just as much and hey they even love pets unlike Barack Obama that would probably toss them in the basement of their mansion to not have to be bothered.

Would you put it past him not to? Not me, for anyone to be as ruthless as to vote against a little baby being

aborted and the abortion goes wrong and the baby is dismembered and laying there in pain and gets no medical help due to Barack Hussein Obama voting against the bill in Senate to help these innocent babies, anyone that could do that can not be trusted with your loved one.

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.” Ronald Reagan

http://conservativethoughts.us/2007/04/18/justices-uphold-abortion-procedure-ban/

Once he is finished with the “cockies”, he moves on to the “rich”. Again there is a valid argument behind Trotter’s rant, which is that National’s allegiances are with those who earn in the very top wage brackets, whose interests mostly run contrary to everyone else’s. Again Trotter generalises, as many wealthy people aren’t as evil as Trotter believes. Sure he for the most part has a point, particularly around employment law and social services, but it is not fair to group all high wage earners together. Some rich people are incredibly generous, and some charitable organisations owe a lot to the large donations they receive from single donors. I wonder how much Chris earns? And I wonder about how charitable he is?

On to the third group Trotter lambastes, the “reactionaries”. Here I agree with him 100 per cent! He defines the reactionaries as:

Defenders of the faith; upholders of decent family values; sadistic; bigoted; deranged hankerers after a world that - thankfully - has long since passed away.

The people who think prisons are the solution to the problems that fill them. The people who resent having to treat women, gays, ethnic minorities and the disabled as human beings. The people who think anyone who doesn't laugh at a racist joke is an example of "political correctness gone mad". The people who supported the Springbok Tour, thought Vietnam and Iraq were "noble causes", and opposed New Zealand becoming nuclear-free. The people who deny climate change.

Yes, these are the people you will be joining when you make the big switch. The people who have opposed every single progressive reform that New Zealand has ever undertaken - yes, every single one.

Within National’s core support, this group is certainly prevalent. The socially conservative bigots who still believe it is 1950, and have resisted every social change since then. The idiots who equate offending people with being right and discredit all who disagree with them as “political correct”. Chris Trotter is definitely on the money here!

As disillusioned as I am with Labour at times, a parliamentary majority for National is definitely concerning. I don’t trust National. I don’t believe John Key is at all sincere in most of what he says, as his message appears to change depending on his audience. You have to be incredibly naïve to believe John Key’s party really cares about “middle New Zealand”. Behind all his populist spiel, big business interests are clearly the focus. I’m not convinced anything has changed since Brash’s departure. National have a track record of saying one thing and then doing another, so what can we expect post election? Considering their policy releases are as of yet devoid of detail, how do we know what the party will do following the election? I fear for the fate of those at the very bottom of the heap. What caustic policies will National be able to push through with a parliamentary majority? It is a shame that “anything but Labour” seems to be a good enough reason for most voters to grant them that power.

Trotter is right to be alarmed, however I feel his commentary comes across hysterical. He writes very well, and is great with the English language, but gets far too carried away sometimes. I thought Trotter’s “No left turn” was a great read, with some interesting observations, however his generalisations and biases become somewhat tiresome. The same is the case with his Star Times columns.

I promised that I'd post something on who McCain is likely to pick for his running mate, so here I am making good on that promise. Like I said in the Obama VP guide, this is not an exercise in who McCain SHOULD pick for his running mate (since I'm obviously a partisan Obama supporter, my top three choices are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Jack Abramoff, heh). This was both a bit easier and bit harder for me than Obama's was. On the one hand Obama had quite a few people I could very easily see him putting on a short list for VP and a bunch of dark-horse choices. On the other hand, the reason why I could see that is because I have a pretty good idea of what Obama is looking for (and in Obama's case, despite what so many cable organizations want to show, there isn't wide-spread disappointment with him among core Democratic groups), McCain, on the other hand, does show signs of tepid support among his own base. McCain has to worry about not alienating the many facets of the right-wing when he selects his running mate. As I said above, this is not a list of people I think McCain should choose but a list of people I believe McCain will choose:

Short-List

• Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN)
• Gov. Charlie Crist (FL)
• Fmr Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)

Dark-horse

• Fmr Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR)
• Gov. Mark Sanford (SC)
• Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)
• Rep. Tom Davis (VA)

One thing which stands out about this list is how small it is compared to what I put for Obama's list, and the reason for that is that I just don't see McCain having that many people he is seriously considering for the VP spot (as compared to what Obama is doing). I was actually considering Pawlenty to be the frontrunner for VP for a while, but after hearing a few very interesting tid-bits, I'm beginning to think that Romney has a pretty decent shot (in fact, originally I considered Romney a dark-horse pick, which was conceivable but not likely). I'll add one more reason that McCain and his people might have Romney as being high on the list, he's not holding an office right now, McCain isn't particularly popular with the Republican party people, by choosing Romney he doesn't risk losing any state's governor's mansion or Senate seat (or House seat, as I have listed Davis, who is retiring this year, as a dark-horse choice). I'm still thinking that McCain will choose Pawlenty or Crist, but I'm no longer going to be surprised if he choose Romney.

And so he brings out the flip-flops.

Because what can you do when approval ratings are at a historic low, the American public desperately waits for January 2009 (184 days... as if you didn't already know), and the media ridicules every southern-drawl comment that comes out of your mouth? Steal ideas from the most popular man in politics, of course.

Unfortunately for Republicans, that man is not Senator John McCain.

And so we find ourselves facing a curious conundrum: A Republican President stealing ideas from the Democratic Presidential Nominee. What's that, Chicken Little? Why, yes, I believe the sky is falling.

The Situation

Over the past several days, President Bush has discussed ideas of troop withdrawal from Iraq, endorsed off-shore drilling, and sent U.S. diplomat William Burns to Geneva to "listen" to Iran's nuclear negotiator address members of the EU. These announcements are in direct opposition to policies to which he has firmly adhered throughout his presidency, particularly his adamant stance against Iran.

What This Means for Obama

Good news for the Obama camp. His continuous call for a time line for troop withdrawal is being considered by the last man he could ever have expected. For Democrats, this adds to the argument that Republicans have had a distorted view on the war and that Obama's ideas should be embraced. When a staunch Republican who has been adamant about maintaining a strong presence in Iraq and ignoring Iran flips and announces that he is considering troop withdrawal and is sending an ambassador to talk to Iran (two of the pillars to Obama's campaign), expect the bells of doom for the Republican party to start ringing a little louder.

What This Means for McCain

The best that can be said: at least Democrats can no longer truly say it will be Bush's third term. If Bush pushes ahead with the time line for withdrawal, McCain's most fundamental argument goes right out the window. He has repeatedly said the surge was a success and we need to continue our presence in Iraq if any level of peace is to be maintained. For a fellow Republican--and a president at that--to side with the Democrats is no good news for John McCain.

What This Means for Bush

So the bottom line: what exactly is this going to do for Bush and his legacy? Perhaps in a last ditch effort to rally public opinion he could tidy up a bit of his mess and leave the American people feeling ever-so-slightly less cynical about voting him in the White House in 2000. On the other hand, stealing ideas from a Democratic play book could damage the future of his party and ruin his place in history even more. In the end, this could pull him away from the edge, or he will free fall off the precipice into that rocky pool of notorious ex-leaders. Either way, the Obama campaign sends their thanks.

Everytime a post is created on this blog that features, pictures, stories and videos about Obama's World Tour, the video, stories, and pictures will be transfered to the Barack World Tour page.  This way you can frequently visit the page and see whats going on with Barack overseas.  Since we will still be creating blog post with this information of Obama's tour, you could just subscribe to the blogs newsletter (see sidebar) and get these updates of blog posts in your e-mail.

So, Im done talking about the blog, lets talk about Obama.  Heres some more footage, but its raw and you don't have an annoying reporter talking, instead you get to hear what Obama said to the soldiers and the soldiers response, which was great by the way.  Here the video enjoy

With Obama and McCain I have to ask myself who will do the least amount of damage. What a dilemma. How do I choose?

There is only one solution to this problem and that is the power of prayer. Make that two solutions, I can be Spirit led also (the Holy Spirit). The key to this is not who do I think is the best but who does God want in the highest office in the world. That's right the highest office in the world. the presidency of the United States commands more power and authority than any office in the world, at present. So, whom does God want? The answer? I don't know. I'm still seeking that answer.

My opinion of both men is; they both want to do what is best for America. They differ on how to do this but I believe that they both truly want to do what is in America's best interests. I can't fault a man for his convictions but I can disagree with what he believes. That is what makes America so great.

Most people can't separate disagreement with liking someone. If we disagree then we must not like this person at all. That just isn't the case. Disagreement does not have to bring about division. The Bible tells us to love our neighbor as our self. My point, agree or disagree with either candidate or those who support them but don't dislike them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion with out fear of retribution. Trust me, we have more than enough divisions in this country as it stands.

Whoever God chooses will definitely be the best man for the job and that is whom we are all seeking. God has proven both righteous and unrighteous men can be used to bring about his will.

So vote for the one God chooses not who public opinion chooses or who you like or feel would make the best president.

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Romans 13:1

If you are a english major or you teach grammar ignore the who and whom usage I tend to write like I speak.

this article is also posted on:

http://ovrcomr.blogspot.com/

Honestly, this is pretty big news. On one hand, this doesn't really seem to effect Obama all that much (in my opinion) as it's more of an affirmation. For McCain, it's a much different story though. Four years ago, McCain was asked what he would do if an Iraqi governmental official asked for the US forces to be removed. Here's what he had to say (quote lifted from DailyKos).

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

You may start to see how this could get ugly for McCain really fast. Last I checked the Iraqi government, as flawed as it may be, was elected by the people of Iraq (remember the whole purple finger thing?).  On top of that, this is the second time that Maliki has stated that he would like to see a withdrawal, and the third time an Iraqi official (including the prior two comments) has said that the government would like to see the US forces out of the country with very few permanent bases.

McCain really doesn't have that many options at his disposal from what I can tell (Genuis may see something from the Republican viewpoint that I don't see so I'll defer to him on that one). The first option would be for McCain to just flat out ignore Maliki or play down his comments which essentially says that the government in Iraq is NOT sovereign and we'll do what we please inside of their country. That would be very damaging for him as an incoming President.

The second, and even LESS likely option is for McCain to change his plan for Iraq. Instead of a 100 years there (couldn't resist, sorry) he may support a much shorter timetable, slowly working in dates for draw down. Why I don't see this happening is because it'll be a very reversal of previous statements that would open him up to attack after attack.

This is going to be something very interesting to see play out over the next few days and I'm sure the Sunday morning news programs will be covering it (these are the days you miss Tim Russert even more) quite extensively and getting opinions from the different camps. I'll be looking closely to what the different surrogates say, especially from the McCain camp, to see how they're planning on going about this.

Update 1: Marc Ambinder is reporting that an email from a top Republican adviser to McCain simply said "We're fucked." He also has the comments from McCain the last time Maliki spoke about withdrawal and McCain basically said what's he's been saying all along about the war before but Maliki's comments the first time around didn't directly endorse Obama's plan.

(NC)—While many people take multivitamins to promote good health and to help reduce the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer, new research shows that a daily multivitamin supplement may also help to optimize the health of people with type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of diabetes, results in the body not producing enough insulin or the insulin not being used effectively. Insulin helps take sugar from the blood to cells in the body. Too much sugar in the system can result in damage to various parts of the body, like the eyes and the heart.

A recent U.S. study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at the effect of a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement in people between the ages of 45 and 64, one-third of whom had type 2 diabetes. The results showed that those with diabetes who took a supplement were in dramatically better health in terms of fewer infections and days absent from work due to infection, than those with diabetes who did not take a supplement. Infections included things like respiratory infections, flu and gastrointestinal infections.

The researchers concluded that the positive effect on infection reduction was

likely due to the influence of the supplement on any existing nutritional deficiencies the participants had, that were related to poorly controlled diabetes. They suggest that a multivitamin could be of benefit to people who are overweight, have diabetes, who may have poor nutrition or who have underlying diseases.

If you're concerned about not getting an adequate amount of vitamins and minerals in your diet on a daily basis, consider taking a daily supplement like Centrum®. For more information on vitamin and mineral supplementation, visit www.centrumvitamins.ca.

- News Canada

About The Author News Canada provides a wide selection of current, ready-to-use copyright free news stories and ideas for Television, Print, Radio, and the Web. News Canada is a niche service in public relations, offering access to print, radio, television, and now the Internet media, with ready-to-use, editorial "fill" items. Monitoring and analysis are two more of our primary services. The service supplies access to the national media for marketers in the private, the public, and the not-for-profit sectors. Your corporate and product news, consumer tips and information are packaged in a variety of ready-to-use formats and are made available to every Canadian media organization including weekly and daily newspapers, cable and commercial television stations, radio stations, as well as the Web sites Canadians visit most often. Visit News Canada and learn more about the NC services.

Camp Arifjan is a United States Army installation located in the State of Kuwait it also accommodates US Air Force, US Navy, US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard as well as military personnel from the United Kingdom, Australia, Romania and Poland. Camp Arifjan is located south of Kuwait City. 

AP Report:

Opening remarks:

Shooting Hoops: