Obama on AIDS & Faith

Frustrated by Bad Science

That's why it was so frustrating for me to go to South Africa, and see the pain, and see the suffering, and then hear that the country's Minister of Health had promoted the use of beet root, sweet potato, and lemon juice as the best way to cure HIV.

Thankfully, the South African government eventually repudiated this, but it's impossible to overestimate how important it is for political leaders like this to set a good example for their people.

We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives. And one of the miracles to come out of the AIDS pandemic is that scientists have discovered medicine that can give people with HIV a new chance at life.

We are called to give them that chance. We have made progress - in South Africa, treatment provided to pregnant women has drastically reduced the incidents of infants born with the infection.

Only 1 in 5 Receiving Treatment for HIV

But despite such progress, only one in every five people with HIV around the world is receiving antiretroviral drug treatment. One in every five. We must do better.

We should work with drug companies to reduce the costs of generic anti-retroviral drugs, and work with developing nations to help them build the health infrastructure that's necessary to get sick people treated - this means more money for hospitals and medical equipment, and more training for nurses and doctors.

We need a renewed emphasis on nutrition. Right now we're finding out that there are people who are on the drugs, who are getting treatment, who are still dying because they don't have any food to eat. This is inexcusable - especially in countries that have sufficient food supplies. So we must help get them that nutrition, and this is another place where religious organizations that have always provided food to the hungry can help a great deal.

And even as we focus on the enormous crisis in Africa, we need to remember that the problem is not in Africa alone.

Alarming AIDS Rise Outside Africa

In the last few years, we have seen an alarming rise in infection rates in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean. And on this World AIDS day, we cannot forget the crisis occurring in our own backyard.

Right here in the United States, AIDS is now the leading cause of death for African American women aged 25-34, and we are also seeing many poorer and rural communities fail to get the resources they need to deal with their vulnerable populations - a problem that unfortunately some in Congress are trying to address by taking money away from larger cities that are still facing enormous problems of their own.

Kudos for Bush Effort Against HIV & AIDS

Now let me say this - I think that President Bush and this past Congress should be applauded for the resources they have contributed to the fight against HIV and AIDS. Through our country's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the United States will have contributed more than $15 billion over five years to combat HIV-AIDS overseas.

And the Global Fund, with money from the United States and other countries, has done some heroic work to fight this disease. As I traveled throughout Africa this summer, I was proud of the tangible impact that all this money was having, often through coordinated efforts with the Centers for Disease Control, the State Department, foreign governments, and non-governmental organizations.

Three AIDS Priorites for Congress

So our first priority in Congress should be to reauthorize this program when it expires in 2008.

Our second priority should be to reassess what's worked and what hasn't so that we're not wasting one dollar that could be saving someone's life.

But our third priority should be to actually boost our contribution to this effort. With all that is left to be done in this struggle - with all the other areas of the world that need our help - it's time for us to add at least an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to places like Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic will soon reach crisis proportions.

Of course, given all the strains that have been placed on the U.S. budget, and given the extraordinary needs that we face here at home, it may be hard to find the money. But I believe we must try. I believe it will prove to be a wise investment.

View the original article here

Obama and Warren

Five months earlier, on June 28, 2008, Obama made a controversial speech at a conference sponsored by Sojourners, a Christian progressive organization. The frank speech, in which Obama declared "We're no longer just a Christian nation," landed him in hot water with both liberals and conservatives.

In particular, some liberals were outraged by Obama's insistence that "... if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway."

So on December 1, 2006, Warren, who had quietly been separating himself from selected Republican policies, and Obama, who had quietly been advocating outreach to conservative Christian communities, appeared together publicly at Warren's 23,000-attendee church.

And while the event was neither held during Sunday morning church services nor was it nationally televised, religious right howls over this 2006 AIDS event were vehement.

As if to demonstrate neutrality toward Democratic presidential candidates, Warren hosted Sen. Hillary Clinton as the headline speaker for his 2007 World AIDS conference one month before the start of the 2008 Democratic primary election season.

Warren Hosts First Obama-McCain Debate

On August 16, 2008 at Saddleback Church, Pastor Rick Warren hosted and moderated the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, which was the first debate between 2008 presidential candidates Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

Warren posed fairly the same unrehearsed questions to both candidates, although an odd mix-up occurred whereby McCain seemed to have heard a few questions and Obama's responses before McCain's time slot.

Again, Obama warmly prefaced his words with homage to Warren:

"Well, first of all, let me thank you for having me here, Rick. I love the ministries that are taking place here at Saddleback. This is the second time I've been here and the first time we had a wonderful time... "

Obama Invites Warren to Lead Nation in 2009 Inaugural Prayer

In mid-December 2008, Democratic President-elect Barack Obama invited Rick Warren, conservative evangelical pastor and an ordained Southern Baptist Convention minister, to lead the nation in the January 20, 2009 Inaugural Day Invocation.

Obama bestowed this sacred and historic honor on Warren because, "... a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak."

And because, "During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that's how it should be, because that's what America's about."

The Barack Obama-Rick Warren Partnership, 2009 and Beyond

Both Barack Obama and Rick Warren have made it abundantly clear that their areas of disagreement, including respect and rights for gay Americans and for those on both heartfelt sides of the abortion debate, are less important to either of them than the benefits of working together.

But the rest of us are left with far more questions than answers about the odd ideological pairing of Obama and Warren, and what it means for unreconcilable perspectives on certain burning civil and moral questions.

View the original article here

Obama on Immigration

"Under the new system, just a few of the current family preferences would be retained in any recognizable form. Spouses and children of U.S. citizens would still be able to come.

Bush Plan: Foreign-Born Parents of U.S. Citizens Denied Residency

"However, parents of U.S. citizens would no longer be counted as immediate families, and thus most parents seeking to join their children and grandchildren in the United States would be denied green cards. The rest of the current family preferences – siblings, adult children, and many parents -- would be eviscerated.

"The new points system also would eliminate employment-based green cards altogether, forcing employers recruiting workers abroad to rely exclusively on short-term H-1B and Y visas. This proposal takes an admittedly problematic, employment-based visa system and replaces it with a far more problematic, temporary worker program.

Pushing Latino Workers to the Back of an Endless Line

"The design of the points system leaves numerous questions unanswered. Beyond pushing workers from Latin America to the back of an endless line, with no hope of ever reaching the front, the new points system leaves unspecified the crucial question of how migrants with sufficient points will be prioritized.

"Government bureaucrats would thus be left with unprecedented discretion to determine which immigrants have acceptable education, employment history, and work experience to merit admission into the country.

"Taken together, the questionable design of this points program and the fundamental shift away from family preferences in the allocation of visas raise enough red flags that we should not simply rubber stamp this proposal and allow it to go forward.

"Let me be clear: Senators Menendez, Feingold, and I are not proposing to strike the program from the bill. But this system should be revisited after a reasonable amount of time to determine whether it’s working, how it can be improved, and whether we should return to the current family and employer based system that has worked so well.

This Is Not Who We Are as a Country

"We live in a global economy, and I do believe that America will be strengthened if we welcome more immigrants who have mastered science and engineering.

"But, we cannot weaken the very essence of what America is by turning our backs on immigrants who want to reunite with their family members, or immigrants who have a willingness to work hard but who may not have the right graduate degrees.

"This is not who we are as a country.

"Should those without graduate degrees who spoke Italian or Polish or German, instead of English, have been turned back at Ellis Island?

"Should the immigrants from Asia who arrived at Angel Island to build our railroads have been told that they could only come for two years because they had no hope of passing a points test?

"How many of our ancestors would have been allowed to enter the U.S. under this new system?

America Does Not Have a Caste or Class Based Society

"Character and work ethic have long defined generations of immigrants to America. But these qualities are beyond the scope of this bill’s points system.

"It tells us nothing about what people who have been without opportunity can achieve once they are here.

"It tells us nothing about the potential of their children to serve and to lead.

"We are Americans. We do not have a caste or class based society, and we do not need a caste or class based immigration system.

"In short, the points system raises some serious concerns for me.

"Now, I’m willing to defer to those senators who negotiated this provision and say we should give this a try. But I’m not willing to say that this untested system should be made virtually permanent.

"For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment to sunset this points system after five years so we can examine its effectiveness and necessity."

View the original article here

Obama Nat'l Export Initiative

Text of the President remarks in support of U.S. trade policies, in which he announced a new 2010 Executive Order establishing the National Export Initiative: "a single, comprehensive strategy to promote American exports" which includes smart, immediate steps "to increase financing, advocacy, and assistance for American businesses to locate, set up shop, and win new markets" and to "making sure American companies have free and fair access to those markets" by ensuring that existing trade pacts "will be as good for workers as it is for businesses, including strong labor and environmental protections that we’ll enforce."Per the President, "So that’s how we’re going to double our exports, open up new markets, and level the playing field for American businesses and American workers... I have every confidence that we will succeed in this effort."

(Also read Pros & Cons of Free Trade Agreements.)

The White House
Remarks by the President at the Export-Import Bank's 2010 Annual Conference

Now, it has been our most pressing priority over the first year of my administration to deal with an unprecedented economic crisis -- one that has been as serious as anything since the Great Depression. To do that required difficult and sometimes unpopular steps to rescue our financial system and to jumpstart an economic recovery.

But we took those steps. And because we did, we can stand here just over a year later, and say that we prevented another depression, we broke the back of the recession, and the economy that was shrinking a year ago is growing today.

Prosperity has been based on fleeting bubbles, rampant speculation

What’s also clear is that we’ve got a long way to go. More than 8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. Millions more remain underemployed, including those doing part-time work or odd jobs. And the middle class across this country has felt their economic security eroding for longer than they care to remember. That’s why we continue to do everything we can to foster private sector job creation and to restore some sense of security.

But the fact is, if we want to once again approach full employment; if we want to create broad, shared, and lasting wealth for our workers and our families; if we want an America that is ready to compete on the global playing field in the 21st century –- then we can’t slide back into an economy where we borrow too much and put off tough challenges.

We can’t return to an economy where too much of our prosperity is based on fleeting bubbles and rampant speculation. We have to rebuild our economy on a new, stronger, more balanced foundation for the future –- a foundation that will advance the American people’s prosperity at home, and support American leadership in the world.

Building a solid foundation to advance U.S. prosperity

And that’s precisely what we’ve begun to do: We’re catalyzing a new clean energy industry that has the potential to employ millions of workers in good jobs. We’re investing in the skills and education of our workers, and reforming our education system with a goal to once again lead the world in the proportion of college graduates by the end of this decade. We’re building a better health care system that works for our people, our businesses, and our government alike. We’re establishing clear, common-sense rules of the road for Wall Street that encourage innovation and creativity instead of recklessness and irresponsibility; rules that prevent firms from taking risks that threaten to bring down the entire economy. And we are rebuilding an economy where we generate more American jobs in more American industries by producing and exporting more goods and services to other nations. Now, in my State of the Union address, I set a goal of doubling America’s exports over the next five years -– an increase that will support 2 million American jobs. And I’ve come to the Export-Import Bank Conference today to discuss the initial steps that we’re taking to achieve that goal.

Controversies over trade and globalization

I know the issue of exports and imports, the issue of trade and globalization, have long evoked the passions of a lot of people in this country. I know there are differences of opinion between Democrats and Republicans, between business and labor, about the right approach. But I also know we are at a moment where it is absolutely necessary for us to get beyond those old debates.

Those who would once support every free trade agreement now see that other countries have to play fair and the agreements have to be enforced. Otherwise we're putting America at a profound disadvantage. Those who once would once oppose any trade agreement now understand that there are new markets and new sectors out there that we need to break into if we want our workers to get ahead.

And meanwhile, if you ask the average American what trade has offered them, they won’t say that their televisions are cheaper, or productivity is higher. They’d say they’ve seen the plant across town shut down, jobs dry up, communities deteriorate.

And you can’t blame them for feeling that way. The fact is other countries haven’t always played by the same set of rules. America hasn’t always enforced our trade rights, or made sure that the benefits of trade are broadly shared. And we haven’t always done enough to help our workers adapt to a changing world.

We must look out for U.S. workers

Now, there’s no question that as we compete in the global marketplace, we’ve got to look out for our workers. But to look out for our workers, we’ve got to be able to compete in the global marketplace. It’s never been as important an opportunity for America as it is right now.

In a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative. Our exports support millions of American jobs. You know this well. In 2008, we exported more than $1 trillion of manufactured goods, supporting more than one in five manufacturing jobs -– and those jobs, by the way, pay about 15 percent more than average.

We led the world in service exports, which support 2.8 million jobs. We exported nearly $100 billion in agricultural goods. And every $1 billion increase in exports supports more than 6,000 additional jobs.

View the original article here

Obama Rejects Torture Bill

Senator Barack Obama delivered this speech on the floor of the US Senate, in reaction to Senate passage of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved U.S. torture of detainees and strips Constitutional rights away from detainees.

Senator Obama decries the placement of politics over human rights, and condemns S. 3930. He states, "This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism."

STATEMENT ON THE MILITARY COMMISSION LEGISLATION

September 28, 2006
Remarks by Senator Barack Obama

"I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here.

I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be criticized as caring more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire.

Human Rights Should Be Bigger Than Politics

And yet, while I know all of this, I'm still disappointed. Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

If this was a debate with obvious ideological differences - heartfelt convictions that couldn't be settled by compromise - I would understand. But it's not.

All of us - Democrats and Republicans - want to do whatever it takes to track down terrorists and bring them to justice as swiftly as possible. All of us want to give our President every tool necessary to do this. And all of us were willing to do that in this bill. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to the American people.

Unconstitutional

In the five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question. Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered. Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused. And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.Politics Won Today

But politics won today. Politics won. The Administration got its vote, and now it will have its victory lap, and now they will be able to go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that they were the ones who were tough on the terrorists. And yet, we have a bill that gives the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 his day in court, but not the innocent people we may have accidentally rounded up and mistaken for terrorists - people who may stay in prison for the rest of their lives. And yet, we have a report authored by sixteen of our own government's intelligence agencies, a previous draft of which described, and I quote, "...actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay..." And yet, we have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact.The problem with this bill is not that it's too tough on terrorists. The problem with this bill is that it's sloppy.

And the reason it's sloppy is because we rushed it to serve political purposes instead of taking the time to do the job right.

I've heard, for example, the argument that it should be military courts, and not federal judges, who should make decisions on these detainees. I actually agree with that.

View the original article here

Obama - Financial Security

On November 7, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama delivered an unusual and inspiring campaign speech in which he outlined specific, outside-the-box plans to address the extreme financial challenges facing middle-class Americans.

Among the specific interesting points in Barack Obama's Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream were: Middle class tax cuts of up to $1,000 for working families. Guaranteed paid sick days for workers and expand the Family and Medical Leave Act. Help Americans buy and keep their homes. Reforming bankruptcy laws, predatory credit card policies, and abusive payday lending practices. Reduce health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family. Provide a $4,000 refundable tax credit for college tuition(See Barack Obama in 2008 Info Hub and News Center.)

Also see American Middle-Class Rage Over Bush Economic, Spending Priorities.

The following is the text of Sen. Obama's speech.

RECLAIMING THE AMERICAN DREAM
Delivered on November 7, 2007 in Bettendorf, Iowa

If you spend time in Washington, you hear a lot about the divisions in our country. About how we're becoming more separated by geography and ideology; race and religion; wealth and opportunity.

And we've had plenty of politicians who try to take advantage of these divisions - pitting Americans against one another, or targeting different messages to different audiences.

But as I've traveled around Iowa and the rest of the country these last nine months, I haven't been struck by our differences - I've been impressed by the values and hopes that we share.

In big cities and small towns; among men and women; young and old; black, white, and brown - Americans share a faith in simple dreams: A job with wages that can support a family. Health care that we can count on and afford. A retirement that is dignified and secure. Education and opportunity for our kids. Common hopes. American dreams.

These are dreams that drove my grandparents. After my grandfather served in World War II, the GI Bill gave him a chance to go to college, and the government gave them a chance to buy a home. They moved West, worked hard at different jobs, and were able to provide my mother with a decent education, to help raise me, and to save enough to retire.

These are dreams that drove my father-in-law. A city worker in Chicago, he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis at the age of 30. But every day, even when he had to leave an hour earlier in the morning and rely on a walker to get him there, he went to work while his wife stayed home with the kids. And on that single salary, he provided for his family and sent my wife Michelle and her brother to college. His dream was to see them do better. And they have.

These are dreams that drove my mother. A single mom - even while relying on food stamps as she finished her education, she followed her passion for helping others, and raised my sister and me to believe that in America there are no barriers to success - no matter what color you are, no matter where you're from, no matter how much money you have.

And these are the dreams that led me to Chicago over two decades ago to become a community organizer. The salary - $12,000 a year - wasn't what my friends would make in the corporate world or at law firms.

I didn't know a single person in Chicago. But I knew there were folks who needed help. The steel plant had closed. Jobs were disappearing.

In a forgotten corner of America, the American dream was slipping away. And I knew dreams are worth fighting for.

(See Barack Obama in 2008 Info Hub and News Center.)

View the original article here

Obama at 2011 Nat'l Prayer Brkfst

Over the past two years, the nature of these obligations, the proper role of government has obviously been the subject of enormous controversy. And the debates have been fierce as one side’s version of compassion and community may be interpreted by the other side as an oppressive and irresponsible expansion of the state or an unacceptable restriction on individual freedom.

That's why a second recurring theme in my prayers is a prayer for humility. Now, God answered this prayer for me early on by having me marry Michelle. Because whether it’s reminding me of a chore undone, or questioning the wisdom of watching my third football game in a row on Sunday, she keeps me humble.

Humility: "None of us has all the answers."

But in this life of politics when debates have become so bitterly polarized, and changes in the media lead so many of us just to listen to those who reinforce our existing biases, it’s useful to go back to Scripture to remind ourselves that none of us has all the answers -- none of us, no matter what our political party or our station in life.

The full breadth of human knowledge is like a grain of sand in God’s hands. And there are some mysteries in this world we cannot fully comprehend. As it’s written in Job, "God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways. He does great things beyond our understandings."

The challenge I find then is to balance this uncertainty, this humility, with the need to fight for deeply held convictions, to be open to other points of view but firm in our core principles. And I pray for this wisdom every day.

I pray that God will show me and all of us the limits of our understanding, and open our ears and our hearts to our brothers and sisters with different points of view; that such reminders of our shared hopes and our shared dreams and our shared limitations as children of God will reveal the way forward that we can travel together.

"My prayer... is that we seek His face... each and every day."

And the last recurring theme, one that binds all prayers together, is that I might walk closer with God and make that walk my first and most important task.

In our own lives it’s easy to be consumed by our daily worries and our daily concerns. And it is even easier at a time when everybody is busy, everybody is stressed, and everybody -- our culture is obsessed with wealth and power and celebrity. And often it takes a brush with hardship or tragedy to shake us out of that, to remind us of what matters most.

We see an aging parent wither under a long illness, or we lose a daughter or a husband in Afghanistan, we watch a gunman open fire in a supermarket -- and we remember how fleeting life can be.

And we ask ourselves how have we treated others, whether we’ve told our family and friends how much we love them. And it’s in these moments, when we feel most intensely our mortality and our own flaws and the sins of the world, that we most desperately seek to touch the face of God.

So my prayer this morning is that we might seek His face not only in those moments, but each and every day; that every day as we go through the hustle and bustle of our lives, whether it’s in Washington or Hollywood or anywhere in between, that we might every so often rise above the here and now, and kneel before the Eternal; that we might remember, Kaye, the fact that those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint.

"I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people."

When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people. And when I go to bed at night I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to forgive me my sins, and look after my family and the American people, and make me an instrument of His will.

I say these prayers hoping they will be answered, and I say these prayers knowing that I must work and must sacrifice and must serve to see them answered. But I also say these prayers knowing that the act of prayer itself is a source of strength.

It’s a reminder that our time on Earth is not just about us; that when we open ourselves to the possibility that God might have a larger purpose for our lives, there’s a chance that somehow, in ways that we may never fully know, God will use us well.

May the Lord bless you and keep you, and may He bless this country that we love.

SOURCE - White House Website

View the original article here

Obama Nat'l Export Initiative

 U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke

David McNew/Getty ImagesAnd this effort will extend throughout my administration: Secretary Locke is issuing guidance to all senior government officials who have foreign counterparts on how they can best promote our exports. Secretary Clinton is mobilizing a commercial diplomacy strategy, directing every one of our embassies to create a senior visitors business liaison who will manage our export advocacy efforts locally, and when our ambassadors return stateside, we’ll ask them to travel the United States to discuss export opportunities in their countries of assignment.> We’re also announcing more than 40 trade and reverse trade missions that are scheduled for this year. The Department of Commerce, for example, has sent a trade mission to India this week; Secretary Vilsack is off to Japan on April 15th. So advocacy is going to be critical.

New opportunities, new markets for U.S. exporters

Third, we’ll unleash a battery of comprehensive and coordinated efforts to promote new markets and new opportunities for American exporters.

Many businesses want to export their products but just don’t have the resources required to identify new markets or set up shop overseas. And that’s where we can help.

We’ll bring together the Ex-Im Bank, the SBA, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, and the Trade Development Agency to set up one-stop shops across the country and in our 250 embassies and consulates abroad, to help American businesses gain a foothold in the fastest-growing markets with the most demand.

And we’ll provide a comprehensive toolkit of services –- from financing to counseling to promotion –- to help potential exporters grow and expand.

We’ll create public-private partnerships to help firms break into new markets with the help of those who have been there –- shipping and supply-chain companies, for example. And we’ll increase funding for existing promotion efforts. We’ll increase funding for the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, and strengthen the USDA’s ability to connect farmers with new overseas markets.

So we’re going to increase financing, advocacy, and assistance for American businesses to locate, set up shop, and win new markets. Those are the first three aims of the National Export Initiative.

Trade agreements must be fair to U.S. businesses

The fourth focuses on making sure American companies have free and fair access to those markets. And that begins by enforcing trade agreements we already have on the books.

When I ran for President, I promised that when the United States of America puts its name to an agreement, that agreement will be as good for workers as it is for businesses, including strong labor and environmental protections that we’ll enforce. My administration is living up to that promise.

Ambassador Kirk has been doing an extraordinary job as our United States Trade Representative, and he’s been working to knock down barriers that unfairly keep American companies from markets we belong in, hold our trade partners to their labor and environmental obligations, and crack down on practices that blatantly harm our companies.

But keep in mind, the United States offers some of the world’s lowest barriers to trade. That’s why we can often get more out of a trade deal, because our borders are largely already open. And when we give other countries the privilege of that free and fair access, we can expect it in return.

Moving forward with trade agreement negotiations

That’s the spirit in which we’ll move forward: So we’re going to continue to work towards an ambitious and a balanced Doha agreement -– not just for the sake of any agreement, but for one that enhances market access for American agriculture and goods and services. We’re going to strengthen relations with key partners, specifically South Korea, Panama, Colombia, with the goal of moving forward with existing agreements in a way that upholds our values. And we will pursue negotiations in the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we launched last year with some of the most dynamic economies in Asia -– negotiations that I believe will result in a new standard for 21st century trade agreements that aren’t just good for workers, businesses, and farmers, but also consistent with our most cherished values.More aggressive protection of U.S. intellectual properties

What’s more, we’re going to aggressively protect our intellectual property. Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century.

But it’s only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can’t just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor. There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it –- we just want to make sure that it’s licensed, and that American businesses are getting paid appropriately.

That’s why USTR is using the full arsenal of tools available to crack down on practices that blatantly harm our businesses, and that includes negotiating proper protections and enforcing our existing agreements, and moving forward on new agreements, including the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

View the original article here

Obama Education Plan

NCLB Has Demoralized Teachers, Students
The fact is, No Child Left Behind has done more to stigmatize and demoralize our students and teachers in struggling schools than it has to marshal the talent and the determination and the resources to turn them around.

That's what's wrong with No Child Left Behind, and that's what we must change in a fundamental way.

I want to lead a new era of mutual responsibility in education - one where we all come together for the sake of our children's success; an era where each of us does our part to make that success a reality - parents and teachers; leaders in Washington and citizens all across America.

I won't pretend that this will be easy. We must fix the failures of No Child Left Behind. We must provide the funding we were promised, and give our states the resources they need, and finally meet our commitment to special education.

But that alone is not an education policy. It's just a starting point.

Commit "Full Resources of the Federal Government"
A truly historic commitment to education - a real commitment - will require new resources and new reforms. It will require a willingness to break free from the same debates that Washington has been engaged in for decades - Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more accountability.

And most of all, it will take a President who is honest about the challenges we face - who doesn't just tell everyone what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.

I am running to be that President. And that's why I'm proposing a comprehensive plan to give every American child the chance to receive the best education America has to offer - from the moment they're born to the day they graduate college.

As President, I will put the full resources of the federal government behind this plan. But to make it a reality, I will also ask more of teachers and principals; parents and students; schools and communities.

A few weeks ago, I introduced my plan to make college affordable by creating a $4,000 per year refundable tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university. And yesterday, I unveiled my proposal to strengthen our community colleges by offering new degrees for emerging fields and rewarding schools that graduate more students.

Today, I want to talk about what we can do to prepare every student to succeed in college - preparation that begins at birth and continues with world-class schools, outstanding teachers, and transformative principals.

Part One: Affordable Early Childhood Education
The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality, affordable early childhood education to every American child.

We know what a difference early childhood programs make in the lives of our kids. Study after study proves that children in these programs - especially low-income children - are more likely to score higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, more likely to hold a job and more likely to earn more on that job. And for every $1 we invest in these programs, we get $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less crime.

In recent years, states have been able to enroll nearly one million four year olds in pre-Kindergarten programs. That's a great success, but I believe we can do better.

We need to enroll more children and we need to start at an even earlier age. Because the fact is, studies show that from the time of conception to the first day of kindergarten, children's development progresses faster than at any other stage of life. By the age of three, 85% of the brain's core structure is already formed. Eighty-five percent.

So here's what we did in Illinois. As a state Senator, I helped create the Illinois Early Learning Council, which launched a program called Preschool for All. This has made us one of the first states to commit to a high quality early learning program that starts helping children from the day they're born.

It provides early care and education for new families as well as at-risk infants and toddlers, and offer at-risk three-year olds and all four-year-olds the chance to enroll in pre-Kindergarten programs.

There is no reason we can't and shouldn't replicate this all across America.

Children's First Agenda for Ages Zero to Five
As President, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families.

We'll increase Head Start funding and quadruple Early Start to include a quarter of a million at-risk children.

I will create a Presidential Early Learning Council to coordinate this effort across all levels of government and ensure that we're providing these children and families with the highest quality programs.

And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our child care programs and increasing the child care tax credit.

That's how we'll give our kids the best possible start in life, and that's the commitment America will make when I am President.

View the original article here

Obama Inaug Address

My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.

Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.

The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.

We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.

We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs.

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.

All this we can do. All this we will do.

View the original article here

Obama Veterans Policies

Logan M. Bunting/Getty ImagesThe following article sets forth President Obama's basic goals and underlying principles for veterans policies and plans under his administration.

The White House
Veterans - Guiding Principles

A 21st Century VA

"The President’s message to those who serve is this: when you come home to America, America will be there for you.

"This Administration will ensure that DoD and VA coordinate to provide a seamless transition from active duty to civilian life and help fix the benefit bureaucracy. This Administration will work towards modernizing the way health care is delivered and benefits are administered for our nation's veterans.

VA Healthcare

"With Secretary Shinseki, the President will make sure the VA provides veterans the best care possible. This means improved care for poly-trauma, vision impairment, prosthetics, spinal cord injury, aging, and women's health.

"Because the nightmares of war don't always end when our loved ones return home, this Administration will work to meet the mental health needs of our veterans. Untold thousands of servicemen and women and veterans suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other serious psychological injury. This Administration is determined to address the challenges of caring for those affected by PTSD when they return home.

"Because thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have suffered from Traumatic Brain Injury, one of the signature injuries of these wars, this Administration will continue to improve services for cognitive injuries and ensure our veterans receive the on-going care they need.

"The President supports advance appropriations for the VA budget so that healthcare for veterans is not hindered by budget delays.

VA Services

"We all share the shame of well over one hundred thousand veterans going homeless on any given night. This Administration will work on pilot programs with not-for-profit organizations to make sure that veterans at risk of losing their homes have a roof over their heads.

"Finally, this Administration recognizes that our veterans deserve something more -- an equal chance to reach for the very dream they defend.

"This Administration is committed to providing the resources to effectively implement the Post-9/11 GI Bill – providing every returning service member with a real chance to afford a college education.

Source - The White House website, April 2010

View the original article here

Obama on Immigration 2010

Our founding was rooted in the notion that America was unique as a place of refuge and freedom for, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, "oppressed humanity."

But the ink on our Constitution was barely dry when, amidst conflict, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which placed harsh restrictions of those suspected of having foreign allegiances. A century ago, immigrants from Ireland, Italy, Poland, other European countries were routinely subjected to rank discrimination and ugly stereotypes. Chinese immigrants were held in detention and deported from Angel Island in the San Francisco Bay. They didn’t even get to come in.

U.S. borders have been porous for decades

So the politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.

To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.

Unscrupulous businesses exploit undocumented immigrants

The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble.

But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair advantage.

Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.

The legal immigration system is broken

More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally. Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders: Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years. While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart. High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants. And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States.Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.

Reform held hostage to political posturing

In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.

Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform. Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate.

But that effort eventually came apart. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.

Arizona's new law: divisive, dangerous, unenforceable

Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.

Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.

Violating the rights of innocent Americans

And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.

These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.

And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.

Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.

For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?

View the original article here

Rating Barack Obama - Debate Scoreboard for the 2008 Democratic Race

Follow the links for more info about each event.

Des Moines Register debate on Dec 13, 2007 - Barack Obama was honest, forthright, fair, respectable, competent, family-oriented, religious, and very bright, but seen by detractors as inexperienced, mild, too intellectual, naive, and short on policy specifics.

CNN Debate in Las Vegas, November 15, 2007, moderated by Wolf Blitzer - Barack Obama consistently offered thoughtful, brilliant responses, and appropriately challenged Sen. Clinton when her soundbites were misleading. I cheered loudly in agreement when Sen. Obama...

NBC News/Philadelphia Debate, October 30, 2007, moderated by Brian Williams, Tim Russert - As he intellectualized and yakked and promised the media ahead of the debate, Barack Obama came out swinging at Hillary Clinton. Sort of. Eventually. Softly at first, morphing into medium-strength...

ABC News/Iowa Debate, August 19, 2007, moderated by George Stephanopoulos - Sen. Obama demonstrated a firm, mature grasp of the issues, and resisted the politico urge to speak in angry tones or rehearsed slogans. Obama actually answered questions...

CNN-YouTube Debate, July 23, 2007, moderated by CNN's Anderson Cooper - At last, a format that allows Barack Obama to display his quick wit and intellect, and his quasi-rock star presence. CNN focus groups interviewed after the program named him the candidate who most understood their issues.

PBS-Howard University debate, June 28, 2007, moderated by Tavis Smiley - Sen. Obama gave intelligent, thoughtfully nuanced answers. His insights were unique and progressive, yet moderate. Sen. Obama is a brilliant man, as well as a likeable, mature person. But Sen. Clinton was clearly in-charge on that stage.

California Democratic Convention, April 28-29, 2007 - Obama delivered a superbly uplifting speech that brought the delegates to their feet time and time again. He spoke unvarnished truth to power on the Iraq War, on education, on price-gouging by Big Pharma, and on torture...

DNC Winter Kick-Off Meeting, February 1-3, 2007 - I respect that Sen. Obama is not one to pander to a particular crowd. His no-frills approach was appropriate and, frankly, a welcome relief from the gamesmanship of US political campaigns. I respect that he didn't bait his hungry Democratic audience into a frenzy with cheap-cliche manipulation. But the senator's staff needs to remind him that dour rarely wins the day, much less the election.

View the original article here

Obama health insurance reform

Photo: Sara D. Davis/Getty ImagesOn July 29, 2009, President Obama outlined aggressive plans to reform health insurance plans offered by private insurers such as United Healthcare, Wellpoint, Kaiser and all other private U.S. health insurers.

In 2009, over 200 million Americans are covered by health insurance plans provided by private insurers.

Called Health Insurance Consumer Protections by the White House, Such reforms are urgently needed to combat egregious practices commonly used by insurers to exclude people from health coverage, and to avoid paying for health care services used by people who have paid their premiums.

In summary, President Obama's health insurance plan reform agenda includes the following: No Pre-Existing Conditions to Exclude Coverage

Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. Per President Obama: "We will stop insurance companies from denying you coverage because of your medical history.

"I've told this story before -- I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition so they could wiggle out of paying for her coverage.

How many of you have worried about the same thing? A lot of people have gone through this. Many of you have been denied insurance or heard of someone who was denied insurance because they got -- had a preexisting condition. That will no longer be allowed with reform. We won't allow that."

Will Cap Out-of-Pocket Expenses Annually

Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. Per President Obama: "With reform, insurance companies will have to abide by a yearly cap on how much you can be charged for your out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because of an illness."

No Lifetime Caps for Health Care Coverage

Per President Obama: "We will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime."

No Dropping Coverage Due to Serious Illness

Per President Obama: "No longer will insurance companies be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who's become seriously ill. That's not right, it's not fair."

No Gender Discrimination

Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

100% Coverage for Check-Ups, Preventive Health Care

President Obama: "We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies, eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost not only lives, but money."

Coverage for Young Adults

Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

President Obama summarized at a healthcare townhall in North Carolina, "... if you're one of the 46 [million] Americans who don't have coverage today, or you've got that coverage where you got a $10,000 deductible,... then you'll finally be able to get quality, affordable coverage.

But what a lot of chatter out there hasn't focused on is the fact that if you've got health insurance, then the reform we're proposing will also help you because it will provide you more stability and more security.

Because the truth is we have a system today that works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn't always work well for you. So what we need, and what we will have when we pass these reforms, are health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable.

View the original article here

Obama Middle East Victories

President Obama's bold foreign policy and national security victories and successes in 2011 will cede him commanding leadership of the issue in the 2012 presidential elections.

In contrast, the President's top 2012 Republican competitors... former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, media personality and businessman Herman Cain... possess no foreign policy experience whatsoever.

President Obama proudly announced in his October 22, 2011 weekly address:

"This week, we had two powerful reminders of how we’ve renewed American leadership in the world. I was proud to announce that—as promised—the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of this year. And in Libya, the death of Moammar Qadhafi showed that our role in protecting the Libyan people, and helping them break free from a tyrant, was the right thing to do...

"These successes are part of a larger story. After a decade of war, we’re turning the page and moving forward, with strength and confidence. The drawdown in Iraq allowed us to refocus on Afghanistan and achieve major victories against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. As we remove the last of our troops from Iraq, we’re beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan"

Obama Successes vs. Republican Failures

The bold success of President Obama's Middle East policies sharply contrast with Republican foreign policy miscalculations, including the bumbling failures of George Bush/Dick Cheney administration: Osama bin Laden - On May 2, 2011 by command of President Obama, U.S. Navy Seals killed international terrorist and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The CIA-coordinated covert operation was exquisitely executed, and resulted in bin Laden's burial at sea.

In contrast, the Bush administration wasted billions over almost eight years ineptly chasing bin Laden, with no success. Immediately after 9/11, President Bush had declared that bin Laden's capture was a top priority. In fact, a 2009 government report showed that the Bush administration bungled a late 2001 opportunity to kill bin Laden.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi - Brutal despot Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan dictator for 32 years, was killed on October 20, 2011 as a direct result of President Obama's leadership in forging a U.N.-based coalition to protect the Libyan people.

In March 2011, the President declared, "... we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy... where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government."

Republican lawmakers decried and parodied the President's Libya strategy, dubbing it "leading from behind" because the U.S. was working in concert with other countries... not taking the lead role in bombing and occupying Libya.

President Obama's successful Libya strategy proved, over only seven months, the worthiness and credibility of The Obama Doctrine on Foreign Intervention and War. Said the President, "Without putting a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objective."

"'The contrast between Bush's handling of Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama's handling of Libya is breathtaking,' said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'No ground footprint, no U.S. casualties and no responsibility for the day after,'" reported the Los Angeles Times.

Iraq War Withdrawal of U.S. Troops As he promised in his 2008 campaign, President Obama has ordered withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

"The announcement triggered some foolish criticism from neo-conservatives — who remain shamefully unapologetic for their role in unleashing this war — accused Mr. Obama of abandoning Iraq now. Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, said Mr. Obama 'unnecessarily put at risk' hard-won victories. Like most of what Mr. Romney says about national security, that was absurd," opined the New York Times on October 21, 2011.

Through September 30, 2011, nearly 4,500 U.S. military have been killed in the Iraq War, and about 33,000 gravely wounded. The Bush/Cheney-led attack on and occupation of Iraq has cost American taxpayers almost $1 trillion, much of it lost through corruption and fraud. Yet nine years later, stability and democracy remain elusive in Iraq.

When President Obama was sworn into office, 142,000 U.S. solidiers were fighting in Iraq. At the end of September 2011, only 40,00o remained. "... today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over," announced the President on October 21, 2011.

Obama's former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, now Chicago mayor, summed up the 2012 politics of foreign policy when he told the New York Times, "Osama,... Qaddafi and now Iraq all underscore one thing: When it comes to being commander in chief, there is not a single Republican who can measure up to that."

View the original article here

Obama on Patriotism

I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

Patriotism to Country, Not Government

Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy.

As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred.

But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

Who Is a Patriot?

The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed – he was a patriot.

The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib – he is a patriot.

Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country's name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America.

And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Patriotism Involves Sacrifice

Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.

For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary.

And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.

We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.

For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.

Americans Not Asked by Bush to Sacrifice

Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount.

Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

New American Leadership Rising in Service of Others

In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call.

I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.

I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come.

We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.

True Patriotism Can't Be Legislated

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school.

The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names.

Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker's rights. It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one's community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard. And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

View the original article here

Obama and Warren

At first glance, admiring collaboration between a liberal politican and a religious right pastor may seen farfetched.

But when the politican is best-selling author and President-elect Barack Obama and the pastor is best-selling author and megachurch leader Rick Warren, the two most successful U.S. marketers of ideas and sellers of nonfiction books in the 21st century, their collaboration makes pragmatic sense.

Problem is, Obama and Warren claim to disagree on certain highly divisive social issues, including abortion and gay and lesbian rights, and have sharply differing theological beliefs.

Although their differences are fundamental to to the lives and moral beliefs of their followers and supporters, Obama and Warren both dismiss these differences as merely a couple points of contention among a myriad of equally vital issues.

That the two great American gurus of this decade, Barack Obama and Rick Warren, are irresistibly drawn to work together is apparently a given. The reasons for their mutual attraction, though,... presumably some combination of desire to be publicly associated with the other, competitiveness, approval, and genuine admiration... may never be known.

Meanwhile, most of the American public is puzzled and confused by the emergence of a public partnership between the liberal politician and the religious right pastor.

Warren: George Bush Supporter in 2004

The Obama-Warren partnership seems to have begun after the 2004 reelection of President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

As is the case for most pastors, Rick Warren and wife Kay have not made political campaign contributions, per public records.

But on January 15, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that one Richard Warren of Lake Forest, California, where Pastor Warren resides, gave $100,000 to President Bush's Inaugural Fund. (See HERE for a complete list of donors who gave $100,000 or more to George Bush's 2005 inaugural party fund.)

There is little-to-no public evidence throughout 2005 of a budding working relationship between Rick Warren and Barack Obama, nor does evidence exist of Warren then becoming disenchanted with Bush administration policies.

Warren Split in 2006 with Some Bush Policies?

However, I wrote on December 14, 2005 here at About.com Liberal Politics, "Last week, leaders of five Christian denominations in the US jointly sent a letter to President Bush, reiterating their horrified view of his 2006 post-election budget priorities."

In my column, I described how leaders of five Protestant denominatons had jointly taken the Bush administration to task for a budget that "reduces aid to those in poverty" while it "showers presents on the rich... If passed in its current form, it would take Jesus' teaching on economic justice and stand it on its head...."

I added: "Notably absent from the national religious conversation of concern for the poor, hungry, homeless and the 45 million Americans with no health insurance were Christian lobbyist and Karl Rove-buddy Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson......and all of their followers."

Four days later, I received an articulate, generous email from Rick Warren in which he took exception to my column, and explained that his Saddleback Church had provided financial support for "over 400 African American pastors who lost their churches due to Katrina" as well as other good works backed by substantial funds.

Surprised and appropriately corrected, I removed Warren's name from inclusion with Dobson, Falwell and Robertson in my December 14, 2005 column.

In 2006, Warren and Obama Both Reject Bush Torture Policies

The first public convergence of viewpoints between Obama and Warren occurred in mid-2006 over the issue of torture committed by the United States.

In June 2006, bucking the trend among religious right clergy, Pastor Rick Warren joined 26 other prominent U.S. religious leaders, including Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Catholic Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, in signing a joint statement urging "Let America abolish torture now -- without exceptions."

The statement, issued by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, was published in newspapers across the nation. The organization was expressly formed to take a united stand against human rights abuse at the Bush administration's U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

For the full text of the statement, see U.S. Religious Leaders Condemn Torture by Bush Administration.

Meanwhile, on September 28, 2006, Obama delivered impassioned remarks decrying Senate passage of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved U.S. torture of detainees and stripped Constitutional rights away from detainees.

Obama orated: "And we all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria, and tortured, only to find out later that it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information.

"In the future, people like this may never have a chance to prove their innocence. They may remain locked away forever. And the sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary."

Read the entirety at Barack Obama Reacts to Bill Approving Torture.

Obama Speaks at Warren's Church in December 2006

Five weeks after Obama eloquently protested Bush legislation allowing the U.S. to torture, Rick Warren created a major brouhaha in conservative Christian circles by hosting Barack Obama at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, the fourth largest church in the U.S.

On December 1, 2006, World AIDS Day, Barack Obama delivered his landmark speech on AIDS and Faith, Race Against Time - World AIDS Day Speech.

Obama prefaced his speech by professing admiration for the Warrens: "I want to start by saying how blessed I feel to be a part of today and how grateful I am for your church and your pastor, my friend Rick Warren.

"Ever since Rick and Kay visited Africa to see the pain and suffering wrought by AIDS, the Warrens and this church have proved each day that faith is not just something you have, it's something you do."

View the original article here

Obama doctrine

 President Obama with U.S. Army General David Petraeus, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force

Win McNamee/Getty ImagesPresident Obama's doctrine on war and foreign interventions is spelled out, in both words and actions, in his approach to quelling violence in Libya by leader Muammar Gaddafi against his Libyans.

On March 28, 2011, President Obama spoke to the nation about his reasons for intervening in what he viewed as a humanitarian crisis in Libya. In his remarks, he outlined his criteria (aka doctrine) for U.S. intervention in foreign countries.

Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya
Air strikes against Libya in March 2011 were part of the first conflict undertaken by the U.S. during the Obama administration. The air strikes were executed by an international coalition initially led by the United States. President Obama authorized U.S. strikes with a brief order on March 19, 2011, which can be read at Text of President Obama's Declaration of Libya Military Action.

Code-named Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S., the operational lead was turned over the NATO on March 27, 2011. The purpose of the U.N.-sanctioned air strikes in various Libyan regions was to implement a no-fly zone to enable rebel leaders to more effectively battle Gaddafi forces.

The Obama Doctrine on Foreign Intervention

From Address to the Nation on Libya
March 28, 2011

"Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions.

"The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and –- more importantly –- a task for the Libyan people themselves.

America cannot use military wherever repression occurs
"In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

"It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.

In Libya, U.S. had unique ability to stop horrific violence
"In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

"To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different...

America has important strategic interest in Libya
"Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia.

"The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security.

"So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

View the original article here

Obama Healthcare Reform Plan

This article explains and simplifies answers to key questions about President Obama's health care reform plan provisions, ideas, and rationale, in the President's own words. Why Does Health Care Need to Be Reformed? "Right now, premiums for families that have health insurance have doubled over the last 10 years. They've gone up three times faster than wages. "So what we know is that if the current trends continue, more and more families are going to lose health care, more and more families are going to be in a position where they keep their health care but it takes a bigger bite out of their budget, employers are going to put more and more of the costs on the employees, or they're just going to stop providing health care altogether." "If somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health-care costs over the next 10 years, that's guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit, I think most people would be opposed to that. "Well, that's the status quo. That's what we have right now. So if we don't change, we can't expect a different result. "And that's why I think this is so important -- not only for those families out there who are struggling and who need some protection from abuses in the insurance industry or need some protection from skyrocketing costs, but it's also important for our economy." Source: July 22, 2009 Press Conference Who Will Be Covered by Obama's Health Care Plan? "... the plan... that I've put forward and that... we're seeing in Congress would cover, the estimates are, at least 97 to 98 percent of Americans... "... the basic idea should be that in this country, if you want health care, you should be able to get affordable health care." Source: July 22, 2009 Press Conference How Will It Help Me If I Already Have Health Care Insurance? "If you have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will provide you with more security and more stability: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it. It'll prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that if you lose your job, if you move, or if you change your job, you'll still be able to have coverage. It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care, like check-ups and mammograms, that save lives and money."Source: July 22, 2009 Press Conference Why Is a Medicare-like Public Option for Health Care Coverage Necessary? "... part of the reason we want to have a public option is just to help keep the insurance companies honest. "If the insurance companies are providing good care..., they're going to be more regulated so that they can't deny you care because of a pre-existing condition or because you change jobs or because they've decided you're too sick and not a good risk... "... having a public plan out there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative costs, that you can get an even better deal, that's going to incentivize the private sector to do even better. And that's a good thing. "Now, you know, there have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now. At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up. What's the constraint on that?" Source: July 22, 2009 Press Conference Will Health Care Services Be Rationed Under Obama's Plan? "They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier... I think that's the kind of change you want. "... right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money... "You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket... "Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier? "If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well? But the system right now doesn't incentivize that. "Those are the changes that are going to be needed... Source: July 22, 2009 Press Conference

View the original article here

Obama on Israel, Iran, Iraq

Barack Obama in 2008 Info Center Hub

Phased Redeployment of U.S. Troops Out of Iraq

As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning – in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today.

Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else’s civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.

That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008.

In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos.

U.S. Failure in Iraq Has Strenghtened Iran

In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.

And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy that includes talking to Syria and Iran – something this Administration has finally embraced.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more.

But a consequence of the Administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran’s strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of a well-paved road. It is time for profound change.

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan.

And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.

Iran’s President Is a Threat to All of Us

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.

But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.

Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that’s not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

U.S. Must Engage in Tough-Minded Diplomacy with Iran

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions.

It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations.

It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners.

It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs.

It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws.

And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

View the original article here