President Obama’s Afghanistan War speech at West Point.

President Obama announced a new project to send an additional 30,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan. His speech took place at the prestigious United States Military Academy at West Point on Thursday night, December 1, 2009. With his promise, the United States will have approximately 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Obama called upon international political and military leaders to support his project through the sending of additional soldiers. Now, over 42 countries participate in the Afghanistan war (28 from NATO, and 14 from outside NATO).

President Obama also announced that he would terminate this war as soon as possible. Personally, I want to believe that the additional troops will end the within 18 months. But I also remember my grandfather’s words that our past is the greatest teacher of what to expect in the future. World War II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and the Iraq War teach us that approximate times and dates on “exit strategies” do not guarantee a speedy and successful end to war.

Michael Moore Tears Up over Obama and Afghanistan

Obama did not offer specific reasons for the war in Afghanistan. Instead, he reverted to the language of George Bush about the continued war we must wage against “terrorism”. He argued that when he took his office on the beginning of 2009, over 32,000 Americans were serving in Afghanistan, compared to the 160,000 troops in Iraq. The small number of soldiers in Afghanistan did not give the United States a chance to put in place a three-pronged strategy for success: a military presence that would create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that would reinforce positive action in the region; and an effective partnership with Pakistan. Obama said that this strategy, which is effectively, a reaction to 9/11, would, “destroy al Qaeda's terrorist network, and protect our common security.” I find this argument persuasive but, I still want to know if the government has been forthright and transparent with all the reasons for this war.

By taking this big gamble, President Obama has placed much of his first-term success on the outcome of the war in Afghanistan. According to General Stanley A. McChrystal, the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. And the high level of corruption in Afghanistan deters the country’s progress. But is wide-spread corruption the reason and true explanation of our unsuccessful mission in Afghanistan? If so, why didn’t we hear more about it before? Just how many American lives and how much money was lost because of this supposed widespread corruption?

People have the right to know all the facts concerning this war because, as taxpayers, they will finance it. President Obama said that, “America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America's authority.” True enough…but what he never said or mentioned was who was going to – and how we were going to – pay for this mission.

Desertions undermine Afghan army

Many Americans, along with members of the international community, no longer trust America’s “good intentions” or view America’s foreign policy mission as “peace-keeping.” America is no longer the Savior of the World. To make matters more complicated, Obama’s speech has met with opposition from Republicans and Democrats for different reasons. In his attempt to satisfy everyone, Obama has been met with stronger Republican criticism and a loss of his Democratic base. Sen. John McCain, for example, blasted Obama for suggesting a time and date for exiting Afghanistan. McCain told CBS on Wednesday morning that: "If you tell the enemy when you're leaving, it emboldens your enemies and dispirits your friends."(read more)

On the Democratic front, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., along with liberal House Democrats threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase. On the other hand, Sen. Carl Levin, said that Democrats need to generate revenue for the additional troops. He mentioned a tax increase on the wealthy or a small gasoline tax (that would be phased out if gas prices go up). (read more)

UT students react to President Obama's war strategy

Polling suggests that many voters have changed their opinion about the war after hearing Obama’s speech. Many believe that Obama has offered a plan that is both realistic and attainable. Some who believed that he did not have much of a choice with regard to a troop surge admit (often begrudgingly) that his speech was persuasive enough to change public opinion and to keep him in office for a second term if the strategy for Afghanistan works. (read more)

During President Obama’s speech, the cadets applauded him, but, as Chris Matthews of MSNBS observed, "I didn't see a lot of warmth in the crowd out there.” The next day, on his nightly TV show, he apologized for saying that President Barack Obama had traveled to West Point - an "enemy camp." (read more) His language was too strong – too incendiary –but observing the cadets’ behavior, I had the impression that they enjoyed shaking President Obama’s hand or taking pictures with him more than listening to him speak. Maybe, as some pundits noted, they would have showed more interest had he mentioned “victory” – a word strangely absent in a speech attempting to boost morale over prolonging war.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Apologizes for 'Enemy Camp'

I hope that in the next Presidential election in 2012, I will not watch President Obama saying in a debate: “I made a mistake”, or even, “I am so sorry”, or “I misread the situation.” During the Democratic primary and 2008 Presidential election, Obama told Americans that he was against war, especially the war in Iraq. Did he change his mind during his first year as President of the U.S.? And what makes his decision making about Afghanistan all that different from the strategies and reasons for war issued by George W. Bush? Many night-time pundits discuss this on their shows, and it will certainly be brought up again and again in 2012. I really don’t want to see Obama in this embarrassing situation. I trust that he knows what he is doing now and will bring this war to a successful conclusion although the reasons for war are still not apparent. If he doesn’t, he will be enjoying the last two years of his Presidency.

Video Gaming: Violence and Graphic Content for Rest and Relaxation.

Today modern life is inextricably connected with computer technology. This technology has already changed the manner in which people live, work, and spend their spare time. According to one woman’s testimony (Santa Pit): "In the virtual world I am a fully successful woman. I drive a new Cabriolet, people recognize me everywhere I go, and I have a lot of money. When I log off from the game, I come back to real life where I have to take care of three children, where I need to clean my house and… repair my car. My neighbors don’t notice me and they think that I am a housewife. This is why I love my… Second Life."(read more)

Virtual reality, for many people, is commonplace. People choose virtual games instead of meetings with real friends. And their virtual world slowly becomes their primary reality. Gamers so strongly identify with their avatars that they can no longer live without them. The imaginary and unreal world seems better than the real world. Many people want to live in a world of magic – a fabulous and mysterious world. We can see this in the newest game Uncharted 2: Among Thieves where, "fortune hunter Nathan Drake is lured back into the treacherous world of thieves and mercenary treasure seekers. Embark on a journey to discover the real truth behind the lost fleet of Marco Polo and the legendary Himalayan valley of Shambhala." (read more)

Uncharted 2 : Among Thieves - Official E3 Trailer [HD]


The worlds of computer gaming is an anonymous entertainment of colors, sounds and excitements. They have different levels of action and desirability. And they present us with rich three-dimensional images. For example, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves has graphics that resemble an action adventure movie. And the adventures that entice gamers in this game are as expansive as the imaginations of the programmers. In these virtual worlds, gamers realize their potential, they exercise freedom and they pursue a “happiness” that might escape them in the real world.

Paradoxically, the most popular games are based on what we would normally not desire in the real world. Many games, for example, are opportunities to unleash aggression through violence. Moreover, many of the "story boards” romanticize vigilante justice, violence, and actions outside of our moral codes. The games appeal tour basest instincts, where values are relative to "winning" or completing quests. One wonders if values like kindness, compassion, and mutual aid have a place in these games. Worse than the moral void, however, is the inclusion of sadistic murders and psychopathic criminals in computer games aimed at children or impressionable young adults. In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - one of the most violent and controversial games ever made - the player is asked to engage in a terrorist attack on a Russian airport killing hundreds of civilians. It is disturbing to think that we equate planning acts of terrorism with "enjoyable game play."

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Launch Trailer (Official HD)


The forms of destruction and force simulated in video games vary in intensity according to a game’s realism. Very brutal games are "doom games". They are shooting or fighting games where the goal is destruction or annihilation. One goal of video gaming is the killing or the mutilating of the "virtual enemy" through the use of different weapons (knife, circular saw etc.) to accomplish the task.

I searched Best Buy website and examined some of other popular PC games. Very few didn’t contain violence; indeed, many contained acts of violence, destruction and aggression necessary to destroy the enemy. Consider this box description: "Master the necromantic powers of the Death Knight – World of Warcraft’s first Hero Class. Create a new Death Knight character with a starting level of 55 and break the chains of the Lich King to forge your own destiny. Power your way through new quests and dangerous as you seize ever greater abilities." The use of force, acquiring greater strength, and powerful acts of aggression are necessary to attain the game’s goal: destruction of the enemy.

Wrath of the Lich King: "Death Knight" (Game Trailer)


RPG games (role-playing games) are based on actions embedded in an incredibly cruel virtual reality containing complex strategies of warfare and fighting. If the game’s story lines are inscribed in the real world, it is often a dimension of it that is very dangerous and violent. Often, players are, "dragged into a criminal underworld by a series of shysters, thieves and sociopaths, [and] they discover that the reality is very different from the dream. In a city that worships money and status, life is heaven for those who prosper and a living nightmare for those who don’t." (Grand Theft Auto IV)

Computer adventure simultaneously captivate and terrorize as players materialize into thieves, terrorists, gangsters engaged in innumerable murders and acts of destruction. And it is only by acting within these roles that players advance to successfully accomplishing the game’s final goals. For example, "In the Godfather II, you must think and act like a true Don. (…) Coordinate your arsenal of fronts and rackets to keep the money flowing in and the reins of power firmly in your grasp. Make the decisions that will determine your fate and that of the Family, and relive legendary moments from the feature film in a gripping open world inspired by the movie. Do whatever you need to do to stay on top, and remember, no matter what happens – it’s only business." Unlike real life, if the player doesn’t pass "the exam", he/she can always restart the game.

Lastly, music is essential to PC gaming. Suggestive sound effects intensifies a player’s emotional reaction while gaming, and can contribute to the player entering more fully into his/her character‘s psychological makeup.

Grand Theft Auto IV (GTA IV) Trailer 2 From Rockstar Games


Participation in virtual gaming is predicated on real life experiences and actions, and, more often than not, the most horrific of those real life experiences. For some, the distinction between virtual and real worlds becomes blurred to such an extent that destructive behaviors allowed in the gaming world are brought into real life. Games "copy" our everyday real life experiences: sports, (for example: Fight Night: Round 4), human relations (for example: The Sims 2, Apartment Life), soldier combat (for example: Call of Duty: World at War) or adventures (Tomb Raider: Underworld).

For many impressionable children and youth, computer games are an introduction to a "vigilante" universe where people use guns and other weapons to fight "in the name of good". Unfortunately, some of them live by this code in "real life". When resolving problems in real life and dealing with relational conflict, they view firearms as the only viable solution. The options that saved them in their virtual world, what gained them their freedom and advanced them towards their ultimate goal, is what "destroys" them in real life.

Should we restrict or censor violent games? Or is this just much ado about nothing?

Being honest about honesty. I belive in Obama's honesty.

Everyone agrees that honesty or transparency is important in political and economic decision making. But the moral dilemma resides in the fact that honesty and transparency are defined in such way to protect a ruling class’ economic and political interests. Yet, without authentic transparency, a political system risks demoralizing its citizens. Without personal integrity, political life is fraught with scandals and corruption at the national and local level, no matter how we try to cover this deception over with patriotic rhetoric and appeals to the common good. Politicians are not expected to be perfect, because everyone makes mistakes, but politicians are expected to tell the truth. They need to tell us what they really think (even if it is not agreement with their constituents), the political values they represent and uphold, and explain their decision-making process. Without this transparency and honesty, we have no way of evaluating their ability to govern and represent our needs.

Make McCain Disavow His Dishonest Obama Ad


For personal advancement and career success, many people forgo honesty as a virtue and choose a voluntary form of „silent ignorance“. In Poland, people abide by a social code where it is „civilized“ or polite to not express what they really think, especially if it makes others uncomfortable. But honesty is not synonymous with being silent or being “politically correct”. Being critical of one another – calling one another to greater authenticity - is not a breach of social protocol; indeed, it is necessary for us to do this to avoid all the social ills bred from dishonest or duplicitous behavior.

In my experience, people believe in moral virtues associated with honesty: honor, nobility, frankness, and truthfulness. And they associate these traits with their leaders. Unfortunately, they experience many of their leaders as scheming, dishonest, and duplicitous. Consequently, when people notice this disjunction between the ideal and the reality, they become disillusioned and think that they have been lied to and duped. They feel naïve. Honesty was not the path to personal and national advancement; it was the means by which a ruling class controlled the majority. The lesson learned is that it is better to appear honest than to actually be honest.

I belive in Obama's honesty. What do you think?

House Democrats said "No” to the closing of Gitmo. Is everything under control?

United States House of Representatives said "No” to President Obama’s plans to close Guantanamo in Cuba and to his request for $81 million to close this “American shame place” where 240 prisoners (terrorists) are waiting for new prison destinations.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman, David Obey said, “When the White House gets a plan together, they are welcome to come back and talk to us about it." (read more)

Obama at the beginning of his own presidency promised to close Guantanamo Bay by the end of this year.

Anonymous workers of Congress said that Democrats removed funds on Guantanamo Bay closing on the request of Republicans who oppose this liquidation. They anticipate that some prisoners will stay in prisons in U.S.A., because Obama Administration will not find other prisons abroad.

Lastly regarding the negotiation with European countries which expressed their willingness to accept some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. For example, The U.S. government has officially asked Germany to accept as many as 10 inmates from the Guantánamo Bay prison, handing over a list to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office and the Foreign Ministry (read more).

Luxembourg: Europe divided over Guantanamo inmates


In exchange for the cancellation of 81 millions to close Guantanamo Bay, the management of Democrats got approval from Republicans for new funds for the war. This is important in the situation, when a support for these funds was refused by some Democrats who are against the war.

This is the first time that the Democrats made a show of solidarity behind Obama by standing by his programs in spite of the fact that they are concerned about the upcoming elections in 2010. They assured Obama that they would support his plan of closing down Gitmo and cooperate with White House. I am a bit skeptic about the Democrats' intention and they will not sacrifice their political future on the altar of Obama Politics. What do you think?

Retreived May 5, 2009, from: wp.pl

U.S.A. support two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian.

"Israel has to work toward a two-state solution," Vice President Joe Biden told the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "You're not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement." (read more)

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden pressed Israel to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are comments and discussion about Biden’s speech addressed to the AIPAC, which is a very pro-Israel lobby in U.S.A.

Commentators noticed that the statement made by Vice President Joe Biden, would lead to a different policy in Israeli politics. This policy would be totally opposite to the President George W. Bush administration.

The new Israeli government, directed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, does not agree with Vice President Biden, to create the new Palestinian state. The president of Israel, Shimon Peres, is now in Washington and is talking about the Palestinian conflict with President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama visits Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008


The Palestinian and Israeli war is a never-ending story for decades. I like Vice President Joe Biden’s speech. He is very brave to give his speech in front of the pro-Israel lobbyists. His speech was spectacular, but I think that the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, will try to come back to the “old politics” with the U.S.A. I really don’t believe in any changes.

Do Americans want to show to the public that they will no longer support Israel policy, because they know that the Palestinian and Israeli conflict will keep going for the next “hundred years”. Maybe Americans give the signal to another country to participate in this conflict? Another option is that Israel will start “open war” with the Palestinian people and the Americans don’t want to be identified with their “politics”. Do Americans know more?

I want to believe, that Obama’s administration will fulfill their pre-election promises. What do you think?

Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Peace propaganda and the Promise Land (1/8 episode, rest you can find at www.youtube.com)


Retreived May 5, 2009, from: wp.pl

The new American and Russian anti-ballistic missile system plans in Poland and in the Czech Republic.

American Missile Defense Agency negotiator in conversations with Russia Administration suggested new proposal to replace US plans to install an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic by soviet radar in Azerbaijan.

The Secretary of State responsible for the arms control in the US Department of State, Rose Gottemoeller, was asked what she feels about the new Russian idea, to include the radar in Gabali in Azerbaijan to monitor Iran and not placing this defense system in Poland and Czech Republic.

"I understood from talking to Russian counterparts that the offer is still on the table," said Gottemoeller, the assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance. "I think personally that it is an offer the United States should be willing to explore," said the diplomat, in comments confirmed by the State Department in Washington."At the time I lived in Moscow, when I was director of Carnegie Moscow, I thought that the offer was very interesting. And I think it deserves further exploration," she added (read more).

Russia proposed sharing their radar in Gabi in 2007. The previous George W. Bush Administration always responded to this offer negatively. Russia considers this as a threat to its own security.

I think this is another signal from President Obama's Administration of renewing dialogue with Russia. Many questions were never answered and this in this special recession moment in America is a time for “new dialog”.

European Ballistic Missile Defense

From the Polish perspective, I think that another strategic moment in Polish history is gone. Polish people always will “fight” for independence from Russia. I feel that decisions are independent from Poland and Czech Republic. Again the Europe sees that we can have any plans only, but decision are made by another country.

Does American Administration care about Poland and Czech Republic or is this only a “political game” with Russia? Or is this a consequence of U.S.A. and Russian negotiators meeting in Rome (March 24, 2009) to take the first step towards cutting hundreds of nuclear weapon from both countries' arsenals? (read more) What do you think?

Retreived May 5, 2009, from: wp.pl

Obama plans to recover billions of dollars.

White House announced new corporate tax reform on U.S. This is the beginning of the end of multinational corporations and tax havens for American billionaires.

Obama’s project established to create the new jobs in the United States. Obama’s administration said the changes would raise $210 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.

"I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens," Obama said in a White House announcement.

Obama Goes After Overseas Tax Cheats


The White House and Department of the Treasury represent three proposals: Tax deferral rules ($60.1 billion), R&D credit ($74.5 billion) and Foreign tax credit ($43 billion) which Obama said, will raise $210 billion of dollars over 10 years (read more).

I don’t really like to talk about taxes, but in America two things are for sure: death and taxes. This is why we should talk about taxes. American government lost about 9 billion of dollars because rich Americans used tax loopholes. Finally, it is not the rich people, but the common people who cover the deficit in American economy.

New changes were announced in the new budget plan of Obama administration. The new plan engages about 800 new federal tax agents to enforce the system."The plan will add 800 agents to bring people to justice who hide their assets," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (read more).

Even I don’t like to talk about taxes. In fact who does? I like President Obama's speech. His new federal tax plan is clear and gives some substantive arguments in the debate about present economic crisis; and give some hope too. Obama said, "It will take time to undo the damage. (…) But with the steps I am announcing today ... we're beginning to restore (tax) fairness and balance." What do you think?

Tax and Spend by Barack Obama


Retreived May 4, 2009, from: onet.pl

New Decision of President Obama: Who takes David H. Souter place?

Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter announced his retirement. President Obama needs to choose another candidate for his position.

Souter was nominated as Supreme Court Justice in 1990 during George H. W. Bush's administration and many conservatives’ politicians were surprised. The replacement of Souter, who has been a reliable part of the liberal bloc of the high court, is not likely to shift the bench's ideological balance (read more).

Among possible candidates, serious contenders are: Sonia Sotomayor from New York (the first Latina in the Federal Appeals Court of New York (read more); Diane P. Wood, she is a faculty colleague of President Obama from the University of Chicago, School of Law; Elena Kagan, present solicitor general, and former dean of the Harvard School of Law. For other names and biographies, see the New York Times, Saturday, May 2, 2009 (read more).

Notebook: Justice Souter


At the end of his term, David H. Souter said that, "I had the best work position in the worst town in this country". He is referring to Washington, a town he really doesn't like. He wants to return to his home state, New Hampshire.

The Supreme Court of the United States has the equivalent of two judicial institutions of Poland: the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland (Trybunał Konstytucyjny); and the State Tribunal of the Republic of Poland (Trybunał Stanu). In making rulings and deciding cases, the United States Supreme Court analyses and interprets the Constitution of the United States. Supreme Courts justices are invested by the people of the United States with ultimate authority over the making of law in line with interpreting the Constitution.

David Souter, George H.W. Bush's Biggest Mistake


It is very hard to say who President Obama will choose, but the candidate will most likely share a similar political agenda to the President; in turn, the choice will most likely shape Obama's political future and legacy. Republicans are wary of the criteria that Obama will use to choose for new candidate. Should political affiliations and political agendas determine the choice of candidate? Some argue that the choice will be determined by the candidate's position on controversial topics in contemporary America such as: abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, affirmative action policy, church/state relations, terrorism/torture, and immigration. What do you think? What criteria ought to determine Obama's Supreme Court choice? Do you think Obama risks dividing the country with his choice?

Retreived May 3, 2009, from: onet.pl

Pentagon announces that 100 Gitmo prisoners will stay in the USA.

About 100 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay probably will have to stay in the U.S.A. Defense Minister, Robert Gates, announced this before Congress. Guantanamo is the most controversial American military prison in Cuba.

On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama announced that he was going to close the prison later this year. The prisoners, numbering 241, are suspected terrorists. The youngest prisoner in Guantanamo is a 13 year old boy!!!

The administration is looking to incarcerate the prisoners in other countries, because many Americans refuse to accept the prisoners in state penitentiaries.

Gitmo Video, Guantanamo Bay


Senior Pentagon officials have asked legislators to assign about 400 million dollars in military to Pakistan and an additional 700 million in future aid. These funds would be used to support and provide equipment to the Pakistani army and police.

The Obama administration is asking for roughly 3 billion dollars for aid to the Pakistan army over the next 5 years. The Pakistani army has a difficult fight against Taliban in the northwestern part of the country.

Obama is asking for billions – not millions -- of American dollars for this project. Without political ties in Pakistan to counter the Taliban, America is at greater risk for future terrorist attacks. Do you think this is a viable strategy? Is this strategy worth billions of dollars? What is at risk if America doesn’t choose to help Pakistan?

Retrived May 3, 2009, from: wp.pl

Clinton: North Korea is digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole.

Hillary Clinton, American Secretary of State, said that the USA has no plans to commit money or future aid to North Korea. She criticized North Korea for its recent rocket launch, for abandoning six party nuclear negotiations, and for turning out the MAEA representative.

Clinton said that North Korea’s actions over the last few weeks are unacceptable, and that there is a growing sentiment in the international community that North Korea is not peacefully disposed. According to Clinton, North Korea will not receive future economic aid if it continues “present politics”.

I don’t know what to think about this. Should North Korea have the right to possess nuclear weapon? Is this a similar situation to the one in Iran? Why is France or even Germany given permission to possess nuclear weapons, but Iran or North Korea is refused?

Given the different political situation in North Korea, what are the some of the determining factors that help determine the outcome of this situation? What do you think? I still haven’t come to a decision about this situation…

Clinton Warns North Korea Against Missile Launch, February 17, 2009

Chrysler will join with Italian Fiat.

President Obama confirmed on Thursday, that Chrysler, the third largest car company, would file for bankruptcy and join with Italian automaker Fiat (read more).

Obama underscored that, "This is not the sign of the weakness". Thanks to contracts with government, with creditors and trades-unions, all resulting in the decision to file for bankruptcy, the car company syndicate will survive and, "will be stronger and more competitive than ever before.”

Chrysler-Fiat Deal Still Possible?


Filing for bankruptcy (Chapter 11) will also give Chrysler a chance to reduce some of its debt. How much debt Chrysler will repay will be decided in court. Legal procedures should take about two months.

Chrysler’s tie-up with Fiat will assure the American car company of access to new fuel-efficient technology. In exchange, Fiat receives 20 percent of Chrysler’s equity and rights to earn 15 percent more. Chrysler will produce Fiat cars and their engines in their own factories and sell then under their own brand.
The present governor of Chrysler, Robert Nardelli, will by replaced by the chief of the Italian syndicate, Sergio Marchionne.

The restructuring plan was finalized on Thursday. The previous plan, which was rejected, permitted thirty days to present another one. The new plans calls for another 8 billion in taxpayer money after having already an earlier 4 billion in tax dollars.

Obama underlined that his administration is very interested in Chrysler’s survival, and praised the company as a symbol of American enterprise and innovation.

Pundits are quick to point out that Democratic administration supports car companies because their financial demise will only worsen our current economic crisis.

Obama is also politically indebted to the trades-unions of the Detroit car companies that strongly sponsored his presidential campaign.

President Obama speaks on Chrysler Bankruptcy, G-Power BM...

White House: Obama’s bodyguard has symptoms of the “swine flu”.

The White House announced that President Barack Obama’s bodyguard, who assisted him in Mexico, shows symptoms similar to the “swine flu” - virus H1N1.

At a White House press conference, spokesman Robert Gibbs said that no members of the bodyguard’s immediate family showed flu-like symptoms, especially those resembling virus H1N1.

Gibbs explained that the bodyguard, whose name was not officially given, did not fly to Mexico on "Air Force One.”

Consequently, all the members of Obama’s delegation are being checked for swine flu.

Presently, 109 people have been diagnosed with the flu in the United States. On Wednesday, April 29, 2009, health officials in Houston confirmed the death of the first victim of the flu: a two-year old Mexican boy.

Now I know why Obama asked for 1.5 billion dollars for an antidote. He wants to help his bodyguard…I shouldn’t joke about it… Sorry…

I really admire Obama’s decision to help other countries fight this disease and I believe his bodyguard will survive. Do you see this as a political move on Obama’s part? How so? What do you think? Some of the people want to close U.S.-Mexico border...

Obama is asking for 1.5 billion to fight against the “swine flu”.

President of the United StatesBarack Obama asked Congress to appropriate an additional 1.5 billion dollars to fight against the “swine flu” (more).

Chief Spokesman of the White House, Robert Gibbs, said that these funds would be used to control the impact of the virus and increase antiviral medications. The increased supply of the vaccine will support medical services and activities in the US and provide assistance tor international organizations in the fight to curb the deadly virus.

Is Obama’s response “political posturing”? Everyone remembers what happened (or didn’t happen) after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. People are still angry at the Bush administration’s failure to respond adequately to the disaster leaving people without food, clothing, medical assistance, or insurance. The Obama reaction is totally different. He is carrying about Americans and people from different countries. Is this a good political move or a decision from the heart – or both? What do you think”? 1.5 billion dollars is a huge commitment, especially for a country in financial turmoil…

Air Force One caused panic over New York.

Several office buildings came under panic and evacuated the office workers when Barack Obama's presidential plane, Boeing 747, flew over the south part of Manhattan. The presidential plane was escorted by F-16 Fighting Falcon.

The Presidential plane took the “photo session”. The message about this session was not sent to the people working in the office buildings.

About thousand people, in panic, ran out from the New York Merchandise Exchange, situated near the place where World Trade Center was destroyed in September 11, 2001 attacks. Hundreds of people waited near the Hudson River at that moment were reassured by a police officer announcing through a megaphone that there was no need for anyone to panic as it was only a mock display.

Isn’t it stupidity? Everyone knows how World Trade Center tragedy is still working on the people. Today, in the media digital age, with Photoshop and other computer devices they can replicate the same as if it is real. What is the reason for this decision?

Obama Air Force One Backup Flies Low Over NY Panics Residents


Video of Air Force Airplane Photo Op That Caused Panic in New York City and Jersey City

First 100 days of the Obama presidency.

According to the recent survey conducted by the Washington Post and the ABC News Television on the occasion of completing 100 days in the office by President Barack Obama, he still enjoys the popular support of the majority of American population.

69 percent approves the manner in which Obama performs in his own office; 42 percent "strongly" approves his cadency. The disapproval is expressed by 26 percent in the survey. 63 percent is of the opinion that Obama reached "enormously a lot" (24 percent) or "pretty much" (39 percent) during the three months of his presidency. 54 percent said that the president exceeded their expectations.

Two thirds of Americans were well pleased with the foreign policy of Obama. This rate went up especially after Obama’s travel to Europe.

71 percent is satisfied about President Obama's policy in Iraq (government taking army back to USA). 63 percent approves the administration's decision on Afghanistan; 61 in the matter of Cuba, and 62 percent in the fight against the terrorism.

The Obama's economic policy is supported by 58 percent of Americans; 38 percent didn’t approve it.

On the whole the support of Obama in the domestic and international policy is twice greater than the support of Republicans in Congress during the presidency of George W. Bush.

Many Americans disagree with President Obama who announced that the documents describing brutal methods of suspected interrogations of the terrorists would be made public. These methods were carried out by CIA during the cadency of president George Bush. For many people these amounted to torture. 53 percent of those who were surveyed support Obama's announcement and 44 percent said that these documents should not have “come to light”.

Do these percentages say the truth? Although I am skeptical about these surveys and the facts and figures that they present yet I am impressed by the performance of Obama. So my best wishes are with him.

Rove Evaluates Obama's First 100 Days


Obama's breakneck 100 days, Apr 28, 2009

President Obama said to “Spy Agency”: “Don’t dishoard…”

On April 20, 2009, President Barack Obama visited Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He gave his support to this organization, but what is more interesting is the fact that a few days ago he revealed some files showing the CIA using aggressive interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.

Following Associated Press, President Obama tells CIA employees that they must do their work scrupulously because they are standing as a security barrier for Americans who face attack from people who have no scruples (read more).

Department of Justice lawyers authorized the CIA to use such techniques as sleep deprivation, slapping, nudity and water-boarding that simulates drowning. The document memos, written from 2002 to 2005, were released in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Everything happened during the Presidency of George W. Bush (read more).

For many Human Rights organizations, these kinds of investigations amounted to be torture (read more).

Do people need to use these kinds of methods to extract information from prisoners? Is it morally sound to use such practices? What do you think?

Obama Thanks CIA for Work Against America's Foes

Top Secret CIA mission in Poland?

Rzeczpospolita Press reported that in 2002 the US Secret Service asked Poland to send a dozen Polish intelligent officers to cooperate and by the end of that year some American airplanes landed in Szymany airport.

Rzeczpospolita said that about 20 agents cooperate with American CIA. This cooperation took place from 2002 until 2005. The Rzeczpospolita journals informed that they have a document which shows that American jet planes landed in Szymany and they have copy invoice which documented that one of the planes took fuel from this airport. Most of the American aircrafts had a permit from the then Polish Prime Minister, Jerzy Szmajdzinski. The rest of the documents are signed by his V-ce. Rzeczpospolita Press and TVP informed that many people, when they left the plane, were handcuffed, and their eyes and ears were covered.

What do I think?
Last several years Polish people received the same information and nobody knows what the truth is. I think we will never know the real truth. Guys!!! It was many years ago and keep going forward!!! What do you think?

The airport in Szymany is located in north-east of Poland. In 2007 BBC informed that CIA used this airport to bring some prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq. President George W. Bush on September 2006 admitted that CIA was engaged in the program against Al Qaida terrorist which was moved to other countries without public official information. I think, all these things don’t smell good… in fact it stinks!

American President, Barack Obama announces a war against piracy in the Indian Ocean near Somalia.

USA Today wrote: "I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region and to achieve that goal, we're going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks”, President Obama said.

Richard Phillips, the captain of “MV Maersk Alabama” ship was held captive for 5 days by the Somalian pirates. On Sunday he was freed by commando from American ship "USS Bainbridge (DDG-96)”. Three pirates were killed and one caught. The Chief of Pentagon, Robert Gates announced that these pirates were just 17 to 19 years old.

A question that comes into our mind these days is why all on a sudden there is too much importance given to the sailors and the piracy problem, delegating the other more important issues like nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, or war in Iraq, or fight against Taliban’s in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or even the economic crisis in the world? It is the politician Obama who wants to show to the world that he is still in control.

Isn't it a political ploy of President Obama to show the world as he completes his 100 days in the office that he is the man on the block who has everything under his control? What is your opinion?

U.S. General: In Iraq more quiet.

The number of acts of violence in Iraq came down to the lowest from the beginning of the War in Iraq. The war in Iraq started in 2003. The commander of American Army in Iraq, Gen. Raymond Odierno, gave this announcement today. Similarly the death toll of people killed in fights and acts of violence came down too.

He reiterated that the safety situation in Iraq "has improved impromptu considerably" and declaration of the retreat of the U.S. Army from Iraq is real in 2011. However, he recommended "the elasticity" in realizing the come-back plan of the U.S. Army.

President Obama announced that most of U.S. Army should come back to U.S.A. from Iraq by August 2010 and the last soldier has to leave that country by the end of December 2011.

Finally we have some possible dates that mark the end of this terrible war. Do you agree with Obama’s decision or should the U.S. Army continue with this war for some more time?

USA will give back a priceless exhibit: the gun of Saddam Husain.

TheU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest and the primary investigative arm of the United States Department of Homeland Security, informed that the gun used by Saddam Hussain will be given back to Iraq. The Gun, an AK47 with a handle, turn-down of pearl-shell with pictures of Husain, is being kept by the American Army.

The US Army had planned to place the gun of Husain in a museum, but Lou Martinez said that the authorities of Iraq had demanded it to be given back to them. The Americans discovered this Husain’s gun in Fort Lewis in Washington State.

I would like to really see this gun. I promise to do this but the problem is that I don’t have any plan to go to Iraq for the next 100 years!!!

Did economic crisis and the recession increase mass-manslaughters in U.S.A.?

There has been a spate in mass-slaughters in U.S.A. recently, when lonely desperadoes shot dead several people and then committed suicide. This can be probably connected to the economic crisis and the recession that has gripped this nation in a strangle-hold.

In the last month a madman went on a rampage and killed 58 people in North Carolina. A few days ago another shocking and spine-chilling massacre was carried out in the small country town Binghamton in north of New York State where a Vietnamese immigrant murdered 13 persons at the Immigrants Help Center. After a long battle with the Police the Vietnamese man took his own life. He couldn’t find work and had problems with the adaptation in U.S.A.

People are scared about their future because they lose their jobs. They don’t have any future plans and this creates extreme reactions. Many ill-adopted and psychopathic people decide to do something “spectacular” in their life to express their loneliness and sadness. They don’t have any perspective for better life and they have an urgent need to show the world what they feel.

American dream turned on them into a nightmare. There comes the mixture of despair, the hopelessness, and anger. America as the country of unlimited possibilities now seems to them as a joke.

The wave of manslaughters brought new debate about easy accessibility of the fire-arms in U.S.A. Do we need guns in our homes? I am waiting for your answer.

The Binghamton Conference: Shooting Details, April 3, 2009

Kaddafi: Somebody would be able to kill President of the United

Muammar Kaddafi, the leader of Libya, well-known for his controversial statements, voiced apprehension that somebody someday would kill President of the United States Barack Obama. He said: “I am afraid, that this young man would be able to eliminate or to force, to submit to imperialist policy.” Kaddafi didn’t specify who would be the organizer of these plans.

Obama is a sparkle that brings hope amidst the imperialist darkness - said the leader of Libya. Simultaneously he compared him to American presidents who were killed by assassins: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.

Isn’t this interesting that he said these “prophetic words” exactly when the President Barack Obama visited Turkey and the Police arrested the men from Syria who planned to kill Barack Obama during his visitation of this country?

Muammar Kaddafi Supports Obama, October 16, 2008

Is this an open confrontation of President Obama with Europeans?

Le Figaro has stated that by giving public support to Turkey, Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has entered into an open confrontation with the leaders of the European Union, especially with the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is a well-known for his opposition to the Turkish accession to the European Union.

The French newspaper (LF) notices that with respect of the support for Union aspirations of Ankara President Obama continues the “political line” of his own predecessor Georg W. Bush. This position irritates these all which are surprised seeing the American president, even if he is called Barack Hussein Obama, intercalative himself, without the oratorical foresight, into the decision on only Europeans.

We know that Obama needs the future support of Turkey for his political dealings with Iran. But what is the role of President Sarkozy in this matter? Why doesn’t he agree with Obama?

President Obama visited Turkey on April 6, and the Turkish police arrested a man from Syria who planned to kill Obama during this visit. According to the report by A-Watan (Saudi Press) the man was found with a press identity card representing Qatari television net work Al-Jazeera. The man admitted his intention of stabbing the American President with a knife…

NATO Strasbourg: Obama, Sarkozy press conference, April 3, 2009