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…