The following is taken from an article by Albor Ruiz on NYDailyNews.com.

As proof, the group quoted the President’s cursory mention of what amounts to a life-and-death issue for millions of people: “We should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”

That was it, 36 words uttered in passing near the end of Obama’s speech, at best an afterthought, at worse a bone thrown to the immigration community to keep it wagging its tail and hoping against all hope.

“When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it,” candidate Barack Obama movingly told the National Council of La Raza during his presidential run.

Obviously, it is not the moral aspect of reform that will move our elected leaders to action. But the Immigration Policy Center’s director, Mary Giovagnoli, had it right when she pointed out that understanding the concrete, measurable economic benefits of immigrants might .

“We have a golden opportunity to enhance the gross domestic product, create and sustain new jobs and businesses, and maintain our competitive edge in the world if we create a system that legalizes current undocumented workers, provides for improved legal channels for families and new workers when they are needed in the future and adopts sensible policies to secure our border,” Giovagnoli said. “Such measures will help to provide the framework for an economic recovery that will allow us all to pursue our American dreams.”

The following is from “Fact checking the presidential debates“. 

“Some of the abuses that occurred stemmed from the 1999 repeal of a Depression-era law that separated banks from brokerages. In legislation supported by former President Clinton and Robert Rubin, now a top Obama adviser and Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, this separation was ended — allowing banks and insurance companies to sell securities.

But while regular banks were strictly regulated by the government, Wall Street banks and other non-bank institutions — many of the same institutions whose abuses led to the current crisis — were allowed to operate with less regulation.”

That is proof that Obama and Bill Clinton are two sides of the same coin.

 The following is from “Candidates weigh in on stabilizing Fannie, Freddie” on Yahoo! Finance.

At a rally in Colorado Springs, Col., Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said, “They’ve gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

Democratic nominee Barack Obama, speaking in Terre Haute, Ind., said, “These entities are so big and they’re so tied into the housing market that it is probably true that we have to take steps to make sure they don’t just collapse, because the housing market, which is already weakened, would be in even worse shape if we didn’t take some steps.”

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Josef Braml, an expert on US affairs with the independent think tank German Council on Foreign Relations “German Expert Praises McCain’s Tightrope Walk With Palin“.

“McCain speaks bluntly about the alliance of democracies, which isn’t very popular here in Europe. If you examine the speech Obama made in Germany, you see … he didn’t once utter the word United Nations. Knowing that Germans love the UN, that may be a message in itself.

Obama said NATO was the greatest alliance we ever had. But many Europeans don’t like the idea of a global NATO. He more or less said an indirect version of what McCain has said more bluntly.”

Obama may know people want change. But he does not know what to change into.

Deferments, asthma kept Biden out of Vietnam

Obama has made a huge mistake in choosing Joe Biden as his running mate. In contrast to John McCain’s VP pick, Obama is showing that he may not be as good as John McCain in picking who to join his administration, which mean that his administration may not be as good as John McCain’s.

This is the best article on the subject of how to handle Afghanistan and Pakistan: Obama falls victim to propaganda.

“Is Obama beginning to fall under the influence of the same military-petroleum complex that guided Bush’s imperial-minded presidency? Could Pakistan become a disaster for the Democrats as Iraq was for Republicans?”

I no longer think that Obama is fit to be a president. He will be a good representative for the powerful. He will not be a leader. He is a politician, not a statesman.

I am not able to understand Lyndon LaRouche’s theories very well because I do not have the knowledge in economics to understand them. But I have gradually come to realize that what he has been saying about the global financial system is true. Here is the web site of Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee.

I think the voters in states where a candidate loses need to be thanked by the candidate. I always feel sorry for those who voted for a candidate and then were not thanked by the candidate because they did not win. They suffer double blows, one for losing, and another for not being thanked by the candidate. Win or lose, they have made an effort to support the candidate’s candidacy. If they lose, which means they are in the minority in their state, they could have had to put in more efforts to support the candidate and could be facing more adversaries in their own state. So they deserve even more appreciation.

The difference between Hillary’s health care plan and Obama’s is the mandatory requirement in Hillary’s plan. That mandatory requirement is a huge source of concern because it means that the government can force us into a plan whether or not that plan is efficient or not.

The efficiency of a health care system is stretchable. It can change depending on how much outside pressure there is on the system. If there is no outside pressure, as in the case when the system is supported unconditionally by the government, the system’s efficiency will be at its lowest point. That means that when we are forced by the government to accept a health care plan, it will be the most expensive one.

Without government mandatory, people can choose whether to participate in a health care plan or not. When they have a medical bill to pay, if they can afford it, as proven by their annual tax return, they will have to pay for the bill. At this time, they will see whether they should have participated in a health care plan or not. If it is better for them to save money on health insurance to pay for their medical bills, they don’t have to participate in a health care plan. If it costs them more to pay for their medical bills than to pay for health insurance, they will want to participate in a health care plan that can save them money.

Health care costs are not made higher by insurance companies. They are made higher for the lack of government oversight over the health care industry. There need to be auditions for what health care providers are charging and how much they are charging. Because of the lack of knowledge in the medical field, most people do not understand their medical bills. This gives health care providers plenty of opportunities to cheat. That is how our health care costs can be skyrocketing as they are.

Other factors such as malpractice lawsuits and the high costs for cares for certain patients also contribute to the rise of health care costs for everybody. Putting a cap on malpractice lawsuits will help.

The only thing that is impossible to do to keep health care costs down, is to decide how much care we should give to a patient. Nobody thinks we can leave anybody to die because it costs too much to save that person. We want to save everyone that we can save. So we just have to pay as much health insurance as we can so that as many of us can be saved as possible. It sounds unfair if those who need more care are responsible for their poor health. But we should trust that most people care about their health and do as much as they can to stay healthy. After all, it always cost us more to get sick whether or not we have to pay for our treatments or not.

To sum up, while we may not be able to avoid paying higher health care costs, we want that money to go to better health care rather than to pay for the inefficiency of the health care system or the greed of health care providers, which is what Hillary’s plan will have us to do.

Voters in states that have not voted may see Democratic party elites’ call for Hillary’s withdrawal as a disrespect for their wills. They may be more motivated to vote for Hillary because of this. What the party elites should call for is the decrease in negative attacks, not for a premature ending of the primary. Otherwise, Obama’s victory in the primary will not be convincing and he will have a hard time drawing support from Hillary supporters in the general election. Party elites’ call for Hillary’s withdrawal only make them look undemocratic and fearful of the will of the people.

Even negative portrayals of Obama does not necessarily hurt the Obama campaign. Some of them simply exist in some voters’ minds regardless whether they are discussed or not. If we don’t discuss them, they will stay in those voters’ minds. If we discuss them, those voters will see the truth and support Obama. Only politicians who have something against voters are fearful of discussing it with voters.

Negative attacks on a candidate does not hurt the candidate who is the subject of the attacks much. They mostly hurt the candidate who engages in negative attacks. If the candidate who stays positive throughout the campaign gets nominated, the party will not be hurt. The party will be hurt only if the candidate who engages in negative attacks gets nominated.