How To Read Candidates' Body Language

During this crucial U.S. presidential election year, we might find it helpful to carefully watch the candidates' body language in order to catch them in lies (Lying politicians? What a concept!) or other traits American voters need to be aware of.

Knitted brows, hands on hips, rolled eyes, tapping a foot, bobbing the head, pouting, shrugging, crossed arms, raising one brow, clenched jaw, pursed lips, can reveal their innermost thoughts with nonverbal communication. Moms are great for imparting their desires, approval or, mostly, disapproval, without saying a single word.

Hillary Clinton nods a good deal which tells the viewer she agrees with herself. Senator Clinton, a Democratic Party contender for presidential nominee, points to individual members of her audience while nodding, and frequently claps in rhythm to their chanting H-I-L-L-A-R-Y. This is one way in which to draw the audience in, to make them a part of her campaign. Her smile is forced. Her eyes often stare without blinking. She uses an arsenal of body language for us to study and draw our own conclusions and not the ones she wishes us to draw. People tend to disbelieve her.

Senator Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the presidential nomination, does not clap, does not nod his head, and rarely points to anyone in the audience. He gives the impression of being a part of the audience simultaneously with being its focal point. His confidence and appealing smile has the ring of sincerity. Obama leans forward toward his audience, a friendly position. (Bending away indicates subconscious negative feelings.) He holds the microphone with a gentle familiarity. People tend to believe him.

Republican nominee John McCain blinks a lot, though that may be the bright lights of the television cameras. Our blink rate reflects psychological arousal in the manner of a polygraph test. The normal, resting blink rate of a human is 20 closures per minute, with the average blink lasting one quarter of a second. Significantly faster rates may reflect emotional stress, as aroused, e.g., in the fight-or-flight response. And McCain also slices through the air with a flat hand when he wants to make a particularly relevant point. People tend to want to believe him.

Like the rest of us, politicians lift one eyebrow in disbelief, clasp their arms to isolate or to protect themselves, shrug their shoulders with indifference, wink one eye for intimacy, tap their fingers for impatience, slap their foreheads for forgetfulness, hold their index finger up to signal "wait." Jutting one's chin is a nonverbal sign of superiority, arrogance, and disdain. So is looking down one's nose. An example of both would be former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

Words are increasingly becoming less necessary when we have such an abundance of voiceless communication methods.

It seems politicians can reveal, conceal, and spiel, all without saying a word.

http://www.maggievanostrand.com

Maggie Van Ostrand's award-winning column appears in local hard copy newspapers and online publications in the United States, Mexico and Canada.

Her articles appear regularly in the Chicago Tribune, and have appeared in the Boston Globe, Newsday, the Philadelpha Inquirer, Amarillo Globe-News, Sun-Sentinel, and many other national newspapers, as well as national and niche magazines.

A prolific writer, Maggie churns out three humor and one human interest columns weekly, plus a monthly humor column.

She is a member of National Society of Newspaper Columnists, the Erma Bombeck Writers Workshop, and the Society of Women Writers and Journalists in the U.K.

Maggie was also a judge of the worldwide Erma Bombeck Writers' Contest in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and judge of 2007 Arizona Press Club Award for journalism.

Display Sub Category
Display Sub Category
Dogwebguide

God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror', and the Echoing Press

David Domke, God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror', and the Echoing Press. London and Ann Arbor, Ml: Pluto Press, 2004. 240 pp.

The relationship between politics and media has always been a topic for vast researches. On the other hand the use of religious discourse in addresses and speeches of politicians to back their policies is not a new issue. But what is done in this book that makes is outstanding and different is an analysis of the interconnections among all these three together. Thus David Domke's book is ideally positioned to cut right into the heart of debates about the modern developments at the intersection of religion, politics and media within the US. According to him, the foreign and domestic foreign developments in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not only (neo) conservative, but also firmly grounded in a (Christian) religious fundamentalism. Domke argues that the Bush administration has turned a religious worldview into political policy and has created what Domke calls a 'political fundamentalism', defined as 'an intertwining of conservative religious faith, politics, and strategic communication' (p. 6). The book is also a critique of the Bush administration's disregard for democracy in the months following the attack.

The introductory chapter of God Willing? identifies four main characteristics of the Bush administration's communication that were grounded in a conservative religious worldview: (1) a binary concept of reality (apparent in the consistent use of two constructions: good vs. evil and security vs. peril); (2) an obsession with time and demands for immediate action against terrorism(manifest in two beliefs: that action in the here and now is imperative, and that one's commitment to a certain course of action, if perceived to be God inspired, should be of an enduring nature); (3) declarations about the will of god for the united states and the values of freedom and liberty; and finally (4) an intolerance for dissent(apparent in the administration's unified voice in public communication, its appeals for other political actors to act with political unity and its harsh criticisms of dissenters). In each of the chapters that follow, one of these characteristics is defined and discussed in detail, with evidence offering its consistent presence in the public communications of the president between 11 September 2001 and 1 may 2003.

In chapter 2 he examines the presence of two binaries in the president's discourse and news coverage after September 11- good versus evil and security versus peril- and argues that these conceptions of reality reflected and contributed to a sense of moral certitude among the bush administration that was used to justify limits on civil liberties and major preemptive military action while also helping to engender public support for the president and administration's "war on terror".

Chapter 3 offers evidence of time fixations throughout the administration's discourse and news coverage, and argues that they allowed the administration simultaneously to push for immediate action on specific "war on terrorism" policies and to justify this desire as a requisite step in a long-term, God- ordained process. The implication was clear: to not act quickly or to not endure in the campaign against terrorism was to risk another September 11.

In chapter 4 evidence is offered of how the universal gospel of freedom and liberty, offered by the president and echoed by the press, functioned as a central rationale for the administration's foreign policies, particularly in justifying the new preemptive doctrine and the Iraq war.

Chapter 5 focuses on how the administration's emphasis upon political unity and harsh rebukes of those dissented worked together to encourage support for the administration, and to suggest that anyone who held opposing views was unpatriotic and potentially placing people in the United States at risk.

Chapter 6 reflects upon the collection of evidence, in three central sections. First, it argues that the Bush administration offers an instructive case study of how political fundamentalism can gain wide support in the United States. The chapter's second section scrutinizes the role of news media in these processes, with the argument that in a nation-challenging context, commercial mass media are drawn to the discourses of political conservatives, particularly those that are religiously grounded. The final section of the chapter explores how cultural leaders might craft a moral discourse that counters the predominance of political fundamentalism, and why it is crucial for U.S. citizens and others that they do so.

Chapter 7 offers conclusions, focusing on implications of the administration's political fundamentalism for democracy, both in the United States and globally.

In the way the writer brings a rigorous analysis of a wide range of empirical material, David Domke's work is of great value to study. However, to what extent his work can contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between religion, politics, and the media is a matter of question. Some scholars may find it the role of religion has been exaggerated. Some scholars may question the way he has analyzed meaning formation and reception in media as it is a subjective matter. Nevertheless, the book very well clarifies how the actions of the Bush administration and the news media are directly counter to fundamental American democratic ideals and principles. It shows how civil religion is used to promote its political goals and to justify self-interest. So "God Willing" is a must-read for anyone who cherishes American democracy, anyone who feels uneasy about the Bush Administration's use of religious images, as well as those who have concerns about the way the press helps Bush advance his agenda. However, the potential and necessity for further discussion on the subject exists that can encourage other scholars.

Washington Dc
Associated Press
How Hacker Got In To Sarah Palins Email Account
Ron Paul
Sports

Nostradamus Predicted Obama's Running Mate

The Nostradamus websites are having a field day. Bloggers have discovered uncanny parallels between the lines of a quatrain and Barack Obama. They have interpreted the verses, rife with political symbolism, as being a remarkably accurate description of the Democratic contender.

Born of obscure and dark family,

Of white and black of the two intermixed.

The dark one biding his time,

Before the Empire changes.

"Born of [an] obscure... family" means that he did not come from a prominent or privileged blood line. Obama most definitely does not have a well-connected political lineage; his humble beginnings are well-documented in his biographies. The word "obscure" also has the additional connotation of "not clearly understood," and questions have surfaced in certain quarters concerning his origins.

"Of white and black of the two intermixed." Obama had a white mother and a black father.

"The dark one." Despite his racial dichotomy, his appearance is darker, rather than lighter.

"Biding his time." Nostradamus loved to insert puns into his writing. This particular one is taken to be a play on the name "Biden," as in Senator Joseph Biden, Obama's chosen running mate. Obviously, Nostradamus did not pen his quatrains in English, but his adherents point out that the familiar phrase can be translated in no other words, and has been done that way for centuries. They take it as further evidence that the same hand of Divine Providence that allowed his prophetic visions to reach across time provided this quatrain for our day and age.

"Before the Empire changes." It is no state secret that George W. Bush is often referred to as the "Imperial President," an allusion to his Napoleonic nation-building, as well as for co-opting the Constitution and acting as unitary executive. And of course, Obama is running on a platform of change.

Just exactly how the Empire will change remains to be seen.

http://www.augustnoble.com/

Special Interest
Right Wing Lunatic Michelle Malkin Banned From Mccain Conference Calls
Entertainment News
Media
Enviroment

European politics and Religion

Religion has been an ever-present catalyst of civil wars and regime changes in the history of European politics. The Holy Grail crusades and the Hitler's crusade against Jews are two good examples to show how religion and politics are sometimes unrecognizable in the political landscape of Europe. But after the world wars, in the era of industrialization in the previous century, religion appeared less influential. There were many social scientists who predicted a gradual slow death of religion amidst the growing influence of scientific belief and mechanical modernization. But it was just wishful thinking, as religion had become a more potent force to engineer political changes in Europe during the last decades of the twenty-first century.

The fervent anti-Jew activism of Hitler was a highly influential factor in European history, the effect of which still resonates in the political bullrings of many European parliaments even after six decades. In that count, there are many people who label Nazism as a religion, but thankfully a failed one. Another noteworthy effect of religion in European politics is the Irish civil war. With a close scrutiny, one can find that the fundamental problem between the two sides is that of religion. It is a case of religious problem, that is the struggle for supremacy between Catholicon Christianity and Protestant Christianity, spilling over to the politics of a region. Many lives had been lost until the relative calm of recent years in Ireland and England.

The civil war and the resultant split during the nineties in former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were also a final result of what had begun as a religious unrest. Balkanization (the term refers to the formation of several small countries in what was known formerly as the Balkan region, which comprised Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) is a result of a bloody strife between two dominant religions of the region. This can also be considered as another case study on the influence of religion in the political milieu of Europe.

The most recent and ongoing case of religious matters overlapping with political matters is what is known as the issue of Islam fundamentalism. This is an issue that has gripped the whole world, not just the European countries. During the last decade, there has been an increased animosity between Islam and the dominant religion of a particular region. Often these religious skirmishes intensify to become street fights.

Especially after the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in United States, the image of Islam in the eyes of European governments has changed over time. There were bomb blasts in London and Madrid. Also, several European countries like United Kingdom and France were accused of helping the alleged US propaganda of isolating Islam in the global context. These example all show that religion is a dominant factor controlling the political changes in Europe.

Ian Pennington is an accomplished niche website developer and author.
To learn more about politicstoday.info/european-politics-and-religion/">European politics and religion, please visit politicstoday.info/">European politics Today for current articles and discussions.

Hardball Guest Claims Arianna Huffington Revealing John Mccain Didn%e2%80%99t Vote For Bush To A Hooker Outing A John
Cnn
Public Policy
Mccain Under Fire As Master Of The Backflip
Hardball Guest Claims Arianna Huffington Revealing John Mccain Didn%e2%80%99t Vote For Bush To A Hooker Outing A John

Mid-East Conflict Started In A Tent

The conflict in the Middle East was born several thousand years ago in a tent in the desert. The Old Testament, Book of Genesis, lays out the story in great detail. It's compelling reading for students of the Middle East conflict.

The story goes that God told Abraham that he would have a son, to name him Isaac, and that Isaac would be the first of a great nation, their number more than all the grains of sand in the desert. At that time, Abraham was 100-years old and Sarai, his wife, was 90-years old. Years passed, Abraham and Sarai grew even older, and Sarai began losing faith in God's promise because she was way "beyond childbearing years". So, she had a suggestion to solve the problem, to help God so to speak.

Sarai suggested that Abraham "lay" with her young Egyptian handmaiden, Hagar, and bear a child with her that would be Sarai's and Abraham's heir. It was a sort of surrogate birth. Abraham bought the suggestion and Ishmael was born. This did not please God, as the story goes. Soon there was conflict because Sarai got pregnant by Abraham (as God promised) and Isaac was born.

In those days the first born son would inherit the father's business. Isaac was the first born but Sarai, later in the story, began treating Ishmael and Hagar badly. She told Abraham to cast them out of the encampment. Abraham struggled over this because Ishmael was also his son. God told Abraham to listen to Sarai and he left them in the desert in God's care. God spoke to Hagar and Ishmael in the desert and made Hagar a promise that Ishmael would be the father "of a great nation" as well.

Interesting story. Interesting in the fact that Isaac and Ishmael are half-brothers. So, you see, the conflict in the Middle East is a family squabble that has claimed thousands of lives among combatants and innocents. It all began in a tent in the desert.

Jim DeSantis, Editor

Jim DeSantis is a 15 year veteran of investigative reporting. He runs a Self Help Newspaper, On Line Tribune at on-line-tribune-front-page.blogspot.com, featuring 14 sections packed with Free articles, courses, and ebooks on a variety of topics dealing with daily life. You are invited to submit your opinion on this or on any other topic to Jim's blog. If accepted, your opinion will be published as a Featured Article.

Republican
Featured Story 3
Right Wing Lunatic Michelle Malkin Banned From Mccain Conference Calls
Everything Else
Millennials

Dark Days For Freedom of Speech in Canada

Have you heard about the Mark Steyn case? Two years ago, the Canadian journalist published a book entitled America Alone, in which he (a) pointed out that the cultural views of many foreign Muslims are sharply incompatible with those of most Americans and Canadians and (b) drew the conclusion that, if nations in the West want to protect their values and their civil liberties, they need to curb immigration from Muslim countries. The Canadian magazine Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, entitled "The Future Belongs to Islam."

For this "crime," incredibly, both Steyn and Maclean's are being prosecuted in Canada. After a long trial that ended in early June, the defendants are waiting for a verdict from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal as to whether they are guilty of insulting Muslims by publishing the piece. They face draconian financial penalties.

In Canada, it seems, there's now a law that a person must not publish anything that exposes a group of people to "hatred or contempt." Relying on this vaguely worded statute, a Muslim organization in Canada has accused Maclean's of committing a "hate crime" by publishing the article and some follow-up letters to the editor from readers who agree with Steyn.

You wouldn't expect any tribunal in the United States or Canada to give such a complaint the time of day. Any high school civics student could see that that Steyn and Maclean's were merely exercising free speech (which is protected under Canada's Charter just as it is under our Bill of Rights.)

But the complaint wasn't thrown out. Instead, it's being prosecuted at government expense, while Steyn and Maclean's have had to pay for their own lawyers. The case isn't tried in a regular court, and the defendants don't have the benefit of the rights customarily afforded to those charged with crimes. Ironically, considering that these are supposedly "human rights" proceedings, there are no rules of evidence - for example, no rules against hearsay.

Lay aside the glaring issues of freedom of speech and due process, if you can, and consider whether anyone could possibly deem Steyn's piece "hate speech." (Many commentators don't seem to have actually read it, but you can judge for yourself. It's still posted on the internet here.)

In fact, in the article, Steyn doesn't rant or rave against Muslims. He doesn't call them names, and he neither denigrates the Islam religion nor takes issue with any of its tenets. He says nothing about the oppression of women in many Muslim societies, nothing about the outrageous anti-Semitism that children are taught in many Islamic countries, nothing about polygamy, nothing about death penalties against Muslims who convert to other religions, nothing about Muslim women who are shunned after they are raped, nothing about clerics who urge believers to assassinate prominent novelists, nothing about barbaric criminal penalties for petty crimes.

Instead, the article focuses on demographics - the contrast between the dangerously low birthrates in many Western countries and the high birthrates in Muslim societies. Steyn points out the obvious: when large population segments identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as Dutch, French, American, or Canadian, there will be pressure on our societies to change and to compromise our values.

And Steyn makes his strongest points not by villifying Muslims, but by quoting them. Libya's Colonel Gadhafi: "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." A Norwegian imam: "We're the ones who will change you. Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. . . . .Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."

The defendants are not racist crackpots. Maclean's is a weekly Canadian current-events magazine like Newsweek, not particularly conservative. Steyn is one of Canada's best-known journalists; Emsworth has had the pleasure of reading him regularly in such respectable American publications as The Atlantic and National Review.

To their credit, many Canadians are up in arms about the case and the out-of-control Human Rights Commission. But the censors have plenty of defenders. The Toronto newspapers, for example, have dutifully editorialized on the case in favor of free speech - but they clearly feel that Steyn was out of line and should have left the subject alone.

That's certainly what the members of the Ontario Human Rights Commission thought. Despite admitting in late June 2008 that it didn't have jurisdiction over the matter, this government agency issued an official statement condemning Steyn's article as "xenophobic", "destructive", "Islamophobic" and "promoting prejudice". Earlier, one of the Commission's principal investigators, asked about the value he puts on freedom of speech in his work, answered, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

Well, it is an American value; he was right about that. Today's the Fourth of July, a good day to remind ourselves that in America, at least, free speech still means freedom to say things others would rather leave unsaid. (July 4, 2008)

http://emsworth.wordpress.com/

Film
How Hacker Got In To Sarah Palins Email Account
Barack Obama
Featured Story 3
Scandal

politics Vs The Watercooler - Political Protocol For the Workplace

On the stage in political theatre, we as a nation have been spectators and participants of the greatest, most suspenseful and dramatic miniseries -The Presidential Election of 2008. No wonder this has been our country's current recreation. Do you recall the old adage that politics is the only game for adults?

The players/candidates must be willing do all that can be done to win or they should not be in the public life. Victory is decreed by demonizing your opponents by exchanging vitriol verbal blows. We as the spectators/voters thrive on a culture of a dog-eat-dog mentality. Thus, the metaphor of the theatre sets the stage for "Blood Sports."

There is no need to ponder why debates spill from the family living room, the university classrooms, and other social and religious venues directly into the workplace.

According to a study by Office Team in Medo, California, while once a refuge of a no politics and no religious zone, the workplace has triggered a maelstrom of political debate at the office water-cooler.

The rules of this "blood sport" rely on human nature. The sides we align ourselves in this arena are based on our values. Consequently, our values emotionally define our decisions. If we impose our convictions on others while negating their feelings, it sets forth a dynamite charge of threatening emotions.

Instinctually, the fight or flight response is elicited. While this is a life-saving mechanism, it can also churn dire consequences when produced in a work environment.

Civility expert P.M. Forni, Director of the Civility Initiative at John Hopkins University, found that it is up to employees to handle these concerns at the cubicle level. Most managers will not legislate good manners or dampen debates. Therefore, the employee must use caution in debating and respecting the opinions of their co-workers.

Here are some suggestions of workplace boundaries:

- Stop! Take a minute to access if the time and place is appropriate for political discussion.

- Do not assume others share the same political views as you.

- Do not feel pressured to participate in office debates. Your opinion is just that - yours.

- Be cautious of how you express your thoughts. A friendly discussion is one thing, proselytizing is quite another.

- Be sure to show mutual respect. Remember to give others the opportunity to discuss and share their opinions. Please refrain from defending your views by employing profane language, interrupting or ignoring.

- Do acknowledge your co-worker's good points in his theories.

- Do not judge a person's politics by how your co-worker dresses. A conservative dresser can be quite liberal and vice versa.

- Remove yourself from a discussion with your superior when you do not see eye to eye. Remember you are on the "job" and who is "boss."

- Always remember that the workplace is for work and not for campaigning. Please restrain your passions and your mouth!

In the end, it is up to the individual to find the wisdom to display the skills to remain professional at a time when "we" versus "they" thinking is rampant. Respect your position as an employee at the workplace and as a voter in the voting booth.

Ms. Zazulak Pedro has combined her educational skills in psychology and her certifications in business, children and international etiquette into a unique designation as a "Social Engineer." She strives in not only in teaching the bare knuckles of etiquette, but to delve further in the psychology of etiquette.

The Protocol Praxis incorporates etiquette, NLP, non-verbal and verbal communication skills with covert hypnosis. Empowerment, persuasion and other life-skills become powerful tools that are employed to help one become their own master of their destiny.

Fox News
R Nc Reppatrick Mchenry Truly Is Having The Worst Week Ever
Entertainment News
2008 Election
Palin Blessed To Be Free From Witchcraft

Energy, Social Security Test Failed by Both McCain and Obama

I am very disappointed in both of you, our Presidential candidates. Each of you had an incredible opportunity to give the nation a plan of action but all you did was brag on yourselves and give us more of your 'party talking points'. The Democrats won't quit spending more than we take in or let us drill and the Republicans won't stand up and raise taxes to fix problems.

The Democrats won't let our companies provide the oil and gas we have in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska and they won't stand up with a plan or come to a compromise because it wouldn't look good for the Democratic party. President Bush tried to solve the Social Security mess and was willing to raise taxes and compromise but the Democratic leaders wouldn't let the democratic members compromise no matter that it was obviously for the good of the nation.

I am so tired of hearing "I'll work hard for you", "I understand your situation", "I love this country". If you really care, if you have Integrity with those words, you will give us what we need, a plan. Give us an overview of our situation as you see it and what you propose to do about it! This country is in a much tougher situation than either of you show that you recognize. Don't either of you get it?

THE REAL SOCIAL SECURITY DEBT $11.1 trillion

That amount grew by $600 Billion last year! And it will continue to grow because our elected officials from both parties refuse to stand up and fix it by a combination of raising taxes and freezing or lowering benefits. It's obvious that we have to do both yet you don't have the courage to face it or tell the American people that we have to face it.

Year after year there will be more retirees and other recipients as compared to workers. By 2050 every worker will also have to pay half of the benefit of a recipient in addition to trying to raise and educate their own kids! It soon becomes impossible. Currently, only about 84% of wages in covered employment is within today's maximum taxable wage base. So we tax lower income employees at a higher rate than we do higher income employees. Is that fair? The longer you, our elected officials, refuse to fix this problem the more expensive it will be. Yet the Democratic congress wouldn't face the issue with President Bush and there is no indication that either of you guys care enough to be honest about it or will be able to do anything about it either.

IMPORTING OIL $800 Billion per year now and growing!

How long can that go on? Don't you get it? Well if you do, please explain it to the rest of us. We are going broke and yet neither of you demonstrate the urgency of the situation or proposes a specific plan. Obama at least set a goal of something in 10 years but no plan. McCain probably has the right idea with nuclear power plants but no specific urgent plan about how to get it done.

Here we have a private citizen, T. Boone Pickens, spending millions of his own dollars giving us a plan yet neither of you acknowledged him or his ideas or offered an alternative plan. He says we could build a lot of windmills to create electricity and use natural gas to power our automotive fleet which would be cheaper and cleaner and would last while we develop the alternatives. Why don't you have a plan? Is this too tough to face and decide?

EXECUTIVE ABUSES

What has made us a wealthy nation is that we had plenty of innovation and jobs and we were exporting our goods to other nations. Now many of our higher paying jobs for the average worker have been shipped overseas. And the Executives on the Boards of Directors are giving their buddy Executives massive payments from the stockholder's pockets. It's so easy to point to the abuses of others to justify your own actions. Yet we stockholders have no realistic way to hold them liable for their abuses.

Let there be no mistake about it. The companies are really owned by average people through our 401k plans and other investments. Yet, we have no control over the 'money managers' who don't take action and vote those shares in the interest of the shareholders to stop the abuses. And we have no realistic control over the Boards of Directors because the money managers 'own' so much of the stock. Both should have a fiduciary responsibility so that we investors can hold them accountable. 'Doing what is right' is getting the incentives right. At least Obama is saying to change the tax incentives to get jobs back here but McCain doesn't address this issue appropriately it seems to me.

But the really big immediate issue is our addiction to oil. There is almost a guarantee that we have huge reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and we already have nearly 4,000 rigs out there with 30 years of no problems and the transmission capabilities to get it to the refineries. But our Democratic representatives cower to their 'leadership' and refuse to let us get it. John McCain is facing the issue of drilling offshore but Obama stands with his 'party' with no plan. McCain quit trying to drill in Anwar because there is no chance of getting that past the Democrats.

That leaves the only alternative to keep buying from overseas and getting more dependent and more susceptible to attacks and losing more of our wealth. And why? There can be no doubt that the positives outweigh the negatives for this nation. But not for the Democratic party and its candidates.

NATIONAL DEBT $9 trillion

And we are already planning to spend $400 Billion more this next year than we take in! I know our 'wonderful' elected officials keep saying that as a percentage of the "Gross Domestic Product" that's not so bad. But what in the world does that mean? I don't care. Whatever it is, let's get our taxing and spending in balance! Each of you are promising more 'tax reductions to prevent a recession' but if we don't come to grips with overspending we'll hit a much tougher wall one of these days pretty soon.

Already over half of our total national budget is spent paying interest on the national debt and that is getting worse year after year! Think of all we could do with that interest money if we paid off the debt! How long can this go on? How long would it go on in your household budget? This is destroying our nation and our way of life yet neither of you have shown that you 'get it'.

McCain at least says he will reign in government spending but won't face more taxes. Obviously the rich are getting way too much of the wealth and not paying a reasonable tax considering our national situation. Yet the Republicans can't stand to face raising taxes because that wouldn't look good for the Republican party.

Enough is enough! Stand up with Integrity for our country! Prove it!

Jerry W. Willis - author of a new Purpose in Life book for all of us. see http://www.jerrywwillis.com

To receive the free E-Workbook: Starting the Journey - the first step in understanding your Purpose in Life which will help you and your kids build the life you've been dreaming of, visit http://www.jerrywwillis.com go to the Contact Us tab fill in the information, ask any questions and make any comments and submit. Jerry W. Willis

Streisand To Croon For Obama
Global Warming
Cnn
Palin Blessed To Be Free From Witchcraft
Everything Else