Kenny Farquharson for Scotland on Sunday earlier this month drew the comparison between the name of Obama’s project and the NASA mission to emphasise the significance of the plans.

The project, as Geoffrey Lean and Leonard Doyle in the Independent on Sunday explained, aims to expand renewable energy use insulating a million homes and putting a million rechargeable “plug-in hybrid cars” on the road by 2015. As an extra incentive green car consumers will also receive $7000 in tax credits.

Proposals to create five million “green collar” jobs have come at a time when American unemployment is at its highest in 14 years. Peter S. Goodman for the New York Times showed that the figures for unemployment had risen to 6.5 percent from 6.1 percent after 240,000 jobs were lost at the start of the month.

Catherine Brahic in the New Scientist foresees Obama embracing the cap-and-trade plans where a limit is placed on how much of a pollutant can be emitted, so in order for a company to emit more than their limit allows they must buy credits from companies that pollute less. This initiative will overturn President Bush’s long opposition to capping the amount of emissions a country produces and be among many of the present administration’s weak policies on climate change that will be scrapped.

Barack Obama’s presidential win is generating optimism among the top ranks of green activism. John Vidal in the Guardian mentioned Rodger Schlickeisen, the President of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, who welcomed Obama’s words stating that now is a time when we can look forward to a future when the health of our planet “will not be sacrificed to appease polluting industries and campaign contribution.”

The other main green initiative outlined in Obama’s manifesto - and most optimistic of them all - are plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the level they were at in 1990, vowing to cut 80% of emissions in 2050, matching Britain’s aims and outdoing Europe by 20%.

The first task for Obama will be to produce clear results when sending his green representatives to the UN’s climate change talks in Poznam, Poland. Will they be able to convince the world that his plans on climate change are changes we can believe in?

Congratulations to President elect Barack Obama on winning the election for the 44^th President of the United States of America.  President elect Obama has already met with President George W. Bush to start the transition of the new administration. Obama has also started appointing personnel to his staff. In addition, Obama has started the enormous task of putting together a financial plan to turn around a slumping economy. Yet for some citizens, the most critical issue is what will Barack do concerning the issue of gun control. The upheaval by staunch gun toting liberals is caused by their concern of Barack’s prior voting record on gun control. According to the political watch group Onthe Issues.org, when Barack Obama was asked the question “Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?” Barack’s answer was as follows “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right.” So if the state or local government constrains the exercise of individual rights than how would that be considered a right?  If government oppresses individual rights than what is left of democracy? On the Issues.org further reports that when Obama was asked his opinion on registering and licensing of guns Obama stated “I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands.” If criminals always did what they were suppose to do than they would not be criminals.

Onthe Issues.org claims “Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois.” When Obama was asked if he favored an all out ban on handguns Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Yet OntheIssues.org reports that on a 1996 questionnaire Barack answered yes when given the question do you favor the ban of the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. When asked of the discrepancy Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." So which answer is correct Obama’s staffer’s response for him now or the staffer’s response for Obama prior? Barack was asked to further explain the seaming discrepancy of his supposed support for the 2^nd Amendment yet being o.k. with the D.C. gun ban. Obama answered “Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.” Barack then talks about another group of gun toters stating “We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.” Yet a community handgun ban only removes guns from the law abiding citizens. Therefore does Barack intend to state that in these banned communities that there are no law abiding citizens that would hope to hunt, shoot for sport or desire to protect their families?

Does Barack Obama want to abolish the 2^nd Amendment? In 2000 according to On the Issues .org Obama cosponsored a bill to limit handguns purchases to one a month. This seems reasonable. After all how many handguns does one individual need at one time? But then Barack voted against people be allowed to violate the weapons bans in cases of self defense. Who is Obama trying to aid the common person or the criminals? Surprisingly Barack Obama was reported to favor retired police officers carrying concealed weapons by David Mendel in his book From Promise to Power  quoting Obama “I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.” (250-251) In a debate in 2004 between Alan Keyes and Barack Obama On the Issues .org reported this exchange concerning President George Bush’s failure to renew the automatic assault rifle ban: Keyes to Obama “ I am a strong believer in the second amendment. . .[Obama] suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crooks have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves.” Obama replied “Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” Individuals do not need to possess automatic assault rifles to uphold their rights to recreational uses of guns such as hunting and shooting or even for protection of self and family. However in the same debate Obama denies believe in people using weapons for self defense in their own homes. This goes against the core purpose for the 2^nd Amendment. Barack Obama in his attempt to remove handguns from criminals will only deny rights to law abiding individuals; the right to teach our children to shoot and hunt; the right to protect our homes and families and will allow criminal gun violence to escalate. Just as Alan Keyes stated if our 2^nd Amendment rights are revoked then the only ones with guns are the criminals. For proof look no further then marijuana, although outlawed it is very prevalent in all parts of this country.

The 2^nd Amendment was established with the rights of the individual in mind. But as the individual has security it brings security and stability to the whole.  The 2^nd Amendment has its roots in the English Bill of Rights of 1689:  That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. (Volokh)  According to Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School on law.UCLA.edu each state starting with North Carolina and Pennsylvania back in 1776 have adopted into their respective State Constitutions provisions for their citizens to bear arms. It is interesting that President elect Barack Obama continues to make mention of the rights of citizens to bear arms for the purpose of hunting. It is this exact distinction that allowed England to disarm the large majority of its people. Professor Volokh writes this excerpt from   St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries in 1803 “Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.”  The commentator himself informs us “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.” England was seemingly allowing for the keeping of arms but then made distinctions to who could meet these criteria which boiled down to only the aristocrats the select few. St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries summarized according to Professor Volokh “the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.  So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.” Although Volokh mentions the ratio is probably an exaggeration the desired effect was achieved as the majority of law abiding citizens had been denied the rights to bear arms. Justice Joseph Story wrote again on this subject in 1833 in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. In 1880 Thomas Cooley wrote in General Principles of Constitutional Law on the subject of the right to bear arms.

A little more recently in a well documented case in 1939 there was a case in the Supreme Court involving the right to bear arms. In the case of United States versus Miller, Jack Miller was charged that he "did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length [contrary to the National Firearms Act] “ The defense stated  “The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional.” In 1894 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miller v Texas on the subject of carrying weapons on the person “the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In 1929 the Supreme Court ruled on an interesting case denying citizenship in the case of the United States v Schwimmer stating “Schwimmer was denied citizenship because she refused to swear to "if necessary . . . take up arms in defense of this country."

In recent cases Volokh continues to list the 1972 Supreme Court case Adams v Williams written “Connecticut allows its citizens to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, at will, provided they have a permit.  Connecticut law gives its police no authority to frisk a person for a permit.  Yet the arrest was for illegal possession of a gun.” This would seem to put the police force at undue risk if unknowingly. In the 1980 case of Lewis v United States we read “Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm” Volokh gives us Printz v. United States in which “the Court today properly holds that the Brady Act [a federal gun control law] violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." This ruling again confirms the individual power of each state and that of each citizen in each state. Concerning the carrying of weapons Volokh refers to the 1998 case of Muscarello v. United States. In this case it reads “The question in the case was whether the statutory phrase "carries a firearm" is limited to carrying on the person, or also includes carrying in a car which the person is accompanying.  The dissent said the phrase was limited to carrying on the person.”  The case was ruled that the right to “bear arms” was meant to “indicate: wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." These are some of the major historical cases involving the 2^nd Amendment. Next is the N.R.A.’s (National Rifle Association) reaction to the election of President-elect Barack Obama.

The NRA was established in 1871 for the purpose to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” (Editors, National Rifle Association) The NRA came to into existence when co-founders Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate were “dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops.” Anyone who has ever went to a shooting range either civilian or military can attest that people without the proper training and practice can be very pitiful in their shooting abilities. According to the NRA website they claim “in civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 50,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year.”

The NRA is reporting that “President-elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder as his Attorney General, and that Holder may already have accepted the offer.” The stats sheet on Eric Holder is just as dismal for gun enthusiasts as Obama’s record on gun control. Eric Holder when he was Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno went on record to interpret the 2^nd Amendment as follows “the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, but instead protects the right to have a firearm when serving with a militia.” Eric Holder seems to be out of touch with small things such as facts. Holder apparently does not give much respect to the individual rights of the people of this country.  NRA reports that “When ABC's George Will asked him about guns being used for self-defense more often than to commit crime, and Right-to-Carry states having lower crime rates than other states, Holder dismissed the facts that Mr. Will raised, with a flippant statement.”

The NRA is showing concern over the questionnaire that is being given out for all potential applicants for the new administration positions. Question 59 reads “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?  If so, provide complete ownership and registration information.  Has the registration ever lapsed?  Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”  The NRA discusses that only five states even require registration and very few places require renewal updates. The final part of the question asks how the gun is used and draws this comment from the NRA “Once again, if an applicant is not using his gun to commit crimes, how could this possibly be relevant.”  What concern is it of a employer whether an applicant goes hunting or enjoys shooting at firing ranges?

Locally the State of Florida’s “Guns at Work” law was upheld on August 1^st 2008 by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle. This law allows employees in Florida with Right-to-Carry permits to have firearms concealed in their automobiles while they are at work. The law was heavily backed by the NRA and upon the victory this statement was released by the NRA President Marion Hammer, NRA's Florida lobbyist and the first-ever woman to lead the NRA “In a day and age where commutes are longer and people spend more time running errands before and after work, hard working men and women in our country should not have their basic God-given right to self defense trampled by corporate giants.” 

In conclusion the Barack Obama administration is off to a quick start putting together economic stimulus plans in place. This is the major issue facing the new soon to be President, yet in tight economic times with millions out of work home, family and self security is a obvious concern.  With Eric Holder, NRA’s proclaimed “gun control nightmare” taking position as Attorney General coupled with Obama’s past gun control voting the NRA will have its hands full watch dogging those two. Even as this is being written student groups on college campuses in Wisconsin are pushing for the rights to carry concealed firearms while at school. Crimes involving handguns are much higher in a very strictly regulated handgun country of Germany then that of Switzerland who has very liberal handgun laws and a much lower criminal incident rate with handgun involvement. There are strong view points on each side of the gun control issue. There are groups that would push the extremes on both sides.

Do we go to guns everywhere including in schools, work and church? How about no guns unless you are a rich aristocratic elitist? Somewhere in the middle is right where hunting, sports shooting, and self protection are preserved. Just as plainly stated in the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Thus, this stimulus plan - any stimulus plan - must be evaluated based on whether it will deliver benefits greater than its costs, and whether the plan will indeed create any net new jobs. Beginning with infrastructure spending, the government is saying that spending on roads and bridges rather than a myriad of other priorities (including tax cuts) is the best use of those government funds. Will several thousand new miles of highway or a few hundred repaired bridges be worth the billions of dollars that would be spent building or repairing them? The value of public infrastructure projects are very difficult to measure, and the economic stimulus effects of infrastructure spending is uncertain. In fact, most targeted spending in stimulus bills is criticized because the benefits are concentrated into one industry.

Assuming that the value of the infrastructure would exceed the cost, what about job creation? The billions of dollars used to pay construction crews for the building looks like it is creating construction jobs, and those construction workers will then spend their wages buying cars and houses, and then the car manufacturers and home builders will hire workers to address this new demand. However, the money for the infrastructure building must come from someone, and that means taxpayers either now or in the future must pay for those projects, and will therefore have to reduce their spending in other areas to pay for these infrastructure projects, including the interest on the debt for those projects. Thus, someone who might otherwise pay for a child's education, purchase health insurance, or vacation in Hawaii instead will pay additional taxes to pay for the roads and bridges. Therefore, there will be unseen job losses from these targeted spending initiatives, but politicians are not forthright about these costs.

Accordingly, it is very unlikely that any net new jobs will be created by the government spending, and there is likelihood on a net basis jobs will be lost. The reason for this is that construction jobs are kept at an artificially high level by the Davis-Bacon Act, which does not allow for the payment of competitive wage rates; rather, it mandates paying “prevailing wages” that are usually union-based rates on construction contracts. Thus, a lot of the stimulus spending on infrastructure will be awarded to the favored class of workers drawing abnormally high, non-market wages. If we take money from citizens who would otherwise purchase goods in competitive industries where wages are usually lower (and therefore employers can afford to hire more workers per customer dollar), it is very likely that directing stimulus dollars to protected industries will cause a net loss in employment.

It is also worth noting, that if money is spent for environmentally friendly technologies such as wind and solar, infrastructure spending is usually environmentally disastrous. Forest and trees are cleared for road-building, and then with roads comes the attendant development of nearby property. The environmental degradation from infrastructure spending is fairly well documented. The worst environmental disasters of all time in the U.S. were large infrastructure projects, many of which took place during the New Deal. Many dams in the western United States were built during the New Deal to create jobs, and destroyed many river ecosystems, including the Colorado River basis and the upper and lower Tuolumne River in California.

What about the proposal to spend government stimulus money on solar energy and wind farms. First of all, it must be recognized that if solar and wind power were indeed economically feasible, then the profit motive would draw in entrepreneurs to invest in these industries, and indeed there is some private investment in these industries, where sun or wind are plentiful. However, even these projects have gotten benefits of tax credits and accelerated depreciation benefits. Obama justifies spending in these areas to create jobs and to build energy independence. It is unlikely net new jobs will actually be created: there will be unseen job losses not just from citizens spending less because of higher taxes, but also because solar and wind energy compete with other energy forms of energy. Thus, kilowatts generated by a solar power plant, may cause workers at coal companies to lose their jobs and go on unemployment benefits. With regard to energy independence, that is a foolish goal if the U.S. can trade with other countries to bring in less expensive energy sources, and currently the U.S. can do that. If a consumer pays say $1.00 per kilowatt hour of electricity, should that consumer pay $2.00 for the same quantum of energy merely because it came from a U.S. wind farm rather than oil pumped in Saudi Arabia?

In light of these criticisms, what would be a good stimulus package? The best stimulus package would be to reduce tax rates across the board by the largest possible percentage without currently damaging the government's ability to pay its debt. Returning to the Reagan tax rates of a 28% rate and a 15% rate would be the fairest, most productive stimulus package. Lowering the taxes on productive business activities encourages all forms of economically viable businesses to come into existence, and workers are hired into businesses that are growing because they are selling something that consumers want. Government spending means the government is buying something no one currently wants: government spending usually distorts the proper allocation of resources. Private sector economic development promotes the efficient allocation of societal resources to those goods and services citizens want. Thus, lowering tax rates as the stimulus package is simple, fair, and economically efficient. Doing so can also be counted upon to stimulate new businesses that no government expert foresaw. Therefore, the U.S. can avoid having the government try to “pick winners” with its lavish spending. Better the spending be for industries and new ventures that are determined by the market rather than government experts.

Of course, in Britain and in much of Europe, Obama's victory has been met with both excitement and enthusiasm for the American people and for what they accomplished. Europeans seem to believe that this election represents a shift in thinking about American policies and racial issues. They feel that this decision will help to redeem America in the eyes of those who have developed negative feelings over the last decade.

A long-time client in Hong Kong also rang to tell me how pleased the Chinese people seemed by the fact that the U.S. has finally elected a bi-racial president, especially one who has been so vocal about his strong global views. Even in the Middle East, there seems to be a feeling of relief as a result of president-elect Obama's views on the U.S. involvement in the war-torn regions in that part of the world.

I very much enjoyed following the enthusiastic responses in Africa, and in particular in Kenya, the homeland of Obama's father. The African people obviously feel a close tie to this man who represents a strong connection between the two continents. Likewise, the pride that many African-Americans have expressed in lieu of the president-elect's achievements has also been very touching.

Of course, I know that not everyone is happy with the election results but there are still points that should be celebrated. It is good to see that so many American citizens chose to take advantage of their right and privilege to vote. The substantial increase in voters who actually went to the polls is remarkable and represents hope for the democratic process. Likewise, the fact that many Americans looked beyond race when they marked their ballot choice is a win for democracy for all the world's citizens.

It is important for all of us to feel hope and to feel the ability to make our world a better place.

The first time that I really experienced a clear understanding that the world has changed was the day after the terrorists flew planes onto the World Trade Buildings on 9/11. National Security policies and rules were strengthened and personal privacy of the citizens of nations around the world, but especially in the United States of America were compromised in the guise of Homeland Security. Airports militarized their properties and passengers were (is) subjected to providing deeper personal identification before they could board the plane. Schools increased security and students were required to provide ID cards upon request or before entering a building or classroom.

The second time that the world was shaken and the world changed again, was the day that the housing market crashed and burned. Seriously, how the so-called financial experts and superstar economic gurus did not see this coming…should be a crime. Of course, the first blame and taking of responsibility should be the homeowners that knowingly knew they could not afford buying the house that they now are facing foreclosure on. Equally to blame are the mortgage brokers and the lending companies for rigging the market to ultimately benefit the corporate executives, shareholders and politicians over the homeowners that trusted that their mortgage brokers and real estate agents to lookout after their (the client) best interest. The government must owe up and take some responsibility the most, because by refusing to let companies fail and bailing them out with taxpayers' money (taxes) only will bankrupt the country.

The most recent change to the world was the declaration that Senator Barack Obama had won the President of the United States on November 03, 2008. The world on just about every level and profession and class has flipped out of their minds about the former-US State Senator of Illinois, Barack Obama. World leaders lining up to congratulate him before he has even been sworn into office and “citizens of the world” as Obama cited in a speech he gave in Berlin, from every race, religion, citizenry class, royalty, clergy and tongue have concreted their mutual support for him like nothing seen before in election history. Why?

What has he accomplished during his public service as either an Illinois State Senator or as the US State Senator of Illinois? There is less known about this future 44th President of the United States of America than any other former or current President or Presidential Candidate. His Harvard College records have been sealed and his birth certificate has been legally challenged recently and is being reviewed in the courts. Why would anyone feel so confident that Barack Obama has the abilities to solve America's problems (much less the world's problems) when there does not seem to be any supporting evidence that he has ever done anything of major importance during his elected public service record?

How can anyone place so much trust in a person that has no major accomplishments except for his winning the office of President of the United States?

Obama is not God or Jesus Christ or a god at all, because the Bible tells us so. Since he is not God or Jesus Christ and he has no major political accomplishments that supports his political promises and positions he claimed before winning the presidency, then really what do any of us know about Barack Obama and more importantly, his ultimate agenda?

It is foolish for a man to put his/her trust and faith in a mortal man, it is a wise for a man or woman to put their faith and trust in God (Jesus Christ - the Savior) who has created them and is all knowing in all things.

President Barack Obama and Barack, son of Abinoam, were chosen to lead the oppressed. Obama's entire campaign was aimed at minorities, America's oppressed. Those same minorities played a major role in electing Obama as America's first African-American President. Barak was chosen to lead the Israelites out of the hand of Jaban, a king of Canaan. Jaban had oppressed the Israelites and the Israelites cried to Deborah, a prophetess and judge of Israel at the time, for judgment. Deborah enlisted Barak. However, both men overcame great odds to become renowned leaders.

President Obama's quest to become America's first African-American President was met with a lot of opposition. Obama is young, lacking significant political experience, and the product of a biracial relationship. Although he represented American minorities, he fell short when compared to former presidents and former political protocol. Barak, on the other hand, challenged Jaban's army of nine hundred chariots with only 10,000 men. Both President Obama and Barak successfully overcame the odds against them. Similarly, faith played a big role in both men's success.

President Obama is confident, honest, and he withstood even the hardest blows. His grandmother, who raised him, died the day before Election Day and yet he pressed on. Obviously, President Obama is a man of faith who strongly believes that he can enact the change American's desire for their government. Barak, under God's command, defeated Jaban's army and once again freed the Israelites from oppression. Hebrews 11:32 lists Barak among those “ who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” The same can be said of our 44th President of the United States of America, President Barack Obama.

Education is one of the oldest and most important elements of this country. It is a topic that influences and encourages many students to go out and vote. Obama plans to create a new program called American Opportunity Tax Credit, which will ensure that the first $4,000 of college tuition is free for most Americans and it will pay for two-thirds the tuition cost at a public university. However, this credit will only be available to people who engage in 100 hours of community service. Obama also plans to make applying for financial aid easier by simply including a box to check on tax forms. As for elementary and high schools, Obama will require all schools to be accredited and will also create a voluntary national performance assessment “so we can be sure the every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively. ” The Teacher Residency Programs will supply 30,000 well-prepared recruits to schools in need.

The war in Iraq is debated upon and causes much controversy in the race for Presidency. However, arguing about how just or unjust the war is will not bring troops home or end the war for that matter. The war is a reality and the President needs to deal with it. Obama will put military commanders in conjunction with the Iraqi government responsible for all timetables and phases of troop removal. His plan calls for one to two brigades be removed every month, so that most of the troops are removed by 2010. A small force will remain in Iraq to provide protection to Americans and to launch counter attack against al Qaeda. “They will not build permanent bases...but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces. ”

Health care is a large part of the overall wellbeing of the citizens in the U.S. Currently, healthcare is being disputed weather it should be run individually or by the government. Obama will require insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions so that all Americans, regardless of health, can have good premiums. He will ensure everyone who needs healthcare will receive a tax credit and will require the collection and reporting of health care costs by hospitals. The costs of catastrophic illnesses for workers and employers will be reduced and Obama will reform the competitive insurance market.

Within the last four months, the economy has quickly depleted. Obama's plan for the economy involves providing a tax break “to all families making under $250,000 per year. ” For anyone making more than that per year, Obama would tax them to the same level as President Clinton. Obama also intends on giving families an emergency $1,000 rebate on rising energy bills to counter the excessive, unfair profit of the oil companies. This $1,000 payment would be the first of Obama's plan to provide $1,000 per year for tax relief. The plan would include a fund to stop cuts in health, education, and housing on the state and local levels. The relief plan would also prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and school repair, saving more than 1 million jobs.

These four main issues are just a few of many that our country struggles against. The plans of Barack Obama are the best for my future, my family's future, and the future of this country. Obama calls on the citizens to be a part of the change that he will commence in Washington because the change will affect them as much as anyone else. “I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours.”

Although I pray that he be removed from power in 2012 I pray for B. Hussein Obama's health and safety till then. Why? I have looked at the Democrat bench.

If he leaves the field look at what is there.

And on the bench we have Joe Biden number 13. This guy is unlucky. He could fall into rose perfume and come up smelling like hog manure. He is Catholic and supports abortion. He is a hot head. He gets frequent cases of hoof in mouth disease. They almost hid him from the press like Eddie Rendell did Harriet Baker Knoll. He has stated that he is not the best candidate for the job but did not have the integrity to resign. He is from Delaware. Is that a state or a county?

And sitting next to Joe is number 69, Nancy Pelosi. She has led the House of Representatives to the lowest approval rating ever, even lower than the rating GWB gets. And she is the liberal darling. And her district re-elects her probably because she would be on welfare if not given a government job. She talks a good talk on the environment but flies a plane back and forth to California burning precious oil. But then, she is the elite, they have the right to squander resources. We peons do not.

I have just given you two reasons to pray that B. Hussein Obama lives and remains healthy till we can turn him out of office. As bad as he is, the bench is worse.

During the entire election, Obama had a pretty steady lead. It wasn't a very close victory, it was considered by many people as a landslide victory when it came down to electoral votes. When it came down to John McCain and Barack Obama, a lot of people had a fear the racism would kick in. A lot of people thought that the whites and blacks would seperate their votes for the candidates of their own race, but that was not the case. The majority of the people in Barack Obama's crowd when he gave his speech after being elected were white.

After the election, everyone had a joyful response to Obama being elected, of all races. The streets were filled with happy people. Voting polls had lines outside the building, people were waiting outside for hours just to get their chance to vote. Barack Obama won both democratic and republican states. It seemed like Obama had a flawless campaign. He had practically no mistakes, everything was done by Obama with complete honesty towards himself and his beliefs.

Most people know the story of Troopergate by now. If not, you can use the previous link to learn more about it. In short, Palin is alleged to have fired a police commissioner because he would not fire an officer, who was in a custody battle with Palin's sister. If this is true, it would prove to be a major abuse of power on Palin's part. If she is capable of doing this without so much as a guilty conscience at state level, it is a worrying thought to consider what she might be capable of at presidential level.

Barack Obama's lack of experience has been mentioned on dozens of occasions by the McCain campaign, but if anything has been learned from Obama's campaign, it is that the man sure knows how to mastermind and control one hell of an organisation. Obama may have only been a Senator since January 2005, but he has more experience as a Senator than Palin has as even a Governor. Palin hasn't even been a Senator. She knows next to nothing about anything outside her state. The thought of a "hockey mom" becoming Vice President (and quite possibly President as a result of McCain's age) is a truly horrifying thought.

Palin has next to no foreign experience. She has only visited 3 countries, or so she claims. These are Kuwait, Germany and Ireland. Her visit to Ireland consisted of a stopover at Shannon Airport. Combine that with the fact that she thinks living near Russia counts as knowledge of future foreign policy and you've got someone who seems to know nothing about anywhere other than her own country, possibly even only her own state.