Rule? I wasn't aware the PotUS had the same powers as the President of Venezuela.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a letter congratulating Obama on his vic
tory. I believe he is the first president to receive such a letter. It is good to know that the president of Iran likes him.
Office of the President-Elect? I wasn't aware that such a position officially existed as an office. It smacks of arrogance. He has yet to be sworn in yet and already he is trying to effect policy changes. At least he has finally stated his goals on Change.gov; unfortunately much of what he wants to do has been rejected at the ballot box, is borderline unconstitutional, or just plain socialism.
"Obama to use executive orders for immediate impact" (see the video above)
I would suspect this includes, based on this article and his various speeches, a moratorium or sever limitations on domestic oil production and exploration (way to help our energy independence, gas prices and the economy).
He also pushes a "big-bang" approach to helping the economy. Increasing the size of government will do nothing to help the economy in the long run and will accomplish nothing except bloating the already strained federal budget, limit economic freedom, and have negative effect on taxes. (See the Cater, LBJ, and FDR administrations for proof).
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
The election of Obama and the economic troubles have brought renewed vigor to the "one world" types (if that that term doesn't make me look like a paranoid wack-o I don't know what will). I can't remember the last time that I read an article that was so overt. Really, the concept isn't all that bad until you realize that its biggest proponents are socialists and power mongers. Besides, multiple governments can be argued as a good thing; the interests of different countries act as a check on the ambitions of others. If the Un is an example; I truly fear what that world government would look like. Here is another article from Bloomberg that sound much more reasonable; putting forth ideas such as lowering taxes that I can agree with. In fact I read an article last week that described how European efforts, lowering takes and instituting a flat tax, had helped the economy and lowered unemployment. He says this as the nanny stae of Briton moves closer to the world of 1984.
Louis Farrakhan warned that Obama's victory might spark racial tensions. One: I have a better view of American than you and I doubt that much of anything will happen just because he is black. A depression, or other policy decisions are another matter entirely. Second: Farrakhan, the civil rights leaders (as they are today), persons like Rev. Wright, and many democrats have sewed the seeds of racial and economic division for years for their own political and power gains. any violence for those reasons can be blamed on them. Third, this is the man who thinks the Bush administration had the levees in st="on"New Orleans blown up, and claims to have spoken to aliens on a mountain top in Mexico - why does anyone listen to this man any more?
Biden was booded at an Eagles game. For the life of me I'm not quite sure why. Really Philly sports fans aren't as bad as the media makes them out to be.
Gorbachev calls on Obama to carry out 'perestroika' in the U.S.
While his policies did, in part, help to bring down the command economy and by extension the Soviet system; it also caused economic turmoil and created the mess that Russia is today. This is not a person (nor should any Communist, really) that should be talking about economic policy. Since he did say it, I wonder if he was using it as a generic term for economic reform, or if he is diluted enough to think that what he enacted worked well enough to be copied in to a COMPLEATLY DIFFERENT SYSTEM.
Finally the US automakers are in serious trouble due to mis-management, the production of relive junk from the mid 70s through the late 90s, government regulation and pay out of union benefits and wages. For the first time the Democrats want to "help" the auto industry in a substantive way in the form of a massive bailout that I really don't support on principle. They must have come to the realization that the wholesale collapse of such a large industry (and the US has few of those anymore) would have a ripple effect through the whole economy. That or they realized that if and when they go under it will most likely be in the next 4-8 yeas and large mass of unemployed union peopsheeple may not vote democrat in the next round of elections.
Just a few ramblings as I sit here and contemplate my future unemployment.
