Category: America

  • Armenian President, Diaspora Congratulate Obama

    Armenian President, Diaspora Congratulate Obama

     

     
    By Emil Danielyan

    President Serzh Sarkisian on Wednesday congratulated Barack Obama on his historic victory in the U.S. presidential election and expressed confidence that U.S.-Armenian relations will grow closer during his presidency.

    Obama’s election triumph was welcomed by influential Armenian organizations in the United States that expect the new U.S. president to end Washington’s refusal to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as genocide.

    “I am confident that during the years of your presidency Armenian-American relations will gain a new quality and political and economic cooperation between our countries will deepen to the benefit of our friendly peoples,” Sarkisian said in a congratulatory message to Obama.

    “The largest structures in the Armenian-American community have repeatedly relayed to me their enthusiasm for the changes promised by you to the American people,” he said. “I highly appreciate your awareness of and approaches to issues facing the Armenian people.”

    It was an apparent reference to Obama’s repeated public characterizations of the 1915 massacres as genocide and his support for relevant draft resolutions circulating in the U.S. Congress. As recently as on October 31 the Illinois Democrat reaffirmed his pledges to recognize the genocide if elected president. Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, is known for an even stronger advocacy of genocide recognition.

    “The Armenian Genocide, carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulted in the deportation of nearly 2 million Armenians, and approximately 1.5 million of those deported were killed,” his campaign said in a statement sent to the Armenians for Obama pressure group. “Barack Obama strongly supports passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106) and will recognize the Armenian Genocide,” it added.

    The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which officially endorsed Obama’s presidential bid, praised the statement, saying that it will continue to “work hard” for the Obama-Biden ticket. Both the ANCA and another major lobbying group, the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA), were quick to welcome the election result.

    “Given Senator Obama’s and Senator Biden’s strong record with respect to affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, Turkey should heed calls to come to terms with its genocidal legacy,” the AAA said in a statement.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, meanwhile, expressed hope that Obama will stick to the outgoing U.S. administration’s policy on the subject that has avoided the use of the word “genocide” with regard to the 1915 killings. “We hope that some theses raised during the election campaign will stay there [in the past] as campaign issues,” Erdogan told reporters in Ankara.

    “The relations between Turkey and America are determined not by changing [U.S.] administrations but by the strategic nature of our ties, which we believe will continue,” he said, according to the AFP news agency.

    In its October 31 statement, the Obama campaign also called for continued U.S. assistance to Armenia and the expansion of U.S.-Armenian ties. “As president, Obama will maintain our assistance to Armenia, which has been a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and extremism,” it said. “An Obama administration will help foster Armenia’s growth and development through expanded trade and targeted aid.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1598188.html

  • TURKEY SUPPORTS PAKISTAN IN OPPOSING U.S. CROSS-BORDER STRIKES

    TURKEY SUPPORTS PAKISTAN IN OPPOSING U.S. CROSS-BORDER STRIKES

    By John C. K. Daly

    Wednesday, November 5, 2008

     

    Many analysts have commented on Turkey’s increasingly innovative and confident foreign policy initiatives, most recently its Caucasian Stability and Cooperation Platform to defuse tension in a region recently torn by armed conflict between Georgia and Russia. Ankara is now using its good offices in an attempt to quell violence in another volatile region, the Pakistani-Afghan border, where recent U.S. aerial attacks into Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) bordering on the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) have led to rising tension between Islamabad and Washington. The raids have killed dozens of Pakistanis whom Islamabad claims were civilians, adding stress to the two allies in the war on terror.

    On October 27 Pakistan’s Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani began a four-day official visit to Turkey. In Ankara Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed Gilani with full military honors at the Prime Ministry (Hurriyet, October 28). During meetings with Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, Gilani discussed myriad matters of mutual interest, agreeing to sign framework agreements for cooperation in science and technology. Economic issues were also high on the agenda; the two prime ministers agreed to increase bilateral trade from its current level of around $700 million to $1 billion as soon as possible and to fast-track negotiations for a Preferential Trade Agreement. After three days Gilani flew to Istanbul to attend the World Economic Forum (WEF) (www.pakwatan.com, October 30).

    Economic issues aside, however, Gilani’s greatest accomplishment was to persuade Erdogan to agree to use the Turkish government’s good offices to endeavor to rein in U.S. aerial raids into Pakistani territory. Gilani’s press secretary, Zahid Bashir, confirmed to the Pakistani media that Turkey had informed Pakistan that it would use its “influence” as a NATO member and U.S. ally to attempt to persuade Washington to stop the U.S. incursions into Pakistan’s territory (The News International, November 2).

    Not wanting to lose momentum from the commitment, Gilani dispatched Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to Turkey for further discussions. According to the Pakistani Armed Forces (PAF) Inter Services Public Relations, on November 4 Kayani flew from the PAF’s Chaklala Base, where he was seen off by the Turkish ambassador Engin Soysal, for an official visit to Turkey and Saudi Arabia (Inter Services Public Relations Press Release, No/2008-ISPR, November 4).

    While attending the WEF in Istanbul, Gilani used the occasion to press home the fact that Pakistan was, in fact, deeply committed to combating terrorism. He told journalists, “We have the will and ability to control and fight extremist terrorism, but the world should also understand that although it is fighting under NATO with very sophisticated weaponry, in Afghanistan they have not achieved desired results” (Turkish Daily News, Oct.31).

    Gilani also continued his discussions in Istanbul with Erdogan, where they joined Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Following the discussions, the three leaders subsequently issued a joint declaration that lauded “their comprehensive, cordial, and useful meeting on regional and international issues” and “reiterated their pledge to cooperate towards promoting peace, security, stability and economic development in the region” as it reinforced their commitment to cooperation in counterterrorism efforts (ARY OneWorld, October 31).

    As the three leaders conferred, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted the 17-article Turkiye-Pakistan Ortak Bildirisi, Ankara, 27-31 Ekim 2008 (“Pakistan-Turkey Joint Statement, Ankara, 27-31 October 2008”) on its website (www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-pakistan-ortak-bildirisi_-ankara_-27-31-ekim-2008.tr.mfa). Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also posted the Pakistan-Turkey Joint Statement on its website (“Pakistan-Turkey Joint Statement,” October 31, www.mofa.gov.pk/).

    While the joint statement does not explicitly mention the Turkish commitment, Article 12 underlined Turkish support for Pakistani territorial integrity, stating:

    “Turkey expressed full solidarity and support for Pakistan’s sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity. Turkey also expressed support for the efforts of Pakistan to combat the menace of terrorism and extremism. Both sides decided to increase their cooperation in security and counterterrorism” (www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-pakistan-ortak-bildirisi_-ankara_-27-31-ekim-2008.tr.mfa).

    Both Turkey and Pakistan have had significant disagreements with the Bush administration about its actions in the war on terror, while the United States’ NATO allies have been under pressure to accede to U.S. wishes on everything from increasing their troop commitments in Afghanistan to Washington’s insistence during the April NATO summit in Bucharest on admitting Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance.

    Ankara’s discreet criticism of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan would carry some weight, inasmuch as Turkey has been involved in efforts to pacify Afghanistan since November 2001, when it sent about 100 troops for International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations. Turkey currently has approximately 750 peacekeepers stationed in and around Kabul.

    Nor is Ankara’s intention to use its influence with Washington to ameliorate its “hot pursuit” policy of targeting terrorists in FATA the only international support that Islamabad has received. Another high profile U.S. NATO ally has also recently expressed mounting concern over the U.S. strikes into Pakistan. Britain’s Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw said in an interview with Pakistan’s ARY OneWorld on October 31 that his government opposed any strikes inside Pakistan that did not have the government’s consent, and he urged the U.S. to respect the sovereignty of its allies (Associated Press of Pakistan, October 31).

    In the first seven months of this year there were five aerial violations of Pakistani territory by U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Predator aircraft equipped with missiles. It is clear that the tempo has been increasing, as there have been 14 more since July.

    In the most recent incident, on October 31, 17 people died and several others were injured in two missile attacks by U.S. UAVs in the North and South Waziristan agencies. Pakistani private television channels put the death toll far higher at 32 (The News International, November 1). The encounters are not without risk: on September 24 Pakistani forces reportedly fired on two U.S. American Kiowa OH-58 reconnaissance helicopters, forcing them away from the frontier. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari strove to downplay the incident, saying that his forces had only fired flares as a way “to make sure that they know that they crossed the border line,” adding, “Sometimes the border is so mixed that they don’t realize they have crossed the border” (Dawn, Sept. 25).

    Pakistani objections to the raids have been unavailing. In a recent BBC interview, security correspondent Frank Gardner asked U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates whether Islamabad had authorized the cross-border air strikes. Gates replied, “I wouldn’t go in that direction,” adding, “I would just say that we will take whatever action necessary to protect our troops” (BBC, September 18).

    The issue of U.S. military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq will doubtless be deeply affected by the election of Barack Obama as America’s next President. In contrast to the current administration’s “go it alone” policy, Obama pointedly referred in his victory speech to “alliances to repair.” Such an environment will doubtless allow the concerns of vital allies such as Pakistan and Turkey, as well as NATO, to receive a more sympathetic hearing. Its attempts to promote peace in the NWFP adds another element to Turkey’s efforts to promote diplomacy over conflict, in keeping with the dictum of its first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who said, “Yurtta Sulh, Cihanda Sulh” (“Peace at Home, Peace in the World”).

  • Turkey sees ‘parallels’ with U.S. foreign policy, awaits next U.S. president

    Turkey sees ‘parallels’ with U.S. foreign policy, awaits next U.S. president

    By BEN LANDO, UPI Energy Editor

    ANKARA, Turkey, Nov. 5 (UPI) — Barack Obama wasn’t the Turkish leadership’s top choice for next U.S. president; John McCain was seen here as superior in the foreign affairs arena and the more pro-Turkish of the two candidates.

    But President-elect Obama is considered the best person to repair the world’s image of the United States, they say, an important issue for politicians here. Only 12 percent of Turks had a favorable view of the United States, according to a June Pew Global Attitudes Project poll.

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s advice to Obama is to get “objective” briefings on Turkey, a dig at the lobbying efforts aimed at U.S. recognition of the alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians.

    “I would also tell him that Turkey and the United States and the work we do is very important for the region, for stability in the region but also stability in the world,” he said. “I would say that we’ve done good things together so far, and I would say, let’s continue to work together.”

    Turkey’s president was asked recently by a colleague about his foreign policy priority list. Mid-answer, he was interrupted: “Are you the United States?”

    “If you should list the issues, foreign policy issues, that Turkey and the United States follow and the aims that we pursue,” said Gul, recounting the conversation, “if you list that with Turkey on one side and the United States on the other side, you’d be amazed at how much overlap, how much parallel there is, how these issues are almost entirely identical.”

    The geopolitical agenda of the next U.S. president is shared by Turkey, insist government and business leaders here — from Iraq to Middle East peace to energy security.

    “I don’t believe there are similar nations where such parallels could be drawn,” Gul told a handful of American reporters, bloggers and think-tankers in a conference room in his office.

    With a foot in Europe, a foot in Asia, and the Muslim connection with the Middle East, Turkey says its strategic position is like no other.

    “The Caucasus, Central Asia, NATO, Russia, Iraq, Iran, it’s a player in all these issues. It’s not simply anymore a defender of the southern flank against Russia,” said Morton Abramowitz, U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 1989 to 1991. “As the world has changed and the politics and problems have changed, Turkey’s positions, its strength, its dynamism, its size, its military forces, have become a regional player.”

    FOREIGN POLICY FRIENDS

    Ankara has been mediating secret talks between Syria and Israel, and is engaged in Afghanistan-Pakistan dialogue. Last year the Israeli and Palestinian presidents were his guests, riding in the limousine together and addressing the Turkish Parliament. A Turkish-led Israeli-Palestinian industrial zone in the West Bank is under way as well.

    “We worked very hard to keep peace in this region,” Gul said. “And we do take concrete steps to find resolution to the conflicts here.”

    Turkish officials are wary of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that would embolden internal strife or allow too much Iranian or Saudi influence or greater Kurdish autonomy. But despite the 2003 domestic political hiccup preventing U.S. forces from using Turkish bases, Ankara backs U.S. policy in Iraq. As one senior Foreign Ministry official put it: “The failure of the U.S. in Iraq is the failure of Turkey too.”

    Turkey also wants to enhance its position as an energy hub, creating interdependence between European consumers and Middle Eastern and Asian energy producers — largely without Russia, a key U.S. strategy for isolating the Eurasian power while increasing the supply of oil and gas.

    “A positive and westward-leaning, democratic Turkey is built into all our calculations,” said Abramowitz, now senior fellow at The Century Foundation. “If Turkey were to depart from that — and I don’t think it will — and become more oriented toward the Islamic world or Russia, that would involve a major change in perception on how we have to deal with that world. (Turkey’s) alliance with the West has been a critical part of our thinking for years.”

    GROWING PAINS

    Turkey’s geopolitical power is less reliant on U.S. “parallels” as it becomes more independent, though.

    Despite criticism from the United States, Ankara ensures economic ties with countries like Russia and Iran — major trade destinations and routes — while engaged in their diplomatic rows and has always maintained direct contact with Syria.

    “Just because Turkey doesn’t take a hard-line position doesn’t mean we are going to go dancing with the devil,” said Cem Duna, a former top official in the Foreign Ministry and an adviser to the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association.

    The Russia-Georgia fighting in August prompted international condemnation, adding to criticism that Russia is attempting to corner the world’s oil and gas supply chain. Turkey refrained from blaming Moscow publicly.

    Iran’s natural gas is crucial for Turkey’s domestic energy demands, but its nuclear program is freezing economic progress. Turkey is increasing trade talks with Iran but is not on the sidelines in the nuclear dispute, Gul said. He says relations with Iran — including the ability to have “a very frank, very sincere, very open discussion” with visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently — are crucial to solving the problem.

    Turkey “ruffles feathers” sometimes, a result of its new role in the world, said Meliha Altunisik, chairwoman of Middle East Technical University’s department of international relations. But she says this independence only strengthens its pull with countries that its ally, the United States, does not have.

    THE ECONOMIC TIES THAT BIND

    One “parallel” Turkey is keen on avoiding is the economic meltdown seen as having started in the United States and exported to the world.

    “Intervention by the United States has been delayed,” said Rifat Hisarciklioglu, president of the powerful Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey, adding U.S. policymakers have been distracted by elections.

    “No one can see the darkness of this crisis,” Hisarciklioglu said. “Right now we have a panic environment.”

    Turkey has had its share of economic disasters, most recently in 2001 when banks lost tens of billions of dollars. Officials say the resulting tightened regulation and fiscal guidelines will protect the financial sector, but the real economy is at risk.

    Turkey was banking on steady economic growth, but unemployment will likely rise upon the expected surge of youth entering the workforce, funding for major projects will dry up and demand from export markets such as Europe will drop.

    “Whatever happens in the whole world happens here,” said Cuneyd Zapsu, an adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    Turkey’s political and business leaders tout this marriage of U.S.-Turkish interests as proof the next president must enhance relations with Ankara, regardless of who is elected. “It’s not only the president of the United States, it’s like electing the president of the world,” said Hisarciklioglu, joking, “Everyone in the world should be able to vote.”

    (e-mail: blando@upi.com)

  • Talabani dismisses US base offer

    Talabani dismisses US base offer

       

    Barzani, left, said Kurdistan’s people and government would welcome US military bases [AFP]

    “It is not possible for US troops to stay in Kurdistan without the approval of the central government,” Talabani said in an interview with state television Al-Iraqiya late on Sunday.

    “Kurdistan is part of Iraq, and all of the country’s constitutional laws apply to it.”

    ‘Warm welcome’

    Barzani, who heads the Kurdish administration in the country’s north, had offered his region as an alternative for US military bases if the status of forces agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad fell through.

    Iraqi newspaper Khabat quoted Barzani, who has strongly backed the controversial proposal, as saying during a recent visit to Washington that his regional government would “welcome” the setting up of US military bases.

    “All the attempts are going right now to sign the pact, but if the pact is not signed and if US asked to keep their troops in Kurdistan, I think the parliament, the people and government of Kurdistan will welcome this warmly,” he said at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

    Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, criticised Barzani for his comments.

    “We reject the statement by Massud Barzani,” Sheikh Saleh al-Obeidi, a spokesman for the group, told the AFP news agency.

    “This position reminds us that Kurds want to separate … There is a constitution in this country and they have to respect it.”

    Proposed changes

    The US government – after initially balking at making any changes demanded by the Iraqi government in the draft pact – is now expected to respond in the next few days.

    The agreement is supposed to outline the framework under which US forces will stay in Iraq beyond 2008.

    The signing of the pact was delayed after the Iraqi cabinet sought key changes, including greater legal jurisdiction over US troops and guarantees that US soldiers would not launch attacks on other countries from Iraq.

    The pact is unpopular among Arab Iraqis who have seen the bulk of violence and destruction since the US-led invasion in 2003, and who see the pact as nothing more than another form of occupation.

    Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel Hamid reporting from the Kurdish city of Irbil, said that Kurds felt safer having US troops around given the distrust between the Kurds and the Arabs.

    Kurds have also been spared the worst of the violence since 2003 and many actually feel that their lives have improved over the last five years, with foreign investments and a flourishing local economy, our correspondent said.

    The final draft of the proposed pact must be endorsed by the Iraqi parliament after the amendments are finalised by both Washington and Baghdad.

    Iraq’s president has dismissed Kurdish leader Massud Barzani’s invitation to the US to set up military bases in the Kurdish region if a proposed security pact with Baghdad fails.

    Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, said Washington could set up bases in the country – even in the Kurdish region – only with Baghdad’s approval.

  • Karabakh Peace Agreement Impossible Without U.S. Involvement

    Karabakh Peace Agreement Impossible Without U.S. Involvement

    By Harry Tamrazian

     

    Meeting in Moscow on November 2, the presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia signed a document pledging their continued commitment to resolving the Karabakh conflict peacefully. It was the first time that officials from Armenia and Azerbaijan had signed such a joint document since Russia mediated a cease-fire agreement in 1994, putting an end to one of the deadliest wars in the former USSR.

    The so-called Moscow Declaration of Intent on Nagorno-Karabakh was an important diplomatic event in the 15-year long negotiating process. But it was much more important for Moscow, which thus reminded everyone that it holds the key to a solution to this conflict. The joint declaration was co-signed only by Russia, despite the fact that other two Minsk Group co-chairs, the United States and France, were also present.

    A closer look at the declaration leaves no doubt that much of what was discussed during the closed-door talks was not reflected on paper. The declaration is just another expression of intent by the two leaders that they are serious about seeking a peaceful solution and that the military option can no longer be considered an alternative to peaceful diplomacy.

    In short, both sides agreed on paper to tone down harsh military rhetoric and expedite the peace process. However, taking the text at face value would be overly optimistic.

    Questions Arise

    Every time Russia steps up its mediation efforts, questions arise about its motives for doing so. The simple answer in this case would probably be that it wants at least to preserve the level of influence that it had in Armenia, and more importantly in Azerbaijan, which has long been suspicious about its real intentions in the region.

    Now that Georgia is out of the Russian sphere of influence, at least for the foreseeable future, Moscow will do all in its power to keep the two remaining South Caucasus countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, under its control.

    The only way to do that is to act as an honest broker to bring about a settlement of the frozen, and potentially deadly, Karabakh conflict. Moscow’s mediation could also be seen as an attempt to restore its credibility in the region following the war with Georgia, which further eroded its relations with the United States.

    Depending on who wins the U.S. presidential election, Moscow will try to showcase its good behavior to the new leadership in Washington. There is one important line in the joint declaration, which shows that Moscow will not mediate the potential peace deal alone, bypassing its American and French partners in the OSCE Minsk Group. The declaration clearly states that the peace process will proceed within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group based on the “Madrid Principles” endorsed by the OSCE Ministerial Council, which envisage the return of occupied Azerbaijani territories and the possibility of holding a referendum on the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

    High Expectations

    It is hard to imagine that a Karabakh peace deal could be achieved without the United States, one of the major players in the OSCE Minsk Group. Azerbaijan and Armenia will not easily bow to Moscow’s pressure without the approval of the new administration in Washington. It would therefore be premature to expect a breakthrough in the talks before January 2009, when the next U.S. president is sworn in.

    Armenians have high expectations for Democratic Senator Barack Obama, hoping that, if he is elected president, he will support their cause.

    “I will promote Armenian security by seeking an end to the Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades, and by working for a lasting and durable settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that is agreeable to all parties,” Obama said in one of his campaign promises to Armenian-Americans.

    The Armenian government will seek help from the United States if it is pressured to give up Azerbaijani territories without obtaining guarantees that the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians will be able to hold a referendum on their future status. 

    Some experts in Azerbaijan and Armenia believe that Russia might try to secure a substantial military presence in the conflict zone as part of the future peacekeeping force that is to be deployed once a peace agreement is signed. Azerbaijan will most probably seek support from the United States in ensuring that Russian troops do not return to Azerbaijan.

    The Georgian experience has demonstrated that once they come, they are unlikely to leave peacefully.

    Haryy Tamrazian is director of RFE/RL’s Armenian Service. The views expressed in this commentary are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.

  • OBAMA: Our First French President?

    OBAMA: Our First French President?

    Our First French President?
    iF he’s elected next week, Barack Obama won’t be our first black president: Toni Morrison labeled Bill Clinton our “first black president” in October 1998.  (We have seen no reports that she retracted that label as a result of the South Carolina primary campaign). 

    And never mind all the nonsense floating around the internet.  Barack Obama wasn’t born in Indonesia, or Kenya or wherever.  He was born in Hawaii.

    Race isn’t an issue for conservatives, but cultural indentity is.  And that’s a problem because if he’s elected, Barack Obama will be our first French president.

    The man who would lead the most productive, hard-working, achievement-oriented society in history told on his campaign website to take the day off to vote at our ease and make sure all our relatives and friends do the same.  He tells students to ask their professors to let them out of class to canvass neighborhoods and drive people to the polls.

    Take the day off to vote?  Us? We’re the American workaholics:  we thrive in the can’t-wait-to-dial-push-to-talk society.  People in Washington get carpal tunnel syndrome from thumbing their Blackberrys.  Stakhanovites all, we dedicate ourselves to our work, identify ourselves by our jobs, and compete with everyone within range. That’s how we succeed.

    In America’s heartland, many families have a mom and a dad who each work two jobs to put the kids through college. Lots of people work Saturdays or Sundays or both.  We take Christmas and Thanksgiving and July 4th off and — if we’re lucky — we save up to take a week’s trip somewhere in driving distance.

    And this guy wants to stop the world just to make sure he gets elected?

    Just think about this:  if every American voter took the day off on Tuesday, it would cost our economy a big chunk of cash.  How much?

    In 2004, there were about 123 million voters.  The best estimate says there are about 181 million registered voters today.  One economist did a computation for me, using that probable voter base.  If they all work for the average wage and all take an unpaid day off, the cost would be about $22.3 billion in lost wages for the first Obamaday.

    How much would the stock market fall just because the earth stood so that we could elect Obama?

    In France, they care little about such things. That’s why they have — by law — a 35-hour workweek that’s interrupted by strikes and five-week vacations.

    Last summer, the French made a half-hearted attempt to repeal the 35-hour work week, but only managed to succeed in reducing the minimum number of vacation days.  Unless a President Obama wants to limit our workweek, we’ll stay ahead of France in economic power.

    All over America, we go to work, we go to school and some time during the day — before we go to work or after we get home, on a long break from school or when classes are over that day — we manage to vote.  We accomplish our duties, meet our responsibilities, and manage to perform our patriotic duty to vote all on the same day.

    Much of this happens in the suburbs and this is the candidate who’s not interested in how that works.  Remember?  He said, “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.” Of course they do: that’s where all those gun-and-bible-clinging people live.

    This election is the most important in living memory, and the Democrats’ candidate is proving that — underneath the trim American exterior — a Frenchman lurks.

    We have, as others have noted, been learning more about Obama in the past two weeks than we have in the past two years.  As a hyperliberal politician, Obama has been doing his best to conceal his liberalism and the press has been all too eager to leave the “progressive” cloak in place.  But we are, in the last weeks of the campaign, getting a better view.

    It started with Joe the Plumber asking a better question than all the reporters and debate moderators who preceded him.  And the answer Mr. Wurzelberger got — that Obama wants to spread the wealth around — revealed Obama’s cultural commonality with European socialists.

    “I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”  Spread the wealth like Robin Hood? No, like robbing you. And if you read the Obama economic plans — including about $800 billion more in spending on health care, college subsidies and climate controls — his methods for spreading the wealth are the same ones the European redistributionists use.

    Think about their primary redistribution program, the agricultural subsidy. As Dr. John Hulsman memorably told me a few years ago, the European Union’s agricultural subsidy is “really a sop from Germany to pay French farmers to sit around, play boule, and do nothing.” Apply that to health care and college tuition and, et voila, you’ve got Obama’s plan.

    As Michelle Malkin reported on her blog, in a 2001interview with Chicago Public Radio, Obama was talking about the Warren Court which, in the 1970s, was the source of great social and legal change. Obama said it wasn’t really radical:

    It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

    There’s no need to parse these words with Clintonian exactitude:  Obama is saying that he disagrees with the most basic theory of the Founders in crafting the Constitution: that it is written as the preserver of liberties from government intrusion, not to make the government the source of those liberties.  In Obama’s mind, a more perfect union would be the provider of rights and entitlements, not the guarantor of freedoms. 

    This is the key to Barack Obama’s legal knowledge and judgment.  The purpose of our Constitution is not to provide rights: Americans’ rights are endowed by the Creator, not the Government.

    A Constitution written to describe what the government and subordinate governments must do for citizens does not recognize rights that already exist: it would be one that grants rights that exist only as long as the government wishes them to.  And, of course, with every right comes the cost which the government would be obligated to tax to pay for.

    The French Constitution is probably more to Obama’s liking.  Thanks to a recent amendment, the French peoples’ constitutional rights now include “the right to access information about the environment” and an obligation of the government to “promote sustainable development” that doesn’t damage the atmosphere, the wine, or the cheese.

    Anyone who still doubts Obama is culturally (and probably genetically) French should consider this statement by the Illinois naïf:  “This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”  Or, if he made himself clearer, he might have said, “My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it.”

    Either way, who but a Frenchman could have uttered those words?

    WILL MCCAIN BE THROWN OVERBOARD ALLOWING THE CORRUPT DEMOCRATS TO TAKE OVER THE SHIP OF STATE
    lawrencehoule@yahoo.com

    Many Americans are getting ready to throw McCain – a good, honest, genuine American hero overboard back into the rice paddy and do to him politically what his Vietnamese captors tried to do to McCain physically.

    Before you vote ask yourself – How Could a Community Organizer Afford to Buy a Mansion in Chicago. And read below:

    11 REASONS BARRACK CHAVEZ OBAMA IS NOT THE ONE

    1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the causes of this financial disaster. In order to ensure that they were not regulated these corrupt companies bought off congressmen. This is corruption. In just 3 years, these corrupt companies gave Obama $123,000 to buy him off. $123,000. Obama was the second largest recipient of Fannie and Freddie corrupt donations. This is the corruption McCain has fought against his whole life. $123,000 is corruption.

    2. Earmark projects are corruption incarnate. Obama had 1 billion dollars worth of earmarks. 1 billion dollars. This is CORRUPTION RUN AMUCK. This money goes to political cronies in return for support and donations, relatives, family members. We are in this financial mess because of this kind of corruption. It created a culture of corruption that lead to the wall street debacle. Barrack Obama is at the very center of this CULTURE OF CORRUPTION. He is the WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE. 1 billion dollars of hard earned tax payer money FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET BOWL OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION.

    3. Barrack Obama gave his First Cousin $70,000 of tax payer money. $70,000 of hard earned tax payer money to his first cousin. We elect representatives to Congress to serve the people. Not to ENRICH themselves. Not to enrich their family members. Not to enrich their political supporters. THIS IS TRULY CORRUPTION.

    4. Obama wants to raise taxes on corporations, small businesses, capital gains. If you raise taxes in this economic crisis YOU WILL CAUSE A GREAT DEPRESSION. Business won’t create jobs. People will not invest. The 401 ks of seniors and all Americans won’t be worth anything. The DOW WILL COLLAPSE TO to 4000/5000. The US will become another failed state like Venezuela. It’s that simple. If you want a SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION BARACK OBAMA IS YOUR MAN.

    5. Obama wants our troops out of Iraq in 16 months. As General Petraeus has warned such a withdrawal will lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government. Iraq is not Afghanistan. IT IS AT THE VERY CENTER OF THE OIL PRODUCING UNIVERSE. If the Iraqi government collapses, OIL PRICES WILL SOAR TO $200.00/barrel and $10.00/gallon/gas. If you want to pay $10.00/gallon/gas vote Barrack Obama.

    6. Barrack Obama called our troops fighting in Afghanistan WAR CRIMINALS. He said that they were air raiding villages and killing innocent civilians. WAR CRIMES. You cannot be commander in chief of our great armed forces and call them WAR CRIMINALS. Not only that but these statements put THE LIVES OF OUR TROOPS AT RISK.

    7. When Move On. org – a large money Barrack Obama supporter called General Petraeus – one of the greatest American generals – GENERAL BETRAYUS – Barrack Obama refused to vote on a senate motion defending this great general. You cannot be President of the United States and stand by while one of your generals is being viciously maligned. Obama did this because he didn’t want to lose the money from Move On. Barrack Obama is A COWARD.

    8. Barrack Obama gave $800.000 to a organization called Acorn. Acorn is trying to steal this election by fraudulently registering thousands and thousands of voters throughout this country �” registering everything from dead people to cats, dogs. THIS IS CORRUPTION. Obama has a long and illustrious relationship with Acorn. Incredibility – ACORN leader Wade Rathke was in the Weather Underground along with Bill Ayers.

    Ladies and gentlemen of America in the rescue package of 700 billion just passed by Congress the Democrats tried to include $500,000,000 for ACORN. DO YOU HEAR WHAT I JUST SAID – 500 MILLION FOR ACORN. THATS ONE OF THE REASONS MCCAIN RUSHED BACK TO WASHINGTON TO KILL THIS FRAUDULENT FUNDING. In Chicago, Obama was involved in training Acorn activists to go to the HOMES OF BANK PRESIDENTS AND THREATEN THEM IF THEY DID NOT GIVE OUT FRAUDELENT LOANS THAT COULD NEVER BE REPAID. $500 million to Acorn by the democrats in Congress and $800,000 from Obama. Can you imagine what will happen with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama in charge. Acorn will get the 500 million. 100%. Every vote is precious. It is the very essence of our democracy.

    9. Bill Ayers was a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, police stations and homes of people trying to capture him. Obama has a long and illustrious relationship with this arch criminal and hater of the US. Obama received $50 million dollars from Ayers to indoctrinate children in Chicago in revolutionary ideology. NOT READING AND WRITING AND SCIENCE BUT REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGY like Chavez teaches in Venezuela . Obama says – he was just a guy living in my neighborhood. Obama doesn’t understand that as President one of your most important obligations is NOT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    10. Obama called the people of this country when he thought nobody was tape recording his great genius – Bitter people clinging to their bibles and their guns. You cannot denigrate the great people of this country and be their president.

    11. In order to create a PERMANENT DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAJORITY – Obama and the Democrats FAST TRACK CITZENSHIP FOR ALL 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants. And all those who will pour into the US to share in the new STATE WELFARE STATE. This will happen immediately.

    Corruption is what this election is all about. McCain must demand justice. Jail the bastards. Jail them all. MUST BE THE BATTLE CRY