By MONICA RHOR, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 29 minutes ago

Mayra Figueroa — a naturalized U.S. citizen, community organizer and licensed driver — had no reason to fear being arrested, no need to worry about deported.

Then she was pulled over by a Houston police officer, who told her he found it suspicious that a Latina was driving a late-model car. The first thing the officer requested? Figueroa's Social Security card, as proof of citizenship.

* I am not suprised that this is still the attitude of many. This very same type of attitude was used by the Anchorage police on myself many times. I always worked and was able to afford new vehicles and would always get stopped and be asked the question. "Where did you get this car?" My reply was, "your momma gave it to me for last night." Another day in jail would always follow.

But, hey, this is America.

Maybe the election of Obama will finally change this bullshit! LS.*

Until now, few local police and sheriff's departments wanted any part of enforcing federal civil immigration laws. They had their hands full with local crime — and needed witnesses and victims to work with them without fear.

But as local governments feel mounting frustration over illegal immigration, that hands-off attitude is disappearing. More than 100 local law enforcement agencies — including Los Angeles and Orange counties in California and Maricopa County in Arizona, which includes Phoenix — have begun or are waiting for training to help the Department of Homeland Security root out illegal immigrants and hand them over for deportation.

Advocates say the training beefs up the power of the overworked Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency. Detractors say it will discourage millions of immigrants from reporting crime or cooperating with police investigations. They also cite evidence of poor training and overeager cops, like the one who questioned Figueroa.

The ICE training program began 12 years ago in 1996, but had only one taker until 2002, when political pressure began to mount to fix the illegal immigration problem. Now 41 law enforcement agencies are trained, and 92 more are waiting in line.

Even in places where police departments have resisted enforcing immigration laws, elected officials and local governments have passed or are considering similar policies.

In Harris County, which includes Houston, sheriff's deputies routinely check the immigration status of anyone booked into the county jail.

In New Jersey, the Attorney General ordered police to ask arrested suspects about their immigration status. In Minnesota, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed an executive order requiring state agents to enforce immigration law.

"When my deputies come across illegals, they arrest them — even on traffic violations," said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. "People ask me why I am taking this on? The last I heard, crossing the border is an illegal activity. I took an oath of office to enforce the law, so I am enforcing the law."

But some experts say it could spell the end of cooperating with police in immigrant neighborhoods.

"People are very, very fearful of interaction with law enforcement, said Susan Shah, with the New York-based Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit. "Even people with legal status, whose families may have mixed immigration status, now have a fear of opening the door."

That fear has been exacerbated by accounts — some rumored, some real — of people being turned over to immigration officials after being stopped for minor offenses such as traffic violations and loitering, or after going to police to report a crime.

In Newark, N.J., a freelance photographer who stumbled upon on a dead body in an alley and reported the discovery to police was detained and asked about his immigration status.

In Falls Church, Va., staffers at the Tarirhu Justice Center, which works with immigrant victims of domestic abuse, say they are fielding calls from women who have been assaulted, yet refuse to go to police.

"When there's confusion about what policy applies to you and when it does, the safe course of action is to avoid authorities altogether," said Jeanne Smoot, the center's director of public policy.

In Durham, N.C., police recently investigated a string of robberies targeting Latino immigrants, who the thieves saw as "soft targets" because they'd be reluctant to call police.

Only after officials reassured local residents that they would not be reported to ICE did they get the information needed to solve the cases, said Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez.

"If people are not reporting crimes, we don't know what is happening out there. It puts all of the community at risk," said Lopez.

Even so, the Durham police department does check the immigration status of anyone arrested, and has since been approved for the federal training program.

Such confusing, sometimes contradictory, policies and programs are only heightening immigrants' fear and mistrust, say immigrant advocates and community activists.

Mayra Figueroa, the woman stopped in Houston, agrees.

"I have been living here for the last 17 years, and to have an officer stop me for no reason and ask for papers, it made me feel like he didn't think I belong here," said Figueroa. "It makes people feel that anytime that something happens to you, you can't call police."

Will Wal-Mart Do the Right Thing for Brain-Damaged Ex-Employee Debbie Shank's Family?

Doctors Offering No-Interest Loans to Patients

By MILT FREUDENHEIM

Zero-interest financing, a familiar sales incentive at car dealerships and furniture stores, has found its way to another big-ticket consumer market: doctors’ and dentists’ offices.

For $3,500 laser eye surgery, $6,000 ceramic tooth implants or other procedures not typically covered by insurance, millions of consumers have arranged financing through more than 100,000 doctors and dentists that offer a year or more of interest-free monthly payments.

Of course, going into debt to pay for medical procedures is nothing new for many people. And this type of financing is still only a fraction of the nation’s $900 billion market for consumer revolving credit.

But as the price of health care continues to rise and big lenders pursue new areas for growth, this type of medical financing has become one of the fastest-growing parts of consumer credit, led by lending giants like Capital One and Citigroup and the CareCredit unit of General Electric.

Big insurers, too, are devising new financing plans with various payback options. Upstart players have also aggressively cut deals with doctors.

The room for expansion looks ample, as rising deductibles, co-payments and other costs may force more of the nation’s 250 million people with health insurance to finance out-of-pocket expenses for even basic medical care.

“As more and more of the costs of care are shifted to consumers, people are going to need more credit,” said Red Gillen, a senior analyst at Celent, an insurance and banking research firm. “They are still going to need health care.”

The zero-interest plans are not for everyone. In fact, they are available only to the creditworthy — meaning they offer no help to those among the nation’s 47 million uninsured who are in difficult financial situations.

And creditworthiness is starting to be judged even more stringently, in light of the subprime mortgage crisis’s impact on the debt markets, according to David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, a newsletter for the credit card industry.

Even for those who can get credit approval, the plans make sense only if users are able to make payments on time and close the loan on schedule, typically within 12 months. Otherwise, the loans after defaults can carry interest rates of 20 percent or more — similar to the default penalty on a typical credit card.

“We are very careful to tell patients upfront, ‘Be sure you can make your payments,’ ” said Dr. Richard J. Mercurio, a dentist in Lincroft, N.J. He arranges patient financing through the CareCredit unit of G.E., the leader in consumer medical financing.

Dr. Mercurio says he knows of at least two patients who missed payments and received monthly bills charging high interest rates. “They were not happy,” he said.

For those who are able to make their payments, though, the plans can make it possible to receive treatments that otherwise might be out of reach.

“There was no way I had $6,000 right out of my pocket,” said Nancy Schlachter, 40, who has dental insurance through her job as an accounts payable manager for a national construction company. She went to Dr. Mercurio for a series of dental procedures including a new crown, fillings and a tooth implant.

“The implant was very expensive, and it was not covered,” Ms. Schlachter said. But the dentist’s office arranged 12-month zero-interest financing. “It was the only way I could do it,” she said.

Some consumer debt experts warn that as more people try to bridge widening gaps in their health insurance, paying for medical care on credit could plunge the unwary into a financial crisis. In recent years, the use of high-interest credit cards to pay big medical bills has become a leading cause of consumer bankruptcy.

“Unless they are at risk of losing life or limb, people should be very cautious about putting medical bills on credit cards,” said Mark Rukavina, executive director of the Access Project, a research and consumer advocacy organization that helps people with their medical debts.

Still, consumer credit companies and some insurers are now experimenting with financing plans meant specifically for medical costs.

For people who think they could not pay off a zero-interest loan within a year, most credit companies also offer longer-term medical financing deals with 12 percent to 13 percent interest payable over several years. Those plans, though, must be arranged at the outset of the medical expense; a zero-interest plan typically cannot be converted to the longer-term program if consumers find themselves unable to pay off the one-year loans.

Some insurers, including UnitedHealthcare, also have special credit plans available for insured members whose policies are linked to health savings accounts. Such policies combine high-deductible insurance with tax-sheltered savings accounts where money can roll over year to year until needed for medical expenses. But typically, the amounts of money being set aside do not go very far toward meeting even routine health expenses.

So far, among the 1.76 million health savings accounts in this country, the average balance is $1,327, according to a recent survey by Inside Consumer-Directed Care, a trade publication. To help people with health savings accounts meet the shortfall, the Exante Bank unit of UnitedHealth Group is trying out a card that extends credit at rates currently averaging about 10 percent to 13 percent, depending on the applicant’s credit history.

UnitedHealthcare is also testing a medical credit card that would offer reduced rates.

“There’s a place for credit solutions that are integrated within traditional health insurance programs, when an individual hits that out-of-pocket expense,” said Tom Beauregard, a senior vice president at UnitedHealthcare. “The key is to make it voluntary, to make it simple and to offer favorable credit terms.”

As for the zero-interest deals, the credit providers say that most of them end up being just that — interest-free. About 80 percent of the medical loans that CareCredit provides are paid off on schedule and incur no finance charges, according to the company’s president, Michael J. Testa.

That, the companies say, justifies the high default interest rates for late payments, since that is the way they recoup the costs of doing business. In fact, though, the credit companies make money even on the interest-free deals, because they are typically keeping 10 percent of the fee the doctor charges the patient. On a $5,000 cosmetic nose operation, for instance, the plastic surgeon might receive only $4,500.

Another of the medical finance companies, HELPcard, says that for dentists whose customers are good credit risks, the lender’s commission might be only 4 percent to 5 percent. But for patients with low credit ratings, a dentist eager to build a clientele might have to accept as little as 75 percent of the bill, said Pat McGee, HELPcard’s senior vice president for sales and marketing.

The CareCredit unit of G.E., too, has special deals for patients whose credit is not well established. Stephanie Waterman, a coordinator for Dello Russo Laser Vision, a laser-surgery practice with offices in New York and Bergenfield, N.J., said patients deemed less creditworthy were required to pay $600 in cash and to agree to have 12 months of zero-interest payments taken directly from their bank accounts.

One Dello Russo patient, Senior Airman Derrick Fields, 31, stationed at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, said that in June he paid $600 down on a $3,500 surgery bill for both eyes — a reduced charge the practice offers to members of the military.

“They take about $250 a month from my bank account,” said Mr. Fields, who said he soon expected to not wear eyeglasses for the first time since the second grade. “I owe $2,900.”

Andréa in Holland

*Damn..I love this country...not!!! ...LS* 

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 8/21/2007

Election 2008: Seeking to change his reputation for naivete, Sen. Barack Obama now presents his new vision for Cuba. But what he thinks is new is in fact already U.S. policy. He's been asleep.

To read Obama's sunny new manifesto on Cuba policy, published Tuesday in the Miami Herald, you'd think he'd invented sunlight.

He paints a picture of the U.S. hopelessly benighted about Cuba, having shut the door to the tyrannical communist regime long ago through a trade embargo, which he calls a failure. He advocates free travel to Cuba and an end to trade restrictions.

"A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy," he wrote, seemingly unaware that that's been the aim of U.S. policy since 1960.

U.S. efforts to spread democracy in Cuba have been more than talk. In July 2006, the inter-agency U.S. Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba recommended $80 million to encourage Cubans to form civil society groups as building blocks for a future democracy. Millions were allocated for for Internet access, civil society support, and education. The commission recommended $20 million for Cuban democracy efforts "until the dictatorship ceases to exist."

That's hardly the "grand gestures" of which he claims the Bush administration has been guilty. If you're a Cuban seeking freedom, it's real help.

U.S. diplomacy has been on the case, too.

Brave U.S. diplomats, like U.S. interests section chief Ambassador James Cason, openly stood up for democracy in statements inside Cuba and ran a news ticker of free world news across the de facto embassy windows in Havana until an enraged Castro erected a wall of black flags.

Meanwhile, Castro's secret police delivered their own payback, intimidating U.S. diplomats by tapping their phones and breaking into their residences, leaving repulsive Castroite mementos like urine in their mouthwash.

All of this happened during the Bush administration, which has taken more steps to encourage, but not force, democracy in Cuba than any other administration.

Having published this screed in Miami, Obama clearly wanted to appeal to Miami Cuban voters, particularly those recent economic migrants who've come to the U.S. claiming to seek asylum but who would really like the freedom to go back and forth to Cuba as part of the privileged class of U.S.-passported tourists.

Obama doesn't say precisely, but he implies he might give these Cuban-American "asylees" special travel rights other Americans don't get. That may be because he doesn't want to advertise the other supporters who want an end of travel restrictions: Castro's own apologists in the U.S. — revolutionary tourists like Global Exchange or Michael Moore, known for doing Castro's bidding.

That brings up what this really is about — dropping the trade embargo and letting more tourist hard currency into Cuba, which is exactly what the Castro regime wants.

More hard currency and travel will strengthen his regime because he controls the entire economy.

Fidel and his brother, Raul, run Cuban hotels, conference centers, nickel plants, shipping companies and tobacco concessions. That's the main reason why Forbes magazine has declared Fidel's net worth at almost $1 billion.

Any business coming into Cuba must be done exclusively through the Castro brothers' personal monopolies.

Obama failed to understand the role of money in entrenching the Castro regime when he wrote: "U.S. policies — especially the fact that Cuban Americans were allowed to maintain and deepen ties with family on the island — were a key cause of that 'Cuban Spring,' " he said, referring to the 1990s when the communists loosened restrictions on small businesses and hard currency remittances.

As a matter of fact, the Cuban Spring was not the result of Cuban-Americans visiting the island state; it was was due to Castro losing his $3 billion-a-year subsidy from the Soviet Union. Fidel was especially desperate for ways to stay off the end of a meat hook as embittered, impoverished Cubans during his "special period" grew restless.

Only the appearance of another sugar-daddy subsidizer, Venezuela's profligate Hugo Chavez, saved Castro with his $1 billion subsidies, which may now be $3 billion.

As soon as Chavez's cash rolled in, Castro ended his "Cuban Spring" in 2003 with a brutal crackdown on 75 dissidents. And he put in place new restrictions on holding foreign currency and ended tiny private enterprises. Cuban-American travel had nothing to do with it.

Meanwhile, there's no absence of trade with Cuba. U.S. food and medicine roll into Cuban ports daily, with more than $300 million in goods sold to Cuba in 2006. The U.S., in fact, now is Cuba's top food source.

Meanwhile, Europe, Japan and Venezuela also are substantial trading partners. It hasn't improved Cubans' material circumstances or freedom in any significant way.

Obama naively said he'd sit down with Castro and talk to him without preconditions, and his new effort to pander to one segment of the Miami Cuban population would give him everything he wanted.

His statements show he's grossly uninformed about Cuban realities, has no idea about U.S. efforts to encourage democracy and would be a pushover for Castro's agenda, without even drinking a cafecito with the dictator.

Even through the controlled medium of print, Obama's showing himself to be naive and not ready for prime time.

I had to publish this story for its bullcrap quality typical of the ignorance we have to deal with! LSavage

August 25, 2007
LA Times: Obama Scores on US-Cuba Relations

There is a strong wind that all of a sudden seems to be moving US-Cuba relations in new directions.

Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton are going to have to decide whether they are going to spend political capital to keep US-Cuba relations in grooves carved out over five decades and defended by Bush -- or whether they are going to be part of charting a new, more constructive course.

The Los Angeles Times today ran an editorial that pulls no punches in highlighting the failures of a five-decade old American strategy that has yielded nothing for American interests. The editorial juxtaposes Clinton and Obama -- who are on conflicting pages when it comes to loosening the tight noose that Bush has strangled Cuban-American families with when it comes to family travel.

But impressively, the Times calls for full, unrestricted travel, which is my own position as well as that of Senator Chris Dodd, whose statement on US-Cuba relations still sets the gold standard.

Here is a segment of the Los Angeles Times editorial, "Obama's Right on Cuba":

. . .after the U.S. has tried for nearly 50 years to force a regime change in Cuba by way of economic embargo with no success whatsoever, Obama is one of the few presidential contenders who dares to suggest that it's time to try something different.

Some might consider Obama's move courageous given the political power of Florida's Cuban American community, which helped put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 and has cheered his efforts to tighten sanctions on Cuba. But the minority of Cuban immigrants who vote Democratic is deeply divided on the travel ban and would like to be able to send more money to relatives at home, so Obama may not be staking out such a bold position after all.

Regardless of the political implications, Obama is clearly right -- the only problem is, his proposal doesn't go far enough. The travel ban should be lifted for everybody, not just Cuban immigrants. It is the height of irony that Americans can freely travel to countries such as Venezuela and Iran, which represent genuine threats to our security and economic interests, but not to Cuba, whose government is a threat only to its own people.

The ban has done nothing to weaken Castro, but it does keep U.S. tourist dollars out of the hands of Cubans, who might be less inclined to heed their regime's anti-U.S. propaganda if Americans were helping to raise their standard of living.

The U.S. shouldn't lift all economic sanctions on Cuba until the island's regime makes progress on democracy and human rights, but policies such as the travel ban and limits on remittances are simply counterproductive. Score one for Obama.

I'd say that Obama has scored a "big one." I hope Hillary Clinton modifies her position because a foreign policy that promotes Cold War era thinking is not what this nation needs to get its national security posture back in to some kind of acceptable shape.

-- Steve Clemons

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0823chapmanaug23,0,139341.column
Miriam

Once again, what is Steve selling, responsible policy, or status quo candidates. If responsible policy towards Cuba is important, then why laud Obama, yet ignore Ron Paul?

Opening Cuban Markets Good for Cubans and Americans

News Release from Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

July 18, 2002

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul is working with several congressional colleagues this week to end trade restrictions that hurt Texas farmers. While the House considers several large spending bills, including a bill that funds agricultural programs, Paul and others plan to use the amendment process to block the Cuban agricultural embargo. More than 270 members of the House voted in April to allow private financing for agricultural sales to Cuba by American banks, and Paul hopes that momentum from that vote will spill over into this week.

"Decades of agricultural trade sanctions have done nothing to topple the Castro regime, but they have hurt American farmers and the Cuban people," Paul stated. "Our farmers should not be denied access to markets because of a misguided and ineffective State department policy. Our current approach simply opens the door for farmers around the world to exploit the Cuban market. Rather than punishing our farmers with trade embargoes, Congress should be eliminating barriers and opening new markets like Cuba."

Paul notes that trade advisory groups estimate U.S. exports of food to Cuba could amount to $400 million within five years. He introduced legislation last year that would allow free trade and travel with Cuba, while banning and federal aid or subsidies for the island nation.

Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

Miriam:
Chapman is a tool. He slams Obama for not going far enough. It's obvious what Obama is doing though. He is setting his sights on attainable goals(in this case at least). Also, it is obvious why we trade with China and not Cuba. Look at the population difference. China can add a huge punch to a corporation's bottom lines. Cuba, not so much.

Steve:

In Bzig's endorsement of Obama, I expected glowing praise. However, I was taken aback by the very, very impolitic remarks regarding Clinton.

Is there bad blood there?

Steve:

In Zbig's endorsement of Obama, I expected glowing praise. However, I was taken aback by Zbig'sa very, very impolitic remarks regarding Clinton.

Is there bad blood there?

POA -- I like Ron Paul on a lot of fronts (not all), and heard that he had a huge gathering in Pittsburgh recently -- but he's not on the charts when it comes to a credible election run. I will comment on him down the road a bit -- just as I do about Chris Dodd and others who probably aren't in a position to win either. But I also need to keep some element of reality to my commentary regarding the positions of Hillary and Obama - because if the election were tomorrow, one of them would win. That's just a fact -- and thus Hillary's and Obama's foreign policy views need to be engaged seriously.

JoeCHI -- not really sure if there is bad blood there or not. Good question though,

Steve Clemons

From the LA Times Editorial: “It is the height of irony that Americans can freely travel to countries such as Venezuela and Iran, which represent genuine threats to our security and economic interests, but not to Cuba, whose government is a threat only to its own people.”

This is just so much hogwash.

Can someone please explain to me how Venezuela represents a genuine threat to the USA's security and economic interests? Aren't they being labeled a threat by the ruling classes because they're encouraging their fellow Latin American countries, (and other countries around the world), to enter into equitable trade agreements with each other rather than into inequitable and unfair trade agreements with the USA – a country that has raped their Latin American economies from the beginning of their involvement with them - a violent country controlled by a cabal of thugs, criminals and charlatans who have nothing but contempt for the rule of law, international or otherwise, when it interferes with their pursuit of personal profit?

No, it isn't the USA that is threatened by Chavez and Venezuela - it's the criminal business class in power in the United States that is threatened by Venezuela because Venezuela is now perfectly positioned to show the world that there may indeed be a better way to do business than the now-discredited wide open free market system advocated by the greedy, stick-fingered goons that are decimating the underpinnings of American social and economic order with their abusive misuse of government, media and social/religious institutions.

This editorial is just more “baffle-‘em-wit-bullshit” from the fascists lurking in the crowd. When are Americans going to smarten up and start ignoring the serial liars who write anonymous editorials for reich wing wrags like the LA Times? How can any of you continue to use their oft-repeated nonsense as a basis for rational argument/discussion?

In my opinion, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba are no more a threat to the USA than the Marshall Islands or Guam are. Anyone who honestly believes they are a threat is dangerously delusional, and anyone who uses this belief as a central plank in their arguments is playing right into the hands of the con men in charge.

Fools, everyone!

arthurdecco...

Amen and then some.

As long as people are being blown to bits in Iraq and soon to be in Iran, I find it hard to focus on Cuba-US relations. Venzuela is a threat because they are "socialist".

Oooooooh sooo scarey for venture capitalists. For the rest of us, not so scarey.

"But I also need to keep some element of reality to my commentary regarding the positions of Hillary and Obama - because if the election were tomorrow, one of them would win."

Yep. Precisely because the media, and people like yourself, make it impossible for "alternative" candidates like Paul or Kucinich to break through the walls of obstacles you put up, impeding thier ability to be heard or recognized. Basically, what you are saying is "I will not give them exposure, because they aren't getting exposure, because we won't give them exposure".

And, please note that Ron Paul's comments about Cuba were made in 2002. So, not giving his policy suggestions exposure really has very little to do with his candidacy viability, does it not? If it is the message, and the policy, that is important, what is the excuse for not giving his 2002 policy suggestions exposure in 2002, when they were made?

What I see is the mass marketed mainstream "performers" assuming postures to impress their targeted consituency, while the leadership figures that have long held those postures are ignored and trivialized. Meanwhile, the less than flattering positions, such as Obama's telling comments about his "feelings" on impeachment are shoved under the rug by you.

Sorry Steve, but if you are going to laud candidates on their foreign policy stances, while ignoring the same long held stances of thier political opponents, then it becomes fairly obvious that you are selling the candidate and not the policy.

And, to be honest, it pains me to see you do not recognize the danger this nation is in by the continued selling of insincere, expensive, and opportunistic campaigning propaganda in order to place individuals in the White House and our higher offices. The ilk of Hillary and Obama are the problem, not the solution. And your participation in such unabashed marketing of the status quo is disheartening, to say the least. This nation is at a serious crossroads, and it appears we are going to get it wrong yet once again. And sadly, you are complicit.

And sadly, you are complicit.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican at August 26, 2007 11:09 AM
>>>>>>>>>>

Steve, how is TWN's situation any different from FOX, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, and other MSM media whores that provide virtually no exposure to non-establishment opponents? You're spoonfeeding us with Hillary/Obama or Rudy/Mitt. Sounds complicit to me, which sadly TWN has in common with MSM.

Further on this subject, I have been accused of "sharing" Ron Paul's political ideals by MarkL, who has perfectly followed the EXACT SCRIPT that the MSM is on discrediting and marginalizing Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. MarkL even went so far as to label me "pro-life" because I agree witrh Paul's stance of letting the individual states decide the issue of abortion.

The truth is that the larger issue, for me, is NOT the pros or cons of the political stances of Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. The larger issue is their purposeful exclusion from the process, no matter their political views. Like Steve, I find stances I can agree with, from both candidates, and stances I take exception to, from both candidates. But this is true of ALL the candidates, is it not? But to discount the long held positions of non-mainstream candidates, only to laud the recently assumed positions of mass marketed status quo lackeys such as Hillary or Obama, underscores all that is WRONG about our modern political process. I find it hard to have faith in the convicttion of someone liker Hillary or Obama. Hillary has been all over the spectrum on Iraq, and Obama has done virtually NOTHING to boost him to Presidential status, except fellate the very powers that have made such a pathetic SHAM out of our political process by making residence at the White House little more than a bought and paid for entitlement to whoever raises the biggest bribes and tells the biggest lies.

Yet, along comes someone like Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich, bringing to the table UNWAVERING POSITIONS, long held. Who can doubt the veracity or conviction of such long held unwavering opinions on policy? Even in disagreement with policy opinions, one has to admire the integrity and conviction behind such tenacity of opinion. And, in the case of both Paul and Kucinich, their steady and unwavering opposition to the debacle in Iraq, as well as both of their oppostions to the Patriot Act and the steady erosion of our rights, their message becomes a message that MUST BE HEARD. In addition, the fact that their early predictions about the DISASTER that would befall Bush's Iraq policy tells us that they not only state their views with conviction and integrity, but that their knowledge and understanding of foreign policy contains a degree of competence and realism that has been sorely lacking in the other presidential hopefuls.

But how do Steve and those like him, as well as the MSM media, treat such political accuity and ideological conviction? By ostracizing, trivializing, swiftboating and marginalizing.

Something is VERY wrong with that picture, and our nation is suffering from it. If it doesn't change, than our downhill slide will continue unabated. And frankly, it ain't much farther to the bottom, and we are damned near there.

Gosh, MP and MarkL sure avoided this one, didn't they? I guess it didn't leave much room for straw.

Hi, Joe.
Do you know Chapman? Whose tool is he? Isn't he entitled to his opinion too?
its ironic. You are saying that Obama is being realistic, is similar to what I said about Hillary.

I am happy Gonzalez is gone!
Miriam

By Ryan Alessi

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wrapped his message for change in his signature high-octane style yesterday, delighting those in the overflow crowd, many of whom came to see whether the Illinois senator is the real deal.

By the end of his 30-minute speech at the Lexington Center, Obama had the nearly 2,000 people chanting "fired up" and "ready to go" -- two of his campaign's rally cries, which he said he borrowed from a city councilwoman in South Carolina.

At several points Obama, who last night ended his 12-day U.S. tour through 60 cities, reiterated that the run for the White House is more than just disagreeing with what's been done in the past.

"The reason you're here, I'm willing to bet, is not just because you're against something. It's easy to be against something," he said. "But the reason you're here and the reason why I think we're attracting these tremendous crowds is people want to be for something."

Obama's visit to Lexington -- his second stop in Kentucky in six months -- comes as Illinois' junior U.S. senator fends off questions about whether he's experienced enough to lead the nation.

His chief rival in the 2008 Democratic primary, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, has played up the experience issue. On Thursday she touched on it with controversial remarks in New Hampshire, saying that another terrorist attack would boost Republicans' standing and that she is the Democrat best positioned to counter that.

Obama, 46, didn't respond to that yesterday. In a campaign stop Saturday, he said, "We need to stop using terrorism as a wedge issue."

Instead, he said that experience is meaningless without "good judgment." He named Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as examples, drawing laughs and applause from the partisan crowd.

"I've been in Washington long enough to know that Washington needs to change," Obama said, before easing his remarks back to his main theme of unity.

"I'm humble enough to know I can't do it by myself. I've got to have you with me," he said.

That was a compelling statement, said Alice Dehner, 61, of Lexington.

Dehner, who once worked for Republican President Richard Nixon's campaign, came into last night's event curious and uncommitted. She said she left impressed.

"He ended up providing more substance than I thought he would," she said.

Specifically, Obama talked about the government investing in creation of an electronic record-keeping system. That could save as much as $150 billion, which could be used to lower health care costs.

State Sen. Daniel Mongiardo of Hazard -- a surgeon and running mate of Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear -- was seated on risers behind Obama and stood to applaud that line.

On education, Obama mentioned increasing teachers' pay and rolling back some testing requirements.

He said the country also needs a forward-thinking energy policy, and he alluded to his disapproval of the coal mining process of mountaintop removal.

"We're tearing up the Appalachian Mountains because of our dependence on fossil fuels," he said, sparking loud applause.

As for the war in Iraq, he said, the choices are between "bad options and worse options."

Still, he said, his goal would be to remove troops from Iraq and refocus them to fight al-Qaida. Obama also defended one of his remarks from earlier this summer in which he said he first would try to negotiate with leaders of hostile nations.

"A strong person and a strong country is never afraid to talk to our enemies," he said. "I'm not afraid to negotiate with anyone."

Republicans, however, dismissed Obama's positions as being out of step with Kentucky, which voted for George W. Bush in the last two presidential races.

"The more time Barack Obama spends in Kentucky touting his liberal proposals to raise taxes for working families and choke off funding for our troops, the more likely voters in this state will re-elect a Republican president in 2008," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson said in a statement.

But yesterday, at least, Central Kentuckians leapt at the chance to hear what Obama had to say. About 500 more people than expected paid the campaign their $25 to attend.

Robert Webb, 56, Christian Adair, 34, and Karah Sutton, 19, arrived about 3:30 p.m. for the 5:30 event and were among the first 10 in line.

After Obama's speech, all three said the performance surpassed expectations.

"He's idealistic without being unrealistic," said Sutton, summing up her attraction to Obama.

His style is unlike that of any politician she's heard -- almost like that of a charismatic minister. "Not that it was preachy or religious," she said, "but that it was inspiring."

Read the full article at the Lexington Herald-Leader.

*I was there, but it was sold out..rats!...LS* 

Barack Obama, who made headlines for suggesting he would meet with anti-American leaders such as Fidel Castro, plans to speak Saturday in Little Havana.

BY BETH REINHARD

breinhard@MiamiHerald.com

 

AP

'I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island,' Sen. Barak Obama says of his plans for lifting restrictions.

• Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for ''unrestricted rights'' for Cuban Americans to visit and send money to family in Cuba, just days before his first pilgrimage to Little Havana as a presidential candidate.

President Bush clamped down on family travel and remittances to Cuba in an effort to squeeze Fidel Castro. The policy has become a flash point in the Cuban-American community, which traditionally leans toward the GOP.

''Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island,'' Obama wrote in an opinion column published in today's Miami Herald. ``Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.''

Obama is expected to repeat his message Saturday at Miami-Dade County Auditorium, a site laden with nostalgia for Cuban exiles. It was there that President Ronald Reagan declared ``Cuba sí, Castro no'' during a landmark, anti-communist speech in 1983 that emboldened a Cuban-American community then on the political fringes.

About 1,100 tickets have been sold so far to Obama's speech, with the proceeds going to the Miami-Dade Democratic Party. The $30 entry fee is a fraction of the $2,300 donation typical of presidential fundraisers.

''This speech has so much symbolism and value, coming in the heart of the Cuban-American community,'' said the local party's chairman, Joe Garcia. ``Sen. Obama has come to the conclusion that the majority of Cuban Americans have come to, which is that more travel is good for freedom and good for democracy.''

A Florida International University poll in March of 1,000 Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade found that 55 percent support free travel to Cuba. But some exile groups argue that easing the restrictions would be a mistake.

''We regret that Sen. Obama has been so ill-advised as to assume that lifting sanctions against Cuba's dictatorial regime will bring about change,'' read a statement issued by the non-partisan Cuban Liberty Council. ``It is sad that he does not apply the same principles used to bring about change in South Africa where blacks were victims of the same apartheid as Cubans on the island.''

Obama's stance puts him at odds with Republican presidential field and could open the door for his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, to continue a foreign policy spat that began during a televised debate last month.

In response to a question delivered via YouTube video, Obama said then that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of hostile countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. Clinton countered that she would not, as president, be used for propaganda and later called Obama's position ``irresponsible and frankly naive.''

The backbiting reflected what is becoming the overriding themes of their campaigns, with Clinton portraying herself as the most prepared candidate and Obama presenting himself as the best candidate for change.

In 2004, the Bush administration restricted Cuban Americans to visiting their relatives on the island once every three years and capped remittances at $100 per month. Democratic efforts to reverse the policy have been unsuccessful, though Clinton and Obama voted in 2005 to facilitate family travel to Cuba in humanitarian circumstances.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd is co-sponsoring an even broader bill allowing any American citizen to visit Cuba. ''We must open the flood gates,'' Dodd said recently.

Dario Moreno, a Florida International University political science professor, said Obama's position could cost him some votes.

''He's appealing to the most progressive element of his party, and I think what he's underestimating is the large number of Hispanics in Miami-Dade that he could alienate himself from,'' Moreno said.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, determined to cast himself as the Democratic presidential candidate most open to new ideas on foreign policy, raised plenty of eyebrows recently when he proclaimed that he would be willing to meet personally with such rogue figures as Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. But that was nothing compared with the opinion article he published Tuesday in the Miami Herald saying Cuban Americans should have unrestricted rights to travel and send remittances to the island.

The other Democratic front-runner, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who portrays herself as the experienced foreign policy realist next to Obama's cowboy diplomat, wasted no time in rejecting Obama's proposal. Her campaign released a statement saying the U.S. stance toward Cuba shouldn't be altered until a post-Castro regime cleans up its act. Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani, meanwhile, said Obama's plan would only strengthen Castro's oppressive government.

The astonishing thing here is that after the U.S. has tried for nearly 50 years to force a regime change in Cuba by way of economic embargo with no success whatsoever, Obama is one of the few presidential contenders who dares to suggest that it's time to try something different. Some might consider Obama's move courageous given the political power of Florida's Cuban American community, which helped put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 and has cheered his efforts to tighten sanctions on Cuba. But the minority of Cuban immigrants who vote Democratic is deeply divided on the travel ban and would like to be able to send more money to relatives at home, so Obama may not be staking out such a bold position after all.

Regardless of the political implications, Obama is clearly right -- the only problem is, his proposal doesn't go far enough. The travel ban should be lifted for everybody, not just Cuban immigrants. It is the height of irony that Americans can freely travel to countries such as Venezuela and Iran, which represent genuine threats to our security and economic interests, but not to Cuba, whose government is a threat only to its own people.The ban has done nothing to weaken Castro, but it does keep U.S. tourist dollars out of the hands of Cubans, who might be less inclined to heed their regime's anti-U.S. propaganda if Americans were helping to raise their standard of living.

The U.S. shouldn't lift all economic sanctions on Cuba until the island's regime makes progress on democracy and human rights, but policies such as the travel ban and limits on remittances are simply counterproductive. Score one for Obama.

***Hey! He now has my vote!!!...LS***