“To restore America’s leadership in the world” will be by-word in the coming days as the quote to go back to. Such was the declaration of John Edwards, a former vice presidential nominee who has announced his candidacy for president in the next presidential elections in an interview with NBC’s Today’s Show last Thursday.

Edwards will be known for calling cuts in poverty, global warming and recalling the deployed troops to the ongoing crisis in Iraq. While nothing solid came out of his plans before, Edwards has declared that he shall be execute such plans to get results. Results is the best way to prove to anyone that a person is what he claims to be and this is what he intends to do.

Going back, it is a fact today that the leadership that the United States has had in the world has gradually if not completely faded from recent leaderships in the presidency of this nation. Such has been the need to once again solicit the once solid support and belief that each person had, and hopefully the next duly elected president can reclaim such upon his induction to office.

 

 

  

The presidency of the United States is a position that is always up for controversies and conflicts. The leadership of one of the strongest nations in the world today is considered a hot seat to most. The best witnesses to such would be the current and former presidents who have had their chance to lead the United States in various times.

Former President Gerald Ford was a leader that gathered the respect of all. Known for leading the nation based on his instincts and integrity, Ford was acclaimed to be among the greatest leaders that the U.S. has ever known after the forgettable reign that former president Richard Nixon handled.

At the age of 93, President Ford passed away at his desert home last December 26. He is survived by his wife and former first lady Betty Ford. Already claiming the distinction of being the longest living former president of the United States, Ford had several medical issues for the past year. A great man and leader, Ford will always are remembered for shutting down the controversial book, The Watergate Scandal.

Around the world, it only seems normal to hear about political misunderstandings, nations at war and disputes that have caused tension around the globe. While most of these issues look like they will never end, truces and ceasefires in celebration of the annual Yuletide season is something that is common and traditional.

Countries like Iraq and the Philippines, countries that are always in the middle of political disputes and misunderstandings observe the said ceasefires, something that the world would wish will last more than just the holiday season. But then again, that is wishful thinking until such resolutions are made for erring issues of various natures.

But whatever happens, after the holidays, everything will be back to where it was. Unlike the past years, hopefully something concrete will happen from months of negotiations between both parties. For sure, peace is something that everyone would want, not only for the Christmas season but for a longer period of time.

It is just a matter of time when the issue concerning the much celebrated trial of Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith will be the penultimate stumbling block towards the ties between the United States and the Philippines. There is a conflict of interest with regards to the custody of Lance Cpl. Smith where under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the Unites States, custody should be handed down to the US. But following the decision handed down by the Makati Regional Trial Court, Smith is still being detained at the Makati City Jail and this has been a cause for concern with the US navyment in particular

The impact of this issue has so far gone as far as canceling some aids and the US-RP Balikatan exercises. There has been mounting concern with regards to the safety of the US troops in the Philippines and until the issue with Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith is settled, everything will stay on air.

For the record, Daniel Smith was found guilty by the Makati Regional Trial Court for raping a Filipina in Subic, Philippines and has since been tagged as the Subic Rape Case. This setback has been considered a big blow in the growing relationship between the US and the Philippines and until this issue is laid to rest, there is no clear view of what to expect between the two countries as of to date.

By now, everyone is still familiar with the North Korea issue with regards to the nuclear testing that they had done some months ago. While this issue has not escalated for several months now, no resolution with regards to its status has also been heard of. At the rate things are going under the negotiations with the United Nations, it seems like this issue will take a couple more of months to settle.

While the nuclear testing made by the Koreans are not aimed at any specific country or nation, the fact remains that such testing is a threat to any region today. Some may view this as a cause for alarm since at any time, the press of a button may spark another world war and another destructive era for mother earth. True enough, unless there is anything that comes out from the talks and mediations done by the different nations and their leaders, this issue shall continue to be in the air and keep everyone thinking of what tomorrow may hold humanity in our time and age.

The issue on the fate of Iraq is far from over and there seems to be no sight with regards to finally closing the issue at hand. Moreover, the issue seems to be acting as pressing issues between President Clinton and the Joint Chief of staff today with regards to the deployment of additional troops to man the troubled nation that is continuously at war.

 

Deploying military troops to a war inhabited nation is not a laughing matter. It is really something that needs deeper analysis prior to the final decision to be handed down. The Iraqi war will always be found on every front page today and what the U.S. government does not need right now is creating internal conflicts that the media will sure to elevate to make the front page. Let the war be left between the Iraqi’s and the U.S. military troops and leave out the innocent decision-makers from starting their own wars.

In the murky world of Hillary Clinton’s undeclared run for the White House, official denials and bland statements are ubiquitous. But, as Kremlinologists did in the Cold War, it pays to monitor the guests shuttling in and out of her townhouse in Washington DC. Last week that list revealed a campaign moving rapidly into top gear, spurred into action by the meteoric rise of Barack Obama.

Last Sunday Clinton hosted a dinner with key officials from New Hampshire. On Tuesday she held one with figures from Iowa. Both states are vital first battlegrounds in any nomination campaign. Then last Wednesday Clinton had a private party with old hands from her husband’s two presidential campaigns, including James ‘The Raging Cajun’ Carville, who masterminded Bill’s rise.

The race is on. Senator Obama of Illinois has electrified the Democratic party like no other figure in recent political memory and the shock is being felt most in Clinton’s campaign. ‘I think they have suddenly sat up and taken notice of this – they have to,’ said a Democratic strategist close to Clinton’s campaign.

Obama is aggressively exploring a presidential run, scuppering Clinton’s carefully laid plans and threatening her grip on the party’s power structure. Her march to power, years in the making, is being speeded into action by Obama’s unexpected emergence, which has blind-sided her close advisers. For the past two years Clinton has deliberately stayed out of New Hampshire and Iowa for fear of stoking up presidential speculation too early. But now the gloves are off. Aside from the dinner parties, Clinton has been hitting the phones to key players in these and other early primary states such as Nevada and South Carolina. In an America caught in the throes of Obama-mania, Clinton is suddenly having to seek publicity. Last week she re-released her best-selling book, It Takes A Village, and is planning some book-signing appearances.

Obama is a real threat. His first rally last week in New Hampshire drew screaming crowds. The week before he had been in Clinton’s home turf of New York City, speaking at a fashion industry dinner, where he pitched himself as a viable alternative to Clinton, saying that the country was keen to move on from the political battles of the 1980s and 1990s. ‘The country is waiting for the next thing,’ he told an admiring audience. It was clear whom he thought that next thing was. In New Hampshire, TV adverts supporting Obama are already running. They beat out the same message – Obama is a fresh face. ‘Believe again!’ the advert exhorts. Obama is becoming a huge symbol of change. ‘People are projecting on him whatever they want to see,’ said Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of Michigan.

It is easy to see why Obama is such a threat. His liberal politics appeal to many of Clinton’s base supporters. He has been consistently anti-war and was not even in the Senate when Clinton voted for invading Iraq. Her hawkish support of the war has been a millstone around her neck in courting the Democratic base.

Obama has a charisma that has many experts reminiscing about the natural gifts of Bill Clinton. Like Bill, he has also positioned himself as someone keen to capture the middle ground. His speaking ability is similarly impressive and he is likely to be a ferocious campaigner. Finally, as a black American, Obama threatens one of the strongest areas of Clinton’s support, especially in South Carolina, which is a vital early primary state and has a large black population. If Obama can mop up that black support, he could deal a blow to Clinton, who is not popular with white southerners.

It all looks like a perfect storm for Clinton’s ambitions. In contrast to Obama, she is seen as a poor public speaker who comes across as cold and calculating. She is also a divisive figure, unlikely to attract many Republican voters. Instead of Bill Clinton’s legacy of charm and inspiration, she drags along his baggage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and her failed attempts at healthcare reform. She is also seen as a name from the past who symbolises the drama of the Bushes vs the Clintons in a country that – mired in the Iraq war – is looking for a fresh start.

But few would dare to write Clinton off. She has spent years and millions of dollars cultivating a powerful political machine which is not easily knocked off course. She has powerful allies in the party across the country and has assembled a loyal, committed campaign team second to none. She also has more money than any other Democrat. Recent filings show she has $14m in campaign cash, compared with Obama’s less than $2m. Clinton’s campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, has amassed a database of hundreds of thousands of small donors that will kick into action as soon as she declares her ambition to run.

Some experts believe Obama’s emergence may help Clinton. It is taking away the media heat from her, and they believe that it is more advantageous for her to enter the race late. When she does move, Obama’s flaws may quickly be exposed. He is likely to be attacked for his inexperience and lack of political achievements. He will be painted as the darling of a fawning media without the real credentials for the most powerful job in the world. It’s a contest some see Clinton as easily winning with her greater experience and huge funds. Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist, portrayed it scathingly as ‘Hillzilla vs Obambi’.

But whoever prevails, the real fight will still lie ahead. A poll last week showed that Republican veteran John McCain remains the most likely winner of the 2008 presidential election. The maverick war hero appeals to many independents and is widely seen as being a critic of President George Bush. Whether Obama wins the nomination, or Clinton, or someone else, the White House may remain a distant dream.

c/o-: The Guardian

Asylum law is another law that has been around, literally, for ages. It simply outlines the situations in which an individual or group is persecuted by their home country for their beliefs or politics, usually dissenting form the current regime in their country, and who then takes asylum under the protection of a sovereign authority, such as another country. Asylum law is another law that has been around, literally, for ages. It simply outlines the situations in which an individual or group is persecuted by their home country for their beliefs or politics, usually dissenting form the current regime in their country, and who then takes asylum under the protection of a sovereign authority, such as another country.

Asylum law is not refugee law; asylum law concerns the right of asylum as opposed to refugee law, which concerns huge group of people coming into a country. Most often, the seekers of asylum, or protection, are often considered rebels or dissidents in their own countries and are not safe, so they migrate to a different country that offers them protection. However, the two do sometimes overlap, as a refugee may demand to be treated as an asylum case, and is sometimes granted that right.

Asylum law has general legalities surrounding it, but like any other type of law, it really functions on a case-by-case basis. More recently, treaties called “extradition treaties” have been signed by numerous countries giving the home country of the asylum-seeker the right to demand their return, and the asylum-giving country, according to such a treaty, would have to oblige.

However, though these treaties may be signed between nations, international law still says that a country does not have to surrender the asylum-seeker, often considered a criminal in their home country, to their country of origin. This is directly because of the principles defining a sovereign state, wherein the people or within the borders of a sovereign state are subject to the sovereign state’s authority.

Asylum law is different in each nation, and some may be stricter than others. Because of its nature and the important role sovereign states play in asylum laws, different countries may vary widely in how they put the law into effect.

c/o-: MyAbogado.com 

I have been doing business for 18 years, and let me tell you first hand, there is no business like Work at Home business. The key being “Work at Home”. From the corporate world to the small time brick and mortar world of business, there really is nothing that can compare to the freedom and enjoyment of work from home business ventures.

There are so many ways to go about setting up and running your own home business utilizing the internet today, its really an amazement to me that everyone isn’t working from home as their own boss. If you’re sick of your jobs or simply want a change in your life, I strong urge you to look into legitimate home business opportunities.

If you can type and have an internet connection, you can very easily run your own flourishing home business. I’m not going to tell you now to go buy some program, what i’m going to talk about goes much further than this.

The equation to success always involves several things: Focus, dedication, passion, informed decisions, and Commitment.

Have you ever set a goal before, made a conscious decision that you wanted something accomplished in your life, but you were then distracted and lost your focus?

Maybe you lost a credit card, or you got a cold, or you forgot someone’s name, or something happened at the office………AND YOU LOST YOUR FOCUS?

You weren’t thinking of your goals, you were thinking of something else, something that distracted you from goals you had previously set for yourself.

Life is hectic and we all have busy schedules, the days and hours fly by so quickly it seems there is never enough time in the day.

So much that we lose our focus and forget what our goals in life are and how we can work to achieve them

We lose focus

WE ALL LOSE FOCUS

Which is why I want to make this very clear, that no matter what obstacles and distractions you are faced in your life, no matter how busy or tired you are, you Need To Have The Driving Determination and Will Power To Achieve Any Goals That you Put Your Mind To!!!

I want you to understand this sincerely, because this is what has helped me to achieve the true success that I have today, and it is one of the staples of building and running a successful home business. Your will and focus to succeed, to make something of yourself are all that anyone needs to succeed in any aspect of their life. No one is going to give you anything for free, “there is no free lunch”, as they say. So expect any home business opportunity to involve some work and effort, but you can do it with a little drive and self determination.

c/o-: James Bradley. Home Income University

George Bush yesterday rejected key recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, revealing important differences with Tony Blair, who embraced the proposals put forward by the US bipartisan commission.

Those differences became clear after the two leaders met at the White House.

President Bush flatly contradicted the ISG’s proposal that Iran and Syria be included in regional talks aimed at ending Iraq’s worsening civil war. He restated the White House position that talks with Tehran were conditional on the Iranians stopping uranium enrichment, while contacts with Damascus would depend on an end to Syrian destabilisation of Lebanon and a cessation of arms and money flows over the border to Iraqi insurgents.

“We’ve made that position very clear. And the truth of the matter is that these countries have now got the choice to make,” the president said.

“If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it’s easy. Just make some decisions that’ll lead to peace, not to conflict.”

Mr Blair, by contrast, welcomed the regional peace initiative put forward by the ISG, saying only that the basis for those discussions should be acceptance of UN resolutions on Iraq.

A Downing Street spokesman confirmed the British position of demanding a halt to uranium enrichment while continuing to talk to Iran on other issues. “In terms of our position, we continue to have diplomatic relations with Iran and have always done so,” the spokesman said.

The difference in tone between the two leaders was also evident when they talked more generally about the report, which also called for a withdrawal of combat troops by early 2008, a switch in the use of US troops to an advisory role, in tandem with a comprehensive Middle East peace conference.

Mr Blair enthusiastically embraced the ISG’s regional approach and the link it made between resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bringing peace to Iraq. “There is a kind of whole vision about how we need to proceed that links what happens inside Iraq with what happens outside Iraq. And the report put this very simply and very clearly,” he said. “I think the report is practical, it’s clear, and it offers also the way of bringing people together.”

President Bush praised the commission, headed by the retired politicians James Baker and Lee Hamilton, for its bipartisan approach, but appeared to put more emphasis on a separate assessment of the situation in Iraq expected in the next few days from the joint chiefs of staff.

“Baker-Hamilton is a really important part of our considerations,” the president said. “But we want to make sure the military gets their point of view in. After all, a lot of what we’re doing is a military operation.”

The military report is not expected to propose substantial troop withdrawals and may even advocate a brief surge in the US military presence in Iraq. President Bush yesterday made it clear he was more likely to listen to that kind of advice. He said: “Our commanders will be making recommendations based upon whether or not we’re achieving our stated objective.”

He added that another political assessment was being readied by the state department and that after he had absorbed all the reports he would make a major policy speech announcing a new strategic direction.

Mr Bush has been under rising pressure since last week when the incoming defence secretary, Robert Gates, contradicted his assertion that the US was winning the war. Pressed by journalists, the president yesterday admitted “it’s bad in Iraq”, adding: “I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed. I do understand that process is not as rapid as I had hoped.” But his rhetoric otherwise remained defiantly unchanged, and he continued to talk of eventual “victory”.

The ISG members appeared before the Senate yesterday in an attempt to increase pressure on the president to accept the group’s proposals.

Mr Baker, a close adviser and friend of the president’s father, said that the ISG report “is probably the only bipartisan report [the president is] going to get and it’s extremely important that we approach this issue in a bipartisan way”.

“If the Congress could come together behind supporting – let’s say, utopianly – all of the recommendations in this report, that would do a lot toward moving things downtown,” he added, referring to the White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr Baker also flatly contradicted the president’s claim that the ISG authors did not expect him to accept every recommendation. “I hope we don’t treat this like a fruit salad, saying, ‘I like this, but I don’t like that,’” he said. “It’s a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with the problems in Iraq, but also to deal with other problems in the region. These are interdependent recommendations.”

In his remarks yesterday, the president did appear to give some hints on future military strategy, suggesting that the initial emphasis would be on a final effort to contain the sectarian violence centred in Baghdad, which may allow US troops then to concentrate on al-Qaida groups, which would be more palatable to US public opinion.

“We’ll continue after al-Qaida. Al-Qaida will not have safe haven in Iraq. And that’s important for the American people to know. We got special operators. We’ve got, you know, better intelligence,” he said.

“The strategy now is how to make sure that we’ve got the security situation in place such that the Iraqi government’s capable of dealing with the sectarian violence, as well as the political and economic strategies as well.”