BIG BROTHER STRIKES THE LITTLE MAN AGAIN

IN THE NAME OF DOING GOOD FOR THE EARTH, ANOTHER DEAL THAT WAS LITTLE PUBLICIZED IN THe MSM has already Affected THE WAY ASTHMATICS ARE TREATED. This diabolical Montreal Protocol was signed in Montreal by 138 countries and the USA in 1986. By 2007 there were 19 additional meetimgs to solidify the strangle hold Environmentalists have over our lives.
It's full effect wasn't mandated until 2003, also with little press coverage. The protocol has affected the effectiveness that prescribed medicines have on Asthma patients.
The following is an excerpt from an article by Steven Rosenberg that will explain the politics of this semi-secret deal that was never approved by the US Senate!

By Steven Reinberg
FRIDAY, May 30 (HealthDay News) — Asthma inhalers that contain the drug albuterol to relax the airways also contain chemicals that harm the ozone layer. And these inhalers won't be available after this year, so U.S. health officials are urging patients to switch to alternative inhalers now.

Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, are widely used to propel inhaled drugs into the lungs. However, products containing CFCs are being phased out, because the chemicals damage the Earth's protective ozone layer. CFC inhalers are being replaced by inhalers powered by HFAs, or hydrofluoroalkanes, which are ozone-friendly.

The change to HFA-powered inhalers has been in the works for several years, but the FDA issued an advisory,urging patients still using CFC inhalers to switch now. Inhalers containing CFCs are not now available.

FDA officials said people with respiratory problems, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, may need some time to acclimate to HFA-based inhalers.

"There are 52 million prescriptions written for albuterol inhalers each year in the United States," Dr. Badrul Chowdhury, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Products, said during a teleconference. Albuterol is used to treat shortness of breath in people with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, he noted.

Chowdhury said that approximately 65 percent of inhaler users have already switched to HFA inhalers.

"These new handlers may taste and feel different than the current CFC inhalers," he said. "In addition, HFA inhalers may feel softer than CFC inhalers."

And I for one can testify that they do not work as well, as I am a Asthmatic who suffers from periodic episodes that have led to hospital admissions to save my life!

Also, patients using HFA inhalers will have to prime and clean them to prevent the buildup of albuterol in the inhalers' nozzle. This buildup could block the medicine from reaching the lungs, Chowdhury said.This is more work, and a potential for serious side affects for those who are unable or not smart enough to clean the new asthma sprayers properly!

Each HFA inhaler has a different priming mechanism and cleaning and drying instructions. So, users should carefully read the instructions before using the inhaler. And HFA inhalers may cost more, because there's no generic HFA inhaler available yet, Chowdhury said.

Three HFA-propelled albuterol inhalers have been approved by the FDA: Proair HFA Inhalation Aerosol; Proventil HFA Inhalation Aerosol; and Ventolin HFA Inhalation Aerosol. Also, an HFA-propelled inhaler containing levalbuterol, a medicine similar to albuterol, is available as Xopenex HFA Inhalation Aerosol, the agency said.

Dr. Ira Finegold, chief of the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City, doesn't see much difference in the effectiveness of the two types of inhalers. "The end result — if you need it, does it open up your lungs? Yes, it does," he said.

However, the changeover will involve some patient education, he said. "The old medication, CFC albuterol, was really a very nice product, because the propellant got in your body and came out of your body — it wasn't absorbed. And remarkably, it is a cleaning agent, so the device was self-cleaning."

The new HFA propellant is safe in the body but can clog the inhaler, Feingold said. "So, after use, these inhalers need to be rinsed out or they are not going to work correctly," he said.

"In addition," Feingold added, "each of the four new inhalers on the market is different in the number of times you have to prime it. There is also a little difference in feel and taste."

The discontinuation of CFC-propelled inhalers is the result of the U.S. Clean Air Act and an international treaty known as the Montreal Protocol(1986) on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Under provisions of this treaty, the United States agreed to stop the production and importation of substances that damage the ozone layer, including CFCs, according to the FDA.


SOURCES: May 30, 2008, teleconference with Badrul Chowdhury, M.D., Ph.D., director, Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Ira Finegold, M.D., chief, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York City

If that were all that the Montreal Protocol affected, it would be just a problem that a relatively small group of sick Americans had to deal with, But it is only one of many problems caused by this miserable excuse for a "protocol!"

The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty developed to protect the earth from the detrimental effects of ozone depletion. Since it was begun in the late 1980's, it has been signed by over 160 countries ("Parties" to the Treaty), and controls the production and trade of ozone depleting substances on a global basis. This Treaty is now phasing out the CFCs and other ozone depleting compounds on a world-wide basis

Under the Clean Air Act and Montreal Protocol, production of methyl bromide, a widely used fumigant in agriculture and forestry has also been phased out due to claims that it contributes to ozone depletion.
It is critical that current efforts continue to quickly develop and implement economically viable and environmentally sound alternatives. Our food chain depends on protecting it from destruction in the growth fields from voracious insects!

"The role of methyl bromide as an ozone-depleting compound is now considered to be less than was estimated in the 1994 Assessment, although significant uncertainties remain. The current best estimate of the Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) for methyl bromide is 0.4 (with a range of 0.2 to 0.5), as compared to an ODP of 0.6 (with a range of 0.3 to 0.9) estimated in the previous Assessment (1994). The change is due primarily to both an increase in the estimate of ocean removal processes and the identification of an uptake by soils, with a smaller contribution from the change in our estimate of the atmospheric removal rate. Recent research has shown that the science of atmospheric methyl bromide is complex and still not well understood. The current understanding of the sources and sinks of atmospheric methyl bromide is incomplete."
Despite this the "Enviro zealots"took a tool out of the hands of farmers, and have as yet not found asingle replacement for the wide range of fumigation that methyl-bromide gave to our farmers.

All this, because so called "experts" decided that:"If methyl bromide use is not controlled in a timely manner, atmospheric scientists believe, emissions will contribute to a thinning of the ozone layer and will allow increased amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. This will have potential impact not only to human health, including skin cancer and the environment, but to agricultural crops as well".

The conclusion statement of the committee that has followed the nineteen International meetings since Montreal is revealing in the stark admission that the protocol and it's mandates were made despite the derth of exact scientific evidence.

The following is an excerpt from a paper written by Richard Benedict entitled; "Lessons From The Montreal Protocol". " Faced with a new generation of global environmental threats, governments must act while some major questions remain un?resolved. In achieving the Montreal accord, consensus was forged and decisions were made on a balancing of probabilities – and the risks of waiting for more complete evidence were finally deemed to be too great. In the real world of ambiguity and imperfect knowledge, the Montreal Protocol may hopefully be the forerunner of an evolved partnership between scientists and policy makers, as sovereign nations seek ways of dealing with uncertain dangers and accepting common responsibility for stewardship of Planet Earth".This only dem onstrates that if you tell a lie often enough, people will eventually believe you!

If this was not enough to worry you, there are forces that wish to destroy our economy by controling population. "Several authors identify energy as a limiting factor in population size. David and Maria Pimentel point out that the U.S. achieves its high agricultural yields through a prodigious use of finite fossil fuel and ground water resources. Paul Werbos notes that renewable energy and conservation cannot fill the energy needs of an increased population at our present standard of living. Paul and Anne Ehrlich argue that due to wasteful technology and consumption patterns, Americans do much more damage to the planet than the more numerous third world poor. These chapters present a convincing case that the U.S. population should be reduced below current levels.
These are all part of the new home of the Marxist Humanists who promote abortion and Euthanasia!

NO DOUBT ABOUT WHY GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER LIKES OBAMA

“You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer... This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead... this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best—turn adversity into strength.” —the late Tony Snow


THE BERLIN "SHOW HAS BEGUN, AND ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT MEMBERS OF THE GERMAN GOV. TO WARMLY GREAT OBAMA WAS WALTER STEINMEIER.
This man is the German foreign minister. A hold over from the Schreoder government, before the more conservative Angela Merkel took over the leadership of the German Government.
The interesting and revealing part of this meeting, is that Mr. Steinmeier said he has found that he and Obama think alike!
Perhaps one reason he likes Obama is that when he assumed the Foreign Minister role the German newspaper Die Zeit wrote of him: "Though Steinmeier is largely considered to have little direct foreign policy experience, his one memorable speech on foreign affairs does indicate that he might largely continue the course taken by Schröder".
As you will recall Scroeder was very anti-American!

The following is a brief biography of this anti-USA German.
Frank Walter Steinmeier - Curator of Germany's Secret Services Will Shape Foreign Policy
SOURCE: Simon Araloff, AIA European section

Schroeder and Steinmeier
ON THE 14 TH OF OCTOBER 2005, the leadership of the German Social-Democratic Party announced the list of its candidates for the ministerial positions in the future coalition government. The candidate for the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs is Frank Walter Steinmeier. This man is thought to be a "gray eminence" of the German Government. All the German special services are subordinate to him. He is a real conductor of "special relations" with Russia; he does not like the USA; he resurrects the "Great Germany"…
A Man of the "Hanover Mafia"

Since November 1998, Frank Walter Steinmeier occupies a number of key positions in the German leadership. He is the Chief of Staff in Germany's Federal Chancellery (Chef des Bundeskanzleramtes), the official of the German Government for Special Assignments in the rank of a minister (Bundesminister für besondere Aufgaben), and also the member of Germany's Security Council, members in which are the Chancellor himself, the Minister of Interior, and the Minister of Defense. Thus, the decisions and the deeds of this man define Germany's destiny".

It was him, and not Schroeder, who was negotiating with the Americans over Iraq in 2002. It was him, who then coldly told the American Ambassador in Berlin, Daniel R. Coats that the Germans' negative position concerning the US military operation in Iraq stays the same. In the same period, to spite the White House, Steinmeier carried out contacts with the son of the Libyan leader, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi. After September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the USA, the FBI representatives were complaining to the author that it was extremely hard for them to work with their German counterparts. In particular it could be explained by Steinmeier's unwillingness to share information with the Americans.

I believe that Obama chose Germany to give his political speech, because his polls have shown that the Socialist Germans are pinning their hopes on Obama. Whereas just 10 percent favor the Republican candidate John McCain, fully 76 percent consider Barack Obama the better candidate. Of course they do! He is a socialist/Marxist in "sheeps clothing" preaching an empty slogan of "Change".

Immediately following his meeting with Senator Obama, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier announced: "The atmosphere was open and trusting. We built on our telephone conversation from mid-April." Steinmeier said he detected parallels in their philosophy of foreign policy. "Cooperation instead of confrontation -- that is also his foreign policy aim." Steinmeier said it had been a good conversation".
Why Not! Two like minded Socialists talking about their type of "CHANGE"!!!

EU THROWS A TEMPER TANTRUM!

There are presently 27 Nations( they call them States to remove the appearance of sovereignty) that are members of the European Union. A union without a Constitution, because the Irish did not want to abrogate some of their sovereignty to this amorphous body in Brussels.

Of the 27 members, 11 nations that joined the Eu are from what was called Eastern Europe. Many were previously Communist countries. The USA, Japan, Singapore and Panama have refused to grant blanket immunity to citizens of these Countries that wish to visit the USA and the three other Nations.

Most of the EU's 27 members have visa-waiver deals with the US, allowing their citizens to enter the country for short visits without visas. However all but one of the 12 states that joined the EU from 2004 to 2007, most of which are in Eastern Europe, have no such deals. Neither does Greece, which has been an EU member since 1981. This is because of Our concern for terrorists entering our Country as tourists.The USA has in place a computer generated questionnaire that prospective passengers to this Country must complete no later than two days before their air travel.

Not unlike all rapidly growing Bureaucracies, the EU is slow in their process of obtaining visa immunity for new member states. Thus, Estonia and Latvia are taking a detour around Brussels in the quest for visa-free travel.
Impatient at the slow pace of European Union negotiations, two Baltic states are setting up their own deals with the US to provide visa-free travel for their citizens, despite protests from Brussels.
Estonia signed a bilateral visa-waiver deal with the US on Wednesday morning, with Latvia due to follow suit later this week.

This infuriated the proud "princes" of the Eu, who already have a "black eye" over the "no vote" in Ireland last month. So they are resorting to desperate measures to keep the USA from making separate deals with "member States".

The move by the Eastern European states is creating tension within the European Commission, which wants to be the single negotiator with the US on visa-waiver deals. The Commission, which has already tried to put pressure on the US to give citizens of all EU states visa-free travel, feels bilateral deals infringe on its authority over visa and border policy. It is also worried that such deals might allow the US to pressure individual countries to give US authorities additional data on air passengers on top of that stipulated in an existing US-EU agreement.
They also are afraid that bilateral deals infringe on its authority over visa and border policy. It is also worried that such deals might undermine their supreme authority over what once were sovereign Countries, in my opinion!

As an act of retaliation the EU announced that as of 2009;
In a report released Thursday on visa requirements in breach of the principle of reciprocity,"the European Commission is proposing "retaliatory measures" that would force US diplomats to secure visas before entering EU countries". source:jtw@Reuters

According to Diplomatic law established by the Vienna Conventions, Diplomats are include in International law. As such they are exempt from obtaining a visa to travel to or within the Country they are assigned to by their government.

Formally, diplomatic immunity may be limited to officials accredited to a host country, or traveling to or from their host country. In practice, many countries may effectively recognize diplomatic immunity for those traveling on diplomatic passports.



If the EU goes through with their obvious violation of International law. I believe the USA should make the diplomats from he EU pay their debts and traffic fines that they incurred in the USA.

The bulk of diplomatic debt lies in the rental of office space and living quarters. Individual debts can range from a few thousand dollars to $1 million in back rent. A group of diplomats and the office space in which they work are referred to as a mission. Creditors cannot sue missions individually to collect money they owe. Landlords and creditors have found that the only thing they can do is contact a city agency to see if they can try to get some money back. They cannot enter the offices or apartments of diplomats to evict them because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act says that "the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment, arrest and execution" (28 U.S.C.A. § 1609).

Maybe it is time to revisit this policy if the EU wants to play "hard ball" with us!

IS OBAMA A MODERN DAY CHARLIE McCARTHY?

It is not unusual for the Secretary of State to precede the President when a European trip is planned. The Secretary of State attempts to smooth the ground and corrects any misconceptions that the leaders of the country and the Media have regarding foreign policy issues.
But when a candidate for president plans a trip to Europe, ostensibly to discuss foreign policy if he is elected. Why would a member of his campaign entourage have to speak about policy issues before he arrives?

Such is the case in Germany today, as we see that foreign policy adviser(one of 300) Susan Rice was interviewed by Der Spiegel about Obama's foreign policy.

Ms.Rice is no light weight when it comes to foreign policy, as her resume indicates, she is somewhat of a "wonk"!
"
In 2004, Rice took a leave of absence from Brookings to serve as Senior Advisor for National Security Affairs on the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Rice served President Clinton as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1997-2001. From 1995-1997, Rice was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council (NSC) and, from 1993-1995, was Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping at the NSC. She is now an unpaid senior advisor on foreign policy to Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign".source:Wikapedia


Could it possibly be that Obama only shines when he has A TELEPROMPTER TO READ FROM, OR ARE HIS HANDLERS AFRAID HE WILL MAKE ONE OF HIS NOW FAMOUS FLIP-FLOPS FOR THE WORLD TO WITNESS? A perfect example of his problem with unscripted interviews is illustrated in this ABC interview:

"Yes, Obama's campaign is getting stirring visuals at every stop of his world tour. But his answers in the interviews are terrible,
Obama to ABC's Terry Moran:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: "Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with".


In Berlin, an inerview with Ms. Rice was held by Gregor Pter Schmitz of Der Spiegel. The following are excerpts from that interview.

SPIEGEL: What would be the major change in trans-Atlantic relations under a President Obama?

Rice: Obama would proceed from a fundamentally different premise than has been the case in recent years. Obama does not perceive Europe in terms of "old" versus "new." He thinks it would be counterproductive to kick Russia out of the G-8. He sees the world as more complex than simply good versus evil. He recognizes that we can only deal effectively with global challenges if we have 21st century partnerships that work -- partnerships based on shared values, common security and mutual respect, in which everybody does their part and pulls their weight.


SPIEGEL: You said Europeans have to "pull their weight." What would that mean exactly in terms of their contribution in Afghanistan? More troops?


Rice: Obama's view is that circumstances in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose the most dangerous threat to Europe and the US right now. Al-Qaida is regrouping and reconstituting their safe haven; the Taliban are gaining strength. Europe is closer to that threat than we are. Yet, we all have to take it very seriously. The US has to put more resources and troops into Afghanistan, and NATO should do the same, while -- to the greatest extent possible -- lifting operational restrictions.

SPIEGEL: Would that lead to disillusionment with Obama in Europe?

Rice: We must be honest in acknowledging that neither Germany nor the US has the luxury of assuming that we can skate by on half-measures in Afghanistan and Pakistan and not risk suffering the consequences.

I guess Ms. Rice has not advised Obama about the bombings in Madrid Spain in March of 2004 carried out by Moroccan terrorists. They killed 200 people!
Or the failed bombings by terrorist groups from Mesopotamia, linked to Iraq, in Glasgow Scotland and London, England in 2007.
But more importantly, she deliberately ignores Iraq involvement with Al Qaeda because of this statement by the Bush Administration.

"In an April 2007 speech, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, called AQI "probably public enemy No. 1" for U.S. forces. In the first seven months of 2007, President Bush highlighted the importance of defeating AQI more than forty times during public speeches. After years of near-constant attention from Washington, the group's ability to carry out attacks in Iraq appears to have been diminished in 2007, experts say. But AQI is not the only purveyor of violence in Iraq. By the end of 2007, AQI was one among dozens of groups contributing to Iraq's violence". Source: Washington Post 11/1`9/07


Expert estimates on the number of foreign fighters among Iraqi insurgent groups range from a few hundred to over 3,000. Total AQI(al Qaeda International) numbers have been estimated at over 10,000. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Syria, and Yemen were among the top suppliers of non-Iraqi militants to Iraq as of September 2005, according to the most recent data from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index (PDF). As of August 2007 between forty to sixty foreign fighters entered Iraq each month, though U.S. military officials say foreigners still account for the majority of suicide bombers. Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service, writes (PDF) that AQI insurgents, along with other foreign fighters, "entered Sunni-inhabited central Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, from the Kurdish controlled north" and elsewhere in the Middle East.

They also believe that supporters in the region, including those based in Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, provided the bulk of past funding. AQI has also received financial support from Tehran (despite the fact that al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization), according to documents confiscated last December from Iranian Revolutionary Guards operatives in northern Iraq. But the bulk of al-Qaeda's financing, experts say, comes from internal sources like smuggling and crime. Source: Council on Foreign Relations

Some one ought to tell Obama and his advisers that there are many terrorist threats inside our own country as well as has been proven true in England. A"peacenik"like him is a clear and present danger to the USA just as these Britons were to London and all the passengers flying to and from America!

8 'Plotted to Blow Up' 7 Airliners
"An Islamic terrorist cell plotted a suicide mission to blow up seven transatlantic airliners in mid flight, killing more than 1,500 passengers, a prosecutor charged yesterday as a trial began for eight men in London. The explosives were to be hidden in soft drink bottles and set off by detonators improvised from disposable cameras, reports the Guardian".So much for there being one main treat!

The New Republic Learned Nothing From Glass Scandal

“You want to make every pundit look bad? Then stand tall for what you believe. Don’t be shy. You want to stun the establishment? Then become a mighty force for conservative principles, and tackle the task with confidence and cheer... This may be a time of testing. But it’s not our swan song. Not by a long shot. Instead... this is our moment. This is the time to do what we do best—turn adversity into strength.” —the late Tony Snow

Mr. Snow was a man whom we could all trust to report the News as it really happened. But there were, and still apparently are, prevaricator's(liars) reporting to an unwitting public, news that is nothing but lies.

For the past seven and one half years, the leftist Media has daily tried to destroy The President. Their secular humanist philosophy has driven them, almost fanatically, to print negative slanted news about the Christian who occupies the Oval Office.
Their stories are not only negative reports, but many also incude fabrications to make the Bush administration look crooked and inept.

The New Republic endured the scandal of Steven Glass in 1998,although their subsribers hover around 100K. They had to admit that of the 41 published articles, that Glass authored, 27 articles were complete fabrications devoid of any truthful reporting.
Apparently they did not tighten up their "fact check" department, because now ten years later they have a "black eye" again, because of a lying writer who wrote an article called "Shock Troops" July 23 ,2007.

They can't say we haven't seen this before! Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a writer for the New Republic, has recanted his tales of American military savagery according to the Weekly Standard (source: Powerline)
"The Weekly Standard has learned from a military source close to the investigation that Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp--author of the much-disputed "Shock Troops" article in the New Republic's July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns--signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth," in the words of our source.
Separately, we received this statement from Major Steven F. Lamb, the deputy Public Affairs Officer for Multi National Division-Baghdad:
An investigation has been completed and the allegations made by PVT Beauchamp were found to be false. His platoon and company were interviewed and no one could substantiate the claims".

According to the military source, Beauchamp's recantation was volunteered on the first day of the military's investigation. So as Beauchamp was in Iraq signing an affidavit denying the truth of his stories, the New Republic was publishing a statement from him on its website on July 26, in which Beauchamp said, "I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name."

Apparently Fiction has become fact when writers of the New Republic, and other newspapers and magazines make up their mind to destroy President Bush and the war effort he began in Iraq! Is there any wonder why circulations for all major newspapers has declined, and the big Network television stations are being turned off more and more everyday!

Don't take my word for it, just read what Wikapedia says about this scandal.
"The Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy concerns the publication of a series of diaries by Scott Thomas Beauchamp (b. 1983 St. Louis, Missouri) – a private in the United States Army, serving in the Iraq War, and a member of Alpha Company, 1-18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.[1][2]
In 2007, using the pen name "Scott Thomas", Beauchamp filed three entries in the The New Republic about serving at Forward operating base Falcon, Baghdad. These entries concerned alleged misconduct by soldiers, including Beauchamp, during the US post invasion Iraq involvement.
Several conservative publications and bloggers questioned Beauchamp's statements. The New Republic investigated the statements, first standing by the content of Beauchamp's articles for several months, then concluding that they could no longer stand by this material. A U.S. Army investigation had previously concluded the statements in the material were false".

For me.I stopped reading and watching the major news outlets long ago. The internet is a more reliable source if you don't mind spending the time to research.

ONLY FDR HAD SUCH MANAGED NEWS AS OBAMA

In 1932 When FDR ran for president he and his advisers worried about the impact of his disability, but it turned out to be an issue of no consequence. As a campaign issue it never surfaced during FDR's career.Perhaps it was because an already "leftist" press took no pictures showing him in his wheel chair or hobbling along on crutches.

FDR was anything but open or casual about his inability to walk. On the contrary, he wanted little or no mention of it, particularly any comment that conveyed weakness.
In short, FDR was extremely sensitive to any one's calling attention to his infirmity. His family made no mention of it except if some practical arrangements were to be made.And a willing newspaper corps accommodated his wishes!

"The press tacitly agreed to not take pictures of FDR in his wheelchair. When he was settled in his chair there would be lots of photos, but not before. Journalists, with whom he met regularly, never talked to FDR about the fact that he could not walk. It would have been rude to raise the topic with the president — or even to seem to be aware of his useless legs. In those days people had a different view of privacy, even when it came to public figures" source: Curtis Roosevelt

Appearing in public presented logistical problems for FDR. On such occasions, when the president had to put on his heavy braces, required planning. By swinging his hips, which pushed his legs forward, leaning on a cane with one hand and gripping the arm of a sturdy companion with the other, FDR seemed to be walking. Thus he was able to navigate the few steps to a podium or to greet official guests when protocol required him to stand.

Roosevelt knew instinctively that American voters did not need to know about his disability, and the Press co-operated!

Today we have much more media coverage of candidates for public office with 24 hour television , Newspapers and the ever growing power of Internet blogger.
The obvious positive spin that the major newspapers and network television is giving to Barack Obama is reminiscent of the coverage given to FDR.

Obama is shown playing basket ball with the troops in Kuwait, going to church in the South,and the almost adoring, treatment from the media compared with rival Democratic Senator Clinton in the primary debates.
As expected, Hillary Clinton agreed that Obama was getting preferential treatment from the media,especially from the late Tim Russert in the opening debate.

Then was Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who dominated news coverage for a few days when YouTube videos circulated of the reverends fiery sermons. But the MSM quickly consigned any further coverage of Wright to the trash can!.
When his wife Michelle made her infamous speech about "never being proud", the left came to her aid with statements that she was being unfairly picked on because she was a Black outspoken woman! And negative coverage of her evoked such replies as, "It is a bold-faced exercise in Conservative desperation and fear. It's a shallow, pathetic maneuver put forth by a shallow, pathetic right wing movement"!

A new study of primary coverage by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University shows Clinton and Obama had almost 70 percent favorable coverage of their personal narratives, while only 43 percent of McCain’s coverage was favorable.

And a October 31 release by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Called “The Invisible Primary–Invisible No Longer,” during the first five months of 2007, Obama received by far the most positive coverage of any presidential candidate.

This new study follows a long line of media complaints that Obama has received reverential coverage from the press. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has claimed that the “walk on water coverage” of Obama “ranges from glowing to gushing,” Slate.com's Timothy Noah even started a feature titled "The Obama Messiah Watch.”


In a perfect world the Media would be totally neutral in their reporting. It is the obligation of the media to report, not make, public opinion. They can express their opinion on the editorial pages and segments, but not in the stories. This expectation should apply to all media from USA Today and CNN to the the city gazette in Podunk! Kind of reminiscent of the 40s when both FRD and a little dictator with a mustache got nothing but positive Press!