"harmony" or freedom

Some say that Obama, although heard and seen often in the Campaign, is still rather unknown to them. They mean that it is not sure what he stands for. Evidently he wants to raise income tax for the 1% of the population that lays hands on 22% of national income. This to create better living conditions for the poor as the rich were free to do so but did not. Also he is bound to the Constitution, made for freedom in America, which is not exploiting the widow and the orphan.
Mc Cain on the contrary is old and won't change much his mind anymore, which obviously is directed on maintaining the status quo between haves and the rest. Between rich and poor a gap exists that he is not intending to bridge for balanced increase of wealth of the nation as a whole. The USA will prosper more when opportunities for jobs, especially in the middle and higher ranks become available as well to the lower class. Man is egocentric, egoistic and without correcting interference of the government he will try to reserve the best positions for himself, his family, his class and friends; reducing training for others to handle top management. Mc Cain is content with an elite running the economic world and profiting from it. He thinks the middle class should support his policy. He is even eager to have it preached abroad with words and occasionally with military power.
It is not a healthy world when those who possess the money dictate economics. Their aim always is to make the gap bigger between what they own and what others are allowed to in handling affairs. Today and yesterday and before they had splendid opportunities to become more social, do some sharing and sit at the same dinner table in stead of overeating greedily in expensive rerstaurants while fellow-men stand in the row for food stamps.
No one dies from hunger in the USA. Will Obama as the most powerful person when in the White House take care of mondial food distribution or at least find measures that can be worked out regionnally in countries where help is needed? Most probably yes if he does help the poor in own country already. Because no one knows how next harvest will be specification on this theme is not possible yet. A good policy would be to make parents fully responsible for feeding their children and get them education. Parents are fully traceable now! To this purpose the grown up people should receive adequate means without making them beggars. Big numbers of children are to be avoided and sanctioned as such harms the domain of wild flora and fauna and causes rejectable bio-industry.

"Man cannot live from bread alone"'
How democratic are the presidential candidates? Mc Cain firmly believes in the free market, that is a decisive role for money in economic, in daily life. Since some have thick wallets while those of others are almost empty not the same influence can be exerted. But the principle of true democracy is that humans are equals, although gifted with different talents. Therefore in elections each vote has the same weight. This is what Obama stresses, and considers far more important than the amount of money one has at his disposal, to realize well-functioning democracy. Not so Mc Cain, for after elections those with money, with big capital, will grab power again when he gets into the White House.
Can democratic content be measured from foreign policy? Certainly, because people belonging to other nations, living in other countries are equals too. The correct attitude is to respect them fully and help suppressed people gain freedom.
 
Barack Obama lived a few years in Indonesia when he was young and knows about the situation there. Let's analyze what policy he is to have regarding Jakarta, the Indonesian capital which controlls a vast area, stretching from Atjeh on northern Sumatra to Papua near Australia. First pay attention to history: On several islands of the archipelago in ancient times emerged kingdoms with feudal structure. Then dutch traders came from Europe and to enhance production of valuable items like rubber they brought under colonial rule the whole archipelago gradually during the nineteenth century. Some Indonesians, like Sukarno, got western education and this man, out for power, cooperated with the almost defeated Japanese in august 1945 to get rid of the dutch, who behaved like an elite, though caring for many things and therefore cooperating with local indigenous chiefs. If Sukarno would have shown a little bit patience then within a decade full independence could have been realized without the war, by The Hague called pacifying police action, which raged from 1945 till 1949. Later Sukarno started war with neighbours when the economic situation at home deteriorated and he needed some success. That was not what he got, except transfer to Indonesia of the western half of New Guinea, where the Papua's were preparing for independence and helped so by the Netherlands and Australia. American president Kennedy played an evil role, denying those people their natural right to handle own affairs independently. This has not been corrected since. At the time Indonesia was still mainly dependent on agriculture and about a million persons emigrated from overpopulated Java to  Papua, while the Indonesain soldiers kept the protesting Papuas at distance. Today Java can absorb many more people because it becomes industrialized and the unwanted migrants may return with financial aid from different sources.
Mining in Papua is very profitable and the benefits of it should not go all to the rather small population of the Papuans, but be shared with neighbouring peoples. The same is due for oil revenues anywhere if our world is to become a nice place for everybody. A treaty is to be made about sharing natural wealth in southeast Asia together with acknowledge of Papua independence. This might be under the roof of a powerful constructive organisation or federation for the whole archipelago, somehow like the European Union is functioning.
That 's just the opposite of present suppression of the Papuan desire for freedom by Jakarta's politicians and generals. Since Obama knows the situation he has to do the right things, which cannot be sitting idle if he is to be trusted. In other words here is a test case and let him speak out. All other peoples in the world dominated by foreign rule will look to this and get new hope if Obama is sincere. Remember the story of Eve who wanted to be a bit like God which means becoming master over other people. Such behaviour was not blessed but rejected. Let it be put quite clear: If Barack Obama fails regarding normal really democratic policy towards the country in which he lived several years then he is not worth to be in the Oval Room. The old man Mc Cain did not make progress in his lifetime and still thinks that the world turns on money and military power. Democracy is not his priority. The Americans and the World need the best president in the White House. If it happens that a stranger, a foreigner will serve best then let it be so!
See for ambitions of man, explained with the fallen angel, the english version of Joost van den Vondel's theater play Lucifer on this site.

Possibly an Ark with a Round Table is going to be constructed in old Amsterdam, Europe. Invited there will be peoples and nations to discuss their problems an find solutions as the combined states, the UNO in New York often fail. Alread to this purpose the UNPO, organisation of unrepresented peoples, exists. This or a similar organisation needs more status in order to draw quarreling and fighting religious and political as well economic factions to the Round Table. Less military personnel will have to be send out then! Such status can be obtained with a palace or the mentioned Ark (the first Ark was Noah's vessel used for survival). If we are lucky the guests at the Round Table will be stimulated by a good "Ark-president", whose influence may superseed that of the Washington White House inhabitant.
Also in the Ark can proceeded with adding to art 1 of the Declaration on human Rights (everybody is born free and with equal status) a material component, p.e. the right to possess a place for dwelling or staying without others, mainly the rich, draining money from it.  

---