Robert Kiyosaki tells us what is going on in the USA, the UK, and the rest of the world. To find out what you need do to position yourself as a winner, in the global economy, read on right now…

Robert Kiyosaki – The US

Unemployment is currently reported to be ten percent in the USA. In truth, it is a great deal higher when you include people that have been seeking employment for an extended period of time – and have given up.

A chief cause, Robert suggests, is because incomes in the USA, the UK, European countries, and Japan are way up there. Today, incomes in the USA are a lot higher than emerging countries. Personally, residing in Mexico, for the last 4 years, I found out that the wages do not compare to the US.

Think about it, why should business executives, trying to slash costs and strengthen profitability, pay a lot more for similar services they can obtain from workers in emerging countries? That’s the problem.

What’s interesting to see, in these times, is that employees in the federal government, not state and local, are making higher wages and enjoying a lot more benefits than those in the private arena. This makes financial problems worse.

The US needs to print more money and step up taxes to compensate these recent high-paid people. (Keep in mind the worth of the dollar is no longer tied to gold, so the Fed can print as much as they require.) That leads to an increase in inflation.

Robert Kiyosaki – Great Britain

Robert Kiyosaki was in England, this June, and talked about what he learned. He tells us that the UK’s government has declared war on the middle class, the poor, and parents by cutting many of the public programs they’ve relied upon.

Great Britain is taking needed actions to cure their economic condition. They need to, in order to prevent going bankrupt in the next five years.

The United States should learn a little from the UK. Instead, they are increasing the threat of economic disaster if they stay on their present course. (Bankruptcy is projected to happen within ten years unless changes are made.) Yet, government officials are concerned more about what occurs between elections as opposed to taking the best course of action for the long run.

What Can You Do Prepare For It?

Here is what Robert Kiyosaki said…

“Rather than looking for a high paying job, I continually recommend starting your own business, educating yourself financially, buying silver rather than saving cash, preparing for the worst. If the bust never comes, you’ll still be better off in the long run.” – Robert Kiyosaki

Many people are taking Robert’s advice. They are getting interested in network marketing. How come? Because this gives everyone an opportunity to become wealthy. And you only have to have a small amount of money to get established.

It was interesting to learn the facts. One of my mentors, Dave Wood, told me that there are over 175,000 people enrolling in MLM companies, all through the planet, every week. That is surprising. Top notch people looking for options to add to or replace their incomes.

And the actuality of multi-level marketing is that around 95% do not attain the success they long for. They struggle, flop, or basically give up. It does not need to be that way.

How would you feel, if you could lie in bed, tonight, believing that your kid’s future was secure?

Jim Hageman shows people, from various walks of life, to become top money makers. If you would like to apply the suggestions of Robert Kiyosaki and would like to become a top producer in your company, find out what Jim Hageman recommends right now! Click on – Work With Jim Hageman.

Obtain practical knowledge about the topic of suspended ceiling supplies – read this publication. The times have come when proper info is truly within your reach, use this opportunity.

Unfortunately, the data when the buffalo that has largest and longest horn lived in was not found, whether in the 20th century or the century before. But it’s clear the horn is hereditary inheritance.

The Largest and Longest Buffalo Horn (courtesy of muri.org)

Changes in the voting procedure were made with the re-introduction of a national jury alongside televoting while the format of the semi-finals remained the same. Forty-two countries participated in the contest; Slovakia announced that it would return to the contest, while San Marino withdrew due to financial issues. Latvia and Georgia originally announced their intention to withdraw, but it was later stated by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) that both countries would indeed participate. However, Georgia later decided to withdraw after the EBU rejected its selected song as being a breach of contest rules.

Eurovision Song Contest 2009 Controversies:

- After being placed to compete in the first semi-final on 12 May, a national final was held in Georgia to select its entry. The selected entry, Stefane & 3G with “We Don’t Wanna Put In” gained coverage and controversy due to perceived political connotations within its lyrics relating to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.[59] The EBU rejected the song due to these political connotations

- Due to its commitments to broadcast the Madrid Open tennis tournament, Spain’s public broadcaster Televisión Española (TVE) broadcast the second semi-final on a tape delay on its second channel TVE2 approximately 66 minutes after the show began in Moscow, and used a backup jury rather than televoting to decide its votes. Due to this rule violation, it was announced that Spain would eventually face sanctions, although these sanctions would not affect its participation in Moscow.

- A series of controversies between Armenia and Azerbaijan unfolded throughout the semi-finals and final. The introductory ‘postcard’ for Armenia (the short video clip played before the Armenian performance) depicted, amongst other monuments, We Are Our Mountains, a statue located in Stepanakert (Khankendi), Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. The statue was built in Soviet times to celebrate the area’s Armenian heritage, but its location in Karabakh is claimed by both countries. Azerbaijan complained to the EBU that the video clip was unacceptable due to the fact that the statue was on Azerbaijani land.

The Eurovision Song Contest 2009 was the 54th edition of the Eurovision Song Contest. It is an annual competition held among active member countries of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

US Congress Aggreed to Kill More Palestinian in Gaza. No doubt about it after The US House of Representatives has voted to endorse a resolution backing Israel in its offensive in Gaza, in which at least 800 Palestinians have been killed.

The body passed Friday’s resolution “recognising Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza” by 390 votes to five.

The measure also noted that the humanitarian situation in Gaza “is becoming more acute” but did not rebuke Israel.

Keith Ellison, the only Muslim member of US congress, was among the 22 members of the House who voted “present”, which means that they voted neither in favour or against the resolution.

“I cannot vote against this resolution because I believe every country in the world has the right to defend itself,” the Minnesota congressman said in a statement.

“At the same time I cannot vote for this resolution because it barely mentions the human suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.”

Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic congressman for Ohio who voted against the bill said before the vote: “I’m hopeful that we do not support the inhumanity that has been repeatedly expressed by the Israeli army.”

“We must take a new direction in the Middle East, and that new direction must be mindful of the inhumane conditions in Gaza”.

US-Israel ties

Washington has been Israel’s closest ally since 1948, when Harry Truman, the former president, made the US the first country to recognise Israel.

The US has been repeatedly criticised by Arabs for its unstinting support of Israeli actions. The US frequently blocks United Nations resolutions critical of Israel and on Thursday abstained from a Security Council vote calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The House has passed similar measures in recent years by massive majorities.

In 2006, the House voted to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah for “unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel” and supported Israel’s incursion into Lebanon.

In 2004, the body voted to support a statement by George Bush, the US president, that it was “unrealistic” to expect Israel to return completely to its pre-1967 borders.

The US senate had voted on Thursday to back its own resolution offering “unwavering commitment” to Israel.

That recognised “its right to act in self-defence to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism” and urged a ceasefire that would keep Palestinians from firing rockets at Israel.

Harry Reid, who leads the Democratic majority in the senate, said on Thursday following that vote: “Our resolution reflects the will of the state of Israel and the will of the American people.”

Many people in the world must be hopeless due to vote result of US senate. They will be see more and more Palestinian in Gaza killed by israel. We pray to God to stop war in Gaza immediately…ameen.

On the left was a Palestinian mother who had lost five children. On the right was a nearly equally sized picture of an Israeli woman who was distressed by the fighting, according to the caption.

As the Palestinian woman cradled the dead body of one child, another infant son, his face blackened and disfigured with bruises, cried beside her.

The Israeli woman did not appear to be wounded in any way but also wept.

Arab frustration

To understand the frustration often felt in the Arab world over US media coverage, one only needs to imagine the same front page had the situation been reversed.

If an Israeli woman had lost five daughters in a Palestinian attack, would The Washington Post run an equally sized photograph of a relatively unharmed Palestinian woman, who was merely distraught over Israeli missile fire?

When the front page photographs of the two women were published on December 30, over 350 Palestinians had reportedly been killed compared to just four Israelis.

What if 350 Israelis had been killed and only four Palestinians – would the newspaper have run the stories side by side as if equal in news value?

Like many major news organisations in the US, The Washington Post has chosen to cover the conflict from a perspective that reflects the US government’s relationship with Israel. This means prioritising Israel’s version of events while underplaying the views of Palestinian groups.

For example, the newspaper’s lead article on Tuesday, which was published above the mothers’ photographs, quotes Israeli military and civilian sources nine times before quoting a single Palestinian. The first seven paragraphs explain Israel’s military strategy. The ninth paragraph describes the anxiety among Israelis, spending evenings in bomb shelters. Ordinary Palestinians, who generally have no access to bomb shelters, do not make an appearance until the 23rd paragraph.

To balance this top story, The Washington Post published another article on the bottom half of the front page about the Palestinian mother and her children. But would the paper have ever considered balancing a story about a massive attack on Israelis with an in-depth lead piece on the strategy of Palestinian militants?

Context stripped

Major US television channels also adopted the equal time approach, despite the reality that Palestinian casualties exceeded Israeli ones by a hundred fold. However, such comparisons were rare because the scripts read by American correspondents often excluded the overall Palestinian death count.

By stripping the context, American viewers may have easily assumed a level playing field, rather than a case of disproportionate force.

Take the opening lines of a report filed by NBC’s Martin Fletcher on December 30: “In Gaza two little girls were taking out the rubbish and killed by an Israeli rocket – while in Israel, a woman had been driving home and was killed by a Hamas rocket. No let up today on either side on the fourth day of this battle.”

Omitted from the report was the overall Palestinian death toll, dropped continuously in subsequent reports filed by NBC correspondents over the next several days.

When number of deaths did appear – sometimes as a graphic at the bottom of the screen – it was identified as the number of “people killed” rather than being attributed specifically to Palestinians.

No wonder the overwhelmingly asymmetrical bombardment of Gaza has been framed vaguely as “rising tensions in the Middle East” by news anchors.

With the lack of context, the power dynamic on the ground becomes unclear.

ABC news, for example, regularly introduced events in Gaza as “Mideast Violence”. And Like NBC, reporters excluded the Palestinian death toll.

On December 31, when Palestinian deaths stood at almost 400, ABC correspondent Simon McGergor-Wood began a video package by describing damage to an Israeli school by Hamas rockets.

The reporter’s script can be paraphrased as follows: Israel wanted a sustainable ceasefire; Israel needed to prevent Hamas from rearming; Hamas targets were hit; Israel was sending in aid and letting the injured out; Israel was doing “everything they can to alleviate the humanitarian crisis”. And with that McGregor-Wood signed off.

Palestinian perspective missing

There was no parallel telling of the Palestinian perspective, and no mention of any damages to Palestinian lives, although news agencies that day had reported five Palestinians dead.

For the ABC correspondent, it seemed the Palestinian deaths contained less news value than damage to Israeli buildings. His narration of events, meanwhile, amounted to no less than a parroting of the official Israeli line.

In fact, the Israeli government view typically went unchallenged on major US networks.

Interviews with Israeli spokesmen and ambassadors were not juxtaposed with the voices of Palestinian leaders. Prominent American news anchors frequently adopted the Israeli viewpoint. In talk show discussions, instead of debating events on the ground, the pundits often reinforced each other’s views.

Such an episode occurred on a December 30 broadcast of the MSNBC show, Morning Joe, during which host Joe Scarborough repeatedly insisted that Israel should not be judged.

Israel was defending itself just as the US had done throughout history. “How many people did we kill in Germany?” Scarborough posed.

The blame rested on the Palestinians, he concluded, connecting the Gaza attacks to the Camp David negotiations of 2000. “They gave the Palestinians everything they could ask for, and they walked away from the table,” he said repeatedly.

Although this view was challenged once by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US official, who appeared briefly on the show, subsequent guests agreed incessantly with Scarborough’s characterisation of the Palestinians as negligent, if not criminal in nature.

According to guest Dan Bartlett, a former White House counsel, the Palestinian leadership had made it “very clear” that they were uninterested in peace talks.

Another guest, NBC anchor David Gregory, began by noting that Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian president, “could not be trusted”, according to Bill Clinton, the former US president.

Gregory then added that Hamas had “undercut the peace process” and actually welcomed the attacks.

“The reality is that Hamas wanted this, they didn’t want the ceasefire,” he said.

Columnist Margaret Carlson also joined the show, agreeing in principal that Hamas should be “crushed” but voicing concern over the cost of such action.

Thus the debate was not whether Israel was justified, but rather what Israel should do next. The Palestinian human tragedy received little to no attention.

Victim’s perspective

Arab audiences saw a different picture altogether. Rather than mulling Israel’s dilemma, the Arab news networks captured the air assault in chilling detail from the perspective of its victims. The divide in coverage was staggering.

For US networks, the bombing of Gaza has largely been limited to two-minute video packages or five minute talk show segments. This has usually meant a few snippets of jumbled video: explosions from a distance and a momentary glance at victims; barely enough time to remember a face, let alone a personality. Victims were rarely interviewed.

The availability of time and space, American broadcast executives might argue, were mitigating factors.

On MSNBC for example, Gaza competed for air time last week with stories about the economy, such as a hike in liquor sales, or celebrity news, such as speculation over the publishing of photographs of Sarah Palin’s new grandchild.

On Arab TV, however, Gaza has been the only story.

For hours on end, live images from the streets of Gaza are beamed into Arab households.

Unlike the correspondents from ABC and NBC, who have filed their reports exclusively from Israeli cities, Arab crews are inside Gaza, with many correspondents native Gazans themselves.

The images they capture are often broadcast unedited, and over the last week, a grizzly news gathering routine has been established.

The cycle begins with rooftop-mounted cameras, capturing the air raids live. After moments of quiet, thunderous bombing commences and plumes of smoke rise over the skyline. Then, anguish on the streets. Panicked civilians run for cover as ambulances careen through narrow alleys. Rescue workers hurriedly pick through the rubble, often pulling out mangled bodies. Fathers with tears of rage hold dead children up to the cameras, vowing revenge. The wounded are carried out in stretchers, gushing with blood.

Later, local journalists visit the hospitals and more gruesome images, more dead children are broadcast. Doctors wrap up the tiny bodies and carry them into overflowing morgues. The survivors speak to reporters. Their distraught voices are heard around the region; the outflow of misery and destruction is constant.

Palestinian voices

The coverage extends beyond Gaza. Unlike the US networks, which are often limited to one or two correspondents in Israel, major Arab television channels maintain correspondents and bureaus throughout the region. As angry protests take place on a near daily basis, the crews are there to capture the action live.

Even in Israel, Arab reporters are employed, and Israeli politicians are regularly interviewed. But so are members of Hamas and the other Palestinian factions.

The inclusion of Palestinian voices is not unique to Arab media. On a number of international broadcasters, including BBC World and CNN International, Palestinian leaders and Gazans in particular are regularly heard. And the Palestinian death toll has been provided every day, in most broadcasts and by most correspondents on the ground. Reports are also filed from Arab capitals.

On some level, the relatively small American broadcasting output can be attributed to a general trend in downsizing foreign reporting. But had a bloodbath on this scale happened in Israel, would the networks not have sent in reinforcements?

For now, the Israeli viewpoint seems slated to continue to dominate Gaza coverage. The latest narrative comes from the White House, which has called for a “durable” ceasefire, preventing Hamas terrorists from launching more rockets.

Naturally the soundbites are parroted by US broadcasters throughout the day and then reinforced by pundits, fearing the dangerous Hamas.

Arab channels, however, see a different outcome. Many have begun referring to Hamas, once controversial, as simply “the Palestinian resistance”.

While American analysts map out Israel’s strategy, Arab broadcasters are drawing their own maps, plotting the expanding range of Hamas rockets, and predicting a strengthened hand for opposition to Israel, rather than a weakened one.

by Habib Battah, a freelance journalist and media analyst based in Beirut and New York, on http://english.aljazeera.net

Despite growing pressure on Barack Obama to speak out on the crisis in Gaza, the US president-elect has remained silent on the issue.Obama, holidaying in Hawaii, has made no public remarks on Israel’s unrelenting military assault on the Palestinian territory, which has left more than 380 people there dead.

The former Illinois senator spoke out after last month’s attacks in Mumbai and has made detailed statements on the US economic crisis.

But some fear that the US president-elect’s reluctance to speak out on the Gaza raids could be sending its own message.

“Silence sounds like complicity,” Mark Perry, the Washington Director of the Conflicts Forum group, told Al Jazeera.

“Obama has said that Israel has the right to defend itself from rocket attacks but my question to him is ‘does he believe that Palestinians also have the right of self-defence?’”

Support for Israel

Israel says the operation is necessary to prevent Palestinian rocket attacks on the south of the country.

And Obama repeatedly spoke out in support for Israel during his election campaign, describing the country as one of the US’ greatest allies and has vowed to ensure its security.
He caused anger in the Arab world when he told a pro-Israel lobby group in June that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel.

He also visited Sderot, the Israeli town close to Gaza regularly targeted by Palestinian rocket fire, in July, to show his support for residents.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, has cited comments Obama made during that visit in his own justification for launching the assault.

“Obama said that if rockets were being fired at his home while his two daughters were sleeping, he would do everything he could to prevent it,” Barak was reported as saying on Monday.

Obama’s aides have repeatedly said he is monitoring the situation and continues to receive intelligence briefings but that he is not yet US president.

But George Bush, the current US leader, has also remained silent on Israel’s attacks although the White House has offered its support to Israel.

Arabs pessimistic

Many Arabs were cautiously optimistic about Obama’s election victory in November, in the belief that a fresh face in the White House would be better than Bush, who invaded Iraq and gave strong support to Israel.

But his choice of a foreign policy team, especially Hillary Clinton as US secretary of state and Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief-of-staff, have raised doubts that much will change.

But some see his see his silence as symptomatic of caution over his own position and the power of the Israel lobby.

“He wants to be cautious and I think he will remain cautious because the Arab-Israeli conflict is not one of his priorities,” Hassan Nafaa, an Egyptian political scientist and secretary-general of the Arab Thought Forum in Amman, told Reuters.

“Obama’s position is very precarious. The Jewish lobby warned against his election, so he has chosen to remain silent (on Gaza),” added Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

Protests demand change

However many in the US have called on Obama to speak out personally on events in Gaza.

Protesters gathered at Obama’s transition office in Washington DC on Monday, and outside his holiday residence in Hawaii on Tuesday, to demand he do more.

“The Obama administration is working hand in glove with the Bush administration and…there is no reason that they can’t work together to get something done,” Mike Reitz, a federal government worker, told Al Jazeera at the transition office protest.

At another protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza outside the White House on Tuesday, some were sceptical about Barack Obama’s commitment to Middle East peace-making.

“Is this the change that you were talking about?,” said Reza Aboosaiedi, a computer specialist from Iran.

“If this is the change, you have a very, very deep problem, because if you add them up with the other economic problems and other problems in America, having this kind of problem in the Middle East, I don’t think he can manage it.”

But others at the protest still saw some hope that the former Illinois senator could make a difference.

“I would like to think that he would be more active than Bush in trying to push an agenda to bring Israel and Palestine together to have peace talks, but I don’t know,” said Bob Malone, a lawyer.

“But I’m an optimist, so I hope so.”
[http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/]