Former US president Bill Clinton has contrary to opinion polls said his fellow Democrat Barack Obama would easily be re-elected to the White House as president in November.

In his own words speaking to the CNN in an interview said “I still think the president will win by five or six points.”

Obama faces presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the US presidential election on November 6.

According to Quinnipiac University Polling Institute recent poll stats, Romney has surged ahead of Obama by a 47% against 41% lead in the state of Florida.

However, a number of nationwide polls have suggested Obama and Romney are even.

Clinton said the polls showed a close support for both candidates due to the United States economic stress but when the supporters tout the achievements of Obama in the last four years, they will surely re-elect him for a second term.

Former President of the United States made ​​headlines on a site, when she posed with two porn stars in a charity event in Monaco. In the photo, Clinton flanked by two blond-haired star, Brooklyn Lee and Tasha Reign.

The photo was taken while Clinton attended a gala fundraising dinner in Monaco for the William J Clinton Foundation and the Prince Albert II of Monaco. While Lee and Reign came as a guest Marc Bell, CEO of the company that owns Penthouse magazine.

Two adult film star tells TMZ, Clinton looked at their desks, but when they want to approach Clinton, rejected by his bodyguard.

“His bodyguard does not allow, but then (Clinton) asked us to come,” they said, as quoted from Aceshowbiz.

Both had had a short conversation revealed with Clinton. “I said he was a great president,” said Lee.

“He just winked and smiled and gave us hugs,” says Reign.

Gala dinner was also attended by several Hollywood stars such as Rose McGowan and Joshua Jackson. Joshua came up with his girlfriend, Diane Kruger.

- When he leaves office in 2016, he’ll probably start the lecture tour and become a statesman, like Carter and Clinton.

- Write another book, start a presidential library, probably inChicago, go on speaking tours, cut an album, golf…

- What all past Presidents do I guess. Make speeches and get paid for it. Bill Clinton has made a fortune.

- Since GW Bush has been out of office you rarely even hear of him making a speech. Bill Clinton has made 75 million so if Bush even made 15 million it is a drop in the bucket.

- A thousand dollars a handshake can add up as well.

- Well, if he wanted to make big money, he should follow in George W. Bushes footsteps, and go on the speaking circuit. Bush has made over $15 million giving speeches since he left office.

- It breaks down to $110,000 a speech. Not too shabby.

- Anyone, anywhere, can be a religious figure. I don’t think that Obama is interested in that, however. He will do what all ex Presidents do – open a library, make public appearances, give speeches.

- When he leaves office in 2016, he may go back to teaching. He taught Constitutional Law prior to politics.

or maybe like Bush, Almost immediately after leaving office he withdrew from the broader bully pulpit thatother former presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, have used to weigh in on matters of public import. But he also joined the storied ranks of former politicians who are now making money on the speaking circuit– and it’s paying off.

What about Your opinion?

U.S. President Barack Obama announced on 2 The May 2011 death of Osama Bin Laden (center). The slogan “dead or alive” was his predecessor George W. Bush after 11 released september

“We would have had to do it sooner.” This key sentence, said at the end of the spectacular documentary “The Hunt for Bin Laden” of current U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, summarizes the problem. Because it goes to the eyewitness, Osama bin Laden would not have to be killed only a year ago – but years before.

For the documentary filmmaker Leslie Woodhead brings high-profile witnesses such as former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Clinton (and short-George W. Bush’s) security advisor Richard Clarke and Leon Panetta just before the cameras. He promises the story of the “longest and most expensive manhunt in American history” and that “from an insider perspective.” Woodhead and supplies.

The Road to 9/11

First, he traces the rise of Bin Laden from Saudi millionaire son of Al-Qaeda chief and most wanted terrorist in the world. And then, slowly, unfolding before the eyes of the viewers diabolical plan.

The stations are well known: the failed UN operation in Mogadishu 1993rd The attack on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 1998th The attack on the “USS Cole” in 2000. Except that they are related, we see it today. “Bin Laden, the U.S. has declared war in 1996,” it says at one point.

In all these crimes al-Qaeda is involved. And many know the secret. To 1996, bin Laden released as an “indictment” against America, is founded a special unit of the CIA and FBI to arrest him and put on trial. Three years later, President Clinton signs a document in which it is the first time, bin Laden should be taken and if necessary killed.

Not long ago Robert DeNiro, on the campaign trail for President Obama, made a joke. That can be dangerous in politics unless your name is Ronald Reagan but speaking in front of Michelle Obama he said,  “America’s not ready for a white First Lady.” Naturally, this being an election year, Republicans everywhere could be heard pretending to be very angry.

On his show Piers Morgan asked Ann Romney if she was annoyed at the remark. She said “I laughed, I took it for what it was, a joke. Everybody gets too serious in politics.”

What a brilliant answer and better than anything her husband could have come up with. That’s just one area where he’s very different from Reagan, the born communicator. With his faintly bumbling charm Reagan came over as the nice guy - even when he was doing nasty things.

Shining City on the hill

But when Reagan needed to be serious he was totally believable and credible. He talked about America being “The shining city on the hill” and he made the phrase more than a line in a speech. It was a vision – and he was going to take American there. Following Reagan was a hard act and George Bush Sr didn’t get the “vision” thing at all, especially when he was asked to come up with one. It was one reason why he was a one term President.

The biggest reason of course was that Bill Clinton was right when he told his campaign team what the election was all about, “It’s the economy, stupid.” President Reagan’s two terms are remembered fondly by many voters but they are also the time when many of today’s economic problems were born. At least that’s what many independent economicsts believe.

During the Reagan years in the US, and the Thatcher years in the UK, monetary policy was relaxed, regulations dropped and the perfect climate for banking excess was created. Then on top of that, spending got out of control – but the problems were hidden by the credit bubble. Consumers as well as government spent too much and now everyone’s in debt.

Confronted by that kind of problem it’s difficult to see what Reagan would have done. He was certainly no businessman and had never created an enterprise. Romney has, and prospered mightily.

Maybe that’s the kind of experience needed today. But a few good jokes would help too. 

Bill Clinton Doc Two Star Hot Pose

The photo was taken while Clinton attended a gala fundraising dinner in Monaco for the William J Clinton Foundation and the Prince Albert IIof Monaco. While Lee and Reign came as a guest Marc Bell, CEO ofthe company that owns Penthouse magazine.

Two adult film star tells TMZ, Clinton looked at their desks, but when they want to approach Clinton, rejected by his bodyguard.

“His bodyguard does not allow, but then (Clinton) asked us to come,” they said as quoted from Aceshowbiz.

Both had had a short conversation revealed with Clinton.

“I said he was a great president,” said Lee.

“He just winked and smiled and gave ushugs,” says Reign.

Gala dinner was also attended by several Hollywood stars such as Rose McGowan and Joshua Jackson. Joshuacame up with his girlfriend, Diane Kruger.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton often portrayed himself as the heir apparent of John F. Kennedy. If the comparison didn’t quite fly, it may he because the former president Clinton most resembles psychologically is JFK’s 1960 election opponent: Richard Nixon.

So says psychoanalyst and political scientist Stanley Renshon, Ph.D., of the City University of New York. In his new book High Hopes, Renshon combs through Clinton’s life for clues to the chief executive’s psyche. (Like any good psychoanalyst, he doesn’t neglect to scrutinize the president’s mother.) While the book details many aspects of Clinton’s mind, especially intriguing is the Nixon-Clinton connection.

The two men are by no means clones, but their similarities run so deep Renshon calls them “characterological siblings.” Both presidents grew up in small rural towns under difficult emotional circum-stances–idolizing mom but not getting along with dad–and the parallels continue. According to Renshon, both men have

o shown remarkable resiliency, winning the presidency after losing big elections early In their careers

o faced repented questions about their integrity

o gained little personal satisfaction from their successes

o tended to villainize political opponents as “enemies”

o blamed the media for their troubles, but rarely acknowledged their own shortcomings

o often blurred their Ideological leanings.

Still unexplained by experts: the remarkable psychological resemblance between Clinton’s and Nixon’s respective First Pets, Socks and Checkers.

HIV experts from Population Services International (PSI) Krishna Jafa count if awareness of men in eastern and southern Africa in both adult and newborn male infant circumcision can be increased to 80 percent then there will be 4 million African men who survived the threat of HIV.

More and more men who are circumcised can also save health care costs for HIV U.S. $ 20.2 billion for the budget year 2009-2025.

“With a slim resources, we must focus on methods that have proven effective in preventing HIV transmission such as through circumcision. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Bill Gates in his speech also called for increasing the number of men are circumcised,” says Krishna Jafa, as quoted by Reuters on Wednesday (21/07/2010).

While research by WHO showed male circumcision can reduce HIV risk by 60 percent. Circumcision is expected to reduce the number of new HIV infections by using the techniques and better equipment, and training for staff who do.

In the new system was pioneered, a team of two doctors and three nurses able to circumcise four people at the same time and increase the average number of operations per hour 3 to 10 operations per hour. After more than 12 months of this system, about 6,500 people had been circumcised.

The study also shows that the quality of this procedure remains a good thing to do. Moreover, there are no adverse side effects reported after circumcision.

PSI study conducted found that Zimbabwe as a country have an average level of adult HIV rate of 13.7 percent and male circumcision are only about 10 percent. But if 80 percent of male circumcision, it can prevent the possibility of 750 new HIV infections.

Microsoft boss Bill Gates through the Gates Foundation has spent over U.S. $ 34 billion to combat HIV. The AIDS conference on Monday he said he was surprised by the number of men in Africa who want to be circumcised in order to reduce the risk of contracting HIV. This amount is far more than he expected.

     A provision of Castle Doctrine legislation, “stand your ground” laws state that you don’t have to retreat from an attacker, that you can stay on your home or neighborhood premises and fight to defend yourself.  That law replaced “duty to retreat” laws, which stated you must run away from your would-be murderer, so you do not kill him.

     Leftists use the Martin case to urge repeal of “Stand your ground” laws which implies a revival of “retreat” laws.  Retreating from your would-be murderer means not being able to use your gun to protect yourself.  This in turn negates the right of self-defense.  One example, of how liberals are arguing the “retreat” viewpoint is ex-President Bill Clinton.  

     In Jake Tapper’s article, “President Clinton Hopes Trayvon Martin Case Leads to Reappraisal of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws”, Clinton made a presumption that George Zimmerman killed Martin in cold-blood, despite saying he wants to wait for the facts.  Referring to his portrayal of Zimmerman, Clinton stated that civilians without law enforcement training but who are armed with guns will murder in cold-blood—because of the “stand your ground” law.  

     That, of course, represents the false claim long made by liberals.  It’s false because a lack of police training and the mere possession of a gun do not transform conscientious citizens into cold-blooded murderers.  Lacking such training, civilians have their commonsense and deeply ingrained conscience that prevents them from becoming murderers.  In fact, the data on shooting incidents between citizens and criminals shows that gun-owning citizens have thwarted crimes, protected themselves and protected their families from burglars.  There are even cases where concealed carry permit-holders saved the lives of cops who were about to be murdered by thugs.  So, time and again we see law-abiding gun owners continue being law-abiding.  They don’t become the crazed murderers that dumb liberals say they will become.

     Clinton’s concern about “Stand Your Ground” law “encouraging” murders reflects a poor understanding of that law.  That law does not encourage murders.  It protects self-defense killings.  “Stand your ground” law enables a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in his own self-defense–and protects him from being unjustly prosecuted for doing so.  If you commit murder, “Stand” laws wont protect you from incarceration.

     If citizens do not become crazed murderers merely by owning guns and lacking specialized training, and “Stand” laws do not encourage murders, then Clinton’s idea that “Stand” laws need reappraisal is baseless.  It remains baseless even if it later turns out that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold-blood.  “Stand” laws do not protect murderers. 

     Despite liberals’ grasping for any old excuse to oppose them, “stand your ground” laws are based on the principled and practical realities of self-defense.  The principle is that a Man has a right to defend his life.  The practical reality is that a potential victim can only implement his right-to-self-defense by “standing his ground” in order to successfully end the thug’s murder attempt.  That is true because the attack on the law-abiding gun owner’s life may be too sudden for him to “retreat”.  When “retreat” does become a split-second option, the victim may be placing his life in greater danger by retreating.  That is because running from an attacker has gotten victims chased and attacked from behind.  This is the type of situation that former “duty to retreat” laws demanded potential victims put themselves in.

     Imagine a bat-wielding thug chasing you, as you retreat.  Then, he hits you from behind with a bat (bats have a longer reach than one’s arms).  He hits you in the head multiple times until you are severely injured or dead.  Because “retreating” from an attacking thug, as demanded by “Retreat” laws, increases the danger to your life, “Retreat” laws violate one’s right to self-defense.  That is more true considering that it becomes harder for someone to defend himself from a lethal attack while fleeing.

     By contrast, “stand your ground” laws protect your right to self-defense because they protect you from legal penalty whenever your survival depends on “standing your ground”.  “Standing your ground” is essential to defending your life.  If “retreat” laws penalize you for “standing”, then “retreat” laws also wrongfully punish you for defending your life.  So, we must maintain “Stand” laws and never revive “Retreat” laws.    

     Furthermore, a man has a right to stay in his own home, neighborhood or workplace when a thug confronts him.  A free man belongs there, the thug does not. 

     Ignoring the fact that “Retreat” laws violate our right to self-defense, some critics think that “Stand” laws will obscure to what extent (if any) a gun-owner has escalated a situation  to an unjust shooting.  If that is the case, then the gun owner could be using excessive force or committing murder.  Yet, his actions at the “shooting” moment may still appear—the key word is “appear”–to fit the “Stand” law since he, technically, stood his ground and shot his “attacker.” 

     However, this is not a real problem.  That’s because in any shooting incident, cops and lawyers still have to investigate and review the evidence.  In the process of doing so, they may discover that Zimmerman did escalate the situation by deliberately provoking Martin into attacking, just so he can have an excuse to shoot Martin.  In which case, Zimmerman’s shooting Martin is murder.  IF that is the case, then “Stand” laws will not, in actuality, apply to Zimmerman’s illegal act.  Therefore, “Stand” laws will not protect Zimmerman from punishment.  “Stand” laws do NOT say that you have the right to scare your attacker into attacking, then shoot him.  Instead, “Stand” laws state that you have a right to stand your ground and use reasonable deadly force to save yourself from your would-be murderer (i.e. self-defense).  Hence, there is no real obscurity involved. 

     While paranoid and unthinking critics worry about hypothetical “obscurities” regarding “Stand” laws, it is necessary to point out the real problem with repealing “Stand” laws.  Repealing “Stand” laws gets those people who really did shoot a thug in self-defense incarcerated and treated like murderers—simply because they “stood their ground”.  With “Stand” laws you can prevent actual self-defense shooters from being unjustly imprisoned.  Lawful gun owners should not lose their right to “stand” and fight in self-defense just because there are criminals out there who will escalate a confrontation and murder. 

     Upholding “stand your ground” laws means that your life is of value, that you have the right to defend it, that you have a right to stay where you have a legal right to be.  Replacing those laws with “duty to retreat” laws means your life isn’t worth dirt, that you must endanger your life further by running from the criminal who threatens your life, that not killing your would-be murderer is more important to the courts than your right to save your own life and that, in effect, the courts protect the criminal’s “freedom” to murder or “burglar” you more than your right to self-defense.  So readers you decide which of those views/laws you will support.      

Republicans will never see it this way - but Romney is actually the only sensible candidate amongst the entire bunch who tried for the nomination.

Just picking a few at random, Santorum came across as a fanatic obsessed about sex, Rick Perry forgot his own policy, Herman Cain couldn’t keep his hands to himself, Trump and his hair were in there for a while, and  Gingrich thinks the wisdom of the world, not a horny old goat, lives inside his head.

That may make them sound interesting, but worrying too, and hardly Presidential. For many voters the fact that a candidate is not Obama is enough. But that’s a big part of the problem. Because millions of others who can think for themselves, but don’t shout so much, want more from a President.

Once Romney secures the nomination and escapes from the wild eyed fantasists of his own party he’ll probably come up with a decent, if dull, campaign. So surely he needs someone with a sprinkling of wit and charisma to energise the package?

Here comes the first problem. Romney can only pick one running mate so top politicians, being the creatures they are, have to guard against not being the chosen one. They pre-empt the situation by saying – they don’t want to be on the ticket. They can be polite about it and they won’t lose face by not being chosen.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio who could add Hispanic appeal, has said no thanks. So has Susanna Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, who could do the same and possibly win the women’s vote. Bob McDonnell is happy being Governor of Virginia. Chris Christie of New Jersey and former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty have said no thanks, together with Nikki Haley Governor of South Carolina and Ohio Senator Rob Portman. There will be more when the hopefuls discover they aren’t in the running.

It was Professor Julian Zelizer from Princeton who said Romney should go for a boring VP. His evidence is a list of successful tickets, Dick Cheney with George Bush, Al Gore with Bill Clinton and surely the clincher, George HW Bush with Ronald Reagan. The big snag of course is that Romney doesn’t have the persuasive charm of a Clinton or Reagan – and unlike Dubya he doesn’t have a brother to count the votes for him in Florida!

So he probably does need a partner with a sparkle. A smarter Sarah Palin would do nicely. Perhaps there’s one out there.