The US Chamber of Commerce regularly sells memberships to small businesses in the field and tells their principals or decision makers that the US Chamber will fight for their interests. On that basis, they have traditionally taken "membership fees" which are quasi-donations from small businesses and left stickers with them and literature puffing the efforts of the US Chamber of Commerce for small business.

Does the US Chamber of Commerce train its representatives in the field to disclose the conflicts of interest the Chamber has when it represents the interests of mega-corporations and small businesses with which they compete and often drive out of business?

Does the US Chamber of Commerce represent the truth about their advocacy for the Walmarts when they sell a membership to the mom and pop store? Inquiring minds want to know how many membership fees have been accepted on the basis of this non-disclosure.

The US Chamber of Commerce competes with the National Federation of Independent Business, and you may from time to time see one or the other of these organization's stickers on small business doors or windows.

The unity task outspoken by the Barack Obama campaign and from Sen. Obama himself is an ambitious task if a person really means it. I think he really means it. I liken America's internal problems to that of a family which has divorced. The parents are those in control of the electoral process, and the people are the children. Yes, the children's popular vote can be stolen if delegates overrule.

Or, they can just fritter it away by not voting.

I have heard people express their appreciation for Senator Obama's oratory skill. I have heard people praise his intelligence. However, flattery is not a good enough soil from which to grow unity. From flattery today envy springs tomorrow, and sometimes, hatred. Instead, people must not be content to praise a President Obama, they must be inspired to plan and execute their own personal change that will make the world a better place.

Barack Obama is not the only person who has called for this. George H.W. Bush meant something like this limited to the non-profit and volunteer sector. However, Barack Obama has called for government to lead the way, and for people who run special interest industries and groups to follow suit.

The good Senator embarks on a challenge. On these things career civil servants and government professionals in Washington DC should be clear: if he is president, he will need people to get behind him and watch his back politically, socially and legally.

There are some who do not want real unity. Obama appears a threat to them.The many, however, I believe do want strength in numbers and in the people over corporate and foreign special interests. 

Unity might mean that the president leads the people in getting behind reform laws that end anti-competitive or immoral business-as-usual. When a strong leader who clearly communicates can tell the people what is being done to them, there is a great threat to institutional power brokers who like to do-to the people.

These folks need to change. This change talk isn't just a theme. It is a dire need for everyone in every generation to improve their serve and themselves, but especially for those who abuse institutional power. These tend to sell their souls to vain imaginings and sell out the person in the street and his or her family.

Al Qaeda blows up the World Trade Center and kills thousands of Americans. Al Qaeda was led by Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the operation, and he was supported by the Taliban.

George W. Bush acted rationally in ordering the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of the Taliban. Bin Laden escapes.

George W. Bush then acts irrationally against the weight of seasoned military advice, and orders the invasion of Iraq.

The US eventually turns the job of Afghanistan's secure development to NATO. That effort suffers. Some gains in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda are lost over time, with US forces divided between two tough tasks: finishing off Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, versus finishing something in Iraq.

Whatever good has been achieved in Iraq by the end of Bush's term, the US Military has achieved on the fly, with errors committed in earlier innings, mostly by the Secretary of Defense and Pentagon civilian advisors. The counterinsurgency methods used now, if used after the invasion in 2003, might have shortened the occupation.

In tonight's State of the Union address, Mr. Bush stated that the job of pushing Al Qaeda out of Iraq is getting done, but isn't finished. That is because Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan was not finished first.

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, there would have been no reason or opportunity for Al Qaeda to recruit Iraqis and draw in fighters from surrounding nations, or for Iran to finance and support insurrection. US forces would have been able to focus on finishing off the Al Qaeda that blew up the World Trade Center. Justice remains undone for those murdered on 9-11.

If the US had not invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq would not have been in Iraq. So it is clear that AQ in Iraq came to the US presence, or else the Bush Administration could not call the problem "foreign."

What portion of those who became the foreign fighters in AQ in Iraq would have committed terrorist acts elsewhere, other than in the US-invaded Iraq?

We appear to have a dual purpose policy (the real deal) of using Iraq as a resource security platform and a convenient offer of satisfaction for Americans to believe it was always planned that it become a kill-zone for "Al Qaeda."

However, had the job of routing the Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11 been finished first, would Iraq have been easier to secure if a real reason for military action materialized?

American forces used for an unnecessary tasks divert those forces from necessary tasks. The good feelings shown at the State of the Union address don't change that fact. That is the truth and we should not bury it for political expediency. This sort of thing should not be done again with the troops or the American peoples' trust.

Would you sooner trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton with effectively leading the United States of America as a unifying servant leader? The answer has got to be Barack Obama. He is not the divisive figure.

Obama can energize majorities and minorities just being who he is, however, his talents of listening, communicating and statesmanlike coalition building also set him apart from others. He's charismatic, yes, however, not frantically so. He's got emotional ballast in his ship, not OPB (Other Peoples' Baggage) or the brittleness of leadership wrapped around ugly, raw ambition.

His speech at Ebenezer Baptist highlighted his focus on moral renewal in areas of morality shamefully neglected by the party in power, especially the sin of neglecting to uplift the poor and their children.

One need only read the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in the Christian gospel to see that many of the GOP'ers have not shown that they value the priority of Christ and the Old Testament prophets so prominently preached in the Good Book.

Let him join the line-up and swing the bat. It is well past time and America needs the power of moral renewal resident in the strongest truth: Those who have been humbled shall be exalted.

Beyond worthy are our African American fellow countrymen. They are one with our confidence, our treasure, our wise, and our strong. How long shall we go without their special wisdom and experience serving the United States of America and lifting her up.

Draw away from this family of Americans all roots of bitterness about the obvious glass cieling, and let them show us an example of leadership that unites Americans as a greater family of all races, creeds, colors, religions and ethnicities.

When we put all of our diverse gifts together, we make America worth emulating abroad. When that is done, no one needs a gun to their head to imitate the freedom and responsibility that can be found in this great country.