Save money! Find the cheapest gas in your town!

With gas prices breaking $4.00 per gallon in many areas, I thought it would be helpful to bloggers and blog readers alike to offer some assistance with finding the cheapest gas in your area. You can help drive the price of gas down buy not purchasing from gas stations/companies who are charging up to $0.30 more per gallon than the cheapest ones in or near your area. Below, I have found a cool little widget with data provided by Automotive.com. You can also check prices at GasBuddy.com. From what I can tell, the widget does not provide gas prices for places like Sam's Club or BJ's. However, you can find out the prices at such places through GasBuddy.com. One helpful hint with GasBuddy.com is to make sure that you select more than just your city after entering your zip code. Otherwise, you'll only see results in that city.

It would be very easy for me to make this a political issue. In fact, I may do that in a future post. Right now, I thought it would be more useful to simply provide you with a method of finding the cheapest gas in your area.

Mark Warner says no to second seating with Barack Obama

Over the weekend, former VA governor Mark Warner made it clear that he'd rather be a U.S. senator than a vice president under Barack Obama. Mark Warner's campaign released its first advertisement indicating, in essence, that he cleaned up VA and now it's time to clean up Washington DC.

Watch the ad

To me, Mark is sending a message that he wants to restore checks and balances to the U.S. Senate and not be Barack Obama's puppet. Does Mark Warner entirely dislike Barack Obama? I'm honestly not sure. I had a hard time finding information that either confirms or denies that notion. Nevertheless, Mark Warner is well liked by many Republicans as well as Democrats. I believe that he will support legislation to balance the U.S. budget sooner rather than later and that he will help restore the system of checks and balances that is currently sorely missing in Congress today.

I voted for Mark Warner when he ran for Governor of VA in 2001. I won't deny that he made some decisions that were less than brilliant. However, I was quite impressed with him overall. Thus, he definitely has my vote for senator.

On "The Audacity of the Democrats"

It figures that Rush "Windbag" Limbaugh would have been impressed with "The Audacity of the Democrats". It must be the pain killers. I left a comment on The Radio Patriot blog under Andrea's post on the topic. Then, I felt compelled to do a post of my own. I respect Andrea and we share many of the same views on various political topics. However, I'm not sure we share the same view here.

Honestly, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole 'The Audacity of the Democrats' post on American Thinker. However, what I did read was disturbing. Disturbing because I disagree with some of the points made and I am shocked that Rocco believes what he has written.

I agree that Barack Obama is bad news. He was completely media generated. Yes, I also agree that neither the media nor the Democratic party took his connections with the likes of William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, MoveOn.org, and many other people and organizations seriously. Had the media dug into Wright's sermons and played them in heavy rotation 24/7, Barack wouldn't be the Democratic nominee today. If they had also dug deeper into his connections to a horde of questionable characters and displayed that information in heavy rotation 24/7, Barack wouldn't be the Democratic nominee today. That's what really pisses me off! I seek truth in my blog. I dug deep to find what I could on Barack Obama. And I found and posted information that the media should have broadcast relentlessly. They did a couple of blurbs and then buried the information. Meanwhile, they continued to broadcast the "Pied Piper" playing his beautiful song.

I don't think it's the Democratic party that has changed so dramatically in the past 8 years. That's not to say they haven't changed. However, I think that the problem is more deeply rooted than that. I think the problem is at the citizen level. There's so much apathy and hopelessness out there that when the 'Pied Piper' came playing his beautiful song, everyone was mesmerized. They had tunnel vision and only saw the good in what Barack Obama was saying and not the bad in his voting history, associations, etc. So, that answers the question as to why Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a blowjob and Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee despite all the "dirt" available on him.

What is NOT explained though is why GWB has not been impeached for doing things that are unconstitutional (also see this article). Heck with the treatment of POWs. I could care less. I'm talking about murdering 4000+ U.S. citizens by forcing them to go to war with a nation that was not an imminent danger to us. I'm talking about illegal wiretapping. Rocco says that the Democratic party has become Communists. I say that the GWB administration has become a fascist regime (see recent remarks of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann)! This administration is no better than Francisco Franco was for Spain from 1936 to 1975. It's absolutely unbelievable to me that President Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a blowjob yet we have not impeached GWB for the atrocious things that he has done. I'm ashamed to say that I think my generation, Generation 13, is much to blame for GWB still being President. Many of us are just too apathetic to take a stand.

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. So, you can't blame me for 8 years of GWB. Nor can you blame the Democratic party. What you can do is blame FL and the Supreme Court with the fact that he ever became President. In my opinion, all Rocco is doing is bringing back the fear of Communism. There's nothing more evil about Communism than Capitalism. In fact, Capitalism encourages greed. We don't need another "Cold War". It was never really a war anyway. I firmly believe that Russia was never as big of a threat as we made them out to be. I put that last part in bold because I'm not saying that Russia was not a threat. I'm saying that our fear of Communism greatly exaggerated that threat. In reality, I think that Russia was just as afraid of us. They saw what we did to Japan and said "Oh $#@%!!"

In closing, I don't equate Barack's nomination with the corruptness of the Democratic party. Yes, Al Gore was "cheated" out of the election in 2000. However, I don't think that this is the Democrats plotting to put an extreme "leftist" in office. I think the media was mesmerized by Barack's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ever since, they've put this man on a pedestal and treated him like the next messiah. If it weren't for the media, Barack would not have had a snowball's chance in hell at becoming the Democratic nominee. In fact, he probably wouldn't even have run for president. Thus, Hillary would have easily won the nomination and kicked McCain's arse in the general election!

McCainomics vs Obamanomics: Which one will get America back on track?

I watched News Hour with Gwen Ifill last Tuesday because she discussed the differences between the McCain economic plan and the Obama economic plan with the campaign advisers of the respective candidates. The interesting thing was that I supported both plans at different points in the debate. However, McCain's plan seemed to prevail in the end.

Barack Obama supports an oil windfall profit tax. The senate recently blocked a bill that included legislation that would increase windfall profit taxes on oil companies. On the surface, an oil windfall profit tax certainly seems reasonable. This would allegedly prevent price gouging like oil companies having been doing for at least the past 4 years. The question is: Would it work? Raymond J Learsy of the Huffington Post seems to think it's the right plan, but it uses the wrong language. Raymond suggests that it should be called the Cartel Profits Tax. He has a good point. OPEC certainly seems to fit the description. However, it is obvious that senate Republicans objected to the bill. They argue that imposing such a tax would not provide "relief at the pump". In light of that rejection, Democrats plan to work on a new bill that will increase oversight of trading by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Democrats also propose regulating U.S.-based transactions on the Intercontinental Exchange in London and imposing rules on the London exchange's American parent Intercontinental Exchange Inc., which is based in Atlanta. Only time will tell how Republicans will react to this new legislation when it is introduced.

Here's a word that makes many people cringe: Taxes. Barack Obama says that he wants to raise taxes for the richest 2% of the population. John McCain thinks that is a horrible idea and wants to lower the corporate tax rate. As I see it, there is a subtle difference here that one has to be careful not to overlook. The difference, as I understand it, is that Barack wants to increase taxes on individuals who make more than $250,000 per year; however, McCain wants to decrease taxes on corporations. While it is true that many people who make over $250,000 per year own corporations, individual and corporate tax returns are separate entities. Barack says that lowering taxes will be giving a huge tax break to companies like Exxon. That may be true, but McCain says that our high corporate tax rate prevents us from being competitive on the world market. I can also see truth in that statement. McCain also says that he wants to cut "pork-barrel" spending and declare Washington DC a "no earmark zone". In addition, he wants to put a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending for one year and conduct a complete top-to-bottom review of the federal government. Barack Obama calls this "Bush-onomics on steroids". I disagree. I think it's about time government spending was evaluated. The last time there was a real evaluation on government spending was when Clinton was president. The outcome of the evaluation was that we had the first surplus in decades!

Back to gas tax for a moment . . . McCain, like Hillary, suggests a gas tax holiday. Barack thinks this is a gimmick and would rather send out a second stimulus rebate as a short term solution. Honestly, I don't think either idea is good. A gas tax holiday wouldn't work because it would just give Big Oil a larger profit margin. A second stimulus rebate wouldn't work because the first one didn't work. I don't know about anybody else, but the rebate that my family will receive is just enough to make one mortgage payment. While that is helpful to a very small degree, it's not near enough to encourage us to spend money on things we do not need. Therefore, a second rebate, unless it is 3 or 4 times the amount of the first, still won't be very helpful. A family vacation, something that many people desire, can hardly be paid for by that tiny rebate by time you take transportation (air fare, rental car), hotel expenses, food, and attraction costs into account.

In summary, although both have some good ideas, I like some of McCain's ideas more than Barack's. Does that say that McCain has got my vote? No. We still have 4.5 months until election day. A lot can happen in that time. That said, both are going to have to do quite a bit of convincing in order to earn my vote.

Woo Me Barack . . . PunditMom has a good point

In a recent article, PunditMom talks about Barack needing to woo Democrats who supported Hillary. I'm a man. So, flowers or chocolates definitely aren't going to do it for me! Respect is a start, but I'm not sure that's enough. Cutting your ties with (now) convicts and other questionable people would definitely be nice. "But I can't control what they do,' you plead. True, but you can certainly control what you do. Furthermore, stop telling us lies. You say that you don't accept money from lobbyists and such, but you know that's not true. Here's proof from the The Boston Globe, Columbia Journalism Review, and even the Chicago Tribune. I can't speak for PunditMom, but you need to prove to me that you're not "the great deceiver".

Campaigning is stressful, no doubt. However, it's nothing like the stress of dealing with foreign leaders who dislike the U.S. It's nothing like the stress of U.S. citizens in an uproar over a failing economy. You need to prove to me that you have the backbone to stand up to our enemies --and without alienating them even further if that's possible. You need to prove to me that you have a rigorous plan to improve our relations with Russia and South American countries --especially Venezuela. You need to show me a solid plan that will both balance our budget and improve our economy. Your eloquent speeches might be pleasing to some ears, but actions (or plans to actions) speak much louder than words.

The bottom line is that the Pied Piper (aka Barack Obama) needs to stop playing the beautiful song that has been alluring citizens and delegates alike and start brainstorming viable plans to get us out of our current mess. Honestly, I don't care for some of the decisions you made in the U.S. senate. So, it is going to be tough for you to convince me you're the person that should get my vote.

Remembering D-Day: June 6, 1944

I'm only 37, but I had relatives that were survivors of WWII and the holocaust. Thus, I'd like to share some pictures that I took at the D-Day Memorial near Lynchburg, VA.

Two of the survivors that I know/knew (one is dead, the other still alive) are Colonel J Sydney Wolf and Arthur Seibert. Colonel Wolf died in the mid-to-late 1990's. The character in the BattleTech game, Col Jaime Wolf, might very well have been inspired by the real person. Back to reality . . .

The D-Day Memorial is actually located in Bedford County. It's about a 30 minute drive from the Candler's Mountain Road area in Lynchburg to the memorial. You can find more information at the official D-Day Memorial site.

Overlord Arch

Troops Land At The Beach

D-Day Memorial Emblem

Surveillance Plane

General Eisenhower Memorial

Wall of Fallen Soldiers and Surrounding Area

Although the memorial itself is quite impressive, the surrounding area is beautiful as well. Those who would like a challenging drive as well as some rewarding views can also drive to the Natural Bridge area from Lynchburg. There is a zoo there, beautiful scenery, and the Natural Bridge itself. For those who might not like winding roads, there's the Monument Terrace in downtown Lynchburg along with some cool architecture and the Langley Fountain. If you like to walk, there is a pretty lengthy walking path and bike trail in the downtown area too. Due to the lush landscape, most of the trail is well shaded yet easy to walk.

As you can see, there's a lot of history in western Virginia. There's also a lot of natural beauty. So, whether you're going there as a veteran, someone who likes history, or a nature lover, there's plenty to do.

Obama vs McCain - The race is on!

Best viewed full size! (click image)

Sure, McCain says he wants civil forums, but we all know it's not going to work out that way. McCain will end up attacking Obama any way he can and Barack will strike back. The one with the least mud on them will win the election. After all, who wants to sit an watch 2 candidates discussing topics across a table? Right? Hillary just might have the last laugh after all.

Since I currently cannot take either candidate very seriously, I thought a little political humor was in order. Sometimes you just have to be happy with what you have to be happy with (wink, wink). So, let's wait to see what the second verse is going to be and then there might be something more serious to discuss.

BOOM!! Barack Obama's secret weapon detonated!

Our democratic hypocrites are handing out their trash, but it was Hillary's in the first place so she'll burn it to ash*!

As many of you know, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee made a decision regarding FL and MI last Saturday. In summary, the delegates of FL and MI only get half of a vote each and 4 of Hillary's MI delegates were awarded to Barack since he was an idiot and took his name off the ballot. I expected them to make a decision that no-one would be happy about. BOOM!! The secret weapon was detonated. Instead they made a decision that favors Barack Obama. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Political Editorial Comic**

Had the Rules and Bylaws Committee met on March 31 instead of May 31, Hillary would have had much more momentum than she currently does. More than likely, she would have held the majority of superdelegates. Plus, there would have been 9 democratic primaries after the FL/MI decision rather than 3. While it is true that she still won 5 of those 9 primaries so far, there is no doubt that she would have received more campaign funds and been backed by more superdelegates. Howard Dean's 3+ month delay of a solution for FL and MI is both criminal and appalling. He has single-handedly guaranteed Barack Obama the nomination. Meanwhile, common sense, the democratic process, and justice have been thrown out the window!

Words cannot express how truly aggravating the 2008 presidential election process has been. I thought that the 2000 and 2004 elections were bad. They pale in comparison to the 2008 election process. If you think our country is corrupt now, you haven't seen anything yet! All I can say is "welcome to Jamaica" if Barack Obama becomes president.

*Modified quote from the Genesis song Back In NYC from their album The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway.

**Although this comic was created using a real photo, the words within the comic are completely fictional. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, Barack Obama did not have a gun in his possession during that interview. The words are a modified version of famous lines from the movie Total Recall.

Barack Obama's Secret Weapon Seeks Cash

Related post: Howard Dean - Barack Obama's Secret Weapon

During the week of May 19, I received something called the "2008 Presidential Campaign Survey" in the mail. At first, I had high hopes that this survey was sent out to get a feel for a fair solution to the FL and MI democratic primaries debacle. However, I soon discovered that this was merely a sneaky way for Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee to ask for contributions. To make matters worse, the questions asked in the survey had nothing to do with the fates of FL and MI. The cherry on top of the whipped cream is the URL (www.democrats.org/survey) at the bottom of the last page of the survey. As you can see, it gives you the impression that you could actually take the survey online. However, when you plug that address into your favorite browser, you are sent directly to a "contributions" page! No survey found at that link or anywhere else on the www.democrats.org site --an official Democratic Party site.

Aside from a return postage-paid envelope and the survey, you can also find a message from Howard Dean as well as a message from Hillary Clinton in the envelope. The message from Howard Dean is no more than spam begging for money. On the other hand, the message from Hillary was more meaningful. Honestly, I don't remember whether or not she asked for contributions. I just remember being more impressed with her letter. Alas, I threw everything away except the survey and the return envelope.

For those who did not receive the survey and are curious, here are all of the questions (along with my personal answers):

1) Age: [] 18-30 [x] 31-40 [] 41-50 [] 51-64 [] 65 and over

2) How often do you vote for Democratic candidates? [] Always [x] Most of the time [] Rarely [] Never

3) How likely are you to vote in the 2008 election? [x] Very Likely [] Somewhat Likely [] Not Likely

4) Have you participated in any of the following campaign activities? [] Volunteering time at a local campaign or Party headquarters. [] Making phone calls from a phone bank. [] Organizing an event or fundraiser in my home or community. [] Going door-to-door in my neighborhood. [x] Actively blog about the election.*

*I wrote in this option

5) How closely have you been following the 2008 presidential campaign? [x] Very closely [] Closely [] Somewhat Closely [] Not at all

6) How optimistic are you that a Democrat will win the White House in 2008? [x] Very optimistic [] Optimistic [] Not very optimistic [] Pessimistic

7) Do you believe that John McCain's pledge to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years will be a liability in the General Election? [x] Yes [] No [] Unsure

8) Which issues would you like the Democratic presidential nominee to focus on in the campaign? Please rank the following issues from 1-14 based on their importance to you, with "1" being the most important.

NOTE: I am listing these in the order of importance that I chose.

Jobs/Economy, Health Care, Education, Iraq, Energy Policy, Homeland Security, Ethics In Government, Immigration, Social Security, Environment, Civil Rights/Liberties, Stem Cell Research, Reproductive Rights, Taxes.

9) Thinking about our Party's plan for the 2008 campaigns, which of the following strategies do you think is the key to electing more Democrats in November?
[x] Investing in grassroots efforts like canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives.
[] Devoting more resources to radio and television ads that reach the most voters.
[] Ensuring a fair election process so that every vote counts.
[] Democrats need to invest in all of the above strategies to win in November.

Note: This was a tough one because the 3rd option is important too.

10) With our 50 State Strategy, the DNC has been strengthening our Party in states that have traditionally been GOP strongholds. What is your opinion of this strategy?
[x] I support it. Our Party needs to compete in every part of the country and make the Republicans spend campaign money in states they have taken for granted.
[] I oppose it. Our Party should focus its resources in those states where we have the best chance to win, and not waste money in solidly Republican states.

11) How likely do you think it is that John McCain and his Republican allies will launch a "Swift Boat" style smear campaign against our presidential nominee? [] Very likely [x] Somewhat likely [] Not likely

12) How concerned are you that Republican voter suppression schemes will disenfranchise Democrats and impact the outcome of the presidential race? [] Very concerned [] Somewhat concerned [x] Not concerned

13) What is your main source of news and information about the presidential campaign and the 2008 elections? [] Television [] Newspapers [] Talk radio [x] Internet/blogs [] News magazines [] Other

14) Do you think mainstream news organizations are biased in favor of Democrats, biased in favor of Republicans, or do you think news organizations have been fair in the way they have covered the presidential election? [x] Biased in favor of Democrats [] Biased in favor of Republicans [] No bias in favor of either party [] No opinion/Not sure

NOTE: The real answer here is that the media is, perhaps unjustly, biased toward Barack Obama.

15) If you could offer one piece of advice to the Democratic presidential nominee, what would it be? Please use the space below to write your comments.

First, I have a message for Howard Dean. You need to quickly and fairly resolve the FL/MI primaries issue. I suggest that you either let the vote stand as is or force a re-vote in both states. Either way people will be unhappy, but these are the most fair choices.

Finally, a message to Hillary. Stay focused. Run a strong, positive campaign that focuses on the issues. Let McCain bury himself. You don't need to do it for him. Let his comments and insults fall on deaf ears.

The above were the "legit" questions. The DNC then has the audacity to ask:

16) To help our Party win the White House and score victories up and down the ballot in 2008, will you join the DNC as a contributing member today? [] Yes - go to the next question [x] No

17) If you answered "Yes" to question 16, please indicate the membership level at which you will join the DNC today. [] $25 [] $35 [] $50 [] $100 [] Other: $______

As you can see, none of the questions are very meaningful except, perhaps, #8 and #15. I am quite disappointed with the DNC for not asking more important questions. Furthermore, the fact this is really a document asking for contributions makes me angry. Being that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee made a very undemocratic decision on May 31, I am definitely happy that I didn't give money to them. I have already donated to Hillary's campaign. She is the one that deserves the contributions.

Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama - Progressive Thinker primary predictions

Below, are my state-by-state predictions for the remaining primaries. These predictions are subject to change as we get closer to each primary. So, keep an eye on this post.

These predictions are based on data both from Real Clear Politics and U.S. Census Bureau. My predictions will likely become more accurate as more data becomes available from polls that are done in states which haven't had their primaries.

NOTE: Although I will be using Real Clear Politics as a source for poll data, my predictions may not agree with their poll averages.


West Virginia - May 13 (Updated May 14)

Hillary Clinton: 62% (actual 67%)
Barack Obama: 30% (actual 26%)
Undecided: 8%


Oregon - May 20 (Updated June 2)

Hillary Clinton: 44% (actual 41%)
Barack Obama: 49% (actual 59%)
Undecided: 7%


Kentucky - May 20 (Updated May 20 - 10:25pm)

Hillary Clinton: 54% (actual 65%)
Barack Obama: 37% (actual 30%)
Undecided: 9%


Puerto Rico - June 1 (updated June 2)

Hillary Clinton: 63% (actual 68%)
Barack Obama: 37% (actual 32%)
Undecided: 0%


Montana - June 3 (updated June 2)

Hillary Clinton: 47%
Barack Obama: 45%
Undecided: 8%


South Dakota - June 3 (updated June 2)
Hillary Clinton: 50%
Barack Obama: 44%
Undecided: 6%

Oregon - Potentially the biggest voting disaster since Florida

According to the Multnomah County, OR site, voters passed a ballot measure directing all elections to be conducted by mail in 1998. No doubt, some people will say, "OR has been doing Vote By Mail for 10 years. It must be successful." Well, let me break things down for you a little bit. That's 2 presidential elections (not including the current race), 3 gubernatorial elections, and 3 U.S. Senate elections (not including the Class 2 election this year. Digging a little further we find that: 1) In the 2000 presidential election, only approximately 17,000 OR citizens voted for Gore over GWB and only approximately 76,000 OR citizens voted for Kerry over GWB in the 2004 presidential election; alas, this did not matter because GWB "won" both elections, 2) OR has had the same governor since the 2002 election (he's currently serving his 2nd term), and 3) The northwestern state has had the same 2 senators since 1998. To summarize, only 2 presidents have been in office since 1998, only 2 OR governors have been in office since 1998, and the same 2 OR senators have been in office since 1998. In my opinion, that's not much of a proving ground for the success or failure of Vote By Mail elections.

Proving ground aside, all sorts of problems can arise when using a 100% vote by mail election process. The Multnomah County site expresses some legitimate concerns in their FAQ:

1) What if a mistake is made on the ballot? While they explain what to do, the only way to assure that the ballot is not misinterpreted is to get a replacement. Honestly, how many people do you think are going to do that (i.e. call for or pick up a replacement ballot)?

2) What If I forget to sign my return envelope and I have already mailed it? They state that they will mail the ballot back to you. However, there is a disclaimer: "unless there is not time to return it by mail." Yes, they say you can come to their office to sign it. Again, how many people are going to do that?

3) How do I know if my ballot was received? They say you can call the county election office for your county. Broken record . . . how many people are going to do that? Sure, there are some obsessive compulsives out there, but most aren't going to go through the trouble.

Another concern is raised by the Washington Post:

"Tens of thousands of Oregonians switched their registration from Republican or unaffiliated so they could vote in the Democratic primary. But many switched so close to the April 29 deadline that election officials had already prepared ballots to send to them under their previous registrations. Pulling out those ballots would have been too arduous for most counties, so 33,500 voters received ballots for both parties.

State officials insist this won't be a problem. The scanners that will be used to count the ballots -- all counting is done on the day of the election-- are designed to only count the ballots that are in accord with the voter's new registration status."

This might not sound like a big deal to some, but Oregon is a closed primary state. This means that registered Democrats can only vote Democrat and registered Republicans can only vote Republican. If you're an Independent or one of the many minor "3rd parties", you're screwed unless you register as Democrat or Republican before the deadline. What if the current registration status is not the "new" registration status? Those people are likely not mailed the appropriate ballot -if any ballot at all. Thus, tens of thousands of people who might have voted for Hillary might well have been unable to vote. And what about those voters who decided not to change their status from Independent to Democrat or Republican? As you can see, the vote by mail process is quite problematic and closed primaries only add to the issue.

I'm not claiming that Hillary could have easily won in OR. In fact, their process makes it highly improbable for the underdog to win. Even so, I have to ask why Hillary didn't do some heavy campaigning there? She did do some campaigning there, but considering Oregon's Vote By Mail system, it was more than likely too little, too late. While I have to say "shame on Oregon", I have to say "shame on Hillary" too. She knew, or should have known, their process. Yet, she didn't campaign there in early April before many people would have already mailed their ballots.

Yeah, Barack. You won in OR. Perhaps unfair and not very square, but you won. That's OK. According to my predictions, Hillary's got you beat big time in Puerto Rico. I'm showing her winning in Montana and South Dakota as well. Those wins as well as a fair (or even slightly "more than fair") division of the MI and FL delegates or even re-votes in both states should bring Hillary over the top. It was a great game, Barack. You had the lead for a while. But it's time to say goodbye!

Obama - The Great Deceiver: Redux (Truth in media . . . or not)

I said it in my Obama - The Great Deceiver post and I'll say it again. I strongly feel that Barack Obama is completely media generated. It started in 2004 when Democrats had him speak at the Democratic National Convention. Ever since, the media has run with Barack acting as if he's the Messiah or something. On one hand, I can see why. He's young, handsome, and capable of giving great speeches. Thus, I think that the media is treating Barack like a pop culture icon much like teen magazines and such treat Justin Timberlake. However, the truth is that Barack Obama is not a pop culture icon. He's 1 of 2 democratic presidential candidates. If he wins the nomination, Barack is potential going to be the face and mouthpiece of the U.S. to the rest of the world. Therefore, the questions we all need to ask is:

1) Can Barack Obama regain the respect of the NATO countries?

2) Can Barack Obama be a strong, effective leader among nations who despise the U.S.?

3) Can Barack Obama bring about real change in domestic affairs such as the economy, education, and health care?

4) Can Barack Obama accomplish what few, if any, have been able to accomplish since Ronald Reagan by improving our relationship with Russia and possibly even gaining them as a very strong ally?

Personally, I'm not so sure that Barack can regain the respect of NATO countries or be an effective leader among nations who despise us. I think that GWB, McCain and others might have a good point when they say that Barack might try to negotiate with terrorist sponsoring countries. Barack might be able to affect positive change regarding some domestic affairs. However, I am also quite unsure that he would be a leader that could strengthen our relationship with Russia. If we want to be less dependent on the Middle East, we need Russia as an ally. Why? Because there's a lot of untapped oil in Siberia.

Some of you might be asking, "what prompted me to write this article?" Well, I stumbled across an article on Politico over the weekend. It's an article about how the media is already claiming that Obama is the democratic nominee. I've seen the media reporting this garbage first hand. In fact, I have links in some of my recent posts to such articles. The truth is that Barack has not won the democratic nomination. Furthermore, Hillary has just won another primary in Kentucky --and by a large margin. Thus, she is still very much in the race. For Barack, his campaign, the media, or anyone else to say otherwise is both heinous and false.

What do I and other seekers and writers of truth have to say to make people realize that Barack is just another politician? He might be a pop culture icon, but he is certainly no Messiah and does not deserve the gratuitous votes that he's been receiving. I am writing this with sternness to all U.S. citizens: This is not a season of American Idol. This is not a pageant for Miss Universe. This is a presidential election. Again, this person, if elected, is going to be the face and mouthpiece for our nation. Do we want a pop culture icon or someone with the skills and experience to do a great job?

Barack is just as tainted and corrupt as any other Washington politician if not more so. Let's stop treating him like he's made of gold and can do no wrong and start voting for a person who can affect real, positive change . . . Hillary Clinton.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee holds key to Hillary's fate

It's mid May and the May 31 meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is approaching fast. According to the New York Times, there is a panel of 30 people on this committee. The NYT article also states that 13 of the panel members support Hillary Clinton while only 8 support Barack Obama. That leaves 9 members that could tip the scales one way or the other. Let's make no bones about it people. This panel holds the key to Hillary's fate. The logic that they use to make their decision is very important. The ruling that this panel makes could effect future elections if, God forbid, states decide to break the rules again.

Here are a couple of rulings that I would consider bad judgment:

1) FL and MI remain stripped of their delegates and the popular votes in those states do not count.

2) Split the delegates 50/50 and the popular votes in those states do not count.

Then, there are a couple of rulings that might seem more reasonable but don't really make anyone happy:

1) Split the delegates 50/50 and let the popular votes count.

2) Force a revote in both states.

Hillary Clinton wants the delegates apportioned according to popular vote. That seems to be a fair choice as long as the panel allows the overall popular vote decide who gets the nomination. Being that the DNC will have waited about 4 months to make this decision when an early, fair decision might have given Hillary more momentum, I say that all MI and FL delegates should be awarded to Hillary. Yes, this might seem unfair. However, it is also unfair that the DNC has dragged this situation out for 4 months. This lack of decision has allowed Barack to enjoy momentum he might not have had if the DNC had ruled on this by the beginning of March. Need more reasons that I think my "ruling" on the situation is fair? Well, for one thing, Barack took his name of the ballot in Michigan. Until very recently, Barack had not campaigned in either state. Last but not least, Hillary won the primaries in both states.

I say that supporters of Hillary should gather in Washington DC and put pressure on this DNC panel to make a decision that's more than just fair. A decision that compensates for momentum lost due to their not dealing with the issue in a timely manner.

Barack - One presumptuous Democrat!

It seems that the past few days have seen Barack Obama getting busy with general election strategies. These strategies include the aforementioned trip to Michigan, a 'faith' flyer circulating in Kentucky, and John Edwards leading an establishment rally. Barack also seems to be "locking the party down". He is doing this despite the fact that he has only won 3 out of 9 primaries since February and the DNC has yet to make a final decision about Florida and Michigan. In racing or track, the sort of behavior would be considered a false start and can lead to disqualification. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely to happen in the realm of a political race. Why? Primarily because there is no rule against it. The DNC had the foresight to make rules regarding when states can hold their primaries. However, they seem to be myopic when it comes to making rules for prospective presidential candidates and when they can start campaigning for the general election.

Does anyone else see the injustice here? Does anyone else out there think that Barack is jumping the gun? What, if anything, should be done? I think, at minimum, the DNC should pull the reigns on Barack and say, "not so fast. there's no clear winner yet." Of course, then he'll claim that he's just doing this for the primaries. "Change We Can Believe In." Yeah, right. Face it. You're just another Washington politician.

Barack campaigns in Michigan - Why?

CNN gave me the hint that Barack Obama is in Michigan in an article regarding John Edwards' endorsement of the democratic candidate. So, I took the opportunity to dig a little further and found this article on the msnbc site. As I suspected, Barack Obama is in fact campaigning in Michigan. This leads us to ask the following question:

Why is Barack Obama campaigning in Michigan?

I stumbled upon this article on the Fox News site the other day. I was thinking that it's not the most fair solution; however, I was going to wait until Howard Dean and the Dysfunctional Nihilistic Committee (read Democratic National Committee) had their little meeting to discuss the issue. In light of the fact that Barack is now campaigning in MI, I thought it best to lay that proposal on the table now. This proposal was made just last week. Furthermore, Barack had already stated in March that he did not want a revote in MI. In fact, his campaign essentially blocked a MI revote. After all this, does Barack have the audacity to imply that he has already won the nomination by visiting Michigan as the Democratic presidential candidate?

I hope that U.S. citizens see this sly move for what it is. Barack showing his true colors as a two-faced, hypocritical candidate who is pulling every low blow and sneak attack possible to give him an edge. In other words, Barack Obama is Washington politics at its finest. Want real change? Give Hillary the Democratic nomination! Step up and give her a much deserved victory in Oregon next week. She already has an edge in Kentucky. Let's keep the momentum going! If Hillary can rise victorious in the OR and KY Democratic primaries, she can put pressure on the DNC to resolve the FL/MI debacle in a fair and speedy fashion.

Hillary wins big in West VA!

It's the evening of May 14 and 100% of precincts have reported their data. The final results of the West Virginia primary show that Hillary has a 41 point lead on Obama according to CNN! I predicted a big win, but a 41 point lead! Wow! Now, she needs to focus really hard on Oregon. I am currently predicting an Obama victory, quite an upset of my original prediction, by a very narrow margin. If Hillary can close that gap by doing some heavy campaigning, she might be able to pull off a slim victory in Oregon too. It would really help, of course, if Barack sticks his foot in is mouth between now and May 20.

That's the good news. Unfortunately, I also have some bad news. Despite a clear victory in WV, Hillary seems to be hemorrhaging superdelegates by the barrel. According to an article on the Yahoo News site, the shift in lead to Barack occurred over the weekend. I am hoping that there is a shift back to Hillary by the end of next weekend given the big win in WV.

If by some minute chance someone in Hillary's inner circle is reading this, please get her on a plane to Oregon tomorrow! She needs the victory in WV to be very fresh in people's minds so that she can keep her momentum and, with some hope and a few prayers, achieve a slim victory in Oregon. Please, no mishaps this time! Stick to the issues and let Barack dig his own grave!

The May 6 primary split - Surprise, yet no surprise

Although Real Clear Politics showed Hillary with an averaged 5 point lead over Barack in Indiana, Hillary actually won with a 2 point lead. In contrast, Hillary lost to Barack in NC with a 14 point deficit. While we saw the gap closing in both states in the days leading up to the primaries, the only surprise is that there was a double digit gap between Hillary and Barack in NC. The Real Clear Politics average was 8 points with only 2 out of 7 polls showing double digits.

The real question is why was Hillary able to close the gap for a win in Indiana, but not in North Carolina? Although NC has a large technology sector, there is also an abundance of blue collar workers. With the negative comments that Barack made about blue collar workers in PA, it surprises me that they still sided with him in NC. Hillary also tends to pick up the Hispanic vote and NC has a substantial Hispanic population.

Let's take a look at some data for both NC and IN:

NC Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 6.7%
NC African American population percentage as of 2006: 21.7%
NC Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 67.9%

IN Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 4.8%
IN African American population percentage as of 2006: 8.9%
IN Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 83.9%

For comparison, let's also look at PA:

PA Hispanic population percentage as of 2006: 4.2%
PA African American population percentage as of 2006: 10.7%
PA Caucasian (not Hispanic) population percentage as of 2006: 82.1%

Looking at this data it seems to become clear how Hillary was able to win IN and PA, but not NC. Looking at the data, it might not be mere coincidence that the difference in African American population (roughly 13%) between IN and NC accounts for the 14 point lead that Barack acquired in NC. Thus, although NC does have a slightly higher Hispanic population than IN and PA, it was not enough to overcome the African American vote.

The question now is should Hillary continue the nomination contest with Barack? Although I am sure that the superdelegates will put pressure on Hillary to drop out, I strongly feel that she should continue. Why? Howard Dean and the DNC still have yet to decide the fate of MI and FL. Hillary won both states with large margins in the initial primaries. Therefore, even if MI and FL have to redo their primaries, I think Hillary has a good shot at winning again. Yes, a do-over could create a real mess. I really don't like the idea. However, Barack and the African American population would probably complain if this were not done. So, I say let them do it. Barack will still lose in both states. I am confident of that. Had Howard Dean and the DNC resolved the FL/MI primaries issue in February or March, Hillary might have had more momentum at this point. However, I still think she could win the nomination by a razor thin lead by the time of the Democratic National Convention.

Howard Dean - Barack Obama's Secret Weapon

As everyone knows by now, Hillary won in PA. Thus, I am sure that all Hillary supporters are wondering if she has the momentum to win the nomination. In essence, it's up to Howard Dean.

It's a darn shame that I have to beat a dead horse, but this horse (though dead) deserves a good beating! All Hillary supporters need to do is read the transcript of this past Sunday's Meet The Press and they'll agree. Here's the meat of the interview:

"Michigan and Florida. There is a report--reports that the Democratic National Committee is having a meeting on May 31st...

DR. DEAN: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...which may in fact say to Michigan and Florida, "Well, you broke the rules, you moved your primary dates up without permission, but we're going to give you half delegates, half your elected count, half your superdelegate count come, come convention time." Is that true?

DR. DEAN: Well, I don't know about the--what the Rules Committee's going to do. I have no idea what they're going to do. But here's the deal. First, you got to respect the voters. The voters of Michigan and Florida were not the people that screwed this all up, it was politicians. Secondly, you have to respect the candidates. They went in on a set of rules that everybody voted for, including Michigan and Florida, before they changed their mind, but--and so you can't really change the rules and alter the course of the race. And thirdly, you got to respect the 48 states that did respect the rules.

Here's why the rules are important. For the--this year, for the first time, we balanced the early primaries with ethnic and geographic diversity. We included a state from the South and a state from the West, because we think we can win there now. And we included states with significant numbers of minority groups who the Democrats can't win without, and those folks ought to be allowed to say early on who they think should be the president. Now along comes two states which steps on the process. You've got to deal with that in a fair way. So I don't know what the solution's going to be. The Rules Committee's going to start to work on that now as they prepare for the meeting at the end of May. But nobody will be satisfied with the outcome because nobody's going to get everything they want. What we strive is to be fair to the voters, fair to both campaigns, and fair to the other 48 states.

MR. RUSSERT: Former Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan, who's a Clinton supporter, said the Democratic National Committee has handled the situation badly. "They have put their rules ahead of common sense, of electing a Democratic president, of voters in two major states. ... They're treating the rules like they're the U.S. Constitution or the Ten Commandments. They've lost their way."

DR. DEAN: Well, they were one of the two states out of the 50 that violated the rules. I'd kind of expect that from them.

MR. RUSSERT: But Michigan and Florida are swing states.

DR. DEAN: They're both very important states. That doesn't mean they're any more important than anybody else.

MR. RUSSERT: In fact, there were some meetings of delegates in Michigan, various conventions where Hillary Clinton is now lining up delegates, and, according to Congressman Blanchard, "We want to pick people who'll be loyal to Hillary, who would commit to her through multiple ballots." So Governor Blanchard of Michigan, former governor, is planning for, in effect, a multiple ballot convention.

DR. DEAN: Sure. I mean, I--look, everybody has a right to plan anything they want. My plan, as the chair of the DNC, is to try to get this resolved before we get to the convention. Because if you go into the convention divided, it's pretty likely you'll come out of the convention divided.

MR. RUSSERT: Without Michigan and Florida counting, as of now, people are saying, "Howard Dean should have handled this differently. He should have interceded and fixed this problem and not allowed us to come to a point where these two states feel dissed and it could hurt us in November."

DR. DEAN: Well, I mean, that--it wasn't my decision to make these changes. Florida and Michigan both voted for a set of rules, then they tried to push ahead of everybody else, and that makes it more difficult for everybody. We want to resolve this. This is not the voters' fault in Florida and Michigan. But the fact of the matter is that you have to--you cannot change the rules towards the end of the game just to advantage or disadvantage of a particular candidate. You can't do that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you decided not to seat the delegations, not count the primaries.

DR. DEAN: That's correct. Because they stepped on the minority groups and the small states in the South and the West that needed that time to have their primaries and have their early input.

Look, it's, it's--this is like having a, a line full of people waiting for something. If two of them jump the line and go to the front, it's not going to be long before you're going to have a riot. Don't forget, at the time these sanctions were passed by the Rules Committee, New Hampshire and Iowa were threatening to move into 2007. You've got to keep order, and that's part of my job is to keep order. It's understandable that the folks you call out because they think they're more important than everybody else are going to be upset about that. We did keep order, we do have an orderly process. I'll defend the process.

MR. RUSSERT: Will Michigan and Florida be seated?

DR. DEAN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: In some way, shape or form.

DR. DEAN: In some way. I'm determined to make that happen. I can't--again, I can't, I can't speak for what the rules committee will do. They're 30 very independent-minded people. I can't speak for what the credentials committee at the convention will do. I believe Michigan and Florida should be seated in some way because it was their--their voters did not cause this problem. This was caused by a political problem, not the voters' problem.

MR. RUSSERT: Seated and their delegates will vote for the presidential nominee?

DR. DEAN: I, that's what I hope will happen.

MR. RUSSERT: The Democratic National Committee has been taking some television advertising out about John McCain, one out on the economy. You are now also going forward with an ad on Iraq. Let's watch that ad and come back and talk about it."

I can't help but be both amused and enraged by this comment by Dean:

"My plan, as the chair of the DNC, is to try to get this resolved before we get to the convention."

Yeah, roughly 2 months before the convention! This matter should have been resolved by February 29 in my humble opinion. Sadly, my opinion isn't worth the disc space it inhabits as far as the Democratic National Committee is concerned.

In reply, Tim Russert said, "[People are saying Howard Dean] should have interceded and fixed this problem and not allowed us to come to a point where these two states feel dissed and it could hurt us in November." I couldn't agree more.

Dean then has the audacity to say, "Well, I mean, that--it wasn't my decision to make these changes. Florida and Michigan both voted for a set of rules, then they tried to push ahead of everybody else, and that makes it more difficult for everybody. . . . But the fact of the matter is that you have to--you cannot change the rules towards the end of the game just to advantage or disadvantage of a particular candidate. You can't do that." The only person and/or entity that has waited until "the end of the game" is Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee!

Is this the work of an extremely ineffective leader for the Democratic National Committee or the work of Barack Obama's secret weapon? Unfortunately, I have no cold hard facts or material evidence to definitively say that Howard Dean is Barack Obama's secret weapon. Nevertheless, we must consider the circumstantial evidence:

1) FL and MI held their primaries early.

2) Howard Dean decided to not count those primaries.

3) Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee seem to have done everything than can to stall the solution to this issue.

Now, let's attempt to "read between the lines". First, we have 2 key states holding their primaries early. Did Howard Dean and/or other representatives of the Democratic National Committee secretly coerce the governors of FL and MI to hold their primaries early? Second, Dean strips FL and MI of their delegates as an initial reaction. This action gave Barack a significant advantage because Hillary won the primaries in both states. Third, the DNC has done nothing but stall any sort of solution to this dilemma. This decision, or lack thereof, has given Barack even more of an edge to win the Democratic nomination. Thus, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that Howard Dean quite possibly endorses Barack Obama. Unfortunately, it is also possible that a majority of other members of the DNC also support Barack Obama.

The real shame of it all is that the Democratic primaries are beginning to resemble the WWE. It's all a bunch of acting --at least on the part of Barack Obama, Howard Dean and the DNC-- and the "fight" is fixed. Is that to say that no-one gets hurt? No. There could be many casualties. Hillary Clinton might very well be one. The U.S. as a whole could be an even more important second casualty. This situation could also very well hurt Democrats for quite a long time. I'm no Democrat. However, I haven't been impressed by a Republican since Ronald Reagan.

Related post: Barack Obama's Secret Weapon Seeks Cash

Guns, Religion, Antipathy, and Swift Boats

In recent news, we have heard remarks from Barack Obama about guns, religion, and antipathy. We have also heard Hillary's and McCain's responses to these remarks as well as Barack's own elaboration upon said remarks. Before I go into detail about who said what and my opinion of the situation, I'd like to offer my stance on these issues.

Now that Charlton Heston is dead, I can finally admit that I am against everyone and their brother owning guns. No ordinary citizen should be able to purchase semi-automatic or automatic weapons. These weapons should only be available to the military and law enforcement. Furthermore, I feel that no-one with a criminal record that includes convictions for violence should be able to own a gun. In addition, anyone with psychological issues should be thoroughly tested by more than one psychologist before being allowed to purchase a gun. If these psychologists have any doubt at all as to whether or not someone with psychological issues is capable of violence, that person should be forbidden to own a gun.

By blood, I am Jewish. Some of you might stop reading due to that fact. However, I can tell you that you are going to miss out on a revelation if you do. I respect people of all religions. Even Islam. That said, there are extremists in all religions. This includes, but is not limited to, Jews, Methodists, Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists. Extremism is one of the many factors I had considered when I chose not to participate in any organized religion. Do I believe in God? In short, I hope God exists. However, the long answer to that question would occupy several posts in this blog.

I certainly cannot speak for others when it comes to antipathy. Nevertheless, I can say that I am not antipathetic. At least not when it comes to the haves versus the have nots. Unlike many people, especially U.S. citizens, I am not strongly motivated by money. I am motivated more by intangibles. Compassion, enthusiasm, generosity, compliments, passion, etc. will keep me happier than all the money in the world. I can certainly empathize with the unemployed people out there. In the past 4 years, I've been unemployed about 40% of the time. On the "have" end, I appreciate what people such as Bill Gates are giving back to society. That said, for every "Bill Gates" there are 3 or 4 wealthy people who are detriments to society. Alas, that is a topic for another post.

Barack on 'Bitter Pennsylvanians' . . . "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. " Let's break this quote down. First, I would like to address the alleged 25 year absence of jobs. I strongly disagree with this. Sure, the steel industry might have dwindled, but both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton helped create thousands of jobs. The Reagan years brought about a lot of military jobs. While Bill Clinton did scale back the military, he both balanced the budget and gave private industry a big boost. Remember the internet boom? Sure, the original boom expanded so quickly that it could not sustain itself by about the year 2000. Nevertheless, the internet has continued to grow exponentially since the 2000 "correction". Look at Google, eBay, FaceBook, and Yahoo just to name a few. My point is that the jobs were there. The people just needed to be "reskilled" for the jobs that were available. Second, I feel that any bitterness is self induced by people who don't adapt. As for people clinging to guns, religion, and/or antipathy, these are the extremists. Extreme gun activists will complain about gun issues regardless of the economy. Obsessively religious people will cling harder to religion during hard times. People with an aversion toward people of other races, religions, or income brackets will be especially antipathetic during a recession. These are specific types of people. You can't make a generalization and say that everyone in Anytown, PA has one or more of these attributes. It's simply not true. Third, there is a good reason for anti-immigrant sentiment, especially as pertains to illegal immigrants, regardless of the economy. Illegal immigrants will tend to hurt our economy because they are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens. Trade is a complex animal and best left for another post.

More to come . . .

Does Barack consider his candidacy more important than his heritage?

Why is it that Barack, the only African American among the 3 candidates who are still campaigning, did not attend the Martin Luther King Jr. 40th anniversary memorial in Memphis? Is he putting his candidacy in front of his heritage? Hillary Clinton attended the memorial and gave an emotional speech. John McCain also attended the memorial. For whatever reason, they decided to interview him while one of King's relatives was speaking. McCain wasn't received as warmly due to his voting against the MLK holiday back in 1983.

Various people have cautioned other politicians not to read too much into Barack's absence from the memorial. I don't think I'm reading to much by saying that he considers his campaign more important than his heritage. Barack was a mere 6 years old when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot. Thus, his personal memories would have been very minute. However, I am sure that his family spoke to him about it when he became old enough to understand. Yet, Barack did not express his family's sadness and/or anger over King's assassination when he spoke of King in Indiana.

What is it going to take for people to realize that Barack Obama is a fraud? He turns his back on his heritage. He and his family attended a church where many of the sermons were racist (against "white" people), anti-gay, anti-semitic, and sometimes even anti-American. He associates with criminals. Is that not enough to discredit this man? Would we have to rip (a hypothetical) liquid latex mask off of Barack's face to show he's actually Caucasian in order for people to see him for what he is? He might not have been corrupted by Washington DC, but he came onto the scene corrupt. Barack was corrupt in Illinois and he is corrupt now.

Barack gives The View more lip service regarding Reverend Wright

Last week, Barack made an appearance on The View saying "Had the reverend [Jeremiah Wright] not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church." In my view, this is Barack diplomatically stating that he might very well have stayed at the church regardless of whether or not Reverend Wright retired or admitted that his negative sermons were inappropriate.

Barack also continues to defend Reverend Wright's negative, anti-Semitic, anti-American sermons by saying, "[Reverend Wright is] a brilliant man who was still caught in a time warp back in the ’60s, early ’70s and the ’50s, where he grew up, and had a sense of where America was and didn’t have a good enough sense of how it had changed." I acknowledge that African Americans should never have been slaves and that some felt as if society might have held them down. However, I grew up in the 70's. I lived in a neighborhood that was at least 50% African American. Although my parents had some prejudice feelings, I looked at them the same way I looked at anyone else. I had African American friends at school and regularly played among them in my neighborhood. That said, I certainly don't condone ignorance or prejudice regardless of race. Thus, I find Reverend Wright's remarks offensive and Barack's defending of these remarks as quite disturbing.

Is there a problem with racism in America? Sure. I think that Reverend Wright is proof of that. There are many Caucasians guilty of this as well. Nevertheless, I do not think that Barack Obama should be handed the nomination on a silver platter just to prove that Americans are no longer racist. Furthermore, I don't think that handing Barack the nomination on a silver platter proves anything except, perhaps, that Americans aren't ready for a female president.

Howard Dean makes empty promise for Florida

Related posts:

MI and FL - Is there a valid reason to "punish" them?

Michigan Re-Vote: Deal or No Deal?

The Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, says "It is my commitment, working with the Florida delegation and the campaigns, to find a fair solution so that Florida will be seated -- and we are confident enough that we have reserved hotel rooms for the delegates from Florida in Denver." Later, he continues by saying he was optimistic about Michigan but added further discussions were needed. I think it's time to say, "That's enough lip service, Howard, we want results!" In my opinion, the issues regarding the early primaries for FL and MI and the status of their delegates should have been resolved by March 31, 2008. These issues should be given top priority. Instead, Dean seems to be acting like the opposing team by letting the clock run down.

Barack wants Al Gore and Bill Clinton in his cabinet

If I were a sensationalist, I'd use "In a desperate move to secure his candidacy, Barack promises Al Gore and Bill Clinton cabinet positions" as a headline. A republican might use "Obama secures another 4 years for the Clinton/Gore administration". Since I am neither a sensationalist nor a republican, I'll say "Barack delivers another smack in the face to Hillary".

I won't deny that I thought Bill Clinton was a great president. I also won't deny that I voted for Al Gore in 2000. Nevertheless, you cannot tell me that Barack didn't announce this, in part, to ruffle Hillary's feathers. At this moment, I honestly cannot tell you whether this was a brilliant move on Obama's part or if this is the torpedo that will sink Barack's ship.

Moveon.org Questions Hillary Clinton's Wealthy Campaign Financers

Moveon.org, a very questionable organization, has the audacity to accuse some of Clinton's wealthier supporters of bullying elected leaders. Well, here is what Moveon.org calls bullying:

"Twenty of Clinton's major donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday that suggested they might rethink their support for the party's congressional efforts this cycle if Pelosi did not alter her publicly stated view that superdelegates should support the party's pledged delegate leader -- a position that would be fatal to Clinton's presidential bid."

Meanwhile . . .

"Her [Hillary Clinton's] supporters have recently argued with their checkbooks that superdelegates should vote their conscience at the Democratic National Convention in August."

Personally, I agree with Hillary's supporters. I think that the superdelegates should vote their conscience. That's what normal citizens of the U.S. do. Why should superdelegates vote for one candidate just because he/she has more votes than the other? They should vote for whomever they think is the best candidate. Moveon.rog claims, "It's the worst kind of insider politics -- billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters." No, they're not bullying them. They're simply bribing the elected leaders to do the right thing because they wouldn't necessarily do it otherwise. That's the way I see it. Otherwise, superdelegates might just jump on the "Obama's ahead" bandwagon and take the position that they might was well vote for him. This completely disregards one's conscience because they're being swayed to vote for someone just because he has a slight lead. While I'll admit that superdelegates should not have to be bribed into doing the right thing (i.e. voting their conscience), it is better to do that than allow them to feel the pressure of the Democratic Party to vote for a candidate just because he has a slight lead.

Here's what I think . . . . I think Moveon.org and other Obama supporters are creating a distraction to keep people from questioning where Barack's campaign funds are coming from. Barack is currently over $20 million ahead of Hillary in gross campaign funding. Furthermore, Barack currently has 3 times the cash on hand as Hillary. Barack wants to know where Hillary's money is coming from. I, and most likely many others, would like to know where Barack's money is coming from.

Let's take a look:

First entry here from campaign funding report for March 2008:

NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED $25,498,555.80 (anonymous donations)

Probably more than one source, but that's still a huge hunk of change! And I'm willing to bet that a lot of these "No employer was supplied" funds came from big oil, pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, etc.

Other sizable donors include:

NOT EMPLOYED - $6,667,752.83 (anonymous donations)
UNEMPLOYED - $41,799.44 (anonymous donations)

Not employed? What? Are we talking retired billionaires?

INFORMATION REQUESTED - $467,598.67 (anonymous donations)

SELF EMPLOYED - $4,958,065.42 (more anonymous donations)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR - over $32,000
WATTS LAW FIRM - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - over $30,000
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - over $31,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - over $40,000
UBS - over $25,000
SUSMAN GODFREY - over $25,000
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - over $25,000
SIDLEY & AUSTIN - over $20,000
NORTHWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY - about $20,000
NA - over $36,000 (I assume this means "not applicable"; more anonymous donations)
MORGAN STANLEY - over $37,000
MICROSOFT - over $54,000
LEHMAN BROTHERS - over $25,000
LATHAM & WATKINS - over $28,000
KIRKLAND & ELLIS - over $20,000
JONES DAY - over $22,000
IBM - over $46,000
HARVARD UNIVERSITY - over $50,000
GOOGLE - over $60,000
GOLDMAN SACHS - over $45,000
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER - over $20,000
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - over $25,000
GENERAL ELECTRIC - over $20,000
FREELANCE - over $23,000 (anonymous donation?)
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - over $36,000
CITIGROUP - over $30,000
AT&T - over $22,000

Although I went through the entire list and selected companies/organizations who donated at least $20,000, it's the huge anonymous donations that are my real concern. If you take the time to go here and scroll through the thousands of contributors, you will notice some small figures from pharmaceutical companies and such. However, I'm willing to bet that big oil, pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, Fortune 500 corporations, and other companies with deep pockets made anonymous donations too.

In total, Barack received $37,692,772.16. In fairness, I'll say that Hillary received about $19,176,609.62 in anonymous donations. Nevertheless, she never professed to be running a clean campaign free of lobbyists, etc.

Why did I go through all of this trouble? I wanted to show you that Barack has received millions of dollars from unnamed sources. He claims to be running a clean campaign and not to receive funds from lobbyists, etc. If this is the case, why do his sources feel the need to hide if they are not questionable? While there might be valid reasons for some sources to hide their identity, it still seems very suspicious that Barack has received such large sums of money from these sources.

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Endorses Obama

After giving Hillary a back-handed compliment -- "She was gracious ... and we know that she's a great senator, she's a great leader" -- Thursday evening, Senator Bob Casey chooses to endorse Barack Obama. Seems like a slap in the face to me. He did this despite the fact that all political polls show Hillary as winning the Pennsylvania primary.

Maybe this partially explains why he's endorsing Barack:

"Casey is a first-term senator and son of a popular former Gov. Bob Casey Sr." It seems that Senator Casey is still a little green. I think that one of the reasons that Senator Casey and many others have endorsed Barack is because they would rather have an African American man as President than any woman --regardless of race or religion. To me, that shows just how far behind the U.S. is socially compared to many other countries. The U.S. has fallen and I seriously question its ability to get back up.

Barack says, "I pulled out of MI and don't want a re-vote."

Over the weekend, I got to thinking about Barack's actions with regard to Michigan and Florida. I was asking myself, "why would a candidate pull his name off of a ballot if he is running for president of all 50 states?" Furthermore, Barack did not campaign in Florida. Why would he not do as much campaigning as possible? Playing devil's advocate, I acknowledge that FL and MI held their primaries earlier than originally scheduled and have been penalized for doing so. Even so, wouldn't Barack still want his name on the ballot in all 50 states? Wouldn't he also want to campaign in Florida and share his views with citizens of that state?

Barack's pulling of his name from MI ballots and not campaigning in FL is somewhat reminiscent of Ross Perot's pulling out of the race and then coming back into the race again. I admit that Barack's actions aren't equal to Perot's actions. However, I cannot help but think of Perot when I think about Barack's actions. His actions are quite baffling. He allegedly wants to be president of all 50 states, but took his name off the ballot in Michigan and did perform his due diligence in Florida.

From my perspective, the only reason to remove your name from a ballot is if you are conceding that someone else has already won. Does Barack really want to be president of all 50 states? Did he consider himself as having lost if the delegates in FL and MI had not been stripped of their votes? This certainly doesn't seem like normal behavior for someone who wants to be president of all 50 states. Hillary has not removed her name from any ballots. Nor has Hillary not done her due diligence in the contiguous states. Barack didn't even campaign in his home state of Hawaii. He sent is sister, Maya, to campaign there in June 2007 on his behalf. What a crock! That would be like Hillary not campaigning in Arkansas.

Here's the question that we must all ask Barack: Do you really want to be president of all 50 states in the U.S.?

Michigan Re-Vote: Deal or No Deal?

I don't know about Michigan, but I say "no deal!" as long as re-vote is on the table. You already know my opinion on MI and FL holding their primaries early. Therefore, I feel that Hillary won in MI fair and square. The MI delegates should be awarded to her.

Barack has already stated that he does not want a re-vote in MI. Although my reasons for not wanting a re-vote differ from his, I agree on that. I don't understand why Hillary apparently wants a re-vote. Perhaps it is because awarding her the MI delegates is not on the table right now as far as the DNC is concerned. Hey, DNC! If you want to give MI and FL a slap on the wrist, do the honorable thing and award half the delegates to Hillary since she won, by default, in both states.

Stripping MI and FL of their delegates is a bit extreme considering the only thing they did wrong was hold their primaries a little early. If they had been caught red handed "fixing" the vote, I could understand that punishment. Come on DNC! Don't give a felony sentence for a misdemeanor crime! Get off your high horse and do the right thing!

This just in:

Obama campaign calls 50-50 split of Michigan delegates fair

Clinton rejects 50-50 delegate split

Need I comment on this? Of course Barack thinks a split is fair: 1) he's got a lead on Hillary and 2) he took his name off the ballot. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why Hillary doesn't go for the split. She already won in MI and FL by default. Like I said, I feel that the DNC needs to do the right thing and award Hillary (and only Hillary) 50% of the delegates from both MI and FL. That is fair.

Barack - The "A More Perfect Union" Speech

We knew this speech was coming. It's called "CYA"; Cover your ass (excuse my language). I read the entire speech on the Chicago Sun-Times site. As I have said before, Barack is a great speaker when he is given time to prepare a speech. I too can be a great speaker when I prepare and practice a speech. I had to do a 20 minute presentation of my senior project in college. Given that I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Physics, you can imagine that this was a bit of a challenge. I had to explain my project in detail. I explained how each part worked and the physics and math behind it. That's enough about me. Let's get back to the subject at hand. Barack, like many people, recognizes the issues between "black" and "white" people. While I am all for his message of uniting as a nation, this speech was simply lip service to that issue. Barack gave excuses for Rev. Jeremiah Wright's behavior. He stated that Rev. Wright grew up while there was still segregation. Barack also said of Rev. Wright "the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years [referencing the 50's and 60's]." Yes, the 1800's and first half or so of the 1900's were bad for African Americans. I acknowledge that. However, this does not excuse the behavior of Rev. Wright and thousands of other African American citizens.

So, let's analyze the speech a bit. At one point, Barack says, "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and in some cases pain . . . But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country." Then, Barack later says, "I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." On one side, he's condemning Rev. Wright. On the other side and in an earlier quote, Barack is giving excuses for Rev. Wright's behavior and refuses to sever ties with Rev. Wright. Let me tell you something. If a Caucasian clergy started making racist, anti-gay, and/or anti-semitic remarks, I'd walk out of that church and never come back. I don't care if I had been going to that church for 2 years or 20 years. I'd be out of there and would not associate with that clergy ever again! Barack goes on to say, "Now some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality." This speech was definitely well thought out. See how he takes the Rev. Wright issue and segues into the big picture of racism in America? First, Barack says that he is not justifying or excusing the inexcusable. However, he then says that, in essence, he hopes that this episode fades into the woodwork. Finally, he distracts you with the big picture of racism in America. He then goes on and on about racism and segregation. I am not saying that these are not valid issues. They are valid issues. Nevertheless, he's trying to draw the public's attention away from his family friend of over 20 years and focus it on racism in America. Alas, racism is something that really can't be fought on the federal level. It must be fought from the ground up.

The real bottom line is that Barack considers Rev. Wright family and is unwilling to cut ties with him. Furthermore, he does give "excuses" for Rev. Wright's behavior. Let me ask you a question. Regardless of your ethnicity or the color of your skin, would you still consider a clergy family if he/she made racist, anti-gay, anti-semitic, or other negative remarks? I can tell you that I would not. There are people who I considered close friends at one time that, in essence, betrayed me. I knew these people for over 10 years. Once betrayed, that's it. All ties were cut. Although this issue might still hurt Barack on the long run, I strongly feel that cutting ties with Rev. Wright would be the honorable thing to do.

Still, I regress to a statement that I made in an earlier post. Being that Barack and his family (allegedly) attended the church where Rev. Wright preached for over 20 years, they had to have been affected by his sermons. Also previously indicated, I feel that it is safe to say that many of Rev. Wright's sermons had the same tone of the excerpts that can now be found on youtube.com. Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to conclude that Barack and his family share some of the same sentiments; even if only subconsciously. Has and will Barack and his family strive to rise above these sentiments? Quite possibly. However, I am still concerned that these sentiments could effect certain decisions that Barack would make as president. Thus, I hope that others take this concern into consideration.

Barack's Objections to His MInister's Sermons

Barack takes another hit as excerpts of his minister, Jeremiah Wright's, sermons hit youtube.com. Did Barack respond quickly to these now public broadcasts? Of course! Did Barack denounce his former minister's remarks? Sure.

My question to you is: Why wouldn't he quickly respond to and denounce his former minister's remarks? If he wants a shot at being president, he had no choice but to do that. Thus, that was a trick question as there is no reason why he wouldn't act quickly and denounce the remarks. Nevertheless, Jeremiah Wright was (allegedly) Barack's minister for 20 years! And this was no casual relationship. Reverend Wright did the marriage ceremony for Barack and Michelle. He also baptized both of Barack's daughters. And if that isn't enough evidence of a substantial relationship, Reverend Wright was also Barack's spiritual advisor until very recently.

Barack says that these sermon excerpts were "cherry picked." Yeah, right. I hear what other African American ministers say on TV. The remarks might not be quite as controversial, but many of them have the same sentiment. So, let me take this opportunity to remind you that Reverend Wright was Barack's minister for 20 years. Therefore, he and his family heard sermons similar to those excerpts available on youtube.com for 20 years! Were all of Reverend Wright's sermons anti-American, anti-Caucasian, or antisemitic? I'm certain they weren't. Nevertheless, even at only 12 sermons per year with controversial remarks like those circulating now, that would be 240 sermons over the past 20 years with such remarks. I wouldn't call 240 sermons "cherry picking". Thus, I think it is safe to say that, even if only subconsciously, Barack shares some of these views. That alone gives me enough reasonable doubt about his character not to vote for him.

As a closing remark, I would like to emphasize that I am not racist. I have an open mind towards people of all races, religions, and colors. I just do not agree with the mentality of people like Reverend Wright.

Barack - Look Before You Leap

I read this article on npr.org and thought to myself, "man, my next post is going to practically write itself." After having his name withdrawn from the ballots in MI, Barack is stating that "[Counting the primary results in MI and FL] wouldn't be fair — and do-overs in [Michigan] and in Florida wouldn't be realistic." As you might have read here, I agree with Barack's statement that do-overs would not be realistic. However, his whining because he hastily removed his name from the ballots in MI is like listening to a 5 year old cry out, "that's not fair!" Well, Barack, maybe next time you won't make such hasty decisions. Though I am just a lowly U.S. citizen, I strongly feel that the primary results in MI and FL should count. After all, whose fault is it that Hillary's going to win those states by default? Yours, Mr Obama. Nevertheless, Barack is incessantly whining, "We were told that these contests would not count," he tells Steve Inskeep. "Sen. Clinton agreed. Our [he means 'my'] name was taken off the ballot in Michigan, and in Florida we did no campaigning. Now, if people think that that is a normal democratic way of running an election, then that's not the America that I know." You're right, Barack, it's not normal for someone, in a close race, to have their name removed from the ballot and not campaign as much as possible. Hillary campaigned in FL. So, again, that's your fault Mr. Obama. I suggest that you stop your whining and get busy with your campaign. If the DNC decides that FL and MI do count, you might lose anyway. However, at least you'd be able to say that you gave it your all.

Change We Must - A Call To Action

Related posts:

The World's Billionaire's - What's Wrong With This Picture?
The World's Billionaires - Part II

From what you have read so far, you might be assuming that I think that all people who are billionaires are horrible, corrupt people. My short response to this is that, no, I do not think that all billionaires are horrible, corrupt people. Now, here comes the long response. Money and, hence, the greed for it can and does corrupt people. Does it change them from good people to bad people? No. However, it does accentuate characteristics that these people have always had. If a person who has selfish, greedy, and uncaring characteristics starts a company and becomes a billionaire, these characteristics will be accentuated. On the other hand, if a person who has generosity, compassion, and altruistic characteristics starts a company and becomes a billionaire, these characteristics will be accentuated. In my previous post, I gave examples of the billionaire companies who have selfish, greedy and uncaring presidents and/or CEO's. Obviously, there are some billionaires such as Bill Gates (formerly with Microsoft), Warren Buffett (an investor), and Carlos Slim Helu (CEO America Movil in Mexico) who do give a lot of money to charities and such. Nevertheless, I strongly feel that those billionaires who are a detriment to society outweigh (not necessarily outnumber) those who are more generous.

It's time for a change in attitude. I feel that U.S. citizens have stood apathetically by the sidelines for too long. It's time to take action and make the country greater than our forefathers, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, ever dreamed. Remember when JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Well, in my eyes, it has to be a give and take relationship. Thus, we must also add, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you." The best way to affect change is to start at the top. Thus, this is a political issue as much as it is an individual issue. So, we, as U.S. citizens, have to take a stand by starting with the country's leadership. GWB has already sacrificed over 3000 lives in a war that we did not need to start. He, through congress, is dumping money by the billions into this war. Billions in money that the government does not have. To make matters worse, GWB has consistently ignored the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers put in place. That's about as close to a fascist regime as you can get without actually being called one. It's time to hold our politicians accountable!

-- More to come --