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 --

The World's Billionaires - Part II

For those who missed part one, click here.

Many of the world's billionaires built their billions by making products or offering services that are actually a detriment to society. Some examples are:

1) Lending/credit companies: These companies feed on society's vanity. They lend people money regardless of whether or not they have means of paying it back. Then, they have the gall to charge an exorbitant APR or interest amount when people don't pay off these loans in a timely fashion.

2) The food industry: Despite "recent" findings that certain foods are much better for you than others, the food industry makes the healthier foods more expensive and keeps the less healthy food at lower prices. For instance, there's no reason for a box of Raisin Bran to cost $5.99 at Sam's Club versus a box of Special K or Kashi cereal costing $7.99. Furthermore, food manufacturers spend millions advertising food that they know is unhealthy so that people will buy it. Meanwhile, they'll spend a fraction of that promoting healthy foods.

3) The tobacco industry is among the worst offenders. The tobacco industry is targeting younger and younger people even though you have to be at least 18 to purchase cigarettes. Then, they're offering solutions on how to quit and I'm sure they're receiving kick backs from companies like GlaxoSmithKline for offering said solutions.

4) The pharmaceutical industry is part of the problem too. They seem more interested in bandaging a problem than actually finding a solution (i.e. cure). For instance, why not find a cure for male pattern baldness rather than topical bandages for the problem that you have to keep using for the rest of your life. To make matters worse, some of these products aren't even effective, but desperate people buy them anyway hoping for a miracle. Drugs like Viagra are the real kicker. The fact is that erectile dysfunction is generally caused by either health issues that restrict the flow of blood or psychological issues that prevent a man from becoming erect. Yet, pharmaceutical companies have manufactured products that either play with hormones causing an erection within an hour after the product is taken or that dilate blood vessels for a period of approximately 36 hours to induce better blood flow. However, both the physical and psychological issues associated with ED are indicators of bigger problems (i.e. clogged arteries, "I just don't find my wife attractive anymore" or "My wife cheated on me and I don't feel comfortable having sex with her anymore").

5) The oil industry is probably the most corrupt of all. For one thing, big oil bribed Charles Nelson Pogue to keep him from selling his blueprints to car manufacturers. If someone could design an efficient carburetor engine in the 1930's, imagine what someone could do with the efficiency of fuel injector engines. Also, OPEC has capped oil production. They have done this despite the fact that there's more oil than most people currently know about right here in North America. There's a great article starting on page 64 in the April 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics that shines light on this fact. Unfortunately, that article is not available online. Nevertheless, big oil continues to earn record profits according to the 2007 report. Disgusting isn't it?

Those are just a few examples of the horrible things that billionaires do to acquire that much money. While no single person could ever put a stop to this, the government could step in and say "This is wrong and we are not going to condone such disgusting behavior." Then, tax and penalize the heck out of these companies until they change their ways.

The solution to these issues begs the question: What should government do?

Barack takes a hit with Samantha Power's Resignation

Let me start by saying that I realize this might be "old" news to some, but it's relevant to the campaign. Thus, I am choosing to write about it.

Barack's foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, handed in her resignation on March 6. This resignation was spurred by a comment she made to a reporter of a Scottish newspaper calling Hillary Clinton "a monster". While I admit that this behavior was unprofessional, she did not have to resign. Nevertheless, it was the honorable thing to do.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. I also acknowledge that Senator Clinton has made some negative remarks about Barack. However, here's how I feel about her remarks:

1) They were based on, at minimum, perceived truth.

2) I do not recall Hillary doing any blatant name calling.

3) Although it might have been a mistake, it was Hillary who made the comments and not one of her aids.

So, yes, Samantha Power might have been able to stay on Barack's team. However, both that comment as well as the fact that Barack let her stay would have reflected badly on him. As it stands, the comment reflects badly on him, but at least he avoided a big scandal by allowing her to resign.

The next question is: How will this effect Barack's campaign? Only time will tell. However, I don't think it's going to have a major impact. This is unfortunate since I am obviously a fan of Senator Clinton.

Related articles:

Rubin Blames Obama for Power's Remarks

Obama Adviser Brzezinski: Power Shouldn't Have Resigned

Hillary - One piece of advice for you

If I could offer Hillary Clinton one piece of advice, it would be to run a positive campaign. She was holding strong in public favor and the polls until she started to make negative comments about Obama. Let the media, voters, etc. do that. Concentrate on the issues. Elaborate on your solutions to the issues. Sure, you can make jokes and tell amusing anecdotes to keep voters' attention, but please try to run a positive campaign. Bashing the other candidate or other party is not the best way to influence voters. Pointing out poor political decisions is fine as long as you explain how you would have done it differently. However, I and (I'm sure) many other voters would appreciate you leaving the dirt and skeleton finding to the media.

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

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean had this to say about FL and MI on March 5. Although I understand that there are rules and that FL and MI allegedly agreed on dates 18 months ago, I feel that FL and MI should have been allowed to change those dates with proper notice and documentation. I can understand FL and MI getting a slap on the wrist for not following proper channels. However, I don't think that their delegates should be omitted from the primaries process. Nor do I think there should be a series of hoops to jump through to potentially get reinstated.

Let's look at the big picture for a moment. FL and MI held their primaries about 1.5 months early. It was still well into 2008. It's not like they held the primaries for the 2008 election in 2006 or 2007. That would be inexcusable and omitting them at that point would be more justified. The media seemed to make a big deal of FL and MI holding their primaries before Super Tuesday (the first Tuesday after the Superbowl). I fail to see the issue. Sure, quite a few states held their primaries on Super Tuesday, but holding primaries before or after Super Tuesday seems quite arbitrary to me. It shouldn't be a big deal.

Getting back to the mess at hand, former DNC Chairman Don Fowler says "It'll be a hellacious battle" to allow a "do-over" for FL and MI. A do-over? Why? That's like asking the NFL to redo the Superbowl assuming that they held it a week before they should have held it. I think that the votes that have already been collected should count. In my opinion, a "do-over" is just going to lead to another "hanging chad"-like fiasco.

I say that voters should take a stand and tell the DNC to stand down and let the delegates assignments from the initial votes in FL and MI count.

Why I think a Clinton-Obama ticket could spell disaster

Lately, there have comments from both Bill and Hillary suggesting the possible uniting of Hillary and Barack on one ticket. I am not so sure that this is a great idea. I acknowledge the fact that there could be widespread rioting if Hillary were to win the primary and not take on Barack as vice president. Why? Because many African Americans could feel that Barack was jipped or given the cold shoulder given that it is such a close race. Nevertheless, I think that Hillary leaving Barack out of the picture could be better in the long run. After all, he could always run again in 4 or 8 years. True, Hillary and Obama agree on many issues. However, agreeing is not enough. How the solutions to the issues are implemented is also very important. Being that Hillary does have much more experience than Barack, I feel that she would better implement solutions to many of the issues.

Experience aside, if Hillary and Barack do unite before there is a clear winner in the primaries, who's going to be on top? All jokes aside, how are we going to determine who gets to be president and who gets to be vice president? Flip a coin? Go by the incomplete primary results? Either way, it could be a disaster even though they agree on many issues. Being that they have been rivals thus far, it might be hard for them to work effectively together; especially having to work that close together. That said, an interesting alternative might be for either Hillary or Obama to end up as a cabinet member. In this manner, they might be able to advise each other without stepping on the other's toes.

Despite Hillary's loss in Wyoming today, she won 2 key states earlier this week. Most candidates who have not won TX and OH do not get to be president. Furthermore, Hillary is the projected winner, according to polls, in Pennsylvania. So, this race to the primaries seems far from over for Hillary. I would just caution against making hasty decisions that one might regret in the long run.

In closing, yes, it's going to be a close race. Should the runner up get a high ranking position in the presidential inner circle? Sure. However, I would hesitate to say that either would make an effective vice president for the other.

The world's billionaires - What's wrong with this picture?

This particular entry is focusing on a huge thorn in the side of the "big picture". I will elaborate on the "big picture" in future posts.

The World's Billionaires

No-one should have a fortune worth $1 billion much less $62 billion. That's what's wrong with capitalism. It encourages greed. One of the Seven Deadly Sins. That's why I strongly feel that capitalism will eventually lead to our demise.

We need to start from the ground up and build a society that is more interested in giving than receiving. We need to give incentives for people to give more rather than horde wealth. Those that are more fortunate need to support those who are less fortunate. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Help others. The need of the many far outweighs the need of the few or the one. You want a real chance at peace on Earth? Make it so that there isn't such a huge disparity in income levels. There should not be a division of classes. Not if we are truly equal. It isn't religion so much that breeds depravity. It's the huge disparity between the wealthiest of people and the poorest of people.

Be sure to read part 2!

Hillary - Rises Victorious in OH, TX, and RI

It seems that Hillary's heavy campaigning in OH and TX paid off. She won the primaries in those states and Rhode Island. With 40% reporting, Obama is ahead in the TX caucuses 56% to 44%. There is still a slim chance that Hillary could pull through there as well. Although, the media is already declaring Obama as the winner for the TX caucuses. I think they're jumping the gun. If there was 80% reporting, that would be different, but I think it still anybody's game with 40% reporting.

Having been victorious, I am puzzled as to why Hillary is contemplating uniting with Obama. Personally, I think that would be a disaster. Besides, jokes aside, who would be on top?

John McCain - A Questionable Second Choice

Today, John McCain was formally endorsed by GWB. McCain and GWB were bitter rivals in 2000. Now, they seem to be buddies. This does not bode well for Senator McCain. At one time, he might have been my first choice for the 2008 election. However, it seems that he has crushed under pressure from his peers into supporting GWB even though his approval rating has been hovering around 30% for at least 6 months. Thus, I no longer trust McCain's integrity. That said, I might very well vote for him if Obama gets handed the primary on a silver platter due to fear of retaliation. That's the problem when you have a close race between an African American and a Caucasian. Violence could erupt if he loses because people will say it was a "race thing." To these people, I say bullshit. It's a character and experience thing. McCain has been involved in politics since the 80's. Obama was still in college and law school throughout the 80's.

Well, I'm not going to dig deep on Obama right now since Hillary is still in the race. Nevertheless, I hope that every U.S citizen does their due diligence so that they can make an informed vote on November 4, 2008.

Hillary Clinton - Why She's My First Choice

Let's start in 1974. Hillary was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff during the Watergate Scandal. Thanks, in part, to her research President Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office for doing that same thing that President George W. Bush would do 30 years later; only President Nixon did it on a much smaller scale. Not long after that, Hillary decided to move to Arkansas with Bill despite the fact that she had better job prospects in DC. In my opinion, a very respectable choice to put the idea of starting a family before political ambitions. Throughout the 70's, Hillary did pro bono work in child advocacy. A very respectable area of law. In 1979, she was first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm.

From 1982 to 1992, Hillary was the chair of the Arkansas Education Standards committee and successfully fought for state standards for curriculum and classroom size. She was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991. Hillary also served on boards for non profit organizations such as Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund. Therefore, Hillary got quite a bit of legislative experience throughout the 80's and early 90's.

From 1993 through 2000, Hillary played a major role as First Lady of the United States. She was a quite active advisor to her husband during his presidency. Throughout Bill's presidency, Hillary was the chair of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Although she was unsuccessful in bringing about universal health care, I very much respect her efforts as I believe that getting equal (i.e. no disparity between the quality of health care a low income person receives versus that of a wealthy person) health care for a reasonable price is a right and not a privilege.

During her time as a U.S Senator for the state of New York, Hillary consistently voted for bipartisan campaign reform. She also voted for regulations on lobbying and donations. In 2003, Hillary voted against a congressional pay raise amendment. In 2007, she voted on legislation to bar immigrants with certain criminal histories. Also in 2007, Hillary voted for an Iraq troop reduction and an amendment thereof. She voted for alternative energy subsidies in June 2007. I am a strong proponent of stem cell research as I believe that it will help save thousands if not millions lives in the years to come. Therefore, I am proud to say that Hillary voted for the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007.

With her years of experience and her passion to get things done, I believe that Hillary makes a great presidential candidate. Nobody is perfect. although I was definitely against the Iraq war, I cannot wholly blame her for supporting it at first due to the bad information that she and everyone else was given. The fact that Barack Obama did not support the war doesn't hold much relevance when put into the context that he was a representative in the Illinois Senate at the time the Iraq war had been declared. Therefore, he had little to no influence as to what was decided on the federal level. I feel that Hillary is a strong willed, passionate person who will not back down on what she believes is right. The fact that she can relate to all sorts of people in different areas of the country is a good thing in my eyes, but the media and other sources like to make you think otherwise. I believe that Hillary will pick an effective vice president who will not be overbearing like Dick Cheney has been. Furthermore, I believe that her cabinet members will stick with her rather than resigning like several of GWBs cabinet members have because they lost respect for the him.

In closing, Hillary is my first choice for president because I feel that she has the experience, passion, compassion, and will to get things done and get them done right. Has she made mistakes in the past? Yes, but everyone does. Hillary is an intelligent woman and I believe that she would take action to correct any mistakes she makes; which is more than can be said about our current president.

Most of the information that I have provided here can be verified at the following sites:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=55463

Let's end on a lighter note. After all, I like Jack Nicholson.

Obama - The Great Deceiver

Barack Hussein Obama is not our savior. He's just another politician. Sure, he's got charisma and recites great speeches, but don't let all of the sweet talk fool you.

Before I get started with cold, hard facts about this man as well as my own opinion, I'd like to open with a quote from the Genesis song Supper's Ready:

"You, can't you see he's fooled you all.Yes, he's here again, can't you see he's fooled you all.Share his peace,Sign the lease.He's a supersonic scientist,He's the guaranteed eternal sanctuary man.Look, look into my mouth he cries,And all the children lost down many paths,I bet my life you'll walk inside. Hand in hand, Gland in gland, With a spoonful of miracle,He's the guaranteed eternal sanctuary man.We will rock you, rock you little snake,We will keep you snug and warm."

There is also a reference to the Pied Piper in Supper's Ready. While that fact might be interesting to some, it is relevant here because I strongly feel that Obama is the Pied Piper of the 21st century. Instead of abducting children he's mesmerizing voters by millions with his lofty, guile laden speeches. This is not a man you want to take at his word. This is a man you want to back into a corner with the issues and make sure that his solutions are not only sound but actions he would actually take once in office. Here's a great question to start with: Why are the masses so willing to put a relative unknown in office when Hillary and McCain are both known and viable candidates? You need to wake up from this "too good to be true" dream that Obama has efficiently and effectively lulled you into and do some real research on all 3 candidates --especially Obama!

Here are some facts about Obama as well as links to confirm them:

1) Obama is supported by moveon.org; a very questionable organization.

http://www.stentorian.com/MoveOn/

2) He's endorsed by Ted Kennedy. The Kennedy family seems to be cursed. I wouldn't touch them with a 100 foot pole.

3) He, for whatever reason, did not vote on several important issues such as Intelligence Authorization Act for 2008, the economic stimulus plan, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, etc.

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

4) Former DC crackhead Mayor Marion Barry endorses Obama. Need I say more?

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/07/marion-barry-to-endorse-obama-ashy-larry-next/

5) Obama might not consider himself Muslim, but he certainly supports them and seems to be quite antisemitic.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/01/obamas_nation_o.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1970690/posts

6) Obama does not accept money from lobbyists and special interest groups? Yeah, right!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77492/

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/251196-3/National/Lobbying_efforts_permeate_politics__even_Obamas/

7) You cannot trust what newspapers say about Obama because they endorse candidates rather than dig up useful positive and/or negative information on them.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1715046,00.html

8) Barack Obama associates with some very questionable characters such as Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25166

9) While it is true that Obama did not vote yes to go to war with Iraq, the fact is that the war started on March 20, 2003 and Obama was still just a representative in the Illinois Senate (not the U.S. senate). Therefore, he had little to no influence as to what was decided on the federal level. That said, you cannot entirely blame H. Clinton or McCain for supporting the attack on Iraq. Their decision was based on lies and misinformation given to them by the GWB administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#State_legislature

With the above facts in mind, it is my opinion that Obama is completely media generated. The Democrats intentionally had him speak at the 2004 DNC. This put Obama in the spotlight and the media took care of the rest. Had Obama not given that speech, he would not be running for president. Or if he did run for president, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination because the media wouldn't have been following him since 2004.

There is one more thing that really bothers me about Barack Hussein Obama. While he does claim to be a devout Christian, it seems that he went through a lot of trouble over the years to hide his Muslim roots. For instance, he went by Barry Obama before and during his college years. Unlike his mother who married a Muslim twice (his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and Lolo Soetoro), Obama married a Chicago native named Michelle Robinson. Michelle was raised as a Christian; thus, giving Obama the ability to at least claim he is Christian. The facts are his father was a Muslim from Kenya, his step-father was a Muslim from Indonesia, and Obama was taught about the Muslim faith. While being a Muslim is not a crime, the fact that he has tried to hide his Muslim heritage over the years and now claims to be Christian makes me question his character. Also, the people he has decided to associate with cause me to be concerned about his motives with regard to attaining the power of being President of the United States.

In conclusion, now that you have some facts and know that Barack Hussein Obama isn't the knight in shining armor he portrays himself to be, I only ask that you give some real thought as to who you want to vote for on November 4, 2008.

Obama - Clarification

There are some people elsewhere on the net that seem to think my major issue with Obama is that he has a Muslim background. I would like to respond to that by saying it's only a small part of the big picture. Yes, the fact that Obama seemed to hide his Muslim background concerns me, but there are many other areas of concern when it comes to Obama's character.

Thus far, I have heard a lot of rhetoric, but not much in the way of solid plans to affect change. Yes, that can be said about many politicians. As a brief aside, that is why I liked Mark Warner when he ran for Governor of Virginia. He had a 40 to 50 page document that described his plans were he to be elected. I read that document and was impressed. Therefore, he got my vote. Right now, I'm not sure that any of the candidates have a well thought out plan of action like Mark Warner did. So, in that regard, they're all even.

The bottom line is that I am absolutely not an individual with the mentality to put all Muslim Americans in camps like the U.S. government did with other groups during World War II. Like I have previously indicated, being Muslim is not a crime. Muslim Americans should be treated with respect like any other U.S. citizen.