Was Obama Born To Muslim Martians?

Was Obama born to Muslim Martians with plans to seize Temecula? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times


The title alone got my attention......but other than that it is a pretty good piece..

Gov. Sanford (R-SC) Proves McCain is McSame as Bush « Roadkill Refugee

Gov. Sanford (R-SC) Proves McCain is McSame as Bush « Roadkill Refugee


THis would be in the running for the Assie Award.

Republicans ponder plan to freshen party's image | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Republicans ponder plan to freshen party's image | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This might be a good idea for the conservative leaders have failed the people.

Anti-Semitism & The Left

Dissent Magazine

An excellent article that needs to be read and read often.

Democratic and Republican healthcare plans offer clear choices - Los Angeles Times

Democratic and Republican healthcare plans offer clear choices - Los Angeles Times


For those voters that want to know the difference in the 3 candidates health care plans, this article will help. And please read the article closely and see that nowhere in these plans is there any form of "creeping socialism" and that none of the plans is in reality universal.

Bill Will Be Just Another Fading Political Figure

If Hillary is vanquished, Bill will feel his own pain - Print Version - International Herald Tribune

I had never thought about this situation very hard, but this makes a lot of sense. Bill would be devastated and would be a minor character once again. It would kill him to not be the big cheese in the Dem party. And the great part is that he can blame everybody for Hillary's failure, but he will know that it was never about her, only him and he will be part of the reason she failed.

From My youtube channel

A Surprise Statement

The following is a statement on the 2008 election that I thought I would never see.


The fact that the Democratic frontrunners are an African American and a woman speaks volumes on how far the country has come. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has attracted large numbers of supporters, especially women. Other Democratic contenders presented some excellent proposals to reverse the devastation caused by the Bush administration’s policies.

Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

As we see it, however, this battle is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans, even though those parties are the main electoral vehicle for most voters today. Our approach is to focus on issues and movements that are influencing candidates and parties.

We will work with others to defeat the Republican nominee and to end right-wing control of the new Congress.

The activism growing out of this election will help guarantee a progressive mandate no matter who is elected. It is critical to our country’s renewal and future.

We think this election is a great opportunity to bring an early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It can mean job creation and relief for those who are losing their homes or unable to pay their bills.

This election can set the stage to advance the interests of working people; of those excluded because of race, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status.

This election can begin to turn the tide: it can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights. This election can strengthen democracy for all.

Can anyone even begin to guess where this statement came from?

Voter Beware!

This is a re-post from a now defunct blog of mine.


VOTER BEWARE!

I have given voting a lot of thought lately and my views have not changed over the years. I wanted to reassess my stand to see if that maybe something positive had happened and that I might be mistakened. I am Not!


With the general election approaching, ever so slowly, you would not realize it by the tap dancing candidates are doing. You would swear, if you just woke up that it was 2008 and the first of the primaries are long days away. Unfortunately, for your sensibilties it is a year away.

For decades we have been told that if you do not vote, then you have nothing to bitch about. Or that it is your civic duty to vote. We have been taught from the very first Civics class that it is all important to participate in the system. Do you agree? What has your paricipation accomplished? Do you truly feel that you are part of the system? Do you feel that you have gotten your money's worth out of the slugs you have help put into office?

People need to ask themselves these questions, but only if they are willing to take a hard look at their own participation. If you vote, what do you vote for? The Party? Or possibly the person? How many really give two shakes in hell about the issues?

Alrighty then, with all that said let us take a look at the institution called voting.

Voting is a strong ideological tool. Having a majority of the adults vote in any given election is giving a legitimacy to the system that supposedly derives its power from those very people. The problem is that the people are not being represented, they are justifying the ruling elites who reinforce their legitimacy by claiming to be held to the highest standards. Basically, what most of these slimes are saying is that they through their representation are contributing to the material well being of the people. And for most Americans that is all they are looking for, is their material well being. That is one of the major contributors that lead to the War On Terror.

The candidates that the American people are given as their future leaders are all popped from the same mold. Makes no difference on party affiliation; they are wealthy, self-serving and manical. And these are the people that we have to choose from at election time.

So you want proof? Look at the present administration; it is arrogant, self-serving and above all unconcerned with the will of the people. But yet it was returned for a second tour in power. Why? It played heavily on the fears of the people, which in turn, proved to be the best emotional issue to secure leadership through the mandate called votes.

The ordeal of voting is an illusion created by those in power, that tghere is actually a struggle for the positions in which the people decide the outcome. The only thing the American voter decides is which wealthy elitist will lead them. The entire system is programed so that only the wealthy elite can enter into the system and have the chance of leadership. It is acceptable because the voter, from childhood, has been lead to believe that is the way it must be. By the way, politics in the US is a monopoly, that only the wealthy can play.

Remember, voting does not determine policy, it only legitimizes those who actually control the state apparatus.

Voting is an illusion of popular rule, by the people, which is legitimized by popular elections. In other words, it is a scam, that the American people participate in freely and it is so well entrenched that they assume they have the power. They do not! All you need to do is just look at the last 20 yrs of politics--where were they ever in control?


CHUQ

24/03/07

Bloomberg---Again?

OMG! This guy wants media attention than Nader! and I call Nader a media whore. What does that say for Bloomberg? Here is a guy who is not sure what side of the political spectrum he wants to sit on. He has been a Democrat and a republican and now an Independent. He left out the green Party and libertarian. Give him time he will come around, no doubt.

First he was not running for pres, then he was and now he is not. Sounds like this guy would make the perfect replacement for Bush. The only thing he is sure of is he has more money than God and can do whatever he wants.

Bloomberg is now saying that he will nor seek the presidency, but that he will work for an independent approach to government and that he will push a bi-partisan approach to solving the problems of the US.

Ok, cool, but what does that mean? Who will he put his wealth behind? Who will help him make more money and get more media attention? Those are the only questions that need to be asked and need to be answered.

Can The Anti-War Movement Be Saved?

A good question! Answer is not at the rate it is running now. Why? No pizzazz! Basically, what you have now are just people who want to end the war, gathering, marching and chanting. YAWN!

Step back into the 60’s and 70’s. The anti-war movement was a production there were people in Nixon masks, dressed like POWs, dressed like monks who set themselves on fire; in other words there was a theater of the absurd, a guerilla theater, within the anti-war movement. Small plays were presented during the protests that had a theme. Such subjects as number of dead soldiers, number of dead Vietnamese, capitalistic M-IC, anything that pertained to the war and its make up.

I see very little of this in today’s anti-war demonstrations. I see marchers, carrying of signs, a bit of chanting, and more boring stuff. Nothing grabs the spectators or for that matter the media. Without the media the protests will only reach a very, very small audience. If that is the case, all the protesting in the world will be as useless as a fart in the wind. To be successful in the anti-war movement, you need to attract attention. Lots of attention! Today, they are attracting a 10 second sound byte on the evening news, if that much.

Apparently few of the masters are left. If they still are around, then they are in a comfortable place and do not feel that opposition to the war is a worthy pursuance. Especially from a generation that wrote the book on civil disobedience.

Confrontation, there is the key! Going limp when arrested is not what I am talking about. I am talking about forcing the forces to over-react. That tactic is not as popular as it was back in the day. Few are willing to take one for the movement. It is just not that important anymore.

ALL protests should have those people that are trained in the arts, especially the performing arts; these people can help the message get noticed by the spectators and especially the media.

So can the anti-war movement be saved? Yes it can, but the people have got to want it to be saved. Now, war is not on the front pages as much and the attention of the people is elsewhere. The movement will lose its newsworthiness and could kill it completely.

Random Political Thoughts

I take so many notes that it makes my fingers bleed (a joke, not reality). Some become posts and some just sit there and wait for more info to become a post and then there are those that just sit...and sit...and sit...and....

These are some of the thoughts that I did not turn into a massive piece of diatribes.

Clinton on her stump speeches says that she is all about solutions to the countries problems. But most of her solutions come straight out of the Democratic leadership Council playbook. Her solutions do not seem to be capturing the imagination of the voter too well.

If Clinton loses the nomination to Obama, will the acid tongue of Bill once again raise its ugly head in the media?

McCain spends $40+ million of his own money on campaign and he lets loose on Romney for spending his personal fortune on the campaign. Now he is trying to get everyone to agree to use public funds for the general...he must be broke.

Clinton people are calling her a populist. WTF? I have read her stands on issues and have yet to see any populism in her positions. also they (whoever they are) are saying that Clinton is returning to her progressive base. HUH? Have you read the positions of the DLC? There is no progressive thought in it.

Recently Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe tried to make a case for Clinton's experience. He said if you need a operation and your choice was a Dr. with 35 years experience and a Dr with 1 or 2 years of experience; you would want the most experience. Good point! But what if the more experienced Dr. is a quack? which one would you want?

Bill has said that his wife has a lot to offer the American people.....maybe so ...but the voter is looking for hope and she is not offering that.

A scenario--say Obama wins the nomination and Clinton returns to congress. Will she be a road block to Obama if he wins the general? The Clintons are a vindictive group. Will she act as a spoiler to Obama's plan for the country. She is a leader of the DLC and she could use that and the membership to spoil change.

Looks like MSNBC has caved to the Clinton's. For a couple of weeks they have been saying that Obama is getting a free ride in the press. For example, Chris Matthews asked a a Texas stAte senator what has Obama accomplished in the his stint in the Senate. The supporter did not have an answer. A big deal is being made of the answer. My problem is why now? Why was this not brought up in past interviews and debates? Still looks like they are trying to placate the Clinton campaign yet again.

Just a few things that have caught me flat footed. They were timely and I did not have a chance to write them up.

Suggestions For Obama

This was a post that I was going to add to my Daily Kos page, but after watching the Potomac primaries, I think that they are already trying to do these things. Great minds think alike! Ha!

Yesterday Obama had a clean sweep of the Potomac Primary, Va., DC and Md. He also can look forward to doing well in the next contests, those in WI and Hawaii. It appears that his next real contest with Clinton will be in PA, TX and Ohio. These are being reported to be leaning toward Clinton.

What can Obama do to help his case in the Big 3? Most of the Dem voters in these states are blue collar working voters with limited education, which plays into Clinton's game plan. Obama needs to find a way to get his message out to the voters in these states. He will probably have some momentum from a very successful February, but may not translate into wins in the Big 3.

I have few suggestions for Obama that could possibly assist him in these soon to be hard fought states. First of all will be the economy, it sucks for a working family trying to get ahead, or just to keep their heads above water, so they do not drown in debt. And then there is the war. Both candidates have similar positions on getting out of Iraq. Obama needs to find a way to tie the two together. He needs the anti-war vote as well as the blue collar vote. IMO, Obama needs to tie the two, the economy and the war, together. he could possibly use a formula, of say, Texas and their part of the revenue that went to pay for the war. Illustrate how many schools could have been upgraded, how many low cost housing could have been built, how it would have improved the education in the state. Stuff like that. And do this in all three of the states. talk about it on the stump and emphasize it media ads and talking spots. Just stress how much of the working peoples money could have been used for good instead of war. Suggest that if he is elected that will change.

Next I would stress that Dems like Clinton, Emmanuel, Bayh, et al are not in it for the worker. The workers are being deceived. That Clinton and other DLC cronies believe that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. They describe themselves as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups. Since the presidency of Bill Clinton these operatives have been steadily pulling the Democratic Party to the right. They are corporate candidates and not the true candidates of the working class.

Obama needs to find away to get through to the blue collar voter. He needs to show them that Clinton is not the best candidate for the working majority.

Recently I heard talk show host Randi Rhodes talk about the candidates and their positions with the people. They say stuff like "I feel your pain". "I know what you are going through". Stuff like that. Rhodes said when you hear this ask the candidate, "if you truly know what I am going through, then how many extra days do I get on my light bill if I mail in a check that is unsigned"? An excellent question to ask and I think that anyone in the Big 3 states that reads this and goes to a function for these candidates, please ask them that question and see if they truly "feel your pain".

The Mitt-ster Is Gone!

On 07 Feb 08, Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign. With all that money spent and still could catch not McCain, he made a wise choice. He said at his announcement, "if it was about me, I would go on......". Yeah right! He was spending all his wealth in the pursuit of the presidency. Somewhere someone in the family slapped him and said there will be nothing left for us.

He quit to save his political reputation. He will need it and it would not look good if he continued to lose and lose and lose. The GOP will reward him for quiting. How? Don't know, but keep an eye on the news, it will become clear by the Repub Convention. McCain will have time now to skate and work on his message to the US and the voters. He can be prepared for the fight to come.

Now I ask myself, what will Mitt fans do now? Like Joe Scarborough, Rush, Inghram, et al. Will they make nice with McCain? But will Mitt be rewarded with VP spot? NO! They will need someone from the South mostly likely. Someone who is a true conservative.

Don't cry for Mitt, he will be well cared for by the party. His days are not over, but rather just beginning. He may not be the presidential nominee, but he will play a major roll in the future.

Who Are Super Delegates?

First there are the delegates that have been selected by the states to go to the conventions and vote for the candidate that has the majority of votes in that state. You have seen them. They are the ones on the floor of the convention that are called upon to state who they support. The ones with the signs and stuff. But then there are the super Delegates.

These are the elected officials, reps, senators, governors, etc that have a say in the selection of the nominee. These public people that have come out for a candidate are gonna vote at the convention. This is where I feel that politics gets slimy. You have heard, in the past, about backroom deals. well guess what? these are the slimy little toads that make those backroom deals.

If the convention is knotted up and no clear winner has been found in the voting, then they go to the super delegates to help make the decision. This is good right? Not in my opinion. Promises are made to gain their vote, like Ambassadorships, cabinet positions, all kinds of promises. And it will work. If these guys and gals are ambitious then they will vote for who makes the best deal.

What will this mean for this election cycle? I can see, if it comes to this, that the Dem Party will split and may signal the death of the party. Let say that Clinton gets the super delegates and becomes the nominee; Obama supporters will feel that they were robbed and that half of the party is being ignored. If the candidates are tied when it comes to the convention in August, then all will have to move carefully, or the party will split and this time it may be permanent.

Howard Dean, as the head of the DNC, will have to move very carefully or he will lose the whole enchilada.

A Democratic Free For All

OMG! What a crock of steaming manure! The media is billed the Democratic race on Super Tuesday as a free for all. I wish I could see it. To me, a free for all is when there are multiple contests and they all go at it to be the winner. On the Dem side there are two candidates. And there is not much difference between them, only race and gender separates the two candidates. Where is the free for all?

The media has done its very best to eliminate the multiple candidates and have it down to the two. So again, where is the free for all? The media has wanted a race/gender war from the beginning. That way issues are secondary; the people will go to the polls and vote in a popularity contest. Or at best a beauty contest.


History will be made when the nominee is selected. But the only history will be that of a woman or a black man wins the nomination. As far as history goes and especially the change; if I were you I would not hold my breath. At what point was a two person contest ever a free for all? As usual the media is doing all it can to make your decisions for you. That is not the horrible part. The horrible part is--you are allowing them to do so.

Enjoy your decision while you can, for it will not be long lasting.

Professor's Congressional Scorecard

I apologize for being late with my assessment of the Congress this month. There has been so much crap flying around that it was on the back burner.

My scorecard is done monthly and the scoring is a positive step for the Congress will be forward, negative will be a backwards step and then if there is nothing really to report it will be a no step. January was a short month thanks to the holidays.

Last year the Congress took 4 steps backwards. Not exactly what they were sent to Washington to accomplish. We can only hope that '08 will be a better year or will it?

Scorecard for Jan '08

1--Work on steroid abuse--backward--a waste of time people

2--Pelosi gets house cafeteria menu changed--no step--yet another waste of time

3--Health care veto on hold--backward

4--Response to The missing CIA tapes--forward

5--the FISA Bill--backward

6--the move on the economic stimilus plan--forward--only because that they are working together to try an help the American people.

That is about all they did in the month of January and if you are counting, the congress took 2 steps backwards. And it looks like the trend will continue for '08. God help us!

Let The Voting Begin

Today is the day! The Big Show! The ........well you pick an adjective......voters today will go to their respective voting location and make their choices for the nominee of both parties. The people will be part of the process. Stop!

Today the voters in the Dem primaries have to choose between a black man and a woman....the choice will be made on that alone. Why? Look at their positions on the issues....both are the same with some minor differences here and there. Any real choice has been eliminated...mostly thanks to the efforts of the media to marginalize any candidate that had a "real" agenda and left the voter with an agenda that is similar. So in the Dem primaries I suggest that a flip of the coin would be a better way to make your choice. At the end of the day, no one will be a shoo in and it will continue past Feb 05 in a search for delegates. It is just a shame that it has boiled down to a personality contest. Good luck, Dems.

Moving on to the Repubs. Here you have a choice between a fake business man, a vet and a preacher. At least these guys have real differences in their approaches to Washington and personally, I think this made their run for the nomination more interesting. IMO, at the end of the day, one will be out front and almost a shoo in for the nomination. I think one candidate will drop out and another, which could drop out, will continue just to get a delegate count. But by Feb 06, the nominee will mostly likely be known.

Please, go vote, if you think that your vote will make a difference and afterwards you feel good about what you did, then by all means, go vote.

To all Godd Luch and Good hunting!

The Fall of the House of Clinton - HUMAN EVENTS

The Fall of the House of Clinton - HUMAN EVENTS


I found this article while doing research and wanted to post it here so that my readers could see it. Cal thomas is pretty good in his observations.

Political Dynasties

I remember back in the day when there was news of the USSR Politburo elections and there was a 7 or 8% turn over, the media would say how predictable and how fixed the elections were. Then I remember also when like Pakistan and India when daughters or spouses of countries leaders were "elected" it was somehow fixed.

But think about it! If Clinton wins the election we will have at least 25 years of Clinton and Bush. Would that fall into the category of a political dynasty? By most definitions, it would be a political dynasty, but for some reason it will be the desire of the people for this to occur. Does that then, mean that the ones labeled in the past we also as legitimate?

Now let us look at the Congress where about 95% were re-elected to serve, but yet in the USSR it was a fixed election when 93% were re-elected. Which is it?

All I am saying is that the American people are allowing these political dynasties to exist. Is it laziness? Or possibly stupidity? Just what is it that makes the continuation of these families to rule the country so appealing? When will the people realize this is not really in their best interests?

What will the future bring with these festering dynasties? After all Jeb Bush could have a shot. How about Chelsea? We are traveling along a dangerous path in my opinion. Where are the new ideas that will bring a change in the system? Not with the Clintons. The DLC has kept the same line and they are the heart of the Democratic Party. When Bill Clinton became president and moved the Dem Party to the right, new ideas became a dirty notion.

The American people are setting themselves up for generations of the same couple of families ruling the country. This is not my idea of how a democracy should work. If you are truly a voter looking for change and Clinton wins in November, they will be sadly disappointed. But then that is what you get when popularity, race or gender are the important things in a campaign. You will just have to live with it.