Monday, March 31, 2008

Obama Takes Money From Oil and Energy Executives and Their Employees

The hypocrisy is extremely foul when Barack Obama opens his mouth. I will not allow him to get a pass for his blatant deceit or his so-called "white lies."

In this week constant evolution of remaking Barack Obama, the noted Senator from Illinois is projecting himself as the candidate that will bring energy independence because he is not "in bed" with any oil or energy companies.

I saw an Obama ad that was aired on in Pennsylvania called "nothing's changed," which detail his energy proposal. In the ad he stated, "I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore."

In his ad, Obama states, "Since the gas lines of the '70's, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas . . . I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil."

This ad is full of half truths and lies. It is true that he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies. In fact it is illegal for any corporation to give money to politicians. For a company to give money to a politician, the corporation has to develop a political action committee (PAC) that collects donations from employees and then donate it to the candidate of their choice.

It is true that Obama doesn't collect money from PACs and he doesn't take bribe money from lobbyists, but he does take money directly from executives and employees of oil companies. Fox News exposed that two of Obama fund-raising campaign managers are oil executives, Robert Cavnar of the Houston-based Mission resources Corp., and George Kaiser of the Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Company. It is determined that Obama received close to $220,000 from oil and gas company employees and their families.

Further research showed that Obama received close to $40,000 from Exxon Mobil employees. Most of the donations were less than $300, but you can imagine how many employees from the Exxon Mobil Corporation who volunteered or forced in donating to Obama's campaign. You can see it from the Federal Election Commission record website if you want to further research your candidate. Oh, in regards to Hillary Clinton, Exxon Mobil employees gave her approximately $15,000. Now, you can wonder which candidate the oil companies favor the most.

The myth and the legend of Barack Obama are starting to come apart from the seams. Do not fall victim by his charm. He is a skilled politician with the tongue of Satan. But in time, all the cards will be dealt on the table and he won't have a chance to hide.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

China 2008 Olympic Similar to 1936 Nazi Germany Olympic

In these dire times of how history keeps repeating itself, China's inability to adhere the simple common principle of human equality brings a common relationship of Nazi Germany during the 1930's.

Beijing will be hosting the Olympics this summer. For the past month, uprising in Tibet is stirring attention throughout the world. We have seen innocent killings, unjust imprisonments, and undescribable tortures to these people who desire freedom and democracy. For many generations, the people of China have been suppressed by a tyrannical Communist government, whose denial ability for equal rights and human rights is unfounded.

Isn't this similar to the rise of Nazism during the 1930's? When Hitler took power, he took a weak and fragile democracy into a one party dictatorship. The Nazi storm-troopers rounded up thousands of political opponents, detained them in concentration camps, and tortured these innocent citizens that resembled the same techniques Hitler used against the Jews during the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime instilled the practice of racial purification and strengthened the German Aryan race, which is a practice in producing blond hair, blue eyes, strong athletic fit machine-like human beings. It was during that time Hitler alienated half a million Jews in German and it was his intent to remove them from society. Such ideology or idiocies, depending how you look at it, are now being practiced in China. Of course, they are not producing blond hair blue eye babies, but they are building a strong army and military that can match any nation. Likewise, by suppressing the voice for freedom in China and their belief of expanding into nearby territories gives credence that China is heading to the path to Hitler's Nazi Germany.

I strongly believe that Hitler used the Olympics as a propaganda tool to promote Germany and his quest to dominate the world. The USA and the United Kingdom missed the opportunity to boycott the Olympics in 1936 and I hope they don't the same mistake twice. China tried to clean up the mess in Tibet and throughout the country to make a rosy picture for us that China is the standard model to host the Olympics. Well, Germany did the very same thing. They removed anti-Semitic signs and pictures throughout Germany and hid their atrocities for the two weeks the Olympics were held. Soon after the commencement of the 1936 Olympics, Hitler took that momentum to bolster his Nazi campaign for world domination.

I feel sorry for the athletes who work so hard to get to this level of competition, but we need to boycott the summer Olympics in Beijing, China. Since money has been allotted to China to host this Olympic, it would be fair to say the Olympic Commission could move the date for next summer or have the Chinese government show they can change their behavior in the next several months. For those athletes, who have prepared their whole lives to get to this point, do not despair. They are already champions in their own right by competing in the national and international level. The Olympic is the icing on the cake. What is important is that these athletes already made their status known throughout the world and postponing the Olympics will not hinder their accomplishments.

We cannot stand idle and allow China to mock the meaning of the Olympics by destroying the very same nature which led to Hitler's uprising of power. The motto of the Olympics "Citius, Altius, Fortius,” a Latin phrase meaning "Swifter, Higher, Stronger" has been taken literally by Hitler and now the government of Communist China.

Do not let history repeat itself. Ironically, such an event that we call the Olympics, which brings the best of the best to challenge each other, can cause so much strife that lead us to World War II. It is time that we need to take a stand for human rights and equal rights and boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics!

Friday, March 28, 2008

Rush Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" is Deemed Constitutional

It is incredible how fast information gets disseminate into circulation. Yesterday, I wrote how Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" was getting a lot attention by authorities for coercing Republican voters in tampering the elections in Ohio.

It seems that radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh was able to shift the masses of Republicans to bring Hillary Clinton the win in Ohio. Rush's meddling has caused mayhem that an indictment for encouraging Ohio Republicans to change sides in order to vote for the Democrat primary.

Behind closed doors, Ohio officials were debating if they should go after Rush. Ohio's Attorney General Marc Dann, who is also a Democrat, said, "We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime."

Oh, how original and a typical answer coming from a Democrat. Instead, it would have been more professional to say that the 1st Amendment protects Rush Limbaugh's Freedom of Speech. Even at a high state position, I cannot understand why people elect these morons into public office.

Even Ohio's Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, another Liberal Democrat, said, "I think it's very bad form, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to make their own decisions."

No matter what Liberals say, the plan to encourage Republican to switch parties and vote Hillary Clinton as a way to prolong the Democrat nomination and making it very difficult for the Liberals to unite in the fall is working as planned.

Remember in yesterdays blog, I said that when one switch’s party they need to attest in an affidavit and lying on such forms is considered a felony. But I also said, that there has to be without a reasonable doubt that one did actually lie on the form, which is almost difficult to ascertain.

Even the Secretary of State of Ohio said, "It would be difficult to prosecute anyone because they also have constitutionally protected freedom of speech and it's hard to prove voter intent. You can't just make the assumption that someone is lying." This is the answer that should been said by the Attorney General of Ohio.

Rush Limbaugh knew he wouldn’t get in trouble for what he was doing. In his website he said, "I wouldn't worry about it. Look at this as a badge of honor, ladies and gentlemen. If anybody gets indicted, if anybody has to go jail, it will be me -- and I'll do my program from jail for the short amount of time I will be there before I am excused and the charges dismissed."

I did like what Rush say about Republicans is not in the business to sway the election, but it is the standard Liberal Democrat tradition and practice that they like to use the most: voters’ manipulation.

So, therefore, it is okay for anyone to switch political party sides and not get in trouble. You need to thank Rush Limbaugh for that!

Atta boy, RUSH!

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Criminal Prosecution for Switching from Republican to Democrat

Rush Limbaugh started "Operation Chaos" in hopes to keep the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton fighting till convention. Believe it or not, it is working. Rush Limbaugh has mentioned that Republicans can switch parties to vote Hillary Clinton; in order to keep the Obama's locomotive express derailed. It has worked in Ohio and Texas, and now in Pennsylvania, there have been more than four million new registrations to the Democrat party. Of that four million new voters, a good portion of them are Republican, who are only voting as a Democrat for a day.

Not only Rush Limbaugh supporting this, but Barack Obama has made ads and fliers asking for Republicans and Independents to do the same thing. Such shenanigans have got criminal prosecutors talking about pressing charges on violation of pledges of party allegiance. In Ohio and Texas, law makers are talking about investigations of those voters and those who coerce these voters in violating that law. Particularly in Ohio, it's established law; to vote in the primary, one has to sign an affidavit pledging loyalty to the principles of the Democratic party. That is the same case in Pennsylvania. Violation of the affidavit will be prosecuted and if convicted could face 6 to 12 months in jail and $2,500.00 fines.

Talking about pledging "to the loyalty to the principles of the Democratic party," is a oxymoron because Democrats don't have principles. The Democrat party is using intimidation to suppress the votes. There is no court in the land that would prosecute anybody who switches parties. You can change side for one day and still fulfill the requirements of the affidavit. In the general elections, it doesn't matter what party you belong to. Anybody can vote for a Republican candidate, Democrat candidate, or a third party candidate.

This is a violation of freedom of speech. It is our right to decide which party we would represent. In order to convict, there has to be probable cause or proof that these voters lied on the affidavit and that is very difficult to prove. These scare tactics of the Democrats are showing the true colors of the "jackass" party.

It is either pledging allegiance to a party or face criminal prosecution for disloyalty. You got to be kidding me. It would be more reasonable in pledging allegiance to the United States, the President, who will lead this great nation, and the military, who are committed to protect us. That is something I would definitely sign an affidavit for without any reservation.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Letterman's 'TopTen U.S. Airways Excuses'

Letterman’s ’Top Ten U.S. Airways Excuses’

From the March 25 Late Show with David Letterman, inspired by news a pilot accidentally shot his gun in the cockpit, the "Top Ten U.S. Airways Excuses" Late Show home page:

10. Thought it would be fun to shoot empty liquor bottles

9. Air traffic controller’s "Clear to land" misheard as "Squeeze off a round"

8. Media never reports when plane takes off and pilot’s gun doesn’t go off

7. Pilot thought he saw one of them "Cloverfield" Godzillas -- Buy "Cloverfield" on DVD April 22nd

6. Oh, like you’ve never fired a weapon onboard a passenger plane before

5. Don’t worry -- His parole officer was in the cockpit

4. Chillax, bro

3. This is what happens when you let Dick Cheney fly a plane -- Did you see it coming folks?

2. If you didn’t want gunplay, maybe you should have flown United

1. Pilot distraught after picking Duke to win it all

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Chelsea Clinton is Just Like Her Mom- STUPID!

Chelsea Clinton, daughter of former President and Senator Clinton, was fielding audience question about her mom’s foreign travel experience in Bosnia and being bombarded by sniper fire, which was an outright lie.

Chelsea’s response:

"Well sir, I think that my mother's on record as having talked about this and I support what she said. I mean, I was there as well and I'm so honored that I was there."

The only difference between Chelsea and her mother is that Hillary is able to camouflage her statement to make her less an idiot; while Chelsea’s statement is pure stupid.

Like Bill Clinton, Chelsea is a hindrance to her mom’s campaign, which may be a good thing. LOL.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Many Muslims Find the Right Path to Jesus Christ than Muhammad

I hope everybody had a pleasant Easter this past weekend. My Easter Sunday was very peaceful and relaxing. I was watching the holy father Pope Benedict XVI on television give an Easter Vigil mass in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican. What I find it amazing is that in the front pew sat a Muslim-born convert named Magdi Allam, who is a famous Italian Journalist in Italy, was baptized Catholic the day before.

That's something new that I wasn't prepared to see a Muslim converting to Christianity. Many of the Muslim communities are up in arms because converting from Islam to another religion comes with a stiff penalty. So what! Big deal! You don’t see any one of the Christian faiths persecuted for converting to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. What gives the religion of Islam the right to condemn someone, who has the right to choose their own religion?

Researching further, I found that there are many Muslims converting to Christianity on some yearly bases. It seems that many Muslims have seen the true Islam and what it represents, and they want Jesus instead. It is an incredible news that hasn't been mentioned by the Mainstream Media. The media wants to pander and appease the Islamic faith, and putting less emphasis on the life of Jesus, except for Easter and Christmas.

It is great to see Christian missionaries spreading the good word of our Lord Jesus Christ. By giving Muslims another avenue to evaluate their religion to Christianity, it would provide them the resource to make a logical conclusion and answers which faith they would like to pursue. It is a freedom of choice and free will that allows free men to decide what is best for him.

Here are some facts I found on the internet:

- In Russia, the website Islam Watch stated that 2 million Muslims converted to Christianity in 2007.

- In France, 10,000 Muslims converted to Christianity in 2007

- In Turkey, 35,000 Muslims converted to Christianity in 2007

- In India, 10,000 Muslims converted to Christianity in 2007

- In Algeria, approximately 80,000 Muslims converted in the past several years. - In Morocco, Islamic clerics are worried to see 30,000 to 40,000 Muslims found the words of Christ over Muhammad more profound.

- In Sudan, 5 million Muslims accepted Christ in their hearts since the early 1990's. Despite severe persecution, many Muslims are finding Christianity as the true path to salvation.

- In Iraq, after the end of major combat operations, 5,000 Muslims converted to Christianity. Just recently, the first Roman Catholic church was consecrated in a Sunni Muslim dominated state in Qatar. It has been said that tens of thousands of devoted Christians attended mass and it seems apparent that this trend will not die down.

- On the Al Jazeera news network, a leading Saudi cleric said, "16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity . . . every year, that is six million Muslims becoming Christians . . . A tragedy has happened."

Just knowing that millions of Muslims are converting to Christianity, it gives us one more reason to rejoice this Easter season. We are united to defeat the radical Islamo-fascist that is intended to kill us. We need to help protect and pray for our newly founded brothers and sisters because they are under severe persecution for changing religions.

I am not saying that Islam is weak. I am just saying that there are millions of former Muslims finding the light in Jesus Christ. You need to talk to them to understand what millions of Christians already know.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Hillary Clinton Lied. I'm not Surprise

Archives show Clinton lied: Obama campaign
Agence France-Presse, by Jitendra Joshi

Original Article

WASHINGTON - White House documents reveal that Hillary Clinton lied to voters about her opposition to a trade pact blamed in industrial states for killing jobs, Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday. A trawl through more than 11,000 pages of schedules from Clinton’s time as first lady fueled friction between the two Democratic White House contenders, as they also brawled over holding new contests in Florida and Michigan.

We have two Democrat candidates with a major personality conflict. From a shift in sinking poll numbers, Obama has shown not to be the man that he claims to be. On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton moving from flip-flopping her views to being an outright liar. Too bad Hillary couldn’t get a Federal judge to call an injunction allowing her official document from archive to be displayed for public record. In her 11,000 page documents reveals more than her lying about being against NAFTA. We are just scratching the surface on this one. Hillary’s schedule diary and Obama’s association with shady characters will be front line news for the next several weeks before the Pennsylvania primaries.

We are just warming up here folks. The knives and brass knuckle will be coming out soon in the next couple months. I can not wait!

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Which is Worst: "Nappy Headed Hos" or "God D**M America"

What I cannot stand is hypocrisy. The mentalities of do what I say but don't do what I do gets my blood boiling. We are now seeing Obama approval rating sinking. In fact, McCain and Hillary has surpassed him in the most recent polls done today.

Was this all planned all along? The timing is perfect. With only a handful of Democrat primaries left, both Hillary and Obama will not garner enough votes to earn that magical number and win the nomination. The nominee will be determined in a broker Democrat convention. This would be a historical mark. If racism and gender are the will of the Democrat party, we will see all sects of diversity twist in turmoil. The final outcome will break of the Democrat party into separate alliances or racial caucuses.

I have mention that John McCain doesn't need to worry about advertising his campaign. The Democrats are doing it for him with revelations between Hillary and Obama. This mudslinging type of campaign of both Democrat candidates is all the advertising McCain need to keep his candidacy viable.

What irks me the most about Obama is his double standard because of his race. I remember when he denounced a radio talk show host Don Imus calling the women on the Rutgers basketball team "nappy headed hos," and ask for Imus resignation.

To quote Barack Obama on ABC News, "I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus, but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

Look who is calling the kettle black. Obama should be ashamed of himself in making such a comment when he has problems of friends he associates with, who are bigots, racist, and prejudice.

To quote Obama again, "Don Imus didn't just cross the line. He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women – who I hope will be athletes – that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."

Yeah, right! Would Obama two young daughters fair better to listen to Rev. Jeremiah Wrights poisonous vile sermons? Let me get this right. "Nappy headed hos" is far worst than "God D**m American.” Hmm, I wonder. Hell, my 2-year-old niece can figure out this one out. Jeez!

Well as this week unfolds and as we see Obama popularity begins to sink, the whole gambit in this election campaign race has started back to even between Hillary and Obama. If you think Hillary is going to coast, don't bet the farm just yet. Today, about 11,000 pages of then First Lady Hillary Clinton's daily schedules were released by the National Archives and Records Administration.

I can assure you that once people get a chance to read it, Hillary will have a lot of explaining to do.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Pandora's Box was Opened by Barack Obama's Speech

If you open Pandora’s Box, be prepared to deal with the hell having no fury like a woman scorn. Barack Obama made a speech in Philadelphia behind a row of America flags, which he now supports and embraces, to clear up a controversy of race.

This Democrat primary is all based on race and gender. While Hillary is playing the gender card, Barack Obama is playing the race card. His intention was questionable, and he totally missed his message by a mile. He started to educate us in the history of race and how it evolved. He had the audacity to open Pandora's box by wanting to open the dialogue on race. By doing so, it made the whole election fixated on race. Obama miscalculated his intent and further divided America. The setback created by this stunt has moved this country backwards before civil rights were in its infant stage.

Barack Obama speech did not move anybody. It was a net zero effect. His still retain most of his supporters and still maintain those who are against him. Obama's speech was an even pace, which included his articulate, flamboyant cliche and rhetoric. It was the same generalization, platitudes, and nostalgia of hope. It did not address his support of his church and its pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Instead he antagonized us by bringing back old wounds in reminding us about the black anger and the white fear. I thought we have past that stage in our life. Why do we need to remind the past to our children and young adults that torn this country apart? What our parents and role models has taught the children of tolerance and reconciliation of those who may differ of race is being silence by the speech of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is no Martin Luther King in regards to the charismatic eloquence in talk, nor the foresight and courage of a Rosa Parks. Obama didn't deliver the speech he intended to bring. He played both sides of the fence. He denounces the remarks of Rev. Wright, but won't denounce him as a friend. He regards Rev. Wright in the same level as his white grandmother, who help raise Barack as a child. Barack Obama won't denounce the church. He tried to sugar coats what goes in there. Barack claims he never knew of the venom of Rev. Wright. If that is true, in the past 20 years being part of the church, Barack Obama must have been sleeping during the sermon. At least he clarified it later during his speech. It seems he supports Rev. Wright and his freedom of speech to say what is on his mind. Barack Obama say in Rev. Wright’s defense, "Wright used incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, that rightly offends white and black alike.”

Yeah, this is the Reverend who said that America had brought on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” we live in a KKK America, and that “We started the AIDS virus.”

If Barack Obama knew that some of the views shared by Rev. wright is so wrong, why didn't Obama leave the church? Did you know Oprah Winfrey was part of the church and left because of Rev. Wright's outlandish sermons? It is because Obama believes every word he says. Barack Obama has been with the church for 20 years. In that span, Barack Obama is poisoned by racism, bigotry, and hatred by a man whom I regard as the great Satan (Rev. Jeremiah Wright.)

Monday, March 17, 2008

Thank you Pastor Jeremiah Wright in Helping the Democrats Implode

In a span of a week, I have notices that besides the Democrats going unhinge, which is a good thing (LOL), the Democratic candidates are going after each other throats. This primary season is all about race and gender. Who will fair better?

I have said many blogs ago that the Democrats are going on this intra party bickering and this will either collapse the Democrat party or have many change political affiliation. I wouldn’t be surprise at this rate many Democrats will be disillusioned about the political process and sit home and not vote.

The Obama train has derailed and thanks to Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the true color of the man comes out. I have always said that Obama character is flawed by his arrogance and condescending manner. I always believe you are the person base on the friends that you keep, and regards to Obama and Hillary, they aren't looking that good. In Obama’s corner, we have corruption in Resko and bigotry and hatred in Pastor Wright. In Hillary's corner, we have corruption in Norman Shu and racism in Geraldine Ferraro. It seems that neither candidate is able to show any moral standards that America can look up to.

It is not over yet. The gloves are coming off in due time to see the Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier fight. It will be the "Thrilla in Manila." We will need to wait and see. What I am really waiting for is during the Democrat’s convention when we will see the popularity vote, states won, and delegates earned goes to Obama, but the nomination will go to Hillary. That will be the shot that was heard around the world.

It is bad enough that Democrats in Florida and Michigan are being disenfranchised, but this would be the ultimate insult that would destroy the very effort that MLK and many black leaders work so hard for. You will see that tirade of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton all over the airwaves. I hope that doesn’t happen. I cannot stand to hear either man speak. I make me utterly nauseated.

The Democrats are showing their true colors. They will use race, gender, class, and religion to pit one against another. They have done it to the American people for decades. Now, they are doing it to one another. There is no honor or unity. In contrast to the Republican candidates, Mitt Romney accepted that unity of the base is far more important than his self interest. He withdrew his nomination so that McCain can carry the torch. That is what I call character, honor, and duty. That is the party we should represent and not the Democrat party, who are a bunch of whining, malicious little brats.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Democrat Voters Are Unable To Get Along

This article was sent to me by a friend proving that the intra party fighting has already begun. It's worthy to note that the Democrats’ primaries are typically low down vicious intending to embarrass, humiliate, and ruin the opponent. Whether the election is base on gender or race, I question the priorities of Democrats. It's the issues of the candidate that matters the most stupid. It is extremely incredulous to see that it has come down to a popularity contest since both candidates have the same idiotic views. It is good news to hear that if either Democrat candidate wins, the voters of the losing candidate will support McCain.

The Deep Blue Divide
For months, Democrats were just thrilled with their choices. Now they can't even stand to sit together.

Julia Baird
NEWSWEEKUpdated: 1:53 PM ET Mar 15, 2008

For the past five years, a group of friends, mostly military wives or retired government workers, have been meeting for lunch at an Italian restaurant called Amici's in a strip mall in Stafford, Va. All Democrats, they don't come just for the wood-fired pizza or $8.99 lunch buffet. They come to talk about their beloved party. But lately, the air has chilled in the Tuscan-themed room.

At the lunch after Clinton's loss in Virginia, Alicia Knight, 49, a Hillary supporter, came in late. The only spare chair was between two Obama supporters, both old friends of Knight's. "I was so angry, I didn't want to sit between them, so I sat by myself at another table," she says. "It's become like the cold war: in order to maintain the relationship, you don't talk to each other." Recently, the Clinton and Obama groups began lunching separately. "We couldn't take the bashing, the smirkiness of the Obama fans," says Linda Berkoff, 63.

It's unclear exactly when the primaries stopped being a joyous occasion for the Democrats. But as the weeks have ground on, the intensity between Democrats who disagree has calcified, the vitriol grown fiercer. According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87 percent of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).

For many Democrats, what started out as a glowing opportunity for a historic presidency has become a depressing display of division and anger trumping reason. Because the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are minor, the debate is not about substance; it's been mainly about character and identity in a contest between a black man and a white woman. Historians insist that intraparty bitterness is nothing new. But growing anger about perceived racism and sexism is souring what was once excitement among Democrats about an embarrassment of riches. Now many are embarrassed that the party which prides itself on diversity is battling its own prejudices. Unaffiliated Democratic strategist Donna Brazile believes it has become "a brewing internal civil war."

Even the candidates are concerned. Last Thursday, Obama pulled Clinton aside on the Senate floor. In a three-minute conversation that Obama aides, who asked for anonymity in recounting a private talk, described as cordial, Obama told Clinton that it was important for them to tamp down the more-inflammatory and controversial statements of surrogates. Last week Clinton finance-committee member Geraldine Ferraro resigned from the campaign after speaking dismissively about Obama, arguing that he could not have come this far if he were white. Earlier this month, Obama adviser Samantha Power called Clinton a "monster" and had to resign. Now, both candidates agreed, it was time to rein in such people before more harm was done.

Much of that harm, it seems, is in the tenor of the debate—in insults about age, experience, gender, race, religion. Norman Ornstein, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says the attacks over race and gender have created "a level of tension inside liberal, elite ranks that is not something we've seen before." All this, of course, is made more acute by the technology enabling instant, angry political debate. "Every fight, every attack is not just a New York Times story, but it's magnified by the blogosphere and 24-hour cable news that rehashes and rehashes it over and over again," he says. "Every sore gets rubbed raw."

Still, despite the tension at places like Amici's, historians dismiss the idea that there is something unique about this year's voter angst. Alan Brinkley, a professor of history at Columbia University, says, "I don't think the level of vitriol is particularly high by the standards of recent elections." What is different, he says, is the length of the primary race, and the fact that it's "the role of gender and race," this time around, that have escalated the passions. Beverly Gage, a political historian at Yale University, says politics is no more nasty today than in the past. She points to 1920, when Warren Harding was running and opponents, hoping to tap into racist views of the time, circulated a rumor that he had "Negro blood." In other primaries, the fight between Democrats has been just as, if not more, bitter: 1948, 1968, 1980 and 1984. Charles Kaiser, author of "1968 in America," says the parallels to 1968 are remarkable, especially in the manner in which Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy attacked each other. "The left is devoting all its energy to fighting itself rather than fighting the real enemy," says Kaiser.

But these fights took place decades ago; the battle between Clinton and Obama supporters is clearly the fiercest in a generation. Brazile says the problem is not the vitriol, but the fact that old demons—of "misogyny and slavery"—are being revived. "These are the wounds that don't heal so easily." And this, history tells us, will take more than three minutes on the Senate floor.

URL:© 2008

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Democrat Majority Held Power for 1 year and Done Nothing

Democrats are reliving a past that has done nothing, but break this country apart. We had 72 consecutive uninterrupted months of steady growth in America till the Democrats to the Majority in 2006. In that span of 24 quarters of economic growth, it took less than a year for the new Democrat Majority to screw it up. So what have the Democrat Majority accomplished? Nothing! Instead, they have put a false impression about America and the economy. Also, after 24 votes by the Senate and House, they are unable to withdraw the troop from Iraq; even though the surge was a huge success. In addition to that, they haven't kept their promise to stop wasteful spending. In other words, the Democrat Majority lead by Pelosi and Reid has lied to our faces.

If you haven't notice, the ideologies of bringing back the 1970's economic policy of the Jimmy Carter era is spooking the market. The Liberal candidates and the idiots running Capitol Hill are quietly mentioning higher taxes, increasing the burden on business with redundant regulations, and displaying their arrogance of favoritism for politically connected organizations. This is the reason why the fear of recession looms in the mind of all Americans.

We are not in a recession by definition, but if we continue to believe in the lies of the Democrats and the Liberal media, soon or later those lies will be substantiated as fact. Don't fall on the empty promise the Liberal Democrats are posing. You will not get free healthcare, free daycare, nor free education. If they cannot fix Medicare or Social Security, what makes you think they can come through with their promises.

We will end up living the Jimmy Carter era all over again if the Democrats gets the tri-fecta in Washington, D.C. During the 1970's, I remember inflation was in double digits and stagnant growth. I remember Dodge Darts and the Ford Pinto and the gasoline rationing throughout America. I remember there wasn't any air-conditioning in our cars during the hot summers because we need to conserve gas. I can remember the fridge long winters and finding wood in the forest for heat because of the rationing of energy sources. I remember global economist forecasting back then claims that in a couple decades we will end up in the ice age and not the global warming rhetoric as seen today.

We can solve the problems facing today to avoid the nightmare of the 70's. I have to give kudos to MySpace friend Sammy to convince me that spending needs to be kept under control or cease all together. I believe certain spending does have its merit and considered as an investment for the future of America. Only McCain has demonstrated that he would end the pork and earmarks in any bill that comes by his desk. Obama and Hillary are willing to add an additional $1 trillion to our present budget. That itself would cripple America. The stimulus package sign by President Bush isn't enough. The Democrats hindered the real economic stimulus package by holding off making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, eliminating the AMT and the ending the death tax, which was defeated by a Democrat vote from Louisiana. None-the-less, we should see a major improvement by the summertime with the current stimulus package.

Another solution is to tap the oil reserves in ANWR, which was obtained by a Democrat Congress. We had the opportunity back in the 70's to tap that resource, but it never transpired. If we get off our laurels, we can end the corruption and the greed from OPEC and stop our dependency on foreign oil. Our alternative energy campaign is moving forward, but to see it in fruition is years down the road. By showing our intent to be independent, the world oil market will correct itself. It would be helpful to build two more refineries for added measure.

These are simple solutions to a complex problem that Congress face. All this can come into fruition if Congress ends "sleeping in bed" with lobbyists, and listens more to what the American people want.

At this going rate, the Liberal Democrats will see what their hard work will produce. A true recession just like the one we had in the 1970's, but the magnitude will be enormous.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Save America, Buy American

Some couple years ago, I wrote a piece supporting to buy American products. Since then I have received numerous emails saying that most products sold in America is mostly coming from China, but I have found something that may interest all Patriotic Americans.

On and selected book stores, I found this book called "How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism." It just came out and it provides a listing of thousands of retail outlets owned by Americans. It also included many U.S. manufacturers still operating in America. I highly recommend that you should look into buying this book.

In recent years, many imports coming from China are flawed with harmful defects, which are not conducive to the welfare of the America consumer. When we have China billing us for them to ship hazardous materials to be stock on the shelves in our Wal-mart, K-Mart, and Target, it won’t take to long for Americans to realize that cheap doesn’t reflect a bargain. In fact, many Americans are concern about the safety of foreign products.

In a recent survey, many Americans are aware of the problems of imports coming from China. If you haven’t heard, a life saving drug call Heparin, which is an injectable form to thin the blood for various medical indication, has been recalled by the Food Drug Administration (FDA) because the active ingredient in the Baxter brand of Heparin came from China. This recent news that affects many hospitalized patients finally brought the red flag on all Chinese products. It started with cheaply made trinkets, then with lead containing products, and now, dangerous inferior medicine. This insanity needs to be stopped.

To digress, I have been an advocate for the role of the FDA and against shipping cheap medications from other countries into our borders. Hope this incident with the defects of Heparin made in China should be a reminder that medications made from other countries are not always considered safe and effective.

Well, in the recent survey I read it stated:

92% of Americans want country-of-origin labels on meat and produce;

68.6 % of Americans check labels for information like manufacturers, nations of origin and ingredients – up from 52.9% a year ago;

86.3 % of Americans would like to block Chinese imports until they raise their product and food safety standards to meet U.S. levels;

33 % of Americans would be willing to pay four times as much for American-made toys;

63 % were willing to join a boycott of Chinese-made goods in general

Just like tapping into ANWR to become less dependent on foreign oil, by supporting and buying more products made by American companies will lead us less dependent from foreign countries. Of course, we will never practice isolationism or protectionism, but to control our own destiny and independence, we need to take back our manufacturing base from foreign control. I am not talking about foreign manufacturers building their plants on US soil. I am talking about foreign manufacturers buying American business. An old business adage, ownership equals control, and control equals independence. This old saying has lost its meaning in recent years and it needs to come back with a vengeance. As you can see, a country that cannot supply its own needs is not a sovereign country. We need to claim our independence from the rest of the world and still hold on to our identity. We must take a proactive approach in suppling our own needs.

We need to be better stewards to our economy. To keep the health of our robust American business, we need to take heed to make the comparative choice whether to buy an American product or not. Take note that we are in the age of a complex globalized economy. It is the practice that our founding father has done and it is the foundation of our economy.

As stated earlier, we won’t be able to ignore products made by other countries. It would be foolish to deny imports because it will have consequences if we commit to such practice. We need to practice being better consumers and compare products before purchasing it. We need to practice and condition ourselves that American products aren’t that bad. We would be much better off to buy wisely on a product that would serve our needs, without any hazardous effects. At least US products goes through rigorous standards before it is sold to the American public. That is more I can say about our foreign competitors, who are lax with that ideology.

There is nothing wrong buying American. Heck, I would be willing to pay a little extra on any products made in the USA and recent polls show that majority of American felt the same way.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Gov. Elliot Spitzer's Hooker Addiction May Help the GOP

Well it seems that there is a strong similarity between Elliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton. Both are arrogant, self-righteous, and blinded with ambition. Some may call them victims, but in reality, these "above the fray" derelicts are the perpetrators that brought such embarrassing headlines.

Hillary, who was never a New Yorker, will always be shadowed in embarrassment by her husband's blatant infidelity. Her unreformed inaction of a parent and wife is superceded by power and the limelight. Her dramatic roller coaster during the primaries with the high point last weeks win in Texas and Ohio has shifted direction with loses in Wyoming, Mississippi, and coping with the scandal of Spitzer relationship with a hooker.

I see the governor of New York behaving in the exact same manner like Hillary Clinton. He is blinded by ambition to be the first Jewish Attorney General, Vice-President, or President of the united Stated. His arrogance has brought enemies within his party, the Republican party, big business, celebrities, family, and friends. His vile threats, whether they are truth or lies, and his intimidations are his hallmark. He won the title of Governor of New York on the premise he would clean the corruption in New York. Ironically, he has done the opposite. His first term is just like our current Democrat Majority in Congress. Spitzer and the Democrat Congress are corrupt, deceitful, dwelling into investigation after investigation, and irresponsible in creating significant laws to benefit the citizen of New York. Oh, my mistake. I forget he tried to push legislation in getting illegal aliens driver license.

It is a befitting fact for a man of his stature to lose everything that he tried to clean up. From a tip from the IRS, the FBI wiretapped the transaction of Gov. Elliot Spitzer accounts for fears of an illegal money laundering scheme. But surprised investigators, the wiring of money was to a prosecution ring for sexual favors. Yes, this is a governor, who as state prosecutor brought justice toward prostitution, was caught himself paying sex with a hooker for money. It is a very embarrassing moment for the Governor of New York and the citizens of New York. It turns out that it was not a one time deal. It was done over a 10-year period with tax payers’ money in the total amount more than $80,000 to get his kicks with these call girls.

I feel sorry for Spitzer's wife and his daughters, who have to live with this embarrassment for the rest of their lives. Spitzer's arrogance and "holier than thou" mentality, similar to Hillary, got the best of him. His stupidity and thinking of being above the fray will cost him his governorship. He made the mistake of transfer funds across state lines and did an illegal act of purchasing money for sex makes this a Federal matter with the likely hood of impeachment.

This story will linger for quite sometime and will take away from the headlines of Hillary and Obama. That will probably level the playing field with McCain, who has seen less coverage since he won the GOP nomination. That is good news to Conservatives. Thanks to the mainstream media in jumping all over the Spitzer/Hooker story. We all know the media will jump to any story that has sex in it. I see as a blessing in disguise from the GOP. If Spitzer won't resign, he will then go through impeachment proceedings. If this is the case, Obama will lose steam from less coverage and Hillary will lose a supporter in Governor Elliot Spitzer, who is also a Democrat Super delegate.

It is incredible what a change in a 24-hour period can make.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Bush Did the Right Thing and Vetoed the Ban on Waterboarding

It is contentious and appalling to hear that Congress sent President Bush a piece of legislation that would ban the use of water boarding. I cannot fathom the thought what our intelligence agencies or the military would use in the interrogation of terrorists. Let us see what other interrogation methods that are prohibited by our Congress. They took away the hot iron rod, shock therapy, hanging the prisoner upside down, the torture rack, flogging, suffocation, and the good ole fashion beating.

What the hell are we supposed to do? Be nice-nice? Starting talking to them like normal adults? Yeah, that is going to work. (Sarcasm). The Democratic Congress stripped away every vital source to secure the safety of this country. It is bad enough that they didn't renew the rules of wiretapping, and it seems that 9/11 to them is a police matter.

This is the upmost form of treason. The Senate and the House need to be abolished and start anew. We need to remove those that would cause havoc and conflict of interest to the safety of this country. It is important to vote future Senators and Congressmen to Capitol Hill who has the desire to protect the citizens and residence of this great country.

I am proud of President Bush, who vetoed legislation that would ban the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from using harsh interrogation techniques such as water boarding to break suspected terrorists. Can you imagine that this would end the very practices that have prevented attacks to America?

Yesterday on his weekly radio address, President Bush said, "The bill Congress sent me would take-away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror. So today, I vetoed it."

President Bush also said, "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists."

Can anyone tell me what is wrong what the President said? It seems the consensus of our elected leaders in the Senate and in the House say it would preserve the US ability to collect critical intelligence and raise the country's moral standing abroad.

So let me get this right. Since we are the leaders of the free world, we need to set an example of our morality around the world. What a crock of crap! Our leaders in Capitol Hill should listen and follow what they preach. Set a moral standing? Our Congress is the most corrupt institutions that I have come to bear witness. Bribery, treason, moral misconduct, and greed are the standard status quo with them. If they want to show a good moral standing, Congress needs to establish and implement a strict ethics reform legislation that they promise when the new Democrat Majority took power last January. I would start with term limits for every Senator and Congressman. We do not need career politicians who lost their fiduciary responsibility to the people that elected them. Career politicians lend to complacency, which is a recipe for disaster.

To lend an example, there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D. CA), who will try to override President Bush veto, said, "In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority." Isn't this pure hypocrisy? Her leadership drove the Congress approval rating to new historical lows. The American people see that the new Democrat Majority is a "do-nothing" Congress with their intent to bring false hope to the American society.

Then you have Senate Majority Lead Harry Reid (D. NV) giving the same rhetoric saying that the President has ignored the advice of the US commanders on the ground in Iraq. Yet, Reid keeps forgetting that the surge is working and progress in the reconstruction is showing promise. Therefore, I have no idea when he says, "Democrats will continue working to reverse the damage President Bush has caused to our standing in the world." I guess Reid should be reminded that his approval rating as Senate Majority Leader is also embarrassing to note. It's lower than President Bush approval rating and that says a lot.

Overall, the bill presented to President Bush would limit CIA interrogators to 19 techniques to be used to suspected enemies. Since water boarding, burning, electrocuting, beating, or forcing to do homosexual acts is against the Army field manual interrogation techniques, I wonder what 19 techniques would work on a terrorist that doesn't play the rules of the game. Why should we subject ourselves in following the rules if the other team is breaking them. Do you think it is fair? I think some of the 19 allowed techniques that interrogators can use are tickling their feet, make them eat pork, and make them watch American reality tv shows.

It seems that the Democrat Majority want to level the playing field. I firmly believe that they have sympathy toward terrorist and want them to have a fair chance to express their trade. Democrats and National Security may be equated like oil and water. It would be very difficult to mix leaving things very messy to work with.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

The Distortion of McCain's "100 Years in Iraq" Comment

I will never all to believe that a Democrat would give some "rats-ass" on National Security. I would accept a "Blue Dog" Democrat like JFK to be our president than any of those bleeding heart Liberals that we have in Washington, D.C.

The two Democrats candidates have no idea or understanding of the repercussions if we abandon our mission abroad. I need to voice out my concerns that this general election will be focusing on the war in Iraq. The economy is an issue that is interwoven in every election year. Therefore, I do not think it will be the mainstay of discussion this coming fall. We have been given a glimpse by the Hillary "3:00 a.m. phone call" ad that National Security will take precedence over all political matter.

It bewilders me that the comparisons of both Democratic candidates are not any different to any Liberals on Capitol Hill. That "3:00 a.m." ad will comes to fruition if we abandon our philosophy of spreading Democracy throughout the world and bring back the ideology of isolationism.

The point I am stressing is the diatribe of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pounding that idea Senator McCain said that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq. Obama also adds that McCain is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq. That catch phrase is repeated over and over and I am getting sick of it.

Both Clinton and Obama's claim are, at best, deliberately misleading and borders on being a lie. Both Democrat candidates are the typical "politics as usual" rhetoric they enjoy voicing to the public. It is a disservice for any politician or the media to voice the "100 years" rhetoric for being civil minded. This display of distortion needs to end now, once and for all.

This "100 years" canard began back in January 2008 when a voter posed a question to McCain by saying, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years . . ." Here, McCain cut him off by saying, "Make it a hundred."

What McCain continues to say is exactly correct that throughout history, our US military remained on the field long after any conclusion of any successful war we waged.

McCain said in quote, "We've been in . . . Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day."

For those history buffs reading this, tell me if I got this correct.

The Philippine-American War was fought in 1899 and concluded in 1902. The US military stayed there and help the country self governed themselves. Then in WWII, the Japanese invaded the Philippines and the US return to liberate the country. We stayed there til the early 1990's when Clinton Administration closed down the last US Naval Base at Subic Bay. The Philippine is not a wealthy country, but it was at one time til corruption in politics took hold. But none-the-less, it is a functioning country with democracy as its foundation.

If history serves me right, we had US military presence spread out across Western Europe after the conclusion of WWII. We were prepared to rebuilding the infrastructure in Germany and Italy. During the reconstruction phase in 1955, we had 270,000 troops in Germany and close to 10,000 troops in Italy. By 2005, we continue to have troops there, but it is downscaled tremendously. Even though the Korean conflict ended in 1953, we still have thousands of US troops stationed in South Korea. In comparison to North Korea, South Korea has transformed its authoritarian form of government to a stable and successful democracy.

In comparing to Iraq, what is the difference if we have miliary presence remaining in Iraq, but it was okay to have 40,000 US troops to remain presently in Japan long after the reconstruction period ended at the conclusion of WWII.

Hell, it is worth to not that we still have military presence in Iceland. Six-seven years after protecting the country against the Nazis, we still have more than 1,000 US troops that remain in that small country.

McCain has stated that Iraq is not Germany, Japan, South Korean or Iceland, but as each war is unique as its own, they all share the same fundamental idea. The USA never been able to simply to pull up and leave. The USA is often required to commit forces for many generations for promoting stability in the region. That is no different with Iraq.

What Obama and Clinton left out from McCain's "100 year" comment is very important because by cherry picking statements, it depicts a total misunderstanding of a comment.

McCain said, "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It is this crucial component that distinguishes military successes from failures."

Therefore, it is common sense to note that if US forces are harmed for 10, 50, or 100 years in Iraq, such situations will not be viable for the American people to stomach. Iraq would then be a total failure. But if the successes of the surge, bringing down the violence to nil, get the Iraqi military to assume a larger role in their country's affair, and get the infrastructure to continue to improve, then I don't see a problem keeping a military force in that region in the Middle East. Supporting stability in a country is advantageous toward our National Security.

McCain's "100 year" comment is not committing our troops to a "100 year war," as suggested by Obama, Clinton, and Liberal left, but it shows a determined seriousness of McCain understanding of the realities of foreign affairs.

That my folk is called experience and not the experience contrived by pseudo leader of Obama or Hillary.

Thursday, March 6, 2008

The Obama Locomotive Express Just Got Derailed

It has been a bad week for Obama. He still holds a commanding lead, but it seems he has gotten a little bit testy and lackluster. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is on a wild roller coaster ride. It is incredible how many time Hillary Clinton returned back from the dead. She lost the Iowa caucus and then rebounded in New Hampshire. As things are turning toward her favor she lost badly in South Carolina, but good fortune went her way in her winning big on February "Super Tuesday." Soon after that, she lost 12 consecutive primaries before coming back strong with wins in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. It is a seesaw battle now with Hillary getting the momentum.

Obama has enjoyed the ride of a rock star for months. Being on top does have its limitations. The fear of the anticipation of losing the momentum is a major concern in running an election. Right now, Obama's locomotive express has been derailed.

After the final Democrat debate, Hillary brought a couple "kitchen sink" facts to the table and it made a dent on Obama's armor. Soon after that, Saturday Night Live did a skit that portrayed an embarrassing re-enactment of how the media goes "ga-ga" over Obama. It was then the media got wise and started to give hard questions to Obama, which he was unease in answering. Then after the three out of four losses in last Tuesday primaries, Obama gave a weak consolation speech that was unconvincing.

Obama's balloon didn't have a small leak. It popped. Now, several leading liberal websites are jumping on the bandwagon showing their distrust toward the Senator of Illinois. Presently, it is advantage Clinton, but don't count out an all out fight between Obama and Clinton. It is a fantastic match up reminiscence of Muhammad Ali and George Frazier.

As stated earlier, a liberal website "The Daily Kos" put a blog titled "Ten reasons not to elect Obama" and it reflects most of the sentiment of many Americans jumping the Obama bandwagon back to the side of that bitch we call Hillary Clinton. It wouldn't matter because this back and forth changing allegiance will have a negative impact to those votes. It may end up that they will get so tired that they may stay home in November.

Here is the Top Ten Reasons Not to Elect Obama from the Daily Koz:

10. He's a charismatic, motivational speaker, but it takes more than great speeches to be president, and that is no a reason to nominate him.

9. He is untested. The media jumped all over the Clintons anytime they breathed something about him, so they retreated. Republicans will not be so magnanimous — you can bet they've already dug up mounds of dirt they plan to use on him.

8. He has never had a tough campaign before. John McCain will be all over him like a mad bulldog.

7. Republicans prefer him to Hillary Clinton because they know she'll stand up to them, but they know Barack should be a cinch to walk all over.

6. Members of Big Media, which caters to big business (read: "conservatives"), love him. See #7.

5. He's short on experience.

4. During his tenure in the Illinois Legislature, he voted "present," or walked the fence, over 130 times.

3. Six of those "present" votes he admits were cast in error. Once is an error; six means you're not paying attention.

2. He chose not even to stand with the people of Illinois on principle by allowing himself to be taken in by lobbyists and siding with insurers on an important healthcare bill in the Illinois Senate in 2003.

1. And the number one reason not to elect Obama is that if he loses the nomination now, he can become Hillary's vice president for eight years and by then be well-prepared to give Democrats another eight years in the White House.

The top #1 reason mentioned above makes me laugh the most. There is no way a Liberal Democrat will ever keep the presidency for four consecutive terms (16 years). I don't think the America people can endure such a punishment.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Rush Limbaugh Strategy is Brilliant

At first I thought Rush Limbaugh was kidding by stating that Republican should vote for Hillary in the Texas and Ohio primaries, but after analyzing his motives, it is apparently clear Rush is a genius.

The whole idea is to keep both Democratic candidates in the race til convention when all hell will break loose. It would bring instability and intra party fighting among the Democrat delegates. It seems that the Rush plan has found it way to other talk radio personality. It seems that the other talk show hosts are accepting the fact that it is important to keep the Democrats fighting to the end.

Beside the talk show host understanding the strategy, it seems Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida has grasped on the idea. Crist said that he supports the Democrat National Committee (DNC) to get every vote counted and do a redo primary in Florida. It seems that Crist wants to prolong the agony in selecting the Democrat nominee and that is perfectly fine by me.

There is a true underlining reason to keep both Hillary and Obama in the race. After yesterdays "super Tuesday" primaries, the mudslinging will ensue from both camps. Hillary will expose Obama for what he is and vice versa. The Republican already has their nominee to represent the Republicans in the general election and they can sit back and watch free advertising of the negative backlash between Obama and Clinton. It is so perfect. It is obvious if Republican started to hint of attacking either candidate, it would be the Republican going on the defense.

By allowing both candidates go at each other, it would be less messy for the Republicans. Everybody knows that 50% of America hates Hillary. We need to see Hillary pound the daylights on Obama politically because the Republicans isn't going to do it. We need to see Obama get bloodied up some.

Some say that it would be easy for both Democratic candidate to combine forces and run as a ticket, but there is one problem. Who is going to be president and vice-president? It seems at this point, neither want to give up their ambition to be president. Both Democrat candidates are so egotistical that it would be impossible for them to settle for second best.

Now with the Tuesday primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island is done, Hillary won three out of four primaries, but didn't garner enough delegates to overtake Obama. The reason is that in the Democrat’s primary there is no winner take all contest. It is divided in ratios of votes won. At this rate, neither candidate will get to that magic number of 2024 delegates. With 12 primaries left and 611 delegates remaining, Obama needs 77% of the remaining delegates to win it all and Hillary needs approximated 92%. Even if there are redo primaries in Michigan and Florida, it is highly unlikely either candidate will collect enough votes to get those delegates to win the nomination. That mean it will end up being decided at a broker convention and it will mean on relying on the superdelegates, which will be really fun to watch.

Superdelegates are easily bought and bribed. This will bring chaos to the National Democrat Convention. If Hillary wins, the Obama camp will jump into arms claiming how can Obama leading in delegates, states, and the popular vote still loses to Hillary. On the other hand, Hillary will counter that she won the big states in California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Ohio, and Massachusetts and she deserves to win the nomination.

Can't you see what occurring here? It will be a chaos in picking a Democrat nominee. Isn't it ironic how the media and Democrats hand picked the Republican candidate, but unable to pick of their own? Whoever the Democrat nominee will be, the Republicans will be ready, cocked, and loaded for one hell of a general election.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Obama Learns That the Media Can Be Vicious

The media can create or destroy an individual over night. They have crucified Hillary Clinton from the very beginning and giving every excuse to allow Obama a bye. Now, things have changed. The media has lessened the attack on Hillary and beef up the missiles pointing toward Obama.

There are several reasons why the media works in the matter they do business. One reason is that they love to control the flow of the environment because they create the news. No longer the media reports the news, but rather, they create exaggerations, innuendos, and lies to disseminate their news. The other reason is that if the media gets "rubbed" the wrong way, they will attack and I think that’s why they are going after Obama. It is Obama's arrogant attitude that has the media up in arms and trying to bring the level of the playing field to even.

Obama was caught off guard when the media attacked. Just watching his reaction showed his inexperience. Obama actually panicked. At least Obama knows the stand phrases to deflect a question when he gets himself into a corner. "That was the information that I had at the time. . . . Those charges are completely unrelated to me. . . . I have said that that was a mistake. . . . The fact pattern remains unchanged." I actually saw Obama told a reporter, "we're running late," and then disappear somewhere to a safe haven.

Obama's embarrassing "cut and run" routine is very cowardly, but he had time to place blame on the Hillary Clinton camp for allowing this to occur. Obama claimed that the Clinton camp has finally been true to its word in employing the "kitchen sink" strategy.

Presently, Hillary Clinton is doing well in today "Super Tuesday" primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. She has controlled the theme of the debate lately and it seemed that the choices of her attacks on Obama are actually working.

I'm not sure if the Obama train is losing its steam, but this past week has shown Obama losing his pizzaz. It all started with the Clinton ad showing the "Its 3:00 a.m., and your children are safely asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?" Then Clinton announced that a top Obama aide had discussion about NAFTA with a Canadian official, which Obama adamantly denied. Let's also add Obama’s best buddy Tony Rezko going on trail in Chicago on corruption charges and the question about Obama losing the Jewish vote.

I think it was the first time to see Obama not in control with the press. I felt somewhat sorry for him. (NOT!) I bet it was a humbling experience for Obama to feel human and exposed to the elements. I think Obama's armor has a weak point. I think he got spooked when Clinton's assertion that she offers "solutions" instead of Obama's "speeches" got Obama to change his tactics, which was a grave mistake. By doing so, it shows indecisiveness and last-minute second guessing. That was Obama's error.

Anyway, Obama didn't last too long in front of the media. As he made his move toward the exit, the reporters were still badgering him with the same question. Obama said, "C'mon, guys! I just answered, like, eight questions."

Yes, Obama answered only eight questions. If he thinks that eight were too many questions to be asked, he is not ready to take the reign in the Oval Office. That shows the inexperience of a 3-year term Senator with ambitions he is not ready for.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Its 3am and the Red Phone Rings. Who Do You Want Answering the Phone?

I watched the latest Clinton television ad that is running throughout Texas from YouTube. It was a very effective ad, but I wondered who benefitted from it the most. We all know that the Democrats are weak when it comes to the War in Terror. I am making the presumption that Hillary is the ideal candidate to answer the phone call with due diligence than Barack Hussein Obama.

The narrator begins the ad by saying, "It's 3:00 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military—someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world." (At this point, we see our first adult, a concerned mother, opening the door and peering into her children's bedroom.) The narrator concludes, "It's 3:00 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

Of course, let's not get into the hypersensitivity mode. It is not suggestion that if you vote for Barack Obama, your children are going to die in their beds. The ad suggests that during these unsettling times, Barack is not up to the task to make the right decision due to his inexperience. Then again, Hillary never had that opportunity too. The closest she ever got a phone call at 3am is from her private detective telling her where is her husband. Come to think of it that is rather important too. (Sarcasm)

The last time a similar stunt appeared on the air came from a Democrat presidential candidate in 1984 and his name is Walter Mondale. I don't understand why Hillary tried to copy Walter Mondale’s cue? It didn't work for Mondale and I don't think it will help Hillary or Obama.

The Democrats have decided to put the War in Terrorism as the forefront of their primary, which will spill over into the general election. As stated earlier, it is an area that the Democrats will fail miserably. Both Hillary and Obama wanted an immediate pullout from Iraq and both have very weak position regarding to foreign policy. In regards to Obama, he has only visited Iraq once or twice as Senator. He doesn't know what’s going on over there and he has the gull to mandate a legislation after his Middle East trip for immediate withdrawal. Isn't that in a way being irresponsible? His decision was made up before he went abroad and nothing would change his mind. Obama is an arrogant SOB! Hillary on the other hand would not be taken seriously. It is the same scenario when Nancy Pelosi went abroad to meet the Syrian leader. What benefit came from that? Nothing! Even as First Lady, Hillary didn't have security clearance when Bill Clinton was President. In fact, she wasn't allowed in the room during the critical moments when Bill needed to make a decision. Yes, that also included the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

It was a gamble on Hillary Clinton to run the ad and probably won't pay off. To use the scare tactic in trying to frighten voters may work, but it will remind everybody that terrorism should be the main theme in this election and not the economy. Already, there has been severe backlash from many Democrat leaders claiming that this is the type of ammunition for John McCain to use in the general election. I think the Democrats are right with that notion. In the end, neither Democrat candidate has a strong answer to the question raised by the ad. In fact, the response by Hillary and Obama is weak and uncertain.

Currently, exit polls show a mix result concerning experience and change. The typical confused Democrat wants an experience leader who is adamant about change. All I can say, "no kidding Sherlock!" Every Presidential election is always about change and who will come through with his or her promises. The Obama and Clinton's campaign is a cliche not different from the past. Neither candidate can offer change. It will be the same crap presented in a deceived form. Already, the Democrats have justified allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and both have openly mention that they will increase our taxes. Do not buy into the notion that they will go after the top 1% and 5%. If you didn't know, these top 1% and 5% incomers have topnotch accountants and lawyers that can easily hide their money. That is why they are rich. We don't have that luxury like them. Therefore, by the trickle down effect, the government will heavily tax the middle class and small business. Can you say, "Bend over. I want some more."

The ad backfired on both candidates in the area who has been tested more? The ad asked which candidate has faced the pressure in a crisis that may prepare him or her for the greater pressures that will face the president. With the inexperience and indecisiveness of Obama and Hillary, the only one I can trust to answer during that red-phone moment is John McCain.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

No Credit to the DrudgeReport, Welcome Home Prince Harry

I have to give “mega kudos” to Matt Drudge and the DrudgeReport. This past week other journalist gave him praise and others noted him as one of the world's most powerful journalist. Such outstanding accomplishment from his peers does come at a cost. To maintain the level of excellence, there is a decorum of responsibility that one must adhere to.

Even though I read the DrudgeReport on a daily basis, I am somewhat upset that Matt Drudge exposed a highly profiled military officer in harms way. This past week Drudge broke the news of Prince Harry being in combat in Afghanistan for 10 weeks for the Royal Army. If not many know of Matt Drudge, he was responsible of exposing the affair between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. What disturbs me about this story is that every English paper was sworn to secrecy about Prince Harry being in abroad in combat. Now with the news out, Prince Harry and his regimen returned back to the UK to prevent a militia backlash on Prince and his troops.

It has gone far enough with these leaks. The media has done nothing, but put harm to those who never requested it. Case in point, what benefit is to expose the whereabouts of Prince Harry? Prince Harry is fighting a war against the Taliban and at the same time, exceeding every military officer’s expectation. The young 23-year-old prince is "enjoying" a normal life without maids, butlers, and the paparazzi. Prince Harry knows the value of responsibility to himself and to his troops. He has developed the comradery and the inherent value that he has been seeking. In other words, Prince Harry found his true purpose than the parting bachelor and a “skirt chaser” while he was in the UK. Now, that has been abruptly stopped by the likes of a “New York Times” wannabe.

Matt Drudge not only jeopardize the life of Prince Harry, but also the troops that served with him. Just imagine. You have a highly profiled celebrity in the theater of battle. Every single "gringo" would love to have a shot at him, just to brag to others that he was the one responsible in taking down Prince Harry, who is 3rd in line to the throne of England. If the young prince continued fighting, that particular platoon Prince Harry served would have been a giant magnet of many mercenaries and hostile militias hoping to make history.

Matt Drudge and every journalist and reporter should know how to use common sense discretion of what news that should be disseminate to the public. Reporting good news is rather constructive than reporting dramatic sensational grandeur and negativism. Matt Drudge is a good journalist and his site is second to none, but he will never earn the respect of other great journalist that preceded him. Breaking the news first will never be remembered than the contents he or she writes. We can remember the great words that came from JFK, MLK, and Ronald Reagan, but no one can remember who broke the news that lead to the arrest of the "Son of Sam," the "Unibomber," and "John Gotti."

I will continue to read the DrudgeReport, but Matt Drudge has shown me that all journalists are all alike. They tend to think about themselves and not think of the repercussion of their reporting. These scavengers for the news are like whores yearning to turn a trick. Heavens forbid, if a calamity ended the life of Prince Harry because the media exposed him in harms way, we probably would see a serve backlash by the royal family that is seen unlike no other.