Well I read something that was quite interesting the other day. It dealt with the questions of what we can expect from an Obama Administration. The article by Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris titled What we don't know about Obama points to some interesting thoughts.

So far we know that President Obama has ordered the detainee prison in Guantanamo Bay closed. He expects this to take one year, though the Bush Administration has spent at least 2 years seeking to move some 60 of the worst prisoners to any nation that will not just release them to Al Quida. This is part of his promised acts as a peace maker. That is in conflict with his plans for Afghanistan.

President Obama believes we can win in Afghanistan. He has stated that is the center of the war on terror. And that is where he wants to focus, then end our fight. But to do so is anything but being a peacemaker.

“Most military experts think a decisive win in Afghanistan — as opposed to a muddle-through strategy leading to a gradual withdrawal —will involve a major surge in troops and a willingness to tolerate high costs and high casualties.“

And speaking of war, there is Iraq. Which President Obama continues to move towards running from. The country is finally in some semblance of stability after our prolonged presence and several gaffs of the Bush Administration.

“But this remains an extremely volatile region that could erupt in new bloodshed. Will Obama still cling to a speedy pull-out if it means the country could implode?”

With anti-war hawks like Hillary Clinton in his Cabinet, and a majority of the Democratic Party looking for nothing less than absolute withdrawl what would President Obama do in that situation? Especially as he focuses our troops in Afghanistan thus escalating that conflict? Especially as military history states that a war involving multiple fronts usually end up with loss.

Also along these lines is the question of torture and interrogation. The first part of which is what to do with the detainees in Gitmo as I stated above. But moving forward is what to do about any future suspects we might encounter. They will not be able to be detained. Thus we must presume they will be interrogated in the field. But under what rules?

No matter what some may feel about the use of questionable techniques or outright torture there is one absolute truth. America gained needed information that has led to no more attacks on American soil. With many of the prior interrogation techniques now banned will we still be able to gain that information? Since we will not have detention areas to hold these suspects will we have an opportunity to learn the information that would prevent another major attack?

Then there is the question of the economy. An issue I have long has major problems with. The proposals made by the Obama Administration demand and create multi-trillion dollar deficits, which President Obama has said cannot be maintained long-term. But there is nothing in the proposals that would indicate that the deficits would be paid off in the next 4 years, or even 10.

The public is now becoming used to, and insistent on stimulus checks. If you ask the average American right now they believe that another stimulus check will be in the mail – which has been directly refuted by President Obama. And the poorer the person the more they are anxious for that check.

But that is a mere $850 billion dollars. If President Obama also goes forward with his healthcare plans, his expanded Government, and the declared spending (bailouts) for the economy the imbalance will be at least $1.6 – $2.1 trillion dollars when it’s all said and done (this year alone).

If President Obama plans to keep his budget in massive record deficit only for the short term then he must raise taxes sharply - for ALL Americans, cut entitlements drastically – including the new healthcare and social security, and reduce the military’s budget even as we have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And a major deficit will still exist, with no guarantee that the economy will have improved.

And then there is a hot-button issue for me. Darfur. A subject that most politicians have avoided on all levels. America has yet to pass the laws sitting in Congress for 4 years that would prevent corporate or individual investment in the Sudan (Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act). This is similar to the laws passed that prevented funding Apartheid in the 1980’s. Yet even in the Democrat-led 110th Congress nothing has been done.

Will President Obama step up and use his extreme approval ratings to draw national attention to this genocide that has been ongoing for some 7 yeas now? Will he place financial bans, or even use military force to help save millions of non-American lives? Does his role as peacemaker end at the shores of America or does it include other parts of the world that have dire need and no strategic benefit to our nation?

What will President Obama do? No matter what he chooses he will piss off some part of America. But is he strong enough to piss off his main support – far-left liberals? They gave him the money to win. They rallied him over Clinton. They want some of the most extreme (I believe socialistic) changes to the Government. And if President Obama is to be an effective President for all of America, the far-left must be pissed off often and on major issues at times.

But that would bode poorly for his approval rating and chances at re-election. And virtually all the plans of the Obama Administration seem to require 2 terms to come to the proposed fruition. Is President Obama willing to risk that second term for a more balanced Government?

All serious issues, all serious repercussions. And all without any assurance of what will happen. Many wanted change, and in some form or another they are about to get it whether they like the outcome or not.

Labels: Afghanistan War, American economy, Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris, President Barack Obama, stimulus package, torture techniques

So Ted Turner showed up on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox News. This might be something that you would expect lots of sparks from. But in fact it was quite civil and perhaps a bit mundane.



One of the things I love to hear is the constant call that Fox News is a far-right network. Given that Sean Hannity is far-right, the network and the bulk of the programs are not. And in this instance, as I have often found, Turner barely if ever watches the network he compares to the Nazi's.

It just cements the concept of most liberals/left-wing these days. You can say anything you want, just as long as it agrees with whatever they believe. Everything else is a horrible right-wing conspiracy to remove freedom and thought. Even if they have no clue what any other thought might comprise.

And Turner was honest that his real motivation was the fact that he knew that all the major media focuses to the left (or far-left depending on your level of honesty) and thus anything neutral or to the right would draw attention beyond anything his network or the others could match. Because try as hard as they do, the nation leans right even with massive media bias.

Of course Turner could not avoid his belief that America is an exploitative nation. Funny how he says that, yet he has no problem accumulating his wealth in and from this nation. Or has he been donating the bulk of his wealth to the Government to lower the deficit, save defaulted mortgage owners, and the poor in general? Has he somehow managed to make donations to programs and organizations of size without Forbes or anyone else noticing? In fact the answer, like with most wealthy liberals/progressives - including Warren Buffett and George Soros - is no.

And the best part is the most stupid statement that the educated and experienced Ted Turner makes.

"If we stop bombing people and sent doctors, scientists, and engineers around the world that we make a lot more progress and wouldn't have near as much terrorism in the world as we do." - minute 3:09 - 3:22

That is a stupid statement in every sense of it. First America has nothing to do with bombings in India based on the differences of religion in that nation and Pakistan. We have nothing to do with bombings in France, England, Southeast Asia and nearly 2/3 of the world. And virtually all of these places have been getting bombed for over 3 decades or more. That has nothing to do with us.

Israel is one place that an argument might be made. And of course Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly a result of our actions recently. Not that anyone could say any Middle East nation was peaceful and calm over the last 5 decades let alone the last 10.

But Turner makes a dumb argument because on top of these facts we spend more money on medical and agricultural aid to various nations than many nations make as GDP. Or has he forgotten the Peace Corps and the various debts owed to America from these nations we have helped. And then there is AIDS.

America has done more about AIDS in Africa than most every other nation combined. That is still far from what I think is adequate or within our abilities, but it is far from the implied thought of Turner that we do nothing. And our work in Darfur is horrendous. But that does not erase all the other good work we have done for many nations in Africa. Still we are losing the edge in helping African nations develop better technology to China, but that is a problem of a different sort than what Turner suggests.

Again this is left-wing polispeak to make things sound worse than they are. Like somehow denouncing our actions makes their even lesser actions look better. I've never known anyone to be motivated after hard work for a good cause by being told what they have done was useless and negligible, and then asked to do more.



In part 2 it gets personal. Hanoi Jane Fonda is in the picture. But first we see what "progressives" like Turner calls himself think. Turner admires Fidel Castro. I think there are a lot of people in Florida that would love to have him explain why.

The argument that Turner makes, and I have heard before is that Castro has done good things in his time so he is a good guy. He built hospitals and makes sure people have nationalized healthcare.

So the fact that Cuba is stuck in the 1950's in virtually every aspect doesn't matter to Turner. The fact that the people have no voice in their Government is meaningless. The fact that dissenters are (or at least were) routinely jailed, beaten and/or killed is ok. The fact that their economy is horrendous is all good. Because the people get free healthcare.

So taking that logic, a nation that builds schools, allows free elections, builds hospitals, creates clean water, improves electricity, invigorates an economy and makes the nation stable is a great nation. Wake up "progressives", I just described what America is doing in Iraq.

But I think Turner would stumble on that realization. He, and "progressives" as he described himself, don't want to see America like that. For whatever reason.

Perhaps the best part of this whole interview was when Ted Turner was asked about his inaction after the Viet Nam protests. He with Hanoi Jane protested the actions of America and supported (her moreso to traitorous levels) the North Vietnamese. When America left Viet Nam due to the political pressure, 3 million Vietnamese were slaughtered. And the "progressives" said nothing.

They in fact did what some say America did to Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated. They forgot about the whole thing. They could care less. If they did care they hid it well with their complete and utter silence for decades.

Hanoi Jane, and Ted Turner, had every opportunity to speak out nationally about the atrocities. They could have brought media attention to the situation at any point they desired. Even to this day they could say something. Yet all you will hear is more silence. How "progressive".

Now considering that track record I have to ask a simple question. If we follow the guidance of "progressives" like Turner, and far-left nuts like Hanoi Jane, and leave Iraq as we did Viet Nam, what would they do if things went bad in that nation? Their actions tell us they would turn a blind eye and deaf ear, which is the absolutely best environment for groups like Al Quida to grow in. And that means we would have future attacks on our soil within 5 - 15 years, en masse.

Can America afford to have "progressives" and the far-left say

"You got me. I really didn't think about it." - minute 3:06 - 3:10

as civilians are killed?

Labels: Afghanistan War, Africa, AIDS, al quida, Bill O'Reilly, Cuba, Darfur, Fidel Castro, Fox News, Hanoi Jane, Iraq, O'Reilly Factor, Ted Turner, Viet Nam war

The Presidential election is now 14 days over, and President Obama has already violated several campaign promises. Can you imagine what things will be like in 2 years? I realize that a multitude of Obama fans are getting rabid over that statement so I will make it clear that this is not an opinion, but factual.

President Obama ran his election campaign on a couple of basic concepts. While most of his promises were very vague it was clear that he promised change, and exit from Iraq, and a new style of politics in Washington D.C. Of course the first item on the list, change, was both abut as vague as you can get, and at the same time the most blitheringly stupid thing to promise since President Bush was not up for re-election.

But when it comes to change it seems that President Obama really meant reliving the past. Like much of the Democratic rhetoric over the election the point was to go backwards in time. Anything that reflected or brought back memories of the Clinton Administration was a positive. Thus he has been very busy in filling positions in his new Administration with ‘old politics’ politicians from the Clinton Administration, plus a few friends from Chicago.

How this is a new way of doing politics is beyond me. Other than perhaps the fact that since Congress is Democrat-led, and thus capable of passing almost any liberal platform it wishes, he will push his agenda forward no matter what Conservative think. Of course that is also entirely partisan, blindly following Party dogma, and violates his pledge to work in a bi-partisan manner. But maybe he meant that bi-partisan as in the Executive and Legislative branches working together. It’s a stretch, which is the closest we can get so far.

President Obama was very clear that he was against fighting in Iraq. He made it absolutely clear that he will retreat from Iraq and bring America’s soldiers home. His plan was for an organized retreat, over several months. This would allow opposition forces plenty of time to gather their strength and bide their time. This plan took hold of the Iraqi government, and is currently being debated in that nation. The deal on the table will force American combat troops out of Iraq just in time for the nomination of the next election cycle.

But what is important there is the word combat. Because the deal in hand will do what President Obama wrongly misinformed the public Senator McCain wanted to do. It will provide America with base(s) for land, sea, and air troops in Iraq for 10 years.

That wouldn’t be a big deal, except that President Obama campaigned to remove all troops from Iraq and not staying in Iraq in any form (until he was embarrassed to admit that was a bad idea). But after correcting his initial plan he campaigned with careful wording to imply he was still going to remove all the troops. And if anyone thinks that President Obama did not help shape, and is currently involved with, this Iraqi proposal they don’t understand international politics – in my opinion.

So new politics are out, as is leaving Iraq. And change was just for anyone too blinded to notice the obvious. But wait, there more.

As a bonus there is the economy. President Obama was elected on this basis more than any other factor according to polls by just about everyone. Because the economy needs help, and President Obama was going to make a change. Even though he could not be bothered to be involved in the discussions of the single largest economic policy act in over 2 generations – the mortgage bailout – without having to be called to discussions like a truant schoolboy.

But this massive issue is one that President Obama promised to be on top of. It was issue number one, alongside a new stimulus plan (cost between $300 and $500 billion in money that doesn’t exist). And how has President Obama reacted for the first goal in his Presidency? He’s avoided it.

President Obama could help calm the markets with an announcement of who he is considering for Treasury Secretary. But he hasn’t. He’s worked on several other positions, none as vital to the nation as who is going to be in charge of some $350 billion from the mortgage bailout, plus at least $25 billion for the auto industry, and who knows what else. And people wonder why the stock market is jumpy.

I have to say that this does not bode well for President Obama. Especially since he is looking to compound his Presidency with multiple problems. That would be VP Biden, and now a potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And it’s Mrs. Clinton that makes me really laugh.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that the donors to the Clinton organizations are unknown and potentially a deal-breaker. Ties to foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others look bad. Not to mention favors made to people like Mark Rich. But that is being dealt with as we speak, with a couple hundred of the donors being revealed – and it’s unlikely the major news media will check to connect the dots of donations made and favorable deals happening for the donors.

The funny part is that since Senator Clinton is having such problems getting cleared for Secretary of State, how in the hell was she ok to become President? Well more on the problems of having a viper in your backyard later.

Politicians use polispeak to get elected. It happens all the time. It’s old politics. And President Obama seems to be following that path to the tee. The only questions that remain are what other campaign promises will be broken, and how will it affect America.

Obama lovers can now begin their rants, all of them avoiding the fact that President Obama is breaking from his promises.

Labels: American politics, Iraq, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

For those that were curious about the results of the polls that were on the sites of M V Consulting, Inc. about the presidential election I have the numbers. These polls were on the site for a year, and visitors were able to vote only once each.

The visitors of the M V Consulting, Inc. sites broke down as follows:

28.5% Democrat

53% Republican (not including Michael Vass)

16.3% Independent

And believe it or not 2.2% checked of that they didn’t think their vote matters – which I disagree with

In addition 84.2% stated they were old enough to vote, 81% had voted before 6% were to young prior and 6% just did not vote. 50% had family members in the military and 17% of those were in Iraq. 83% felt their jobs were not secure.

29% believed one candidate was a dead-on choice for them, 64% felt one candidate was 50% or more aligned with their views.

43% felt the next President would affect their daily lives a lot or more, 28% thought the effect would be a little or not at all, and 29% were unsure.

83% follow politics everyday.

The top issues affecting America were ranked from most important to least

Economy
Iraq/Afghanistan
Education
Illegal Immigration
Crime
National healthcare
Foreign Policy
National Defense
Race Relations
Other

Final votes ended up as 64 million votes and 52% overall for President Obama, 56.4 million voters and 46% of overall votes for Senator McCain.

So do you agree with my readers that voted? Do you feel these results reflect the concerns and attitudes of the nation?

Labels: Democratic Party, foreign policy, illegal immigration, Iraq, M V Consulting, national healthcare, political poll, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Republican Party, U.S. economy

The following is the full interview between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama as first seen on the O’Reilly Factor. For commentary on each part of the interview please check out Black Entertainment USA

Part 1 Iraq



Part 2 The Economy



Part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright



Part 4 Alternative Energy and Domestic Drilling

Labels: alternative energy, American economy, Bill Ayers, Bill O'Reilly, domestic drilling, Iraq, O'Reilly Factor, Presidential election race 2008, Rev. Wright, Senator Obama

I listened intently last night as Senator Barack Obama accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention with some 70,000 democrats looking on. If Senator Obama didn’t want to look like a celebrity, this was not the way to do it. But as the first African American to reach this history making level a bit of fanfare is warranted.

Now I could rip into Obama’s speech, line by line. I can highlight all the improbabilities, and all the things that will end up costing America more than we can afford. I can even point out all the mistakes of Presidents Carter and Clinton that he seems to be determined to repeat.

But instead I will just make this easy (my shoulder injury has not healed yet). Senator Obama promises to lower taxes of 95% of Americans receiving paychecks. He plans to increase taxes of business. That is a problem. Because I expect that this will equate to less hours at more pay for the average American, and adding in the higher cost of food (because of expanded corn ethanol production) and the increase taxes and cost of energy will mean less money overall. And that’s before a nationalized healthcare plan.

With nationalized healthcare will come lower quality medical treatment and lines for x-rays and doctor visits – like those found in Canada and England right now. Seeing a doctor will become a trip to the post office, won’t that be great?

Obama is a great speaker, and part of a President’s job is communication. But also part of the job is the ability to pass legislation, which Obama is not bi-partisan enough to do. A President must be able to show strength, which Obama’s demand to run from Iraq does not inspire. And a President must have a unified Administration, which Senator Biden does not provide (he opposed several policies of Senator Obama, as well as believing he is not qualified for the Presidency – as he has stated).

Senator Obama is a strong intelligent capable man. He loves America and has a great vision for the future. But he has neither the experience, nor political flexibility, to achieve his grand plans. No matter how you want to do the math, his initiatives are more expensive than he has claimed requiring more of your money than you may think. His voting record shows his desire to stand by the most far-left of Democratic policies, and that is too extreme for the centrist average of America.

But I will leave you with the speech that Senator Obama spoke yesterday. I remind you that Joe Biden represents the same ‘old’ politics that McCain supposedly embodies. I remind you that the Surge has worked. I remind you that the economy is slowing, and energy prices are rising – both are equally the fault of Democrats and Republicans.

Senator Obama is a great man, creating history before our eyes. But as you listen to his speech ask yourself is he a war-time President, that can stimulate the economy and move America into a safer better America – which requires more than just words.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4

Labels: African American, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Iraq, national healthcare, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, tax policy

Now I’ve discussed my thoughts on how Senator Obama and Senator McCain answered questions about taxes and Darfur, but there were other observations from the Saddleback Civil Forum.

On of the most obvious things I noticed in comparing the 2 Presidential candidates was the amount of expirence they had. While Senator Obama had some ideas and tried to answer all the questions as best he could, Senator McCain had tons of experience. In almost every question asked McCain had a reference of something either he or his wife did. Not idea or proposals but actual facts and actions that related to the question at hand. That spoke volumes.

Another point that was divergent had to be the questions on abortion and gay marriage. The position of Senator McCain was pretty obvious on these questions. He is pro-life (now) and against gay marriage.

Senator Obama made me a bit surprised. He stated he was against gay marriage in a rather emphatic manner. I had not expected him to be so cut and dry on this issue.

“I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.”

As the most liberal Senator sitting currently, and with the huge financial support of far-left groups like Moveon.org, I expected him to have a more soft position. That is sure to cost him votes.

[Let me answer a question I inevitably will be asked. I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions. My reasons are different than what you may think.

The fight for gay marriage is a fight for a word. The purpose of marriage is the monogamous union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. Everything else associated with that is a societal/cultural addition. Since a gay couple is incapable of procreation, they cannot be married.

In fighting for the word marriage, an attempt to force others that disagree with gays in general to be forced to acknowledge them, the real fight is obscured. That fight as I understand it is for the right to be treated with dignity and equal rights under the law. That right can and must be covered by civil unions.

To fight for a word is to thus fight religious beliefs of some, which is a never ending fight as we can see in Iraq and with Muslim fanatics, and distracts from the real issue. It in fact prevents some from reaching a middle ground and supporting civil unions.

That simply put is my position. Let the hate mail begin.]

Senator Obama was incredibly ambivalent on his answer about abortion. He never answered where he believes life begins. I realize that he was opposed to angering some voters with his answer, but I think his response angers everyone since he did not give an answer.

“So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

Thus he fails groups on both sides of the argument. I dislike answers like this as I find it polispeak of the worst form. It’s an attempt to hold or gather votes without providing the public with a basis to form an opinion and make an educated vote. I dislike when any candidate pulls this kind of stunt.

A similar thing happened with the first question that Senator Obama was given. When asked to name 3 people that were the wisest he has known in his life, he gives 2 names. His wife Michelle and his grandmother. I have no problem with the women he chose, I just wonder who was the 3rd person?

He bypasses the 3rd person on the list to then discuss the people he would rely on in his potential administration. Why did he skip the 3rd person? Who was it? Was it Rev. Wright and he was afraid of the controversy? Was it another figure that politically was derisive?

Mind you I don’t like the way McCain answered the first question either.

“First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq -- one of the great leaders… John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettis Bridge… Meg Whitman; Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay.”

His answers were equally filled with polispeak. That does not mean they aren’t true, just that the obvious political benefit is too much to not notice.

The Iraq war, thus backing his views on how to have handled the conflict from the start and the Surge which was called a failure by Democrats before it ever started. John Lewis who was hurt during the Civil Rights Movement, and a nice pick for the Black vote. Meg Whiman, very positive for business, women, and those concerned about the economy.

Again they might all be true, but the groups the answer plays to is far too obvious.

Especially in the first answer.

Now while I think McCain showed far more experience, and was ready to answer tough questions with direct answers he was a bit to blunt. Some of his answers were too much dead on Republican talking points. They may be his views, but it just seemed that his campaign banged in his best response too well. It was like he was springloaded to respond to certain questions with exact answers. That does not mean they knew the question in advance, just that he was prepared overly-well.

What do I come away from this all? Basically that Senator McCain is far more experienced and ready to lead ther nation. That some of his views are far more defined and closer to the centrist nature of the general American public than Senator Obama.

And sadly for Senator Obama he gave a strong reason not to vote for him. His reason to not accept Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is exactly the reason that you can oppose him as President.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”

If inexperience is a disqualifier for Supreme Court, how can it not be a disqualifier for the highest elected office?

What did you think of the Forum?

Labels: Civil Rights, gay marriage, Iraq, moveon.org, Saddleback Civil Forum, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

The 110th Congress is now on vacation. You might be asking yourself when they haven’t been. I know I have.

The Democrat led Congress has earned and justified the 14% approval rating it has recently received. And a big cheer should be made that they increased the rating by 3%, from the all-time lowest rating for Congress ever. That includes just before and after the Civil War.

You might ask what has this Congress done?

Well they don’t work longer than any other Congress – though it was a campaign promise. They haven’t achieved any of their major goals. They haven’t even really lived up to their rally call in the 2006 mid-term elections, which was change if you forgot. Well, if you count the numerous Congressional hearings then they did change a few things – how much money was wasted.

This Democrat led Congress boosts the achievements it made, like U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007,. Of course they leave out the fact that this emergency funding was required because their refusal to fund the military in the first place. And the funding, finally passed in May 2007, runs out in September. Also note that the only way the Democrats would allow funds to go to our troops that are actively fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was by attaching an increase to minimum wages and funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

And yes I know that an early funding was vetoed by President Bush, Again the Democrats knew what they were doing, wasting time and money. They knew that President Bush would not give the enemies of our nation (and people fighting our troops are enemies) the means to hurt our soldiers by telegraphing our moves with a timeline. He told the nation as much. But they did it anyway to try to look like I don’t know what.

And of course there was the farm subsidy act, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. A real brainstorm here. This act increased food stamp benefits which is a good thing since it also increases ethanol production – corn ethanol. Corn based ethanol increases the cost of food. Thus food stamps have to have more benefits just to stay even with the higher price of food. And higher food prices is a leading cause of inflation.

Speaking of energy and Congress, notice that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will not allow a vote about domestic drilling? So they are pushing corn ethanol, which 96% of the nation cannot buy or use, and is less efficient that gasoline, and is actively increasing the cost of food. And they are really only pushing ethanol. All other alternatives are off the table.

Does that make sense? Considering no one knows what energy source is the best for mass production shouldn’t they want to try everything? Shouldn’t we be ramping up wind, solar, hydroelectric, biomass, grass or sugar based ethanol, nuclear, and domestic drilling all at once? Considering none of these will be the answer for at least 5 to 10 years, imagine what the cost of oil will be if we don’t start trying everything now then.

But I detract (and yes I blame Republicans for the energy mess equally, though corn ethanol and refusing to even have a vote is purely Democrat).

The 100th Congress has been very busy though. It takes work to avoid having debates about domestic drilling, and to be in nearly non-stop meetings. There have been Congressional hearing on so many issues that Democrats make sound like absolute importance. They just use the polispeak and obfuscate the facts a bit. Like the massive hearings on the lawyers the President fired (CONTINUING INVESTIGATION INTO THE U.S. ATTORNEYS CONTROVERSY). Democrats were all revved up on this.

What was obfuscated? The fact that each of those lawyers work at the pleasure of the President. Meaning that at any time, for ANY reason the President can fire any of them. It’s not illegal, and every President has done this. But the Democrat led Congress had to find a reason why the President fired these lawyers and tried to find a law that was broken, where no law exists. There went several weeks.

A few other top hearings that resulted in nothing:

WHY DEFICITS MATTER

IMPROVING THE LABORATORY EXPERIENCE FOR AMERICA'S HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

COMPETITION AND THE FUTURE OF DIGITAL MUSIC

AN UPDATE: PIRACY ON UNVERSITY NETWORKS

MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE CONTESTED ELECTION IN THE 13TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CREDIT CARD PRACTICES: CURRENT

GASOLINE PRICES, OIL COMPANY PROFITS, AND THE AMERICAN CONSUMER

The list goes on and on.

To help out in listing a few more items I found this video



So my overall point is this, there is an election coming up. Not just for the Presidency but also for Congress. When you go to vote consider why this Democrat led Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever. Consider why President Bush, who is not brilliant and has made mistakes, is regarded better than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Congress by 10%. Consider that every major policy issue that the Democrats promised to do in the 2006 elections still have not happened, and that they have spent more time looking for people to blame than passing laws to help the nation.

Perhaps it’s me but I expect a Congress to do something. For god sake they couldn’t even get together to pass an Act to apologize for slavery. House voted yes the Senate just let it go by.

In November you can vote to keep the Democrats leading Congress, if not the nation, or you can “vote for change”. Unless you have a perverse desire to see if Congress’ approval rating can reach single digits.

Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Congress, Democratic Party, energy alternatives, ethanol, Harry Reid, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, oil prices, President George Bush

So Senator Obama has gone overseas to visit Iraq for the first time in years. His first trip to that nation was done with little fanfare and lasted less than 48 hours. This time he will spend another 48 hours in the company of 3 broadcast news agencies, dozens of reporters, and supplied with help by reportedly 300 foreign policy advisors.

Now tell me this isn’t a farce.

It’s a whirlwind tour of the Middle East with enough press corps to equate to several fire teams, not counting the hordes of military soldiers that will be flanking the whole group. But the question is can Senator Obama learn anything new? Can he find out any first-hand information about where Iraq stands and what America should do in the near future?

Well in truth neither candidate has a great position on Iraq. And as noted by a recent USAToday editorial

“It's difficult, for example, to imagine a President McCain insisting on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely if Iraq's government demands that they leave. Al-Maliki is acknowledging the reality that most Iraqis and most Iraqi politicians want U.S. forces out, at least as soon as they are confident that their own government can protect them.

At the same time, it's equally difficult to imagine a President Obama insisting on an inflexible withdrawal timetable if that means squandering security gains won with great American sacrifice. Though Obama has repeatedly insisted on a timetable, he has pointedly not said that every U.S. troop will be gone when the timetable ends. In fact, he has promised to leave a "residual force" of undefined size in Iraq, and carefully left himself an escape hatch in case the situation worsens. "You've got to make sure the country doesn't collapse," he says.”

So what are the realities of the situation then?

Well for Senator Obama I would think they include the following:

Senator Obama is the Democratic Party line. His votes are not only partisan, they are the extreme left of his party. Thus he was a strong backer of the comments by Harry Reid



Of course Harry Reid was wrong. The surge has worked as anyone with eyes can see. And now Senator Obama has to find a way to tactfully state the Reid and Pelosi were off their rockers. But he can’t say this in a way that agrees with General Petreaus (an enemy of strong Obama supporter MoveOn.org – which would make them enemies of the U.S. government no?) or the Republican Party, or Senator McCain who has visited Iraq 6 times and actually has a frame of reference on the events there.

Senator Obama must avoid making it seem like his trip is a polispeak ploy. It’s obvious to everyone that this trip is not a Congressional fact finding trip but a means to allay the fact that he has no international presence or experience. Senator Obama is spending 1 week to create the impression that he is knowledgeable of international facts, and Presidential in the manner that he acquires them.

His whole goal is to gain votes on the backs of soldiers that are following the orders of the Commander-n-Chief. Thus by standing near a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan he looks Presidential.

Of course if the trip looks like the blatant posturing it is, then he will get a negative backlash. You can’t look Presidential standing on the bodies of American soldiers. You are obviously spinning polispeak when insurgents act up as you proclaim them defeated and our job done.

Thirdly Obama wants to impress Europe. Both because of the fact that so many Americans have roots in Europe and that our economy is directly tied with the fate of those nations.

“It will not be a speech about campaign issues,” an adviser said. “He’s not going to address campaign issues in terms of other candidates, it is not a speech about American politics, and so it’s not a campaign event. We’re not trying to recruit support from the crowds that are coming. It’s not a campaign event.

The point of the outdoor rally is that the senator wants to speak directly to our allies and to the people of Europe and the people of the world and it would be inconsistent to do that and try to limit the attendance for that event. There’s a great deal of interest in his visit. We want to accommodate that interest.”

In fact this is a campaign speech. He is campaigning for the support of world leaders and corporations – who would then lend support to him and hopefully impress centrist Americans that would otherwise avoid his liberal policies.

If this is not a speech about American politics, what the hell is he going to say? He may not frame the speech in terms of McCain, but he will in terms of America and so it’s just another stump speech. Take out the polispeak and that’s all it is, but if his campaign makes it any more obvious it will backfire.

Will this all work? Well it depends. If you are of the mind of say Pete Hegseth maybe not

“Obama frequently decries the danger of “dogmatists” and “ideologues” in public policy, yet he himself has proved consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war.”

If you are of a mind as say Peter Beinart then maybe

“This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are illusory. It’s just that the war’s realities are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest.”

Overall I have one overriding thought, this is political candy meant to do one thing – elect Senator Obama. There is almost nothing Senator Obama can learn with the media following him like puppies and the speed at which he is traveling. He isn’t there to learn anything substantive (lest he have an opinion that does not fall in line with Democratic Party lines, or worse contradict his far-left campaign speeches – more than he already has), he is there to look good. In the words of Fernando

“It's better to look good than to feel good."

And damn if Senator Obama isn’t being made to look good. But I wonder if all the bluster will lead to an Obama Presidency, and if it does will we be able to say this quote afterwards

“I hope when you are my age, you'll be able to say - as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. Our lives were a statement, not an apology." Ronald Reagan

Labels: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Iraq, moveon.org, Pete Hegseth, Peter Beinart, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USAToday

I write for a lot of blogs. Currently the number is up to about 45 blogs, besides those owned by my M V Consulting, Inc., where my posts can be found at. That says nothing of the blogs where others comment on my posts or quote some portion of what I have said. As such it’s sometimes very difficult to respond to each comment someone makes, though I do try.

It is also difficult for all my readers to see comments made at various blogs on some of the posts I have written. To that end I want to take the time to not only post some of the comments made but to also try to respond to them. And I invite everyone to comment as well, either here or on the blog the comment corresponds to.

Your thoughts are important to me and if you write a comment, I think it deserves to be seen in the least.

The following comments come from Presidential Race Blog, and African American Political Opinion though more comments can be found throughout the web.

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

with Obama as president candidate for the democrates, i have no confidence. Interestingly, I remember most of obama’s speech as rhetorical and superficial, taken from other speeches which he studied, and repititious of other people’s ideas. The first two instances I looked and listened to him via the television, I got goosebumps from inspiration; in retrospect, i can liken most of his speeches and line of arguments to those i heard in the past. his fever, i think he got from his hypocritic church which he attended the last 20 years. his racism, he also got from there, and the fact that he is half-black and has to depend heavily on the black american community for most of his votes. his elitism, is a reflection of where he came from and where he now is. These are the bumps i get when i listen to him now. i agree with hilary with her claim that she won the majority votes. she has indeed won almost the same amount of votes as obama, and a variety in her combination of voters, some blacks, white, hispanic, etc., etc., I only disappointed that the media did not cover obama with the same amount of scrutiny that they did to hilary, i think the results would have been different if they has done so. I do hope that the general elections will be covered fairly, and obama will not be given the easy path, sheltered for all slips, so that the outcome of the general elections be fair game.
thank you for your space

janet Felix

Janet,

While Senator Obama has used lines from other speeches of politicians (with permission and thus not plagiarism) it’s not a unique action. Most politicians have done this to some degree over the last 20 years or so.

You mention that his former church is hypocritical. How so? You also call them racist, where is the proof?
I’ve spoken a lot about Rev. Wright and the polispeak soundbites used against him. I think it’s an unfair portrayal. But most of his comments and sermons that I have been made aware of are not racist. They are racial, which is not the same, and they do point out issues that exist in America. While some will feel offended or embarrassed by truth it does not change the truth.

As for the church, which was in the forefront of trying to abolish Apartheid, has helped the homeless, has gay and White parishioners, what is wrong about them?

You also make a misstatement. While Senator Obama received a huge vote from Black Democrats, he also had huge numbers of college educated, young, male, and other Democratic voters. If he only received the African American vote, then he would not be the Democratic nominee. Nor would he have won the multiple states where the Black population was barely 10%. You do a disservice in making that claim.

Ultimately Senator Clinton did get a huge number of votes. Much of this came as Senator Obama reeled from the Rev. Wright media blitz. But I still find that Senator Clinton was a deceptive and horrible choice for Democrats (and I made that clear in multiple posts).

The coverage of the Presidential candidates by the media has been overwhelmingly for Democrats. Along with that it has been for Senator Obama. That may lie in the fact that the media is overwhelmingly liberal and he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. So to hope for even handed coverage seems a waste of time to me.

But there has been enough coverage that your misperceptions should not exist as well. I invite you to read through my blogs and to see what I mean.


Leading Democratic candidates Pros and Cons

The VP choices are the most important ingrediant in this Election. Everyone knows that Obama has a Bulls Eye Target on his Back, and McCain is on Death’s Door. I cannot figure out why none of our TV, Radio, Newsprint, or Magazine Newsies have picked up on this Point?

Steve ONeill

Steve,

I have to say that I disagree with your conclusions. While Senator Obama is no favorite of the KKK or other narrow-minded racist groups, I believe that the Secret Service is far to aware to allow him to be killed. And while Senator McCain is older, he is more fit than most men half his age.

I doubt that either man would die in office, though it is possible. But that is the purpose of the VP and is no different than any other election cycle. The emphasis is not on who they pick but the overall policies they and their VP believe is best for America going forward.

To vote for or against a candidate based on imagined health issues or potential nutcase attacks does not help the nation gain the best President or future. Rather than obsess on the VP pick the best choice for President and the nation will go from there, I think.


What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

THE CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICANS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY MUST END
The Racial and Ethnic classification of Americans is nothing more than institutionalized racism and must be ended. The United States of America has been known as a country of rugged individualism based on individual freedom and liberty. Why has America become a country obsessed with classifying its citizens into different racial and ethnic sub-groups?

The only groups that actively support the continued collection of racial and ethnic data are big government bureaucrats and “racial and ethnic special interest groups” that also happen to receive significant funding from the federal government. These organizations argue that identifying people by race and ethnicity is necessary in order to redress some past injustice and that the federal government must continue to collect and use this information in order to set up special racial and ethnic programs, affirmative action quotas and other set-asides for these groups, some of whom consist of new immigrants, illegal aliens and non-citizens. Nothing can be further from the truth. In a country where we can no longer ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is, why are we still asking them about their racial and ethnic background?

Americans are beginning to realize that racial and ethnic identification is more a matter of personal choice than anything else. In the 2000 Census, seven million American citizens refused to place themselves into a single category by refusing to describe themselves as only white, black, Asian, Latino or any one of the other specific categories listed, because they were of mixed race. Attempts by the government to create a “mixed race” box for the 2000 Census was met with resistance by racial and ethnic special interest groups like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, because they feared that a mixed-race box could pose a danger to the justification for their existence. The fuzzier such racial and ethnic categories become, the harder it will be for these racial and ethnic special interest groups and the government to traffic in them. If a mixed-race category were to be added, every brown-skinned person of mixed race registered in this category would shrink the government’s official count of Blacks, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, eventually reducing their political influence and ultimately the amount of money these groups receive from the federal government, which amounts to approximately $185 billion a year.

Through the mandated collection and use of racial and ethnic specific information, more and more of American taxpayers’ hard earned money is being routinely distributed to these racial and ethnic special interest groups at the expense of all other Americans who may or may not be members of these groups. Through executive orders, congressional legislation, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and other programs based solely on race and ethnicity, our federal government is playing the key role that pits one racial and ethnic group against another, which could eventually lead to our destruction as a country.

Rather than helping a diverse population become assimilated and united as one nation, the Federal government is doing what the Nazi government of Germany did in the 1930’s and 40’s; creating government supported institutionalized racism by the intentional classification of it’s citizens by race and ethnicity.

With the support of racial and ethnic special interest groups, our federal government seems to view our citizens not just as Americans, but rather as “pawns” in some social science experiment to be classified and separated into different racial or ethnic sub-groups for some unknown purpose. By mandating the classification of Americans into specific racial and ethnic sub-groups, the federal government and the advocates of “diversity” are actually perpetuating institutionalized racism and keeping Americans divided. Maybe the real purpose of collecting this data is to justify the continuing flow of government money to these racial and ethnic special interest groups.

If we want to help poor Americans escape poverty, get better health care, find a job or get a good education, why should it matter what their race or ethnic background is? The answer is: It should not! Americans need to come together as members of one country and remember that we are all individual Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which people would be judged by the content of their characters, “not the color of their skin.” The answer to this government encouraged racism is the concept of Liberty with a limited, constitutional government that is devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than the claims of different racial and ethnic special interest groups. Where Liberty is present, individual achievement and competence are rewarded, not people’s skin color or ethnicity.

I will support legislation barring the federal government from the collection of racial and ethnic information about the American people and/or the classification of American citizens by race and ethnicity, including the collection of census information. Exceptions should be made for law enforcement, hospitals and medical research purposes.
I will also support legislation that bans affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and any other programs that give special preferences based on race and ethnicity.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

John,

I will have to address this in a post of its own. Expect that shortly.


The real power of Senator Obama and Oprah Winfrey

I hope Oprah is prepared to deal with the false adoration she engendered by supporting Barack Obama. He has an agenda that has not yet surfaced,but I predict, if president, she will sorely regret what she put into action by supporting this man, who is all show and no integrity, political experience or skill. We can all canvas and do community organizing. or is she hoping that like most black women, Michelle will run Obama, not the people?

deb hart

DEB
False adoration? All show and no integrity? Black women run their men? You seem to have some major issues and they are poping out all over your comment.

First of all Oprah Winfrey is the major daytime celebrity, and has been for decades now. The adoration she has received is earned by the effort she has put forth. To assume less is to insult what she has accomplished.

While I agree that Senator is not very experienced the rest of your comment rings false. Please point out where he lacks integrity or skill? As a lawyer and community leader I have to believe skill and integrity come to the fore. Yet you dismiss this, why?

Are you sure you know as much as you believe you do about what either Senator Obama or Oprah Winfrey have done?

And as for the last part of your comment, I am offended. You don’t seem to have any clue or perspective there, but you do have what seems to be a racial agenda. You’re right on the edge of stereotyping. I would help you pull your foot out of your mouth except I’m fearful of what else you might say.

Simply put your comments make me believe you have an issue with any successful African American, and I have to wonder how you didn’t notice that I am a Black Puerto Rican. Do you think I am run by a woman, or without skill and integrity, or seeking false adoration? You really need to look at yourself and what you are saying, because it’s real close to bile.


Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

Some of your statements are just looking for technicalities.
I am not supporting any candidate, but am just giving one example to not take up time.

One example:
McCain said that Hillary wants to waive a white flag. You say this is a lie because there is no official army to surrender to. Are you seriously saying that because we aren’t fighting a government recognized army that we can’t “technically” surrender? And that makes one of our candidates a liar?

Some of the facts you pointed out are obviously correct, but looking for every technicality is a waste of time. You will find thousands more if you want. We should be look at flat out lies. Like when a candidate says that he/she is against free trade agreements yet vote for those same agreements and write about the value of free trade in his/her own books.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m going for a specific candidate, because I’m not, but just making a few examples.

Noway

Noway,
Nitpick all you want but the facts are what they are. And I did not claim these are lies, Polifact did (which I noted in the post). And yes a lie is still a lie even if the details are minor.

In fact you cannot surrender to someone that does not have someone to surrender to. If there is no army who do you declare a war against or lose to? And that does make McCain a bit of a liar, or if you prefer misguided in his statements.

I have posted blatant lies, and minor ones as well. This was not the first post I address the issue on. And Polifact has a huge list discussing the degree of truth or lies the candidates have made.

But the issue is this. If there are candidates that continuously lie, big or little, to the American public do you want them in office? Especially if they are making multiple lies that sound really close to the truth so no one notices?

But if you look through my blogs I do point out major lies candidates make in multiple posts. But I was just adding a few that Polifact had which I had not covered.


Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

It is easy for those unconnected with Northern Ireland to decry those who even played a small part in the peace process here but every building block played a part and Hillary Clinton’s input was just as key as any other vititors to these shores.David Trimble himself probably played less of a role than the Clintons if truth were known. One didn’t have to sit amongst the peacemakers in negotion in order to bring about the climate that led to peace. Hillary Clinton, through her good offices, played a major role in bringing vadidation to the various womens groups in Northern Ireland and it was pressure from Women that led to the first talks. More importantly the role Hillary played back home, although not mentioned much, was in making it much more difficult for Americans to contribute to the supply of guns to the IRA whether through pressure on the crime elements or on the funds collections. There is a lot more to Hillary Clintons involvement in the peace process than most Americans know about. Just because the first lady didn’t make a big deal of it does not mean that she was not instumental in her role in the process.

Jim

Jim,
I am unconnected to the actual events in Northern Ireland, as are the majority of Americans. But according to the reports I have read, Senator Clinton did nothing but have tea. That does not qualify for bragging rights in my book.

You state she was working with women’s groups in Ireland at the time, which ones? What did she do to help and/or motivate them? I’ve seen nothing documented stating this.

And as for the NRA, it was not Hillary but Bill Clinton, the President, that was taking action. To my knowledge and information the then-First Lady had only one political action during Bill Clinton’s presidency – national healthcare – and it failed miserably. If you can point to anything that helps validate her claims, and refutes the claims of someone that is internationally recognized as having influence, I would be happy to read it.

Until then I will again state that she was using the actions of others to fabricate experience and political clout she does not have.


Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

I do wish that there were other people who view things the way that you do. There seems to be a rush to find anything on anyone that is degreading. I do hope that Americans have grown to a level that is above the spind-doctors. Thanks for a refreshing thought provoking statment.

George O’Neal

Hannity and Colmes are replaying a March 1, 2007 interview with Rev. Wright. He was incredibly hostile. They have been a topic on talk radio for months while there has been a de facto MSM blackout of Barack’s church. It is interesting that Wright’s views were little discussed while Mitt’s church received intense scrutiny. To borrow a phrase, it has taken a while for the chickens to come home to roost.

John Austin TX


George,
Thank you. I do try.

John,
I will say it again, the religion of a candidate has nothing to do with their ability to be a President.

It was not Mitt Romney’s church that was questioned but the Mormon religion. That was unfair and wrong. It had no reflection on his ability to govern – which his time as Governor proved.

As for Senator Obama’s church, what is wrong with standing up against Apartheid, feeding the homeless and welcoming parishioners of all races and sexual orientation?

What you mean is the questions of his pastor. And I have fully covered my thoughts on that. I invite you to check them out.


Remember those before us

Eddie G. Griffin said...
Written history is always subject to re-write (revision), plus the fact it was never acurate to begin with, written from a bias perspective.

chocolate_matters said...
Hello, just blog hopping and wanted to just have some input into the discourse here. Nice blog by the way.
Exactly what the brother above stated. History is always written from the perspective of the victory and any and everything we read should be scrutinized for its accuracy. As a student of history I have learn to question, question, and question some more everything I read.

Eddie and Chocolate

I agree that history is written from the winners view. And that is why I wanted to remind my readers that there is more to our past as Americans than what is selectively taught. Our nation is a wonderful nation and I would prefer no other even with the problems we obviously have. Yet we must be honest about where we come from and have done.

I think we all agree that more needs to be learned and spoken about to ensure that EVERYONE in the nation benefits from a better future.


Senator Obama to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan

Francis L. Holland Blog said...
He can go anywhere he wants, as long as he doesn't fall for the okey-doke of going with John McCain.

I can't see why John McCain's people and the Republicans are so desperate to get Obama to go with McCain to Iraq, except to create the impression that they are both reasonable people trying to solve a problem together. When the premise of Obama's candidacy is that he is reasonable and McCain is not on Iraq.

I say to Obama, 'Go wherever you want, but leave McCain home.' Birds of a feather flock together.

Francis,

Perhaps Senator John McCain wants Senator Obama to see the places that he has been, and to hear first-hand the chances that have happened. I doubt that Obama had much of a chance to notice anything in the less than 48 hours he spent in Iraq.

The point is that the Democratic Party has consistently promoted the view that Iraq is a lost cause after they voted to go their. They have taken every opportunity to promote a doom and gloom view without paying any attention to changes or improvements. That narrow-visioned view of international events is unwise for a President.

To simply assume that Republicans want to point out that Senator Obama has no international experience belittles his need to be in Iraq. He has no international experience, and he took no time to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Wisdom is knowing your own failures and gaining knowledge from those with more experience than yourself. Then you can make a more educated decision.

Isn’t that what you want from a President? So doesn’t it make sense to go with Senator John McCain who has been to Iraq at least 6 times in as many years?


Senator Clinton Wins – Sorry I Misspoke

The Indypendent said...
Obama’s Race Against Race
By Nicolas Powers
From the April 25, 2008 issue
A black man runs from a howling crowd. If he’s caught he’ll be torn apart. If he reaches sanctuary he’ll be loved. This ritual is the Sacred Lynching. It’s a scene from Olaf Stapledon’s science fiction book, The First and Last Men. Set in the future, humanity has mixed and few people are “white” or “black,” and the ritual is a nostalgic celebration of racism in a post-racial world. It resembles our own supposed post-racial politics, and I see Senator Barack Obama as that last black man on earth trying to outrun our media mob.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/04/25/obama%e2%80%99s-race-against-race/

Indypendent,
And what does this have to do with Senator Clinton lying about her experience, failure to make a big primary win, and attempting to by votes (again) with a silly promise of giving the public a paltry sum of money that cannot possibly pass Congress?


Is Rev. Wright a reason not to vote for Senator Obama?

Ghost said...
I would have to agree with the writer of this blog in most part since I have heard these types of prophetic sermons throughout my upbringing in a town 90 miles north of Chicago. Yet, I think the bigger issue here should not be about Rev. Wright. Since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency I have wondered how and when he would attempt to traverse the chasm that is race in this country. What concerns me is that he would be so careless as to allow himself to be forced to have this discussion under duress. Now he has allowed yet another distraction to pull attention away from his message of unity by not addressing the genesis of the symptoms that we manifest today, namely de-facto racism and reverse racism. As far as I am concerned he should have distanced himself from this man long ago, not because he didn't like him but simply because it did not fit with his plan. You cannot expect the general American public to fully support Obama, while he emits such an aura of irresponsibility. He is smarter that this and we all know it. He needs to be concerned about votes and it's time he learned that you cannot pick and choose what you want to be transparent about. I bet in the next 48hrs the Clinton camp will give up their taxes and the history of her time as 1st Lady while the nation is caught up in the racial fervor since it is a more interesting topic. C-ya next time.

RJM said...
No. But I know a many who would find at fault with the statements that were made. Seriously, one thing that gets me was when he talked about our terrorism caused 9/11. It is very true. It was our actions that caused it. The HiJackers didn't just get into a plane and said hey lets blow this up. They were angry. They'll never forget the removal of their land for Israel or the removal of a democratically elected government in Iran for one of Tyranny. How many people know that though? The Clinton's Campaign is riding on the famous American action of inaction. Of thoughtlessness instead of thought. To the Clinton Campaign,her best shot at winning is this for all the voters:
Ignorance is Bliss.

msladydeborah said...
Pastor Wright is not a major factor in whether or not I will continue to support Obama.

I happen to feel very strongly about this whole issue because it is not reflective of his leadership as a minister.

I have been encouraging people to check out his background and to see what his leadership at Trinity UCC has produced.

He did not say anything that cannot be justified. We only need to look at the past to see why he and other people feel this way.

What bothers me the most is the attempt to make it seem as if something wrong is going on because he is the head of a black populated congregation.

This whole action is walking a fine line in terms of rights.

Pastor Wright can say whatever he wants to inside of his church. That is his right and if the members do not like what is being said, then they are the ones who needed to handle the business of that issue.

I also feel that Barack is going to have to deal with race up front now. There is no way around it.

But so are we. And I feel that we are going to have to be a lot more tough on the subject. We are going to have to learn how to deal with what is major and don't sweat what is not.

Labels: democrats, Iraq, Mitt Romney, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Rev. Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

**I want to say hello to all my new readers coming from TV One's website and it's Presidential election page.**

Here is a quick list of a few reasons why I feel the “dream Presidential ticket” means sure doom for Democrats come November. And by the way, the reasons don’t change regardless of which Presidential candidate is the lead.

• 1) Racial and religious slurs. Obviously there have been multiple attacks and rumors that have been coming from one political campaign against another. No names need to be said, but the effect has been fractioning of the party, disenfranchisement of voters, and a potential explosion at the Party convention.
  
• 2) The massive scandals that come with the Clinton’s. Do not kid yourself if you are a fan of theirs, everything they were accused of is going to come back. Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky and the rest. And add in new events like whatever is hidden in the current tax return and the records blocked by Bill.
  
• 3) Absolute lack of experience. Both candidates are novices in the political sphere, especially when compared to the long record of McCain and his military record. Which of the three really has the experience to answer the 3am call? Expect to see that commercial before the election.
  
• 4) Taxes will go higher. Pick your choice, but either way you will pay more to the government. How else will all those entitlements get paid for, like universal healthcare?
  
• 5) For those that came up with the answer, “Leave Iraq and it will pay for it all”, sorry that’s not exactly right. You are correct that with either at the helm America will lose in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Guaranteed the terrorists will be empowered. An immediate retreat from Iraq means that those left in the wake to suffer will join the propaganda that blames it all on America and attack us when old enough. Troops will need to be in Iraq to prevent total chaos (which is the real meaning of being IN Iraq for 100 years – like being in Germany for 50 now). So the money saved will go to setting up a permanent base and protecting/rebuilding from terrorist attacks.
  
• 6) Any person that is against the idea of a Black and/or woman being in charge will vote against this ticket. For all the hopes and belief that America has grown, the fact is that many in America (of both sexes and many races) still harbor bias. Proof is in the wage differences, executive placements, legal system, movies, television shows, and on and on.
  
• 7) Illegal aliens (or non-documented immigrants if you prefer – lack of a passport or green card is illegal) will gain citizenship and/or multiple rights of citizens. Possibly good for unions and Democratic voting blocks, I don’t see a benefit anywhere else.
  
• 8) The stock market classically drops at the beginning of a Democratic Presidency. Depending on the ability of the Democrat, the entire term can be bad for the stock market, business, ultimately the economy and investors.
  
• 9) Both supported (or refused to refute) Moveon.org and its insulting attack against General Petraeus and the Armed Forces. Obviously not good for relations with the Pentagon.
  
• 10) The Party division created by the fight for the nomination, will not be resolved so simply. The real issues, and taking for granted of core sections of the Democratic Party, will not just go away. With either candidate at the top of the ticket some will feel they were robbed and betrayed.
  
• 11) And lastly the egos of both candidates visibly and directly clash.
  

Now these are all real and valid reasons that the Democrats will lose with this combination. That is not to say that either candidate, with a different Vice-President, is unable to win. I think that the odds of winning go up dramatically for Senator Obama without the burden of Senator Clinton. I feel Senator Clinton just can’t win.

If either candidate does win, hopefully some of the issues may be resolved. Stereotypes and prejudice need to be removed. Barriers and small-mindedness needs to be broken. Others may be improved with time.

If you favor the Democratic candidates, good. I’m not decreeing the outcome. But realize that this potential ticket has baggage and problems. If you want this to win, or any candidate, get out there and vote. Only your vote will ensure that the candidate you want will win. Only with your vote, and all those of citizens, will the best choice for America be determined.

Labels: Democratic candidates, Democratic Party, illegal aliens, Iraq, moveon.org, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama