**The I Love America That's Why I vote! campaign is not partisan. No matter who you choose, the important thing is to have your voice heard with your vote. Register today.**

The number of people that have come out to vote today has been remarkable among the Democrats. Not nearly so for Republicans, but the voice of America is being heard. And that voice is matching what my polls have long said, in one manner.

In my poll which has run from 2007 until today, there has been an overwhelming outcry for Senator Barack Obama [seen on Black Entertainment USA]. 51% of all votes have chosen Senator Obama, and the next closest choice lags far behind. Senator Clinton is the 2nd choice in my poll, but trails Senator Obama 2:1. In terms of the Republican candidates, Senator John McCain dominates all other challengers by more than 3:1. In comparing the top 3 no Presidential is more favored than Senator Obama.

And in Super Tuesday voting we saw that this is a trend in the nation. Out of the 21 states that voted today clear statements were made, though the issue of delegates is less so. 61% of the states voted in favor of Senator Obama, on the Democratic race. Looking at the voting percentages, 52% of the Democrats picked Senator Obama. If this were the actual Presidential Race, the news would now be that the popular vote was won by Obama. But that news would be singed by the fact that the delegate voting has gone to Clinton.

I think nothing would be more devastating to the nation than to have the public pick one candidate, and the electoral college deciding that someone else won. After the highly debated and problematic 2000 and 2004 elections clarity in the voice of America is needed. The only way I know that this can not be a factor is to have the voice of America, your voice, clearly stated. That means voting.

Register for the vote. Not because I am important, or you like my writing. Vote, not because I am successful or that I am asking you to. Vote because your life, and those of your loved ones will be directly affected by the outcome. Your vote could be the difference between how the war in Iraq is resolved, which direction taxes go, whether illegal aliens will gain or lose their position in America, and the quality of life of your children and grand-children. These are all things that only you will be able to affect, and you would do so via your Constitutional Right.

That Right is something that many in the world envy and die for. That Right is coveted by the candidates. And you hold that power. But it’s an impotent power if you don’t register and vote.

Here are the results, as of 2 am. If there is any result you disagree with, there is only one answer. Vote for someone and change the answers you see.

Alabama Democratic Vote Republican Vote
56% - Obama 41% - Huckabee
42% - Clinton 37% - McCain

Alaska 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Arizona 50 % - Clinton 47% - McCain
41% - Obama 34% - Romney

Arkansas 69% - Clinton 61% - Huckabee
27% - Obama 20% - McCain

California 54% - Clinton 44% - McCain
34% - Obama 26% - Romney

Colorado 67% - Obama 59% - Romney
32% - Clinton 19% - McCain

Connecticut 51% - Obama 52% - McCain
47% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Delaware 53% - Obama 45% - McCain
42% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Georgia 66% - Obama 34% - Huckabee
31% - Clinton 32% - McCain

Idaho 80% - Obama
17% - Clinton

Illinois 64% - Obama 47% - McCain
33% - Clinton 25% - Romney

Kansas 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Massachusetts 56% - Clinton 51% - Romney
41% - Obama 41% - McCain

Minnesota 67% - Obama 42% - Romney
32% - Clinton 22% - McCain

Missouri 49% - Obama
48% - Clinton

Montana 38% - Romney
25% - Paul

New Jersey 54% - Clinton 55% - McCain
44% - Obama 28% - Romney


New York 57% - Clinton 51% - McCain
40% - Obama 26% - Romney

North Dakota 61% - Obama 36% - Romeny
37% - Clinton 23% - McCain

Oklahoma 55% - Clinton
31% - Obama

Tennessee 54% - Clinton 34% - Huckabee
41% - Obama 31% - McCain

Utah 57% - Obama 90% - Romney
39% - Clinton 5% - McCain

West Virginia 52% - Huckabee
47% - Romney

Labels: democrat, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, republican, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Super Tuesday, That's why I vote, voter registration

John Edwards is gone. Wow, the candidates are dropping like rocks. Not that there is a surprise here. There was no question that his campaign was done. It was just a matter of when.

The Ted Kennedy endorsement must have been the final blow. It sealed the door, and signaled the fact that he had no chance whatsoever. And the remaining Democratic candidates should take heed at what it says about Democrats and the nation.

John Edwards was the voice of ‘2 Americas’ as he called it. The though that there was a rich and poor America and nothing else. He ignored the middle class in this manner, and was a hypocrite at the same time. I call him a hypocrite in the same way that I call Senator Clinton and Warren Buffett that. Because it is each of these individuals that have said that the wealthy, which is never defined, need to pay more in taxes. Yet not one of them, each at least a multi-millionaire, has ever voluntarily paid an excess in their taxes. Not one has made a gift to the IRS, money that is not from their taxes or a write-off. Not one has ever been willing to lead by example, thus that whole complaint falls flat with me.

That does not mean that we don’t have poor in this nation. As I’ve mentioned about my own experience, the education system is abysmal for African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and minorities in the cities around the nation. But listening to a man who gets $400 haircuts and made money off of the vulture financing that caused the mortgage crisis that is magnified in the minority communities in the nation, seems disingenuous.

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

Some pundits expect him to give his support to Senator Obama. Some pundits think that such a call will fail and his supporters will go to Senator Clinton instead. But the best answer is this; the Democratic race has come down to deciding what is more important and comfortable: a woman or a Black man.

I’m not saying experience and change. That is just polispeak, and is in fact nothing. Change is inevitable. President Bush is not running, and every candidate has views that differ from the President. The next President will change the direction of America, that’s just a fact and obvious. The only part of the change that will occur that is important is the fact that the decisions made by the next President will affect how the world, and terrorists, will view America. That the choices made will lock America into a direction that will be unchangeable for at least a decade or likely more.

And experience is probably the biggest joke and polispeak. Neither of the Democratic candidates have significant experience. If you listen to the various speeches of Senator Clinton, she has somewhere between 35 and 14 years of experience. That is just a lie.

Depending on which speech you are comparing she is including her time as wife of the Governor of Arkansas, where she has no responsibility or power and was not elected by the populace. It includes her time as First Lady, which is not an elected position with any power and minimal influence at best. She in fact did not gain experience until she failed to get her healthcare initiative passed and nothing else until she became a Senator. Mind you that as a Senator I am unaware of a single Bill that she has created or passed.

And as for Obama, he has the experience of being a junior Senator for a very short period of time, and more as an elected official in the Illinois State government.

So the choice of experience is really not a factor, nor is change. The real question left is can Democrats live with the thought of a potential woman or African American as President. Coupled with that thought is which of those 2 choices can the country accept as a possibility as opposed to a Republican White male candidate (likely in my opinion to be Senator John McCain).

It will be quite telling to see what Democrats choose in Super Tuesday. It will be interesting to hear what former-President Bill Clinton will be saying now as well.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Due to several direct comments, and a couple found on DIGG, I see that the intent of my posts Excerpt of President Obama - a what if press release and President Obama - a what if press release - 1.25.2008.3 were not understood for what I was intending. To that end I am providing the following clarification of what I intended.

Wow, the responses are really amazing. So far I’m noticing that few are getting the point of my fictional future press release.

I’ve been told I’m fear mongering, and that it was completely inappropriate. And a few other comments as well. Well let me be more direct since that seems the only way to get the point out to more people.

I’m not advocating the death of Senator Obama. Far from it. I would never suggest such an act on any Presidential candidate or President. But such an act is a potential reality, and I feel the reactions I’ve received so far prove it. I think that it’s a fear that all African Americans have for whoever becomes the first Black President.

The post was intended to highlight that there are deep and real racial divisions in America today. That Senator Obama is not only fighting against Senator Clinton, but the perceptions and prejudices in America that have endured for centuries.

My fictional President was a man that was principled. He helped America achieve several breakthroughs that we all wish to have happen in America. He resolved the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that currently divide much of the country. He resolved the economic crisis that currently, and in the near future, is a reality and a problem for the nation. He minimized the threat to our lives from fanatical individuals that wish the death of every American for no reason other than the way they wish to observe their faith.

And in trying to further unify a nation, that previously was divided on issues of injustice in the legal system, sexual orientation and bias of gender religion and color, he was killed by a couple of small minds that refused to see America beyond a limited black and white.

It’s a sad tale, and tragedy often tells some of the best stores of mankind. It’s a morality post. A point that while we can resolve many of the transcendental and even serious issues that face America, the underlying issues at our core are not being addressed. And the cost of ignoring those issues can be devastating.

I went on to suggest that the loss of a great leader could have an impact that covers the globe, potentially affecting everyone on the planet. That even out most determined enemies would not wish to take on the wrath of a nation that would then be in the throes of a social upheaval that was caused by people closing their eyes to an issue for centuries.

Of course African Americans would be in riots. No less so than at the loss of Martin Luther King. Or after the Rodney King riots. The shock of injustice and the festering pain of centuries of inequality often lead to bouts of rage and anger. Especially if those emotions are bottled up generation after generation.

I’m highlighting that it’s the same kind of small-mindedness that is being employed by the Clinton campaign against Senator Obama. And that tactic is working, which it could not unless such racial divisions still festered under the surface of modern day America. That we are seeing race used as a tool to provide a means of segregating Democrats, and the nation.

I fully intended to shock people with the post. But I also wanted to show that even in the worst of outcomes, there are moments of greatness. The greatness in this case being the legacy and achievements of what my fictional President Obama did with the Presidency. Not hollow platitudes, not campaign promises but real action that benefits tens of millions of Americans.

I further went on to ask question that I thought would further provoke thoughts. Because there are many who fear the thought of a Black President. Because there are those that assume that a Black President will inevitably be killed. Because there are those that fear a Black President will change everything in America. And yes that a Black President might mean that the racial tensions that have always existed in this nation, and the war for equality suggested for decades by multiple organizations for multiple reasons, could come to pass.

I asked if America would be better off if each event happened. By that I meant

“…winning of the nearly decade long Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the virtual elimination of the terrorist organization Al Quida, … his quick actions to restore normalcy in the earthquake ravaged suburbs of San Diego, the recovery from the 2 year economic recession of 2008, his work on balancing the American legal systems’ enforcement and punishment and rights of gays, women and minorities.”

Don’t we all want the wars to end and America win if at all possible? Don’t we all want a government that can react to natural disasters and ensure or ability to return to normalcy? Don’t we all want a stable and growing economy that allows us and our children to live the American dream of better lives? Should we all not live by the same laws, enforced equally with fairness and justice? Shouldn’t we all have no fear of persecution based on our color of skin, our religion gender and sexual orientation?

In truth there are some that don’t want these things. But I feel the majority do. Yet it is that minority that must be guarded against.

Perhaps my post was too realistic. Perhaps the fears we all don’t speak about came to life for a brief moment. If so that is good. Because it is in discussing those fears and their causes that make us grow and become stronger.

And in truth I don’t care if a woman, a Republican or Democrat, Black White or Hispanic are President. Not if they have the best intention of America at heart. Right now some of our candidates do. Some are just seeking power for their own personal gain. And some are just looking to extend the political power and partisanship that has existed and weakened America for decades.

I truly believe that America is a great nation. I know from experience in traveling part of the world that it is unique. Our freedoms and unity, such as they are, are unseen in the scope and depth they attain here.

And I believe without reservation that if all America votes we will gain the best President we can, and eventually the best President period. That in voting we will gain a better stronger and more unified nation. Because this still is a nation of the people.

Sometimes a shock can remind us of how fragile these rights and freedoms are. Sometimes we forget what happens if we aren’t open and honest about our past and present. Because everything can change if we let a few closed minds take control and make decisions for us all. But we need to be involved.

If you are angry by my mock post, good. You should be. It wasn’t meant to be a nice thing, but it was meant to provoke shock and thought, and discussion. If it causes you to act, to vote, to be involved with the Presidential election and the things happening around you then it is worth the anger being directed at me.

But don’t just read it on the surface and let it pass. Don’t assume I have anger in my heart. If you’ve read my 1000+ posts, you will understand that I am passionate in my views. Perhaps I could have worded this better. But sometimes a blunt weapon is better than the finest point.

I hope not to lose readers because of this fictional post. It was not made lightly, or in jest. There was no humor in its creation. Nor is there any attempt to generate fear. That was not its point.

I suppose I could have made this part of the original post, but I did not think that was necessary. I was wrong. But I stand by the post, and its original intent.

Hopefully now it is more clear on why I created it. Hopefully all my readers can understand that and respect me for it.

Labels: 2008 election, democrat, DIGG, fiction post, morality, Polispeak, Presidential race, race in America, Reparations for Slavery, republican, Senator Barack Obama, That's why I vote

**A fictional press release**

Major City in America – A date some time between 2009 - 2012 -- America still reeling 3 days after the shocking assassination of its leader.

On the 1st day after the assassination of President Barack Obama, by at least 3 men from a fringe radical group, America is still in turmoil. Across the nation riots continue to encompass most of the major cities. New York, Los Angeles, and D.C. are all in states of emergency as huge crowds of African Americans continue to express rage at the murder of the nations first Black President.

The riots started shortly after President Obama was shot while addressing the nation, offering an official apology from the United States Government to all the descendants of Africans enslaved in America from 1619 to 1865. The apology was a huge political hotbed of debate prior to the speech, with dozens of legislators and governors of both political parties publicly disagreeing with the President’s intent to issue the apology. Several hate groups had been actively suggesting that if the apology were made that it was the final straw and that action would need to be taken against President Obama.

While President Obama had encountered consistent death threats since his election win in 2008, and 2 prior attempts on his life, he had stated that he would go through with the speech. Even pressure from within his own political party was not enough to sway his determination.

“There has been too much time that has passed without acknowledging the contributions and sacrifice these founding Americans made for this nation. While they were taken from their homes and families against their will, they helped to create the nation we have today and their progeny stand side by side with Americans from every race, religion and country in equality and peace. It’s time we say that America made a mistake then, and that we can now look forward to a future no longer marred by the past we so long refused to speak about.”

Shortly after beginning his speech to the nation, at least 3 men fired on the President. Two of the men were in the large crowd that had gathered for the speech, armed with 9mm pistols, and another was inside an office building with a rifle, of unknown power and make at this time. The President was struck at least 5 times.

The 2 men in the crowd were apprehended quickly after being shot in an exchange of fire with police and Secret Service agents. One died on the scene, the other is in critical condition under guard in an undisclosed hospital in the area. The third suspect was caught in the resulting dragnet of the city 4 hours later. It is unknown if there were any other individuals involved in the assassination.

Within minutes of the senseless murder of the leader of the nation, several racist hate groups denied involvement in the attack. Also videotaped denials were released by the current leader of Al Quida, refuting early claims that the assassination was retribution for the successful end of the Iraq war and the death of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was killed in the waning months of the Iraq War, trying to re-enter Pakistan in a firefight with U.S. forces that attempted to capture him and his small entourage of terrorist supporters.

Riots broke out around the nation within minutes of the announcement that President Obama had died while doctors were operating on him to save his life. The President had been undergoing emergency surgery for 2 hours after being shot, and the doctors performing the surgery stated that the damage inflicted was just to severe to counter.

The worst of the riots are in the renovated sections of New Orleans and Chicago where the President previously called home prior to his election, and where he served as an Illinois Senator.

World leaders continue to issue statements of remorse, and call for peace in this distressing time in America. Several nations have voiced concern over the control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and the military which has also reported several events of fighting and disturbances at bases across the world. While there has been no sigh of a breakdown of nuclear control, or fractioning of the military, international tensions have increased significantly.

Religious leaders of all faiths, particularly Civil Rights leaders Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton and even the controversial Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, have all called for calm. So far these calls have gone unheeded.

It is unclear how long this unrest will last. Few imagined that the possibility of an apology for slavery could cause such chaos. But the whole world is paying attention to what the former Vice-President and now President will do.

President Obama will be known for his winning of the nearly decade long Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the virtual elimination of the terrorist organization Al Quida, the continuing fight against the ‘Gods Arm’ terrorist organization that replaced Al Quida, his quick actions to restore normalcy in the earthquake ravaged suburbs of San Diego, the recovery from the 2 year economic recession of 2008, his work on balancing the American legal systems’ enforcement and punishment and rights of gays, women and minorities.


***The previous is a fictional news release that could happen. There are those in America that fear this becoming a possibility. Many refuse to acknowledge this fear, or even the consideration of several of the events I have described.

I hope to never see such a news release. But it is a real possibility. Yet if this were to happen, and the events I’ve detailed came to pass, what would happen next?

Would America be better for each of these things to happen? And what if the assassination or even attempts never happened? What if these events, enacted by my fictitious President Obama, were done by a Republican candidate, or Hillary Clinton?

The real question here is that there are real issues before America, and the next President will need to address them. Many of the problems are deeper than the mere surface questions debated about currently.

We all have the right to vote. That vote implies many things, and directly determines the direction this nation will take. Don’t squander that vote. Don’t sell it cheaply because of the race, gender, political party, or 30 second polispeak answer of a candidate.

If we all vote, I believe we will select the best person (whomever that may be), and direction, for all of America. The President should have no less in mind, and we should elect that President for no less of a reason.

Labels: Al Sharpton, American Slavery, Chicago, democrat, election 2008, Jesse Jackson, New Orleans, Polispeak, Presidential race, Reparations for Slavery, republican, That's why I vote

What a day yesterday was. 300 off the Dow Jones Index, an attempt by a couple of unions to change the course of the Nevada Caucus and Bob Johnson apologizes to Senator Barack Obama. What could possibly happen next?

Well the financial news is something that I expect every Presidential candidate to comment on. There will be more calls for rebates from Democrats, and Republicans will try to promise to keep the tax cuts put in place by President Bush. None of this will actually have any affect on the markets, because only one of them will have any voice on the matter, but that will happen in 2009. That’s a whole year of pain and actions by the Fed and our current President to try to sway the downfall.

As I’ve stated previously, this is neither a surprise to me, nor is there a quick fix that will resolve it. All the hoopla that the various candidates are sure to spin is just an attempt to get panicky voters to choose them.

I restate what I said previously about the ‘stimulus packages’ that have been mentioned to date.

“An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.”

Plus several of the leading candidates of both parties have all flipped their positions. Democrats that hated the tax cuts and called them ineffective for months are now introducing their own plans to boost the economy. And Republicans that disliked the tax cuts are now in favor of them.

But I’m sure you will hear a lot more about specific plans before Monday arrives.

Just remember this, no matter what plan is announced oil is still nearly at all-time high levels, many mortgages are still failing and/or at risk of failing – and not all of them are sub-prime. Food prices are increasing as ethanol production is diverting corn and wheat to this less efficient alternative fuel source and with recent laws mandating increased usage on a national level we can expect even higher prices. The financial sector is not done writing-off their losses for making the bad loans, and more money will be coming from overseas to prop them up.

Net net, there is no quick fix and any candidate who wins will need to realize they will be walking into a mess. I would suggest you don’t look at who has the best ‘sounds great’ plan, but who can deal with multiple issues best.

Because the fact that attention is now turning to the economy, which has long been a issue of importance among citizens according to my polls, does not remove the importance of all the other issues America faces. Our next President must deal with a difficult economy, illegal aliens, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and keeping the nation safe against insane fanatics that want us dead because we exist.

The pundits and candidates may like to address only one popular poll issue but America is more than just one thing. We need to pick the best person for every issue in America, and those that we are not expecting.

You get one vote, make it count.

Labels: aliens, democrat, Dow Jones Index, financial news, Iraq War, Nevada Caucus, President Bush, Republiocan, Senator Barack Obama, U.S. economy

Some days I wish I was not previously a stock broker. Sometimes I hope that what I feel are likely outcomes in the stock market do not come to fruition. But time and again I find that I get it right, not always on the timing or the exact figures, but the trend. And I did it again.

Back on December 26, 2007 I wrote a post Will 2008 be a lump of coal or a nice present for investors? In essence I felt that the beginning or 2008 would be a horrible year for many investors. This also went in line with my thinking about gold and gold stocks.

Directly I stated,

“I believe that the move to junk rating of ACA, the probable $6 - 12 billion loss at JP Morgan [significantly higher than expected], eventual losses from Citigroup - which reinsures itself, oil breaking $100 a barrel, and the multiple overseas investments will all hit the market in mid-January 2008. Thus I think a move to 11,000 is more than probable.”

Key in on the fact that oil has already hit $100 a barrel this year, and Citigroup announced

“The biggest hit came from a $18.1 billion write-down in the value of its investment portfolio. But the bank also set aside $4 billion on Tuesday to cover anticipated losses on loans to U.S. consumers — a sign that deflated home prices, high energy and food costs, and rising unemployment are making it difficult for many customers to keep up with their payments.”

I am wrong in that the Dow Jones Index closed today at 12,501. That is a far cry from 11,000 but all the financials have yet to announce their losses, oil has not maintained $100 a barrel or more, the Fed is cutting rates, and all the 4th quarter numbers are yet to be reported. Even so, the Dow now stands 12.5% below the high and beyond correction territory. It is a mere 7.5% from a bear market.

Is America in a recession? Will gold spot prices hit $903 as have been projected by some brokerage houses? Will more Americans lose their homes?

I would say yes to all. I could very well be wrong, and I hope that I will be. But I don’t see an end to this problem in the near-term. The Fed cannot prevent many of these issues with the application of rate cuts.

Those that are in trouble, or will be, with their mortgages will not be helped by lower rates as that will not cap increased heating and gasoline prices. Small businesses are not going to be able to get new loans as easily even with lower rates as financials scramble to find cash to absorb the losses they are experiencing. Effectively some degree of pain must happen and is not preventable.

I say all this for one reason. So that you my readers can be prepared. If I am correct even in part, then this nation will encounter times we have not seen for quite a while. I doubt that we will see the inflation and unemployment that existed in the 1970’s (when I was a child) but I am sure that we will see levels that those under 30 have never experienced.

Credit will get crunched, and credit card debt will increase for a time. New loans will become far harder to achieve. And costs of fuel will go higher even if ethanol additives were readily available for widespread distribution today.

And then there is the political component. Don’t be lured into the cheap vote purchases offered by some candidates. The stimulus plan proposed by Senator Clinton, equating to $500 per person filing taxes is a ploy. It’s a one time gift that will help no one. It may help you pay a bill, say heating, for a month but will do nothing else for you. Rather a tax cut might help more, adding $50 a week to your paycheck. Either way, don’t sell your vote on a quick fix that is neither.

Further, if a Democrat is elected expect the impending pain to be trebled. Increased costs for nationalized healthcare and other social entitlements will hit the pocket books. That is not to say that a Republican in office will avert any of this. They will not. Just that the historical fiscal impact of a Democratic President is view more harshly, whether or not they are the best person for the position.

So my readers, be prepared. If I am right on the trend, and it seems that I am increasingly becoming so, those that are ready will endure best. And I only wish the best.

Labels: bear market, Citigroup, credit card debt, democrat, Dow Jones Index, gold spot prices, mortgage crisis

While in New York City recently I visited with several old brokerage friends. During that visit we all discussed the market and what may potentially be on the horizon.

One broker, whom I respect and consider quite sharp [even when I disagree], had an interesting comment on my predictions. I believe that the move to junk rating of ACA, the probable $6 - 12 billion loss at JP Morgan [significantly higher than expected], eventual losses from Citigroup – which reinsures itself, oil breaking $100 a barrel, and the multiple overseas investments will all hit the market in mid-January 2008. Thus I think a move to 11,000 is more than probable.

My friend disagrees. His view is that if I am correct in these outcomes, then the Fed will be forced to lower rates further immediately. He feels that this is the only way to stem the problem that is the mortgage crisis. This is especially true when you consider the increase in credit card debt.

“All the people with million dollar homes that would be refinancing and getting an extra $200,000… They find it hard to change their lifestyle quickly. That says nothing about most people who are feeling deflation. And add those paying the mortgage with their credit card and you have a market that needs the Fed to cut.” – Paraphrase

Sound reasoning. But I don’t think a bear market is avoidable.

The fact that the mortgage crisis is far closer to its beginning than end. I expect that there are far more homes in danger than has been seen to date. Even with the highly selective mortgage bailout stated by President Bush, many are going to be at risk. Credit card debt can only float for so long. With the added pressure of oil at or above $100 per barrel, which I expect mid-January as I stated above, more will fail even if rates are lowered (less than 2 points).

Add to this the fact that financials are at high risk. The early infusion of foreign capital may look good now, but this does nothing for future and continuing losses. It’s window dressing. With re-insurers like ACA in trouble and Japanese banks are unwilling to help bailout the shortfall (due to very limited exposure to this risk), the sector will be weak. Historically if financials are stagnant or falling so goes the majority of the market.

That says nothing of the potential of a Democrat becoming President. Again historically a negative pressure on the market. It is even graver with several prominent Democrats nearly promising to increase corporate taxes (or outright take their profits – especially oil companies).

The Fed can lower rates, but that will not stop the general malaise I see coming. At the least the first half of 2008 will not be good. A move to 11,000 seems inevitable. If I am correct then the question is this.

Will those experiencing deflation outweigh the inflation fears? And if more people lose their homes how much of our financial institutions are we willing to sell to avoid the harshest realities of a crash?

Labels: ACA, bear market, Citigroup, credit card debt, democrat, JP Morgan, Michael Vass, mortgage crisis, New York City, overseas investments, President Bush

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

I was reading through the various blogs about the Presidential candidates, as I do on a daily basis and I found an interesting thing. Everyone is upset about the Presidential candidates of 2008. That’s Democrat, Republican, Independent and whatever else you choose to call yourself.

It’s an accomplishment devoid of cheer.

Republicans are upset that there is no clear candidate that has a good track record dealing with Iraq, the economy, gay issues, healthcare, and immigration. Those are the big issues that seem to dominate the pundits and many blogs (including my own).

Democrats seem to be channeling into the idea that Senator Clinton will be the nominee for the Presidency. The other options are lacking in experience, not strong enough on extreme issues, and/or lack the presentation Sen. Clinton provides.

I can’t say that all of them are the key concerns of average Americans, and definitely not in that order. Living in Binghamton, New York I see a connection to ‘middle’ America that I feel most pundits have ago lost touch with. Most pundits and political parties are far too extreme to really connect with the Average American that I have met and live around today.

The question of race and gender has also taken the pundits by storm. Since day one, the fact that a woman and Black man are actively involved, with strong credentials, got them buzzing on the effect they can have on the election. Average Americans I’ve spoken with don’t really seem to care about that as much though. While there are many that will not vote for a woman or African American, most are more concerned with their jobs, and the safety of their children; whether from terrorist attack or actively fighting against that in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And there is the rub. Americans want to know that the dream still lives. That their kids will have a good life and maybe do better than them. They want to retire with dignity and maybe enjoy the free time they will finally have. They want to feel secure that their jobs will exist tomorrow, and that they can feed the kids and take them to a doctor when they are sick. That’s the big concern.

From what I can tell, the issues are the economy, the war in Iraq, healthcare, and taxes. Within the economy are social entitlements and social security. That’s basically it. To date no one feels that any of the candidates, regardless of political affiliation are really good at all those items.

No one has an answer that deals with Social Security effectively. While no politician will remove it, none know how to fund it. And moving it to a private fund is seen with confusion. So a bulky poorly administrated program continues to wither with no real help in site as baby boomers begin today to start collecting on this rapidly diminishing fund.

Huge anger exists of the entitlement programs that are in effect at this time. Many feel too much is being given away to people who don’t deserve help. Not because the idea of the program is wrong, but that it’s application is. Too many pay too much to allow others to flourish with no intention to benefit the system and public at large. And again politician’s answers seem to imply either the wholesale removal of the programs or expansion to even greater levels. Neither is attractive.

As for the war, Iraq is the focus. Most want their sons and daughters to be safe. No one wants harm to come to any of our Armed Forces. Every person I know respects the commitment made by those standing for our nation. But they want them home and out of the line of fire. At the same time there is a clear understanding that bringing them home with irrational speed, based on extreme emotion of a few and political one-upmanship, will not make them safer once home. Yet politicians are reaching for the extremes of staying and fighting an ideal and religion (which can never be defeated by mere arms alone) or cutting and running with out tail between our legs. Political maneuvering aside that’s the options on the table currently from the candidates. Neither works for most I’ve heard from.

I can go on, but I think the point is made. The election of 2008 is a critical one. The results of this election will have ramifications that will last a decade or more after the fact. We will be taking America in a direction we will not be able to change course from. America will be led down this path by a leader, regardless of party, that seems to be incapable of the issues before them.

Now that does not mean they are incapable of rising to the need of the American people. I hope strongly that whoever wins can do that. It’s what will be required. But considering all candidates to date, I don’t see it.

I see extreme views alienating the core of the nation. I see fractures and inaction because of that. I see America standing still as a gulf stream of events take place around us, pushing us in a direction like a raft on a current without an oar.

But the one thing that may help is one thing. We vote. We pick the best choice, separate of political affiliation, that has the potential to be the leader America needs but does not have going forward.

I don’t know who that candidate is. I will not reveal my choice at this time. That is not the purpose of this blog. The goal is to provide the best information, with as little bias as possible, and to encourage as many as possible to vote. We will only get one chance to pick the direction this country will go in. We get one chance to place an oar in the water at this crucial time. Take that chance.

Labels: Armed Forces, democrat, election 2008, Independent, Iraq War, republican, Social Security

Continued from What can solve illegal immigration? Part 1...

Senator Clinton on the other hand is very accountable. In Clinton said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa.

"Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not."

In 1998 Senator Clinton spoke in favor of NAFTA

"a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA...It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun,"

Yet in 2006 Senator Clinton blames NAFTA on former-President George Bush

"continuing to drive hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people from Mexico into our country...We just can't keep doing what we did in the 20th century."

More confusing is a vote in 2003 for US-Chile FTA, and a 2005 vote against CAFTA. Add to that the criticism that Senator Clinton gives to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) which is supported by her husband former-President Clinton.

This flip-flopping and lack of cohesiveness in both parties is unacceptable. Building a wall is a waste of time. People will go over, under or thru a wall if their desire and need is great enough. Even smarter will be the ones that will go around the wall and enter from the wide-open North. Troops are costly, and will lead to confrontation and thus loss of lives. Even with added troops many will enter the nation. And having troops on one border is ignorant when a simple entry option to the North exists.

The best answer to immigration is dealing with its root cause. It’s the same as good medicine. Don’t deal with the symptoms, cure the disease. Improving trade and thus the economy of nations feeding illegal, undocumented, immigrants reduces the problem we face in America. Perhaps the Presidential candidates will realize this, or at least their numerous staff will. At least this is something I would hope as I find it hard to believe only the Latin Business Chronicle and I am smart enough to come to this conclusion.

Labels: democrat, John Edwards, Latin Business Chronicle, NAFTA, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Trade Area of the Americas

There has been a resounding consensus that questions presented to candidates via YouTube are a good thing. The candidates get real questions that are faced by real people everyday. It’s a reminder that average Joe is the person these candidates have to answer to, not the special interest groups and large donors. The questions asked, though some were just ridiculous, did not hold back or cushion the candidates, and that is a great thing.

So far this format has only been presented to the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. It created a lot of interest in who is running and why. It’s lead to further discussion on who really is qualified, earnest, and beneficial enough to lead this nation. It provided perhaps the best example of what choices exist for the election.

There was some debate over whether the Republican Presidential candidates would appear for a debate based on this same format. Initially it appeared that it might not happen as only 2 candidates were confirmed to show. Many, including myself, thought it would be a massive blow against any Republican hopeful not to appear. But recent reports state that this debate format will be happening.

Check out YouTube to submit your question and look forward to the November debate. Remember that your vote counts, and if you don’t ask a question now you may not get a choice later. America deserves better than that.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, political debate, presidential candidate, Republican Party, YouTube

Just say no. It’s not a take on a Nike commercial; it was the United States attempt to keep the youth of the nation away from drugs. First Lady Nancy Reagan was the spokeswoman of this campaign, and with due respect to the First Lady, the results were indicative of how the government deals with drugs and drug crime. In my opinion they haven’t a clue, and screw things up.

You might wonder what any of the Presidential candidates’ think of this. Well if you have, keep wondering as none of them have any information on the issue. You can find comments on whether the government should or should not bail-out sub-prime mortgage loans, because it’s a topical question in the news today; but you can’t find anything on the struggle to keep kids away from drugs or how to resolve the enormous numbers of drug-related crimes. It seems to be a bit of an oversight don’t you think?

Then again, other than an occasional showcase speech whenever funding is needed, The President and the Presidential candidates rarely discuss efforts against drugs. I suppose discussing abject failure and the lack of vision to resolve this problem is too much to speak about. Worse yet, this is a truly non-partisan failure of both political parties, so neither side will get support blaming the other about this.

“According to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 22 million Americans suffer from drug or alcohol abuse. Department of Justice statistics demonstrate that 55 percent of all federal prison inmates are there because of drugs.”

That seems to be an issue worth speaking about. You would think that at a time when each Presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, is trying to stand out among their peers with soundbites over plans (as I understand it) at least one would have something to say about it. But alas ther is just a vaccum as large as space.

Perhaps Republicans don’t want to be reminded that each time First Lady Nancy Reagan implored the nation to say NO, kids laughed and said definitely yes. Perhaps Democrats find it difficult to speak on a subject where one of their most liked representatives, President Clinton, provided the laughable excuse that “I didn’t inhale.” Neither party has past or current Presidents that have done well on this issue.

Still considering the billions spent each year, the ever larger drug busts made by the DEA, and the ludicrous public safety announcements, someone should bite the bullet and say ‘I think drugs are wrong, and here is an idea that might help improve the situation.’

That’s not too much to ask for, don’t you think?

Labels: DEA, democrat, Department of Justice, First Lady Nancy Reagan, President Clinton, presidential candidate, republican

Continued from Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet Part 1...

No site is completely unbiased all the time. No blog writer, or any writer for that matter, is completely impartial. But when it comes to the next President of this nation, whose actions will impact generations to come, do we really want to elect someone that was the least negative of the pack?


At the same time, the Presidential candidates need to use the internet to better inform the public. They need to not just spam us with email blasts, or ask for money via the net and blogs. How about taking the time to answer the questions of the people? How about incorporating our questions into the multiple speeches, debates and press interviews?

I mean the questions and blogs of people less popular than Ann Coulter, or CNN, or the New York Times. How about using the internet to reach out to the people that actually vote. How about speaking to everyone in the world, in a consistent manner and not a soundbite laden speech in one part of the nation that conflicts with a special interest group speech they make in another part of the nation. How about a detailed answer to questions that take more than a glance to read.
Maybe answers to questions like

"Based on your reported desire to abolish the Department of Education (2002), what would you have to replace it and how would it function?"

"In regard to your stance on Roe v. Wade, you have said in 1999 that you would not repeal the law, though you wished there was no need for it. Recently you have changed your opinion to be actively against the law. What has caused your more aggressive stance?"

"Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been."

"Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?"

Questions don’t have to be negative, nor does the website. Information about the facts, positions and thoughts are what is important for the best choice for America’s future. The sooner that politicians use the internet for that, the sooner the nation gets results.

That’s what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Ann Coulter, CNN, democrat, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican

Thus begins the spam and negative email blasts for the Presidential race of 2008. For far too long there has been an emphasis on negative television ads and smear campaigns in politics. For elections of every level, politicians have de-evolved to telling the public what is wrong with this candidate or that one. More money and time are spent in advertising the problems voters should be aware of, than the actual platforms and issues that voters care about.


For a time the hope was that the internet could change that. Many thought it would be the chance to get better answers than the now common 30 second soundbite. Politicians would have to pay attention to the people, and people could find what politicians have said and voted in the past on issues that matter to them. The public would be involved again.

Then I see a report like the one at Marketing Pilgrim and the wind leaves my sails. With months to go before the primaries, already 83% of the Presidential candidates have negative search results.

“Republican candidates managed only an average 42% positive sentiment search results, with Democratic candidates not fairing much better (45%).
Of those candidates with the most name recognition, only Barack Obama achieved zero negative sentiment results.”

Do we really need more spam, smear campaigns and jaded comments? It’s one thing to put out facts, another to just be negative for the sake of making a candidate look bad.

Every candidate has issues. None of them have a universal appeal, with the perfect position on every subject that all voters can agree upon. It can’t be expected. But having clear positions on issues isn’t a lot to ask for.

I don’t expect a parade of positive, yes-man, websites. But not seeing a slew of skewed views would be nice as well. You can point out a flip-flop a Presidential candidate has made without tearing them down. You can show a voting record, or YouTube coverage of comments that seem to conflict current campaign rhetoric without including bile.

I am no less perfect than anyone else. I get as heated on issues that matter to me as anyone else. I have written posts that take on a candidate harshly for comments or positions I feel cross the line. Then again I try to comment on all the candidates, and I try to support all my positions on them. When I lose my cool I try to note that as well.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: democrat, election 2008, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican

There have been several interesting things ongoing currently with the various candidates. As we see that Democrats are trying to push a defunding of the war in Iraq, which I feel would signal our defeat to our enemies and a lack of resolve, there is also comments from various figures on what might be forth-coming if they are elected.

Senator Clinton has made several statements recently that give me pause. Prior to January 2007 the senator was a staunch supporter of the war (while most of the popularity was still mostly divided I noticed) and is now against. Not only against the plan made by the President, but is seeking to limit the President’s plan. Yet Senator Clinton has no alternate plan to offer. In addition the senator has been speaking about holding conversations to understand our enemies. It is the senator’s opinion, as I understand it, that a dialogue is the key to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, or nations supporting terrorists that wish to attack us for being rich, free and powerful. I would equate that conversation with speaking to the local school bully when he asks for your money. Anyone watching would not be surprised when the bully decides to pummel you for wasting his time.

But Senator Clinton has some thoughts [note that she has not declared any concrete plans or opinions – though to be fair nor has her opponents] on domestic issues as well. The senator has stated, and has been recorded publicly, that she would ‘take the revenues’ from oil companies to use for alternative energy research. I’m sure that will help the stock market, and make all socialists quite happy. Does that mean the next step would be taking the revenues or profits from pharmaceutical companies to pay for a national healthcare system? Then maybe nationalizing entertainment companies so that specific types of movies or television channels exist? Where might this process end?

Lastly Senator Clinton stated that if the war is continuing in January 2009, and she were elected President, she will end the war (“You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”). Well I’m sure Iran, Osama bin Laden, Al Quida, and any other group that opposes the U.S. will pray for her election. It guarantees their victory in Iraq and long-term. To make such a blanket statement without qualification only emboldens the enemy to continue to fight since they have an unequivocal timeframe that removes any opposition. Not quite the words from a Commander-and-Chief seeking the best result for the nation. But in this case at least I’m glad it isn’t a declared plan. [By the way, I note Senator Clinton has also insulted President Bush by saying he has no power over the war but Congress does, unless she is the President at the time. Quite rude.]

There will be more on other candidates shortly. I will also mention my thoughts of former New York City Mayor Mr. Ruddy Gulliani, especially while I lived in the city with him as Mayor.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, osama bin laden, presidential election, Senator Hillary Clinton

I don’t think Senator Biden is a racist. I really don’t. I think his comments though betray a mindset that pervades America and is implicit of the double standard in American society. This mindset is deeply entrenched in the 45 and older age group in America. Sadly they are also the ones that do the most voting, helping to pass laws or failing to do so.

I think most have heard of what Senator Biden said. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." These comments have started a flurry of comments. I have been waiting to hear more from Sen. Biden, and I have been unsurprised at his follow-up.

Some have readily accepted that Senator Biden misspoke. That the reactions to his words are extreme. Some feel that since he is a Democrat, the media and therefore the public are taking this in stride; and that if a Republican had said the same words an uproar would have occurred. To some extent all are correct. But I have no doubt that there was a clear secondary meaning that he did not even notice he made. It’s so subtle that he just blew past it.

To say Senator Obama is ‘articulate’, ‘clean’, and a ‘nice-looking guy’ is to belittle him. It’s a back-handed compliment at best. And not much of a compliment at that. Perhaps the Senator meant clean-cut, though that implies a description of looks and not quality of character. Senator Biden has said he intended, and should have used, the term fresh. Again that implies a description of look and not quality. The only positive part of the comment is that he called Senator Obama bright. Of course that was mitigated by his further stating that Senator Obama is a storybook, which implied that he is unreal or something that only little children would believe. Wow, what a nice compliment.

I am highly upset with the articulate comment. It implies that African Americans are generally incapable of being eloquent speakers. While rap and hip-hop may be popular, there are millions of African Americans that speak as well, if not better than Senator Biden. Several entertainers in fact speak better, when not in their on-stage personas (like Mr. Eddie Murphy, Mr. Marin Lawrence, Queen Latifah, Mr. Dave Chappelle and many others). This same kind of thinking was used to describe Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It is this mentality that is used to insult African Americans while seeming to compliment us. It directly attacks the thought that intelligent African Americans are anything but a rare occurrence.

The use of the term clean, where many have focused, is very straight-forward. It implies, like all of his statement, the look of Senator Obama. This troubles me. From the mistaken thought that African Americans are dark because we are ‘dirty’ to bring the thought that the average Black American fails to have good hygiene. Both are false, shallow-witted thoughts.

The fact that Senator Obama is not ugly, detracts from his abilities. Most Senators, and Presidents, are anything but model quality in looks – to me. Yet I do not recall hearing that as part of their platforms which the public votes on. American Idol yes, politicians no. The looks of a politician have no bearing on their ability, but when a person seeks something nice to say – and they have no real positive comment – statements about superficial, transitory, subjective fluff fill in nicely for real substance. If done right it can even be used as a positive soundbite to gain attention.

So while Senator Biden, Democrats and some bloggers (like the one at Main and Central by Lurch who is mostly neutral but supporting the misspoken view) wish to try to turn this into a one term gaff, the totality of the comment do not reflect that in my view. The fact that there are no other politicians that are referred to in such belittling and cursory terms further supports my thought. That is unless the figure is an African American – such as Ms. Condolezza Rice, Mr. Colin Powell and so forth.

The belittling is further compounded in that Senator Biden relegates all other Black Americans that have run for President as insignificant or non-existent. Sen. Biden may wish to compliment and acknowledge Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Representative Shirley Chisholm now, but his thought at the time as conveyed by his words and full context of the statement is clear to me.

This was not a misstatement. This was not a miscommunication. The theme is clear and supported by the totality of the statement. Words are very powerful, and when taken as a whole make a visceral comment that can go beyond the actual words. Sadly many in America don’t fully understand the words being used, as opposed to college English majors, teachers, salesmen, or a politician as examples. Those that rely on words to convey their thoughts to achieve a goal do understand completely what they say.

Senator Biden needs to apologize to more than just Senator Obama. Every Black American deserves an apology. These comments are reminiscent of the mentality that necessitated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. These comments belittle every success and successful Black American in the nation. Hiding behind one term in a statement whose total purpose is too subtly insult will not fool us. The mainstream media may not wish to address this but I will.

For me, Senator Biden will never get my vote. He will not receive a letter to investigate his views, as I have done of other Presidential candidates. Perhaps this is rash, or an over-reaction. I accept that it may be. But the underlying thought of his statement cannot be warmed-over by platitudes or a plea of a single term misstatement. The meaning of the full comment does not change. That meaning places me and 14% of America in a second-class, less than meaningful position. I will not accept that of an American President of politician if possible.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, democrat, republican, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Biden

I find things quite interesting lately. Recently the new democratic led Congress has been making a lot of noise ahead of President Bush’s new Iraq strategy. Before the President has even announced word one we see that there are calls to defund the soldiers in Iraq. This I feel is insane.

First the President should be allowed to unveil his new plan without the shrieks of doom and prevention that now fill the air. All that this is doing is provide the enemies of the troops with renewed vigor and impetus. This is so wrong to undercut the President and to show a face of America as being confused and cowardly. I don’t see how these calls to cut and run can be seen any other way. But let me not get ahead of myself.

It is interesting to see that the democrats that were elected to change the policy in Iraq are moving on that mandate. I think that if the current cry to run away with out tail between our legs was conveyed to the public in general there would not have been as many elected. I do not feel that when citizens voted for the change that was never defined they expected these kinds of results. But this is what happens when people run on, and vote for, soundbite politics. Ill-defined policies are later realized in a manner that does not reflect the general consensus, and voter can only blame themselves for this.

I for one must say that I do not agree with anyone that states that they support the troops, but actively debate about removing the funding that directly supports the troops and/or additional troops which directly provide manpower support. Unless I miss understand the word, support, to remove or block either item does not provide for or maintain [as defined by thefreedictionary.com] nor keep from weakening or failing the troops in Iraq. So unless the democrats have found a new meaning for the word support, they have lied to the public and engaged in soundbite rhetoric I feel, which I hate.

I do not question that Iraq needs to be addressed in a new manner. There needs to be changes. No one wants to see our soldiers killed. Everyone would prefer to see our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, and friends home and safe. But that is not how the world is today. Protectionist and Isolationist polices have never worked in the past and they definitely will not work in the future. Wars take time and there is no timetable that can handily let you know when it’s all over. This is not some kind of athletic competition with a rulebook and a clock counting down to when we are done. To act as if this is now overtime is to admit defeat before we have finished what we started. The repercussion of that failure to complete is far longer lasting and far more deadly.

I am reminded of something that my Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams mentioned when in boot camp. As I recall he said, “Your moms want you to be treated nice. They are afraid of you getting hurt. But the fact is the more you sweat the less you will bleed. Moms of America will get you killed. But I’m not going to let that happen. So boys, prepare to get wild crazy and exotic.” It may have been boot camp but I think you get the point.

And if we don’t follow this simple mantra, the troops will not be supported. They will come home to cheers. Cheers from mothers and fathers and friends across the nation. Even louder will be cheers from the militant factions seeking to control Iraq. Cheers from the Al Quida’s and Iran. Cheers from everyone that will fight to fracture the nation into smaller territories controlled by radicals of various temperaments. Then those cheers will turn into tears. Tears from Americans when the winners that hate our nation come to attack us. Tears from the children who have grown up in a war torn country, fed anti-American rants, firmly believing that every drop of food they didn’t get, the electricity they didn’t have, the education they couldn’t received, the family they lost to civil wars, every wrong in their world stemmed from America. That will be all the motivation they need to attack America and its citizens everywhere in the world.

Think I’m bleak? A tad bit over the top? We didn’t win in Korea, and they are still ready to fight us 50 years later – now with nuclear weapons. We lost in Viet Nam, for many of the same reasons we are about to see now I think, and that cost our troops, divided our nation, and left scars across the world. Most Americans had never heard of a Shiite or a Sunni, yet we learned the words after we lost thousands of lives in one day. If you think that not getting Iraq stable, leaving while it’s still weak and troubled, will not be a problem far worse than what we have seen so far, I think you haven’t thought it all through.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, soundbite politics, supporting troops

Ok, just a few quick thoughts as getting everything set for the holiday purchases and work are keeping very busy.

I have to speak about Congressman Charles Rangel. He has renewed his efforts to pass a reform in the military re-instituting the draft. Of course virtually every Democrat has come out and stated they won’t support him in this decision. Representative Rangel has made his case based on the fact that there would be no war, in his opinion, if the sons and daughters of our nations’ politicians and the citizens they represent were potentially in harms way.

While this line of though has some merit, it is not my reason to agree. Yes, there is a fear among politicians to increase the number of white American sons and daughters that may be killed in fighting in defense of the nations’ policies. That seems factual considering the press to highlight the military as an option for the poor and minorities.

I find that serving in the military is an honor, and possibly an obligation. In times of peace I have no problem with a volunteer military. Those that do chose this option help to maintain the rights and lifestyle that is the daily life of every citizen. It has been the blood and sweat of all those that have and continue to serve that drives millions to seek out our nation as the best place in the world to live. This choice to offe