Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Jimmy Carter, Jr.




"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and
keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just
expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not
leadership. That's not going to happen." Say what?

Can you say Jimmy Carter?



James Earl Carter, July 1979: “I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. . . . And I’m asking you for your good and for your Nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense — I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

We have been here before. Do we really want to go back there again?

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.


United States presidential election 2008

Brzezinski is one of Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers for the presidential campaign of 2008.

New brand of politics?

Thirty two years ago a Democrat politician with very little experience "transcended" politics as usual and was lifted on waves of good will to the White House. It seems to be happening again. Jimmy Carter is unknown to most young Americans. Most Americans do not remember how Carter magically seemed to appear on the American political scene. Perhaps a history lesson is in order.


"I'll never lie to you," Carter famously told American voters in 1976. His smile was all embracing. Carter seldom got angry. He talked about his evangelical Christian faith often. Carter promised change and hope. He told us that the mean and cynical government that we had come to expect from Washington was a thing of the past.


Millions of Americans, many of them who had remained uninvolved in American politics, listened. They trusted Carter to be "different." His carefully crafted words led people to believe that Jimmy Carter was something very different from the typical sort of Democrat. Carter would try something new. He was an idealist who was not wedded to failed ideals of the past.


Then Carter won. It became painfully apparent that four years as Governor of Georgia was poor experience for the leader of the Free World. Carter supported on "human rights" grounds the overthrow of the Shah of Iran (our friend) and its replacement by the Islamic theocracy which still rules Iran to this day (our enemy.) He pursed domestic policies which called for privation instead of growth. Carter lied about the firing of U.S. Attorney David Marston, who had been investigating corrupt Pennsylvania Democrat congressmen.


When America faced a genuine crisis, the illegal capture of our embassy staff by the Iranian Islamic militants, Carter was utterly at a loss. He tried to talk to negotiate their release, but the regime with whom Carter tried to work with had no interest beyond utterly humiliating America.


Carter, after the Soviets assassinated our ambassador in Afghanistan and then invaded that nation, was "surprised" that Communism was aggressive and malignant. His response was to try to exert diplomatic pressure on the Soviets as well as trade sanctions. Jimmy Carter, well into the middle of his presidency, seriously seems to have considered that Marxist-Leninist regimes were somehow like another form of socialist democracy, that Moscow was no threat to America, and that the proliferation of virulently anti-American dictators around the globe was in our long term best interest.


All of this sounds very much like Barack Obama.

Robert Byrd makes Hillary's case for her

The democratic party law of unintended consequences kicking in?

I am well aware that Robert Byrd did not endorse Hillary Clinton despite Hillary Clinton's 41 point win in his state. In fact, that is my point.

If there was ever a case to be made to take this to the convention and fight it out, Robert Byrd just made it for Hillary Clinton.

Here is an excerpt from the Washington Wire of Wall Street Journal (link):

In a statement, the 90-year old-Senate legend lauded Obama as a “shining young statesman” a “noble-hearted patriot” and a “humble Christian.” In particular, Byrd said that his shared opposition to the Iraq war with Obama was a key factor in his decision.

“After a great deal of thought, consideration and prayer over the situation in Iraq, I have decided that, as a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will cast my vote for Senator Barack Obama for president,” Byrd said, adding that Obama “possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq.”

His announcement came less than one week after the Illinois senator lost Byrd’s state by a 41-point margin to rival Sen. Hillary Clinton. As the senior democratic statesman for the United States Senate, he dissed his own states popular vote and delegates on his personal feelings and liking.

I bet Senator Obama does not view this as selection , rather than election. Did Senator Byrd lose his bearings? Whether he did or not, I believe the law of unintended consequences kicked in. What say you?

Friday, May 16, 2008

Barack's sniper fire

Barack’s Cross

“Barack Obama has a flier out in Kentucky that addresses his faith and his attempts to fulfill “God’s will” — and it could be a sign that the Illinois senator is returning to his religious roots as he gears up for a general election battle.”


I can not help but wonder, will this be Obama’s Cross that he gets caught in???




After yesterday’s California Gay marriage ruling Joan Walsh asks the question :

Will gay marriage doom the Democrats?


I disagree with her conclusion. I believe it is the thing that breaks the camels back and gets people really to consider just how much and what type of change they are looking for. Don’t get me wrong, I am not even for a federal marriage amendment, I believe it is a states rights issue and a state decision. (The state can’t really redefine marriage they can only skew the lexicon. )

I see the Kentucky decision as the worst possible card the Obama campaign could play. Why? Because while gay marriage alone is not enough to bring Obama and the democrats down, start coupling this with Obama posting on his own website: AP: NARAL Pro-Choice backs Obama, and Obama starts to get caught in the cross of fence straddling; one of his own creation.

He has stated before he is for strong civil unions. In fact, During the electoral special, one of the West Chester University students asked Obama about his gay marriage stance. Obama reiterated that he supports “strong” civil unions, leading Matthews to wonder whether that counts as discrimination. Obama went on to iron out the details: (more at link below) Also on a personal level Obama believes in abortion, not just as a right you have but he couldn’t consider, no he believes it is valid birth control for his own daughters, “I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”.

Add in Dr. Jeremiah Wright and then Oprah’s denial of Christ on national TV and the ties between the three of them and this whole new kind of politician aura comes crashing in on him, and he is exposed as willing to exploit faith for political gain, and that his relationship with Wright was political and not religious, bringing all of Wrights past political statements , Wright being a former Muslim and Obama being a former Muslim all comes into play.

It seems he may get caught in the cross he is trying to use. What say you?

Forget what I think. Forget what you feel. How do you think this is going to play with the average voter? What impact if any will this have on Obama?


Links

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/15/obama-faith-flier-hints-at-general-election-strategy/

http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

http://www.slate.com/id/2191500/


http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/san_francisco/2008/05/16/gay_marriage/

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBlqR

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/obamawatch/2007/03/barack_obama_on.html


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15074.html


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7&p=8

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Do not let your kids watch this



Is MSNBC having serious rating issues that demands going over the top? Why is the guy who could not cut it on the sports channel a political expert on MSNBC?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Popular vote?

Below is a comment I received on another blog post. Do you agree or disagree with the premise of the poster and why ?

The real issue is not how well Clinton, Obama, or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Monday, May 12, 2008

A Presidential mindset?

“If black nationalism would uplift the race, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.”
- Barack Obama, Dreams From My Father, (about his attraction to his pastor’s church as a vehicle for social change.)

Friday, May 9, 2008

Taking the bait hook, line and sinker

I have been disgusted at the blatant disrespect of viewers and the dishonesty of political reporting this primary season. Some cable news networks have been nothing more than "ooh and aah" sessions and cheerleading for candidates of their choice. The media has driven this primary like none other I can ever remember. Just two weeks ago, while Obama was "on a losing streak", finally the media admitted the bias in coverage .


Of course, if everyone's buying the spin and parroting the lines, why should they stop? Now, the same dynamic was going on to a lesser extent in the RNC primary, but the voters didn't vote as instructed (for Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Rudy). In the RNC campaign, we did hear talk about winning the correct states , but in the DNC campaign it seems that is off limits. Perhaps that is because the RNC structures their delegate system fairly similar to the electoral college system. If Obama was the RNC candidate and won the states he did, he would not win the primary.

Ten days ago, The media was reporting a wane in the momentum of Senator Obama's campaign, and that he just couldn't close the deal. They talked about how last minute voters were breaking for Clinton in every primary.On Tuesday, the senators split states and now the media declares the game is all but over for Senator Clinton . I can not be the only person in America who sees the electoral college standard is one that must be considered.At this point in the race, one begins to ask when is an honest assessment of the electoral results going to be discussed? How much longer are democratic primaries going to be detached from electoral realities?

For example, if today was the general election and Senator Obama wins every state he won to date in the primary (not likely) he would have 212 electoral votes and if he took the remaining states of WV, KY, OR, SD and MT, he would have 238 electoral votes. 270 are needed to win the election, so he would lose the general election.

Senator Clinton on the other hand currently has 297 electoral votes in the states she has won to date. If you subtract Michigan's 17 delegates she still has 280 electoral votes . Please remember Senator Obama withdrew his name from the ballot, it was "on there" and then he had it removed.




None of this is secret or new information and I simply do not understand how people can not do the simple mathmatics and realize if this was a presidential contest Clinton won already and Obama could not mathmatically win, but yet we hear this is "how we figure delegates" and the real winner of the election doesn't have enough delegates by democrats standards? What kind of rank idiots are running the party anyway? Is this who we are to trust change to?.

Does anyone see a correlation between how the Democrats system is not based in reality and continually losing presidential elections? Does anyone else see a leadership gap in the DNC ? If the Democrats want to be taken seriously as the party of change, shouldn't change begin in the Democratic Party ? Shouldn't we see they can run a primary without major problems that they created themselves? Dean's attitude toward the voters of states he needs to win the general election should be reserved for other politicians. How can Democrats be taken seriously if they plan to disenfranchisie Florida (and Michigan) voters who had nothing to do with the decision on when to vote, especially after crying for 8 years about the 2000 election? Where has Howard Dean's leadership been? Have any of the democratic candidates called for his resignation publically? Now that would show a sign of intestinal fortitude and leadership.




If the best the Democratic Party has to offer for leadership, or as a foretaste of what is to come, what kind of change is that? We keep hearing that we want to get beyond politics and beyond race but what do we have, politics, spin and race coming out of both campaigns. In fact, how much more old politics can you get than Howard Dean? Listen to him-not me !

The North Carolina primary showed that America has not gotten beyond race. Maybe post-racial is supposed to be defined as describing whites being post-racial ? When I hear Barack talk condescending about white voters, it certainly can not apply to him. He keeps telling white folks what our predispositions are. I have even heard Hillary lambasted for mentioning that white blue collar workers tend to support her. If we are so post-racial, why is stating a polling result biased or wrong? Why can one candidate mention attributes of a race and it be fine while another can not mention race at all? To pretend race is not an issue in Harlem, the Bronx, LA, Philadelphia, The Loop, South Side Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ, Boise, Miami, Matha's Vineyard or Coral Gables is to be detached from reality. Have peoples attitudes changed drastically? Sure they have.

But this pipe dream being sold is a lie. Race will always matter to many black people and white people. Reparations are still being discussed. A realistic view is that the emotinonal healing still needing to occur is among the black people. Just look at Michelle Obama, a woman who has risen to an enviable place in life is still very bitter and trying to get beyond injustices she perceives has been done to her and her people. That very language shows that we are still divided even among the leaders of the black community and those wanting to lead the country, it is still an issue.

I was glad to see this video point to the fact that his appeal is to a limited demographic, even in the primary cycle with favorable press coverage. Indiana points to the same thing.



I certainly am not advocating a change of rules at this stage of primary elections, But when one considers the electoral college is the standard by which presidential elections are decided, then there is more than a compelling case for the superdelegates to nominate Hillary Clinton. It is pure electoral mathmatics and why you have a superdelegate system. The superdelegates system was put into place as a corrective.

No one is going to win the nomination without the superdelegates putting them over. The problem is fear of being called a racist if they balance this to what the electoral system is. The main problem was the system iteself, a problem Dean knew existed and did nothing about. Secondly, the next problem came when state legislatures voted to move their priomary dates up and the "party committees" wanted to show who was boss and said if you do that your votes won't count and your delegations won't be seated. He played chicken and the states said who do the political parites think they are to tell the states in a federal system when they can vote? But Howard Dean, is going to show the states who he is, and teach them a lesson to mess with the DNC.

Don't people get this? These party leaders think they are gods who can order state governments around when they are just a political party. Who pays for the primary elections? Not the political parties. This whole situation just spotlights the insanity of the democratic party politics and how people don't even question it is even worse! No wonder it is happening- people just take it.

We hear things like hope and change, but let's see the candidates get presidential and take control of their party and have some straight talk, not politics. If this Barack Obama is about change, lets see him tell Howard Dean to take a hike for overstepping his position and disenfranchising voters. Or Hillary Clinton. If you can not take on those in your party, and clean up your own party, why should any sane person believe you can accomplish it in the country?

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Huffington Post helps Mc Cain

Arianna Huffington is doing for Senator Mc Cain what no ad he could run may ever be able to do. She has distanced Senator Mc Cain from president Bush.

The LA Times reports:

"On her Huffington Post website Monday, the pundit said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had confided shortly after his bitter loss nearly eight years ago that he had not voted for Bush.

McCain suffered sharp attacks from Bush supporters in the 2000 race, and his disdain for the tactics was no secret. But Huffington's revelation, if true, would debunk the Arizona senator's longtime stance as the loyal Republican who closed ranks behind Bush."

Now if only his campaign would be smart enough to shut up and send her a thank you note.

Swooning Over Barack Obama


So after North Carolina are we supposed to believe we live in a post-racial time when over 90% of the black vote went to Obama?

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Now that you watched the video

Has America become a shadow and a type of what she once stood for? We hear in the presidential campaigns the word "democracy" and "rights" and the "constitution", and what the government wants to do for us and wants to do to companys , if only you vote for " ME".


Part 1 Politics/culture

When Barack Obama started his energetic campaign this year and was talking about moving forward and hope and change, I was weighing in the balance what I have discussed with several people privately-have we passed the tipping point? When I heard him describe a post-racial society,it clicked, have we become a post-constitutional society?

Delusional political competition supports a delusional democracy based on a set of delusional checks and balances. The whole system that once worked has become a sham.

The Framers anticipated that their system could become corrupted and they inserted an exit strategy ,what might be called a legal loophole – a kind of escape clause, just in case things went terribly wrong. The public is largely ignorant of Article V’s option for a convention, when asked for by two-thirds of states, to propose amendments to the Constitution. Worse, nearly all people with political power have opposed using it.

Article V explicitly says that Congress “shall” call such a convention when a sufficient number of states have asked for one – and that is the ONLY specified constitutional requirement – for over 200 years Congress has willfully disobeyed the constitution and NOT granted a convention. In fact, Congress never had the integrity and constitutional respect to even set up a system of any kind to collect state requests for an Article V convention. Over 500 state requests have been denied/ignored by Congress to date.

Part 2 Being a Christian in America

What if we changed the title of this film to I am God and you are not? Would it bring about a humble admission that we have acted as our own gods and rebelled against his authority and his Lordship? Or, would it strike up the same resentment?

How many times when we discuss God's attributes do we create a American God instead of the Biblical One? Do you feel it may actually be tougher to grasp the concept of God, His Sovereignity, His Divine rights of the Creator over the created, His Rule, King, Kingdom, Kingdom Authority, being a subject, the power of the King's Word and His commands under an american style of governance?

What say you?



Friday, May 2, 2008

2008 Congressional Pig Book








You may not realize it, but members of the House of Representatives can lease a car and have it paid for by you -- the taxpayer. And it's not just the car, but gas, registration, insurance … the works and there's no limit on how much they can spend.

Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille,which he leases for $774 per month. Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317per month. And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks wasrecently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks' Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.

All those leases are picked up by taxpayers through a little-known program available only to members of the House of Representatives.

Members of the House who choose to lease through the program have had a great deal of leeway. Congressman Anthony Weinerof Brooklyn, for example, leases a 2008 Chevy impala for $219/month.Congressman Ed Towns of Brooklyn used to lease a Lincoln for $845 permonth, but switched to a 2008 mini-SUV made by Lincoln, the MKX, which costs $715 per month.

The U.S. Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.
Do you appreciate this?

Porker of the Year 2007
Winner: Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.)


CAGW’s 2008 Pig Book Digs Up $17.2 Billion in Pork

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released the 2008 Congressional Pig Book, the latest installment in an 18-year exposé of pork-barrel spending.

“When Congress adopted earmark reforms last year, there was hope that the number and cost of earmarks would be cut in half. By any measure, that has not occurred,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.

In fiscal year 2008, Congress stuffed 11,610 projects (the second highest total ever) worth $17.2 billion into the 12 appropriations bills. That is a 337 percent increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007, and a 30 percent increase over the $13.2 billion total in fiscal year 2007. Alaska led the nation with $556 in pork per capita ($380 million total), followed by Hawaii with $221 ($283 million) and North Dakota with $208 ($133 million). CAGW has identified $271 billion in total pork since 1991.

For the first time, the names of members of Congress were added to the projects. The top three porkers were members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, beginning with Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) with $892 million; Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) with $469 million; and Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) with $465 million.

The Pig Book Summary profiles the most egregious examples, breaks down pork per capita by state, and presents the annual Oinker Awards. All 11,610 projects are listed in a searchable database on CAGW’s website www.cagw.org. Examples of pork in the 2008 Pig Book include:

$3 million for The First Tee;
$1,950,000 for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service;
$460,752 for hops research;
$211,509 for olive fruit fly research in Paris, France;
$196,000 for the renovation and transformation of the historic Post Office in Las Vegas;
$188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine; and
$148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

“Americans do not send their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington so that Sen. Daniel Inouye can bring home $173 million in defense pork and receive the Pacific Fleeced Award or get sapped by $4.8 million going to wood utilization research, on which the government has spent $91 million since 1985,” concluded Schatz.

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.


###