Brazile & Clark's Spin Is Out Of Control

Has the Obama campaign and their surrogates switched strategies from Hypnosis to outright Brainwashing?

Are we so ignorant as Americans that we would give credibility to the spin coming out of the Obama campaign?

Two Obama surrogates put a new spin on their rhetoric this weekend that have taken political lunacy to a new level. On Saturday, Wesley Clark, an individual whose service and love of this country attacked John McCain's military service and qualifications for the presidency. Meanwhile, Donna Brazile, published an op-ed piece that now makes me question whether she is actually living in Obama World or here on planet earth with the rest of us.

First, let's address the disgusting statements made by General Clark on Saturday.

The Obama campaign had to go DefCon 2 on Saturday after Obama surrogate Wesley Clark launched a deliberate attack on John McCain's military service, leadership and qualifications for the presidency. In statements made on Face the Nation, Clark stated, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president..."

Clark continued, "in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. ... He hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. ..."

Clark's attack on McCain's service and leadership history were uncalled for, unfortunate, and deserving of a condemnation by Barack Obama. In the interview Clark referred to McCain as "untested and untried", a tag that the candidate Clark is supporting is much more deserving of.

Let's face reality, Obama and his surrogates will not win any battle in which they launch attacks on John McCain's service to this country, whether militarily or in the years that have followed. After all, if John McCain's wartime service, post-war leadership, and years of public service do not qualify him to be president, then Obama is no more qualified than my second-grade daughter.

Clark's attack served no purpose other than to demean Senator McCain. It was pointless, fruitless, and demeaning to every person who has served this country. I would, and everyone should expect more from former General. Clark should have strayed from this issue, after all John McCain has spent a lifetime in service to this nation, suffering the ultimate hardships of war and fighting on capital hill (many times in opposition of his own party) to forward his belief that this nation is great.

So General Clark, what do you say about your candidate? You know, the "chosen one" that chose not to serve his country. The one who stated he didn't serve because by time he was of age the Vietnam War was over and the draft was gone. I would have much more respect for Obama if he would have simply stated that he made the choice not to serve in the military because he felt he could better serve his country in the public sector. Instead, Obama in statement after statement has stated he didn't serve because there was no draft.

So General Clark, if John McCain lacks the leadership in his 35 years since his release from the Hanoi Hilton, what about your candidate? McCain has a record, much more extensive than the 150 days of Senatorial experience of Obama. McCain has a record of working with both Democrats and Republicans, after all the 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee stands side-by-side with John McCain. Who does Mr. Obama have at his side, George McGovern?

Clark messed up and the Obama campaign is trying to spin their way out of this gaffe; but regardless this attack on McCain was outrageous, uncalled for, and disappointing.

Next, Let's talk about a more upbeat Obama surrogate: Donna B.

Personally, I understand Obama surrogates wanting to be upbeat and putting a positive spin on the rift that does exist within the Democratic party. But ignoring the problem and attempting to Brainwash disengaged voters is not the solution.

This morning Donna Brazile published an op-ed column "Democrats' Unity Bodes Ill For McCain". I cannot wait for the response from the Puma and Just Say No Deal community. Brazile's fluff piece would lead any reasonably educated person to question her sanity.

Let's begin with this statement by Brazile, "McCain probably threw one of his famous hissy fits when he read the one-sentence statement from the office of former President William Jefferson Clinton: "President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Sen. Obama is the next president of the United States." Donna, I am willing to bet that John McCain probable broke into hysterical laughter, as most McCain supporters did, when he read (READ) that statement. A LETTER may have carried weight in 19th century before Radio and Television, but let's face reality: Clinton's endorsement of Obama, first through a spokesman and the through a LETTER, is far was not desirable. It carries no weight and even the most uneducated and politically inept among us would have to admit that Clinton's endorsement was a slight and the equivalent to a slap in the face.

But Brazile wasn't finished when she continued, "The Obama-Clinton rapprochement is no ordinary public relations stunt; it is a movement. And McCain better adjust his strategy to deal with it or face the consequences." A movement! Unity! Unity! Unity! Donna, the Civil Rights marches were a movement, Women's suffrage was a movement, JUST SAY NO DEAL IS A MOVEMENT. This is no movement and you are a propagandist. Lou Dobbs made scathing remarks two weeks ago for the ridiculous statements on some networks for referring to the Obama campaign as a movement rather than a campaign. Now we know where they get their reporting from.

Brazile's most ridiculous statement of the day referred to why Clinton's support was so crucial to the Obama campaign. "There's no question Sen. Clinton will campaign hard for both Obama and Democratic Party candidates up and down the ballot. Her appeal is strong in crucial swing states like New Hampshire." Now in her defense she state, "Clinton is also capable of helping Obama in states that were especially troublesome for him in the primaries, including Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and California..." Did you catch that first part though. The "crucial swing state like New Hampshire". Yes Donna, in Obama World New Hampshire, a state with 4 electoral votes and that has swung both ways, is much more important than say...West Virginia, a Democratic stronghold that went Red under your campaign management and which was completely shunned and dismissed by Barack Obama. Let alone, all of those crucial states in which Hillary garnered complete support.

Brazile on the unity in hiring former Clinton Advisers: "Clinton had some of America's top political strategists inside her campaign, and those talented individuals are battle-tested and eager to get a Democrat back in the White House...Obama has already hired Patti Doyle Solis, Clinton's first campaign manager, to serve as his yet-to-be-named vice presidential running mate's chief of staff." Heh, Heh, Heh. I believe I can actually see the Pumas posturing to pounce as their faces turn red after reading this profound observation by Brazile. Patti Doyle Solis was fired by the Clinton campaign and credited with putting together a inept campaign strategy that lacked actual campaigning. Solis is hated by Clinton supporters and no longer has a relationship with Clinton, the idea that this was ever a good move or one that would promote unity is ridiculous. (Plus, wasn't it nice of Obama to hire the VP Chief-Of-Staff for whoever the VP will be)

The Obama campaign is in trouble and their surrogates are doing everything they can to Brainwash the American people into believing that the Campaign will soar to electoral victory. Obama should have received a bump in May when he claimed the majority of pledged delegates; he should have received a bump when he became the presumptive nominee; and he should have received a bump after Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed him. With the exception of the outlier Newsweek and LA Times polls, the legitimate polls have shown a shrinkage in Obama support. The fact is that Obama has little opportunity for future bumps within the campaign season (VP announcement and convention).

The GOP and republican 527's which have out-raised their democratic counterparts have not yet begun their attacks on Obama and are sure to be pointed and powerful. The Obama campaign has yet to shore up support within his own party, ignoring the very voters that threw their support behind Clinton while perplexedly pursuing groups such as evangelicals who are disgusted by Obama's religious associations and whose most powerful voices have already began criticizing the Senator.

But the good news is that in Obama World, none of this matters, only the vision and spin of profound leaders such as Donna Brazile.

J Brown
June 30th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Remember Just $10!Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement
Obama's Subprime Buddies

Why Obama & Dean Fear 4 Million!

Quick Note: The Stop Obama Links Will Not Be Updated Until Monday

A Message From An Independent Conservative.

This weekends PR stunt or "unity" fest underscores a problem for the presumptive Democratic nominee. The problem can be summed up in one word: PUMA.

Since the end of the Democratic primaries the DNC has been plagued by this growing group of Hillary Clinton supporters who have pledged to vote against Barack Obama and reform the Democratic Party that is clearly more interested in power than moving the country forward. In recent weeks Democratic leadership has bombarded the press with a message of unity and a fall-back to the talking points meant to divide this country such as abortion.

So how much of problem does PUMA and Just Say No Deal represent to the Obama campaign?

A huge one and here's why:

PUMA and Just Say No Deal are comprised of Hillary Clinton's most ardent supporters and represent what Richard Nixon once referred to as the "Silent Majority". They are middle class values voters, the "Reagan Democrats", who position trust, personal and religious beliefs, a profound love for their country, and political education at the forefront of their political decision making. The PUMAS embody the fighting spirit of our founding fathers, driven by a belief that our country, not our political parties, should come first.

Immediately following the Montana primaries, the Obama campaign, DNC, and Obama supporters immediately began their attempt to win back the votes of the Just Say No Deal community. Understanding that this group could lead to potential disaster for the "presumptive nominee" the Obama campaign turned the politics of "division and distraction" to win back their vote. With hours of the primaries Obama supporters websites lit up with stories viciously attacking John McCain as a womanizer who abandoned his ex-wife for petty reasons and pursuit of a more attractive companion. The stories manipulated the relationship between McCain and former Wife (who has supported McCain in every campaign) and focused on a relationship strained by horrible personal tragedies that would forever-change anyone in their positions. The stories quickly faded, but displayed a disturbing reality that the Obama campaign would stoop to the lowest levels to win back support of the Puma Community.

In the weeks that have followed, the Obama campaign and his supporters have bombarded Puma Network bloggers with messages and stories of "how a McCain presidency would overturn Roe v. Wade". Of all the campaign issues that the Obama campaign could have chosen, they chose to garner support from the PUMA campaign by launching a campaign of fear-mongering surrounding the most divisive political issue of our time.

The message of unity from the Democratic Leadership has unfortunately worked with a majority of Hillary's supporter, but has failed with the quarter of Hillary's supporters who hold the power to destroy an Obama candidacy. The media, with few exceptions, has ignored this group and overlooked their strength; but Barack Obama and Howard Dean know they are in trouble.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Dean understand that Obama needs the 25% of Disengaged Clinton supporter to win the general election; a group that represents 4 million voters who would have easily changed the outcome of every election since 1988. Obama and Dean know that they must find a way to bring in new voting blocks because his base of support is simply tapped out. This Democratic primary season has brought forth the largest turnout since 1972. But as we learned in 1972, the groups who overwhelmingly support Obama are not likely to produce growth in the general election. This reality is reflected in the Obama campaigns attempts to now shore up support with the gay community and evangelical communities at the same time (it will be interesting to see how he handles this pandering).

Why Does Obama Fear 4 million?

The PUMA Community represents the most ardent, values driven and politically educated of Hillary Clinton's supporters. They do not fall for the traditional talking points of the political parties that are meant to drive a wedge between the electorate. When McCain was attacked as a Womanizer and accused of not supporting equal pay; this community researched the issues and pointed out the divisiveness and fallacies of the accusations. When Obama and his supporters brought abortion to the forefront of their argument, the Puma community was quick to point out that historically speaking the "Overturning Roe" threat has been disproved simply by the fact that after years of Republican judicial appointments SCOTUS has shown no desire to take up the issue. Obama fears the Puma community because they are not the typical single-issue voters who will fall for rhetoric.

The Obama campaign fears the voices of these 4 million who understand the issues and fear an Obama presidency. The overlook the populist rhetoric spewed on the campaign trail and understand that Obama has offered criticism without solutions. The most dangerous threat to the Obama campaign is a large grass-roots movement intent upon educating the masses who have been mesmerized and hypnotized by the Obama's tongue. The understand the inquality and mainpulation within the Primaries and are understand the lack of solutions presented by the anointed Obama. Moreover, they have proven that they will not be silenced. They continue to show up at Unity events and have forced the media to recognize their strength. The Obama campaign and DNC has attempted to ignore their voices and not acknowledge their strength, but the PUMA will not go away.

The next problem for the Obama campaign is fundraising. The summer months are typically the doldrums of campaign financing with most donations flowing in after the conventions. Obama flipped on his commitment to public funding because of this reason. The Obama campaign expected growth in the fundraising in May, especially in light of the heated primary race. Yet, Obama's campaign donations dropped by 33% in May, while Clinton's and especially McCain's increased. The Obama campaigns understands that he must garner the support of Hillary Clinton and his donors must be willing to help her retire her campaign debt. If they don't, there will be a backlash from even more Clinton supporters. However, Obama has no intention of pushing for a quick retirement of Clinton's $20 million debt. He know that the PUMA community is still donating to the Clinton campaign and the sooner that debt is retired, the sooner their donations will flow to John McCain. Obama is banking on the fact that Clinton's debt will not be retired before the conventions, thus limiting contributions to the McCain campaign by Puma's and the spending of contributions by McCain who is taking public financing.

What Keeps Obama & Dean Awake At Night?

The fear that the PUMA community and their silent supporters will realize the power of their fundraising. If just half of those 4 million who do not support Obama were to immediately give $10 to both the McCain campaign and PumaPac, the influx of cash would spread the Puma message like a wildfire through the media while providing the McCain campaign with the extra resources they need to overcome the wealthy who have funded 60% of Obama's campaign. If the just half of this 4 million were to contribute the media would be forced to question a campaign that they have more often referred to as a "movement", than as the "political campaign" it is.

The Biggest Fear

In his farewell address, George Washington, highlighted and re-iterated the long time fear of Political Parties that our founding fathers shared. They understood that parties that remained unchallenged and unchecked would eventually subvert the power of the people to pursue the power of the party. This weekends love-fest of Unity and the formation of HOUND (an organization formed this weekend by Dem. Leadership to promote party unity) are representative of the very fears of our founding fathers. PUMA, whether you agree with their members personal positions or not, embodies the spirit of American Independence and the spirit of our founding fathers that our strength lies in the people, not in political parties. Dean and Obama, more than anything, fear that the PUMA and Just Say No Deal Community will renew this compact and profound idea that "We The People" not "We The Democrats or Republicans"control this nation.

The independence and liberties that this nation has embraced and embodied for 232 years will never survive if we allow party unity to overpower the American spirit. Pumas understand that and Howard Dean and Barack Obama hope that the rest of us don't. So this upcoming independence day, embrace the beliefs of our founding fathers and when you hear the call for party unity, JUST SAY NO DEAL.

J Brown
June 29th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Remember Just $10!
Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement
Obama's Subprime Buddies

Obama’s "Subprime" Contributor’s Part II

Obama’s Subprime Contributor’s Part II

In Our Article: Obama Accepts Millions From “Subprime” Tied Contributors, we launched our attempt to inform the public of the millions of individual and bundled campaign dollars funneling into the Obama campaign from High Level Executives of Investment Banks, Mortgage Lenders, and Hedge Funds involved with the Mortgage Meltdown.

The ties between Obama and the industry are too expansive and raise the question, “Is Obama just another politician, saying what is politically expedient while sending an opposite message to his donors?”

A growing consensus would say yes. After all, the Obama campaign is increasingly becoming a campaign built upon political expedience. After attacking NAFTA in Ohio and Pennsylvania, news stories surfaced that a top Obama advisor told a Canadian official not to be concerned. A message that seemed to resonate in Obama’s backtracking on NAFTA in recent weeks. After pandering to AIPAC at the beginning of the month in calling for an undivided Jerusalem, controlled by Israel; the Obama campaign immediately changed their message the next day after his comments sparked Muslim outrage throughout the Middle East. Last fall, Obama stated that he would filibuster any FISA bill that would grant immunity to the telecom industry; yet this week he broke another promise. Finally, Obama unequivocally stated that he would accept public financing during a general election, yet now Obama feels the system is unfair and needs an overhaul.

The question still remains, "where are Obama’s campaign donations coming from"? His campaign boasts of a donor database of over 1.5 million contributors; yet over 60% of the money his campaign has raised has come from less 10% of his donors. In fact, as of late winter, just 350 campaign bundlers were responsible for over $78 million in campaign contributions.

The Center For Responsive Politics continues to call upon both campaigns to provide updated and full disclosure of the campaign bundlers; yet the Obama campaign in practicing its “change” politics, has failed to provide full disclosure of its donors.

What we do know is that the FEC requires full disclosure (Names, Employers, etc…) of individual contributions of more than $250. From aggregating information contained within FEC disclosures you can begin to form a picture of where the large contributions are coming from. According to The Center For Responsive Politics, of the 20 largest sources of campaign contributions to the Obama Campaign, 11 were Investment Banks or International Law firms directly tied to the financial industry.

During the primary cycle Obama attacked lobbyists and PAC’s going so far as to attempt to force the entire Democratic Party to refuse money from lobbyists and PAC’s in the general election. Obama has criticized PAC and Lobbyist money as having undue influence within Washington. But are any contributions from these organizations or individuals any less influential than the more the $294,000 he has received (thru May 1st) from Sidley Austin LLP employees. Those who are familiar with Sidley Austin LLP understand that the firm is a large, international law firm with a large presence within the financial services and insurance industry. For instance, the firm was just recognized by Alpha Magazine as the top firm for Hedge Funds for the second year along with consistently ranking as a top corporate law firm. Obama has also accepted more than $280,000 from Skadden, Arp, et al... employees, a firm that was recently recognized as the “Best Corporate Law Firm In The United States” for the eighth consecutive year by Corporate Board Member. Skadden is another large Law firm specializing in practices related to investment banking and representing clients such as Merrill Lynch. In addition to the aforementioned law firms, Jones Day, Latham & Watkins, & Wilmerhale LLP are all large law firms and top 20 contributors to the Obama campaign. All three of these law firms also specialize in corporate law and ranking among the top ten “corporate law firms” by the Corporate Board Member.

Understand that I am not demonizing any of the companies or firms in this article, after all they are businesses and their employees have the right to contribute to campaigns. The issue is not with the companies whose executives have flocked to the open arms of the Obama campaign; rather the issue is the open arms of the Obama campaign. He has publicly demonized the investment banking and mortgage industry in front of crowds across the nation, yet has his campaign advisors accepting huge amounts of cash from the executives who run these companies and the attorney’s who represent them. The Obama campaign has demonized lobbyists, many of whom represent non-profit organizations and even State governments, all the while accepting millions in contributions from law firms who specialize in corporate representation. It’s lunacy.

Meanwhile back on Wall street the employees of Goldman Sachs have contributed more than half a million dollars to the Obama campaign, not including any ancillary contributions collected by bundlers who are employed by Goldman Sachs. The Obama campaign will counter these numbers by citing that these are large companies that these are large companies and due to their 1.5 million donors you would expect large amounts of contributions from the employees of these companies. Yet, this argument is nothing more than manipulative political spin. As I stated earlier, the campaigns are only required to collect and report employment information for donors contributing more than $250 during the primary or general election cycles. These numbers are how we are able to determine that less than 10% of his donors account for 60% of his campaign’s contributions. Thus, the aggregate totals for these companies represent the highly paid and executive level contributions made to the Obama campaign, not donations flowing from employee who contributed $10 or $20 dollars. Goldman Sachs employees are the largest aggregated contributors to the Obama campaign.

UBS and Citigroup, companies writing off billions of dollars in “subprime” related losses in the past 2 weeks, are also among top ten contributors to the Obama campaign. Executives at these companies, such as Obama bundler and UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, have contributed around three-quarters of a million dollars to the Obama campaign.

Lehman Brothers executives have also flocked to the Obama camp, directly contributing over $300,000 to the Senator. Of course, the amount of direct contributions by these executives is overshadowed by the bundled contributions they have collected on his behalf. We know based upon disclosure from the Obama campaign that just 4 Lehman executives alone are responsible for more than $500,000 in bundled contributions. Unfortunately, these bundled contributions and Obama’s list of bundlers have not been updated for months as the Obama campaign has refused to disclose the information.

These contributions were matched by Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase executives who rounded out the Obama campaigns top twenty. In all the Obama campaign has accepted $19.5 million in contributions from the “disclosed” employees of financial services, insurance, and real estate firms, the largest sector to contribute to the Obama campaign. Additionally, Obama’s second largest source of campaign funds has come from the nearly $18 million he has accepted from attorneys. These numbers are more than twice the amount contributed by these sectors to the McCain campaign; increasing even more when you factor in the large contributions made by spouses and direct family members of these executives.

Again, I’m not demonizing any of these contributors or companies that have made these contributions; Senator Obama has done more than enough of “demonizing” on the campaign trail. The executives at these companies have earned their positions and have the right to pursue whatever political path they choose. The issues rests within the candidate who has run on a platform that has criticized the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, demonized financial services firms and their executives, demanded a halt to the undue influence of lobbyist and PAC money in Washington (only a position he recently embraced), and claimed that he will end the political greed that exists in Washington. Yet while proclaiming that he is the candidate with “good judgment” and that his campaign is a “movement”, Obama has had his hands deep in the pockets of the financial institutions and their legal representation that have contributed to the “mortgage meltdown” we are entrenched in today.

Obama can attempt to proclaim that he is not swayed by these contributions, yet if that were true then he would also not be swayed by lobbyist and PAC contributions.

Every story that surfaces concerning Senator Obama reeks with the stench of the long-corrupt Chicago political machine. Obama is part of this machine; his rise to power was due to this machine, and like the Chicago power brokers he is nothing more than a say anything, do anything candidate who once elected will break all campaign promises, act only to increase his own political power and then expect the long-term memory loss that the public has to kick-in by election day.

There is a reason, more than all others that the Obama campaign wishes to forego public funding: He knows that he has his hands sewn into the pockets of the banking executives and their attorneys.

Check back for updates on our third installment. We will be refocusing on more of the individual “subprime” contributors to the Obama campaign.

J Brown
June 28th, 2008

Will The Media Be Fair To "Just Say No Deal" and Puma Voices This Weekend

Will The Media Be Fair To Just Say No Deals Voice This Weekend

Coming up tomorrow is our 2nd installment from “Obama Accepts Millions In “Subprime” Tied Contributions.

Last week while watching Lou Dobbs, the only program on CNN that can genuinely claim journalistic integrity and fair reporting, Mr. Dobbs eluded to his disgust with the lack of fair reporting during this campaign cycle. He pointed out the undeniable fact that much of the main stream media has been “in the tank” for the Obama campaign. Further denouncing certain Media outlets (you know the ones) that have chosen to refer to the Obama campaign as a “movement” while referring to Hillary Clinton and John McCain’s runs as simply “political campaigns”.

Organizations such as the LA Times and Newsweek have demonstrated a particular lack of fair reporting during this campaign cycle. Last weekend, the LA Times published a story claiming that McCain should essentially not be qualified for the presidency because his of his wife’s ties to the brewing industry. Their claim was based upon the fact that although he has removed himself from related legislation in the past, as president he would have to deal with such legislation. Of course, the LA times failed to mention that if that were the standard than Barack Obama would be unqualified for the presidency due to his wife’s ties to the medical industry and her legal background. Both industries of course carry a greater prominence in current legislation.

Newsweek and the LA Times have also made a concerted effort over the past two weeks to manipulate polling data by releasing outlier polls showing Obama with a double digit lead. The polls, which have been scrutinized by the legitimate polling organizations and a few fair media organizations, have undermined the data produced by the established and respected polling organizations such as Rasmussen and Gallup. Newsweek of course was quick to respond the questions of legitimacy by have one of their own columnists analyze the polling data and conclude that their poll was fair and accurate.

There can be no doubt that this weekend will be media love fest in which the MSM’s will report the healing and unification with the Democratic Party. But even as Hillary Clinton joins Barack Obama on the campaign trail, the question is whether the media will offer a fair analysis of this unification. For instance, is Hillary Clintons support (including her husband’s lackadaisical support) genuine or stemming from the fact that they do not wish to become the next Joe Liebermann of the Democratic Party. A Rasmussen poll released this week showed that only 37% of those polled believed that Clinton really wanted Obama to win.

The Washington Post for its part did publish a story early this morning (located in our Stop Obama Hot Links Below) that interviewed the founder of the Just Say No Deal Coalition, a grass roots movement to reform the Democratic Party and Stop Obama. Just Say No Deal along with Puma Pac has encouraged their growing number of supporters to show up at the rally in New Hampshire and exercise their right to dissent. But the real question is will the main stream media give any credence to the hundreds of Pumas at tonight’s rally, or will they simply silence their voices?

The Puma Community has a message that needs to be heard and if the GOP and McCain campaign were smart they would provide a platform for these voices. For my part, I have enjoyed a large readership from the Men and Women who make up the Puma Community and their voices, whether I agree with them or not, will always be welcome. These are dedicated individuals, well educated on the issues and well-spoken. They are not demeaning, derogatory, or mean-spirited. These are individuals that have deep-seeded values and beliefs, which love this country and are willing to put this country ahead of party loyalty. They have taken a courageous step in Just Saying No to a party that has clearly been hijacked by the party elitists and has led this country into complete political polarization. They see Senator Obama for what he is, a “bossism-style” Chicago politician, driven by a lust for power, willing to associate and take contributions from anyone who will further his power, always willing to criticize but never willing to put forth solutions.

The Just Say No Deal and Puma Communities deserve to have their voices heard this weekend and hopefully the few media personalities with a shred of journalistic integrity left will pass their message along.

J Brown
June 27th, 2006
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Obama's Accepts Millions From "Subprime" Tied Contributors

**Please Feel Free To Excerpt & Link To The Following Article. However, republishing of the article without permission is prohibited.**

As GOP attacks mount on the issue of Senator Obama’s ties to Political Action Committees and Lobbyists, Obama’s campaign has undergone little scrutiny on his long-standing ties to the financial and banking community. In Obama’s speeches across the country he has repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for allowing “evil” subprime mortgage lenders and investment banks to lead this county into our current mortgage meltdown. Obama’s rhetoric on the mortgage crisis has been pointed and blunt, as stated on his own campaign website, “Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders…Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices”.

Throughout the campaign season Obama has attacked Wall Street’s financial sector and ran a campaign based largely upon his “good judgement”. The problem with Obama’s rhetoric rests in the fact that tucked away in his database of 1.5 million donors are the approximately 130,000 power brokers that have funded nearly 60% of his campaign. Included in this list are the more than 350 campaign bundlers who have accounted for over $78 million in contributions.

Among those campaign bundlers is Paul Roth, a partner at Schulte, Roth & Zabel, a firm that represents financial institutions including investment banks, securities firms, and hedge funds. Roth not only contributed to Obama’s campaign but also helped to “bundle” more than $50,000 for the Senator. The Obama bundler rolls also include Tom Wheeler, the managing director of Core Capital Partners, a Washington based private equity fund, have helped raise more than $100,000 for the Obama Campaign.

The real problem for Obama extends well beyond his campaign bundlers that include several prominent lobby–representing attorney’s and executives such as Frank Clark, the CEO of Commonwealth Edison. Executives across the financial and investment industry have accounted for millions in campaign contributions.

In San Antonia this past February Obama stated in a campaign speech, “To give you a sense of what that kind of lobbying gets you… the CEO of the largest subprime lender was promised a hundred-million-dollar severance package at a time when more than 2 million Americans were facing foreclosure, including nearly 14,000 right here in San Antonio..." Obama was most likely referring to an Angelo R. Mozillo, one of three CEO’s that were scheduled to appear to testify in front of a senate committee concerning their compensation and firms roles in the ongoing mortgage crisis. Stanley O’Neal, who received more than $161 million when he was ousted as the Chairman of Merrill Lynch, was one of the three CEO’s coming under scrutiny. In 2003, O’Neil donated to Senator Obama’s Senatorial campaign, followed up by a maximum $4,600 campaign contribution by he and his wife, Nancy Garvey, to the Obama Campaign. Ironically, the O’Neals tried to originally contribute $6,900 to the campaign only to have $2,300 returned.

O’Neil, Mozillo, and Charles Price have been branded the “poster-child” CEOs of the financial firms responsible for the mortgage meltdown and at least one of the three was a valuable contributor to the Obama campaign.

Also contributing to Obama’s cause is the more controversial Brad Morrice, the former CEO and President of the imploded subprime lender, New Century Financial. Morrice and his wife contributed the maximum $4,600 to Obama’s campaign last August.

Obama has also accepted campaign contributions from dozens of Lehman Brothers Executives, such as CEO Richard Fuld ($2,300), President Joseph Gregory ($4,600) and dozens of other top Lehman Executives. On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market.

Among other subprime contributors to Obama’s campaign are Steve Boland, a managing director at Countrywide, who donated the maximum last June. Andrew Beer the president of Wachovia’s troubled subprime lender Evergreen Investment Partners also maxed out his contribution to the Obama campaign; and Joseph Azrack, the president of Citigroup Property Investments along with dozens of Citi Executives have heavily contributed.

In 2007 Eric Schwartz, the co-head of Goldman-Sachs Global Asset Management abruptly stepped down from is position, fueling rumors that his resignation was tied to a crumbling Global Alpha Hedge Fund. The Fund’s mounting losses led to a -39% performance last year as the fund assets shrunk by 60%. Shwartz, an Obama bundler and contributor, has helped to raise over $50,000 for the Senator’s Campaign.

In 2007 Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, helped the Obama campaign raise more than $200,000. That amount was equaled by Louis Susman, the Chairman of a Citibank Subsidiary. Joining their efforts was Mark Gilbert, a Senior Vice President of Lehman Brothers.

Additional High Profile Financial Executives Include:

Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $50,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Francisco Borges – Bundler (over $50,000) and Chairman of Landmark Partners a private equity real estate firm.
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman brothers
Michael Froman – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Citigroup
David Heller – Bundler (over $200,000) & Managing Director of Goldman Sachs
John Rhea – Bundler & Co-head of Lehman Brothers Global Investment Banking
J. Michael Schell – Bundler (over $100,000) & Managing Director at Citigroup
Jim Torrey – Bundler (over $200,000) and founder of the Torrey Funds – Hedge Funds
Todd Williams – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director Goldman Sachs & The Real Estate Council

The listing of contributions flowing in from Financial Institutions through Senator Obama’s career is short of amazing. There are currently dozens upon dozens of Senior Vice Presidents, Managing Directors, and other top level executives from firms such as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other high profile Wall Street banks and funds mired in the mortgage meltdown.

Obama has been relentless in his attacks upon the “evil” Wall Street executives that he has blamed for the ongoing fallout from the mortgage crisis, positioning himself on a “moral high ground”. The reality is that while Obama has been slapping the mortgage companies and investment banks with one hand, he has had his other hand in their wallet.

Jarid Brown
Politically Drunk On Power
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/
June 26th, 2008



This article is available for reprint. Please contact us with requests. The above article represents a small portion of our total research on Obama contributors, bundlers, PAC, & Lobbyist ties. Look for upcoming articles exposing further information from this research.



Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics



Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community



Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement



Copyright 2008 This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request. Please contact us for permission, & potential reprint costs.







.

Democrat Leadership Blocks $6 Billion Renewable Energy Amendment

Democratic Leadership Blocks $6 Billion Dollar Renewable Energy Amendment

Does The Democratic Leadership Really Care About Energy?? That is the question the media should be asking as this week Democratic Leadership has once again failed to address the energy crisis.

Earlier this week the Newsweek reported on the failure of the Congress to pass a Price-Gauging bill that was useless considering that legislation already exists at a federal and state government level. Moreover, the report focused on the Democratic leaderships continued blocking of bills to lift the federal moratorium on Offshore Drilling. Offshore drilling legislation, pushed by record-high oil prices, now garners enough bi-partisan and public support that any such bill would pass the house. But Democrat leadership appears intent on putting off a vote on such legislation until after the November Elections. Their hope is that Barack Obama will win the presidency, thus allowing a veto of the legislation when it passes.

Yesterday the Democratic Leadership once again sent a perplexing message to the American electorate when the Mortgage Bill failed. The press was quick to blame a Republican Senator from Nevada for blocking a vote on the bill. However, the real story behind the bill’s failure should be why he blocked the bill. Senator Ensign along with Co-sponsoring Democratic Senator, Maria Cantwell, put forth an amendment on to the mortgage bill calling for $6 billion of tax breaks for companies producing renewable energy such as wind and solar. Democratic leadership, shockingly, announced that they would not support the measure without coinciding tax increases to offset the tax breaks. As a result, the Nevada Senator blocked the bill.

Why on earth has the Democratic leadership now decided that fiscal responsibility should be the top priority? Washington Democrats and Republicans have both spent like drunken sailors in recent years with little regard to prioritizing government functions or expenses. Pork-barrel spending is at its highest level in history, and few in congress, support ending the practice. But now, Democratic leadership chooses to be fiscally responsible in regards to a bill that provides relief to homeowner facing foreclosure and invests $6 billion into renewable energy.

Perhaps I’m blind, but I was under the assumption that renewable energy was the Obama/Dem. Leaderships solution to high oil prices. Am I missing something? Am I wrong? Or does congressional leadership genuinely have no regard for the constituents they represent?

Here’s an idea.

#1 – We have a trade deficit that is approaching $1 trillion dollars, rising inflation, outsourcing of American Jobs, a massive transfer of wealth to the Middle East, an outsourcing of pollution to countries that have no regard for the environment, and Oh Yes record-high domestic energy prices (including the home-heating shock that Americans will face this fall & winter). PUT DOMESTIC DRILLING BILLS UP FOR A VOTE and throw the weight of the US government behind a push to expedite new domestic production. A growing majority of Americans support the legislation and by Democratic Leaderships own admission, there are enough votes to pass a bill.

Forget how long it may take to realize the finished product, instead consider this: Domestic drilling would increase US production by around 1 million bbl/day. That is over $100 million of wealth per day that would stop being transferred overseas. Forget all of the other benefits; increased domestic production could reduce our trade deficit by over 33%. Guess what that means? A strengthened US dollar, increased US investment and jobs, and more money to research and develop new energy resources.

#2 – If Democratic Leadership wanted to pass the Mortgage Relief Bill and subsequent $6 billion renewable energy amendment, they have the money. It simple, add an amendment that would put a 1 year, or even a 6 month moratorium on Earmarks (just as John McCain has repeatedly pushed for). Guess What? That moratorium would more than offset the cost of the amendment.

And So, I am still seeking an answer. Does Congressional Democratic Leadership really want to solve the energy crisis?

Be sure to check back at 2pm CST as we publish our newest research article on the Obama Money Trail. You might be interested in who is contributing and who is raising millions for the Obama campaign.

J. Brown
June 26th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL

CommunityMust Read: Energy: The 800LB. Guerrilla on Obama's Back
The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request. Please contact us for permission, & potential reprint costs.



.

ABC News & Washington Post Reporters Alter Obama Speech To Cover Gaffe

ABC News & Washington Post Reporters Alter Barack Obama Speech To Cover Gaffe

As previously reported, Barack Obama made a scathing attack upon John McCain’s proposal for a $300 million prize for the development of a next-generation battery yesterday. In a delivered speech Obama stated, “In statements made today, Mr. Obama remarked, “I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.”

Obama’s gaffe claiming that “I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go…” was a direct reflection of his inherent misunderstanding of American Ingenuity over the past 232 years, as reported in Obama World: Government Not American Ingenuity Will Solve The Gas Crisis. More importantly however is the fact that news organizations across the country conveniently failed to publish this portion of Obama’s remarks. Both CNN Online and The New York Times published excerpts of the speech that omitted the gaffe.

Two reporters, however, took it upon themselves to alter the text of Obama’s speech in articles they published. In an ABC News article published last night, Jennifer Duck included the following quote from Obama’s speech, “I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think a $300 million prize is enough…" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-swipes-mc.html)

The same quote was attributed to Obama in a Washington Post article written by Shailagh Murray. “He did give McCain credit for proposing a contest to produce a better car battery. ‘But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough…’" (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/24/obama_ridicules_mccains_energy.html)

One can blame the alteration of Obama’s speech on poor reporting or even a lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking; or does this incident further highlight a lack of journalistic integrity in reporting the facts versus a the reporters view of what the story should be.

J Brown
June 25th, 2008

Be sure to check back Thursday afternoon at 2pm as we will be posting our next story exposing the campaign contributors & fundraisers Obama doesn’t want America to know about.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: Energy: The 800LB. Guerrilla on Obama's Back
The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.



.

Obama World: The Government Not American Ingenuity Will Solve The Gas Crisis

Today Barack Obama threw the American Spirit of Capitalism and Competition under the bus as he scoffed at John McCain’s proposal of a $300 million dollar prize for the development of a next generation car battery. Obama’s ridiculous mocking of the idea goes far beyond his typical rhetoric of criticism without solutions. Obama’s attack on the plan made clear his position that the Government, not the American people, will solve our problems. After 232 years of American Ingenuity driven by our modified capitalism, we are now considering the election of a president who clearly does not understand or appreciate the contributions of our predecessors.

In statements made today, Mr. Obama remarked, “After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it... I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.”

Obama comparison to the space program certainly has patriotic undertones but in reality undermines his very own argument. John Kennedy never told the American people that the government should be committed to sending a man to the moon; he stated, “I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal”. Ultimately, the space program of the 60’s was extremely dependent upon the awarding of contracts and expertise of private firms such as McDonnell-Douglas, General Electric, North American Aviation's Rocketdyne Division, Aerospace Corporation, Martin, and dozens of others. The space program was also based upon a progression of rocket technology that began more than 20 years earlier during WWII.

McCain’s proposal for a $300 million prize, or “gimmick” as Obama calls it, is a direct challenge appealing to the spirit of American ingenuity which has led our nation into being the largest contributor to technological development and achievement in the world. Not since the fall of the Roman Empire has a single nation contributed more to the technological advancement of society than we have. During our 232 year history, it has not been large companies, and certainly not the government, that has developed life-changing technologies. It has been the individual, entrepreneurial spirit of the American citizen that has led to our greatest accomplishments.

It was private, entrepreneurial-minded citizens that developed the products that revolutionized our world. It was not the government that first realized and harnessed electricity, developed the first engine, light bulb, locomotive, airplane, car, television, phone, or computer. It was not the government or Al Gore that revolutionized the internet; it was Bill Gates, a private entrepreneur, who saw a vision for home computing. The greatest advances in medical research have come from private industry, not the government. For years, private corporations have realized that the strength of ingenuity rests in minds of private citizens. Many of the nation’s largest and most successful manufacturers offer incentives and profits to employees in order to encourage, rather than suppress, their ingenuity.

McCain’s proposal goes to the heart of the American Entrepreneurial Spirit. History has taught us that odds are the next great innovation is more likely to come from a private citizen than it is from a company contracted by the government, or a government agency itself. The next great innovation is just as likely to come from the retired scientist, engineer, or creative thinker working out of their garage, as it is to flow from a corporate or government laboratory. Senator Obama believes that innovation is driven by a Harvard education, when history teaches us otherwise.

History has taught us that the innovator who is able to develop this next great technology will sit upon the top of his own private empire and experience wealth beyond his wildest expectations. McCain’s prize is not meant to be the basis of this wealth, but rather act as the primer to encourage American ingenuity. The developer of the next-generation battery is just as likely to be driven by his legacy as he is to driven by personal wealth. Senator McCain has made a bold proposal meant to encourage private innovators to develop a solution. McCain’s proposal is not pandering, it does not make unrealistic promises, and more importantly it does not create reliance upon the government to provide a solution. The prize taps into the very entrepreneurial spirit that made us the wealthiest, most innovative and generous nation on earth.

Obama’s attack on McCain’s proposal is nothing more than the unveiling of his fundamental belief that the government, not the people, is responsible for solving our nation’s problems. Obama, once again, has unsuccessfully cherry-picked history to fit his argument and offered nothing but criticism without genuine solutions.

Obama has ran a campaign touting a platform of “trust me” politics, where he is right, his opponents are always wrong, and the government is the solution. So, today I will end this post with a few words of wisdom about the “trust me” government and energy policy:

“Never before in our history have Americans been called upon to face three grave threats to our very existence, any one of which could destroy us. We face a disintegrating economy, a weakened defense and an energy policy based on the sharing of scarcity…

"Trust me" government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs--in the people….

Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. Conservation is desirable, of course, for we must not waste energy. But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs.

America must get to work producing more energy…Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy.

Coal offers great potential. So does nuclear energy produced under rigorous safety standards. It could supply electricity for thousands of industries and millions of jobs and homes. It must not be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth which often finds friendly ears in regulatory agencies for its obstructionist campaigns.

Make no mistake. We will not permit the safety of our people or our environment heritage to be jeopardized, but we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.

Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in positions of leadership are the same tired proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling and more control -- all of which led us to this state in the first place…

… Tonight, let us dedicate ourselves to renewing the American compact. I ask you not simply to "Trust me," but to trust your values--our values--and to hold me responsible for living up to them. I ask you to trust that American spirit which knows no ethnic, religious, social, political, regional, or economic boundaries; the spirit that burned with zeal in the hearts of millions of immigrants from every corner of the Earth who came here in search of freedom.”
Ronald Reagan, July 17, 1980

J Brown
June 24th, 2008

Be sure to check back Thursday afternoon as we will be posting our next story exposing the campaign contributors & fundraisers Obama doesn’t want America to know about.

Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: Energy: The 800LB. Guerrilla on Obama's Back
The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.


.

Obama's New Problem: Religious Leader Ends His Silence

Obama’s New Concern, Religious Right Leaders Ending Their Silence

There is no secret to the fact that John McCain’s moderate stances have turned away large segments of the Conservative Religious Right base. In poll after poll, McCain has only enjoyed 80% of the Republican vote, a number that all political analysts say he must increase. The McCain campaign has been sharply criticized for its failure to court evangelical support; creating a visible rift that the Obama campaign has realized and attempted to exploit by inviting evangelical leaders to a private faith-based meeting held last week.

One particularly quiet, yet extremely influential Christian leader is Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Dobson and Focus on the Family’s influence runs deep within the evangelical and religious right community. Since McCain became the presumptive nominee, Dobson has remained essentially quiet in large part to his past criticism and dislike of John McCain’s moderate posture and failure to cater to the full-text of the religious right’s platform. Today, all of that is about to change.

Dr. Dobson has apparently decided that now is the time for him and the religious right to put aside their differences with McCain, not yet openly supporting his candidacy, but working to defeat the greater evil. Today on his radio show Dobson launched an assault upon Obama for his distortion of the Bible and “fruitcake interpretation” of the constitution. Dobson slammed Obama for his cherry-picking criticism of biblical texts stating, “I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology…He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter”

Dobson’s attack on Obama was relentless and perhaps the boost that McCain needs to start garner support from the so-called “religious-right”. Dobson has said in the past that he could not see himself voting for McCain because of McCain’s moderate credentials; but today’s show should send a clear message that although McCain is not their ideal candidate, the alternative is abominable.

The Obama campaign has banked on McCain’s inability to secure the full backing of the religious right and vocal conservative leadership of the party. But Dobson’s message today opened the door to what will be a steady procession of support moving toward the McCain campaign. Dobson’s show reaches millions of strongly religious Americans and his criticism of Obama will reverberate throughout the conservative religious community. McCain is certainly not the ideal candidate for the “religious-right” platform, but the question that the “religious-right” needs to ask is, “Are you willing to accept the alternative?”

I personally am opposed to single-issue or movement voters. I believe that in our lives and in our government, everyone must be willing to make concessions to protect and create prosperity within our future. I personally have reservations on some of John McCain’s positions, but I also realize the historical dangers presented by semi-socialist positions and over-pandering of Barack Obama. An electorate should not be driven by any single issue, let alone those that polarize our nation and split the electorate. Americans, including those that view themselves as part of the “religious-right”, need to remember that the greatest leaders of this nation all had one thing in common; they understood the necessity to prioritize the functions of government. The greatest leaders of our nation understood that first function of government was to protect ours and our ally’s sovereignty, followed by promoting economic prosperity, and finally addressing social and cultural reforms. The Obama campaign has made it clear that expect to win this election by breaking down our society into neatly formed groups who only vote based upon single-issues. Remember that in the months ahead.

J Brown
June 24th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article up at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

.

Arrogance Spreads: Daschle Refers To Obama as "Commander In Chief"

Arrogance Spreads: Daschle Refers To Obama as "Commander In Chief"

There can be no denying the increased level of arrogance within the Obama campaign and its surrogates. From Obama’s statements on the campaign trail to his adoption of the altered presidential seal, his campaign and surrogates genuinely believe that a primary win somehow anoints him as the new commander in chief.

Let’s make one thing clear to the Obama Campaign and DNC: An Illegitimate Primary Victory does not equate to the Presidency. But perhaps we should seek Former Senator Tom Daschle’s opinion on that.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Senator Daschle, “What happens if he goes there and if General Petraeus, the author of the surge, and Iraqi politicians say to him, ‘Look, we have made gains,’ the gains The New York Times talked about, ‘and if we follow your path and pull our troops out, we're going to lose everything we fought so hard to gain?’”

Daschle’s response was to the question was clear, “Well, I doubt very much that General Petraeus would say that, Chris. And obviously, he will factor in whatever information he's provided. That's the whole idea behind the trip.
But he is the commander in chief and he has made very clear that we've already spent more time in Iraq than we did in World War II. We've already spent more than $1 trillion. We've already lost thousands of lives and more thousands wounded.”

Did you catch that? I did and nearly choked on my cheerios when he made the statement. In cased you didn’t here it is again.

“Well, I doubt very much that General Petraeus would say that… But he is the commander in chief and he has made very clear…”

First Senator Daschle, I have a personal belief that when we enter into a military conflict we have a responsibility to allow our MILITARY, NOT CIVILIAN LEADERS to conduct the war. It was the civilian arrogance of the Bush Administration that overrode military leadership in conducting operations in Iraq, just as the Johnson Administration overrode military leadership in Vietnam and continued to order shifts in military objectives. Yes the president is the Commander-In-Chief, but history as shown us that the best Commander-In-Chiefs allow the Generals to do their jobs.

But let’s make clear the fact that Barack Obama IS NOT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. If he does visit Iraq prior to the general election, for the first time in over 900 days, he will STILL NOT BE THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF regardless of what logo he has painted on the side of his plane.

Let’s also make clear that even if Obama were to visit Iraq, can anyone truly believe anything of the rhetoric that flows from the Obama campaign following that visit. After all, this past week Obama, when referring to his phone call with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, stated “No, he did not express that (on the question of whether the Minister expressed any concerns that Obama’s withdrawal policy would undo any security advances). He did emphasize his belief that we've made real progress and I think was eager to see political accommodations between the factions follow up in the wake of this progress."

Shortly after the statement, the Iraqi Foreign Minister pointed out Obama’s lie when he stated that he made it clear to Obama that “We have a deadly enemy. When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity…Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress."

Obama has already proven himself as the quintessential Chicago “bossism-style” candidate, willing to say anything, manipulate the facts, and do anything to achieve his personal power objectives. Now he is being abetted by DNC leadership willing to overlook the American electorate to satisfy their lust for power. More disturbing however is the level of arrogance within the Obama campaign and his surrogates who believe that an illegitimate nomination equates to a presidential, “Commander-In-Chief”, victory.

Days Since Senator Obama Has Visited Iraq: 897
Days Since Angelina Jolie Has Visited Iraq: 143

J Brown
June 23rd, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article up at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

.

New Low: Obama Blames McCain For Flooding & Throws Feingold Under The Bus

Barack Obama stooped to a new low in his campaign of division and distraction on Saturday when he scraped the bottom of the barrel in his inference that John McCain may be partially to , blame for levee collapses throughout the region. In a prepared statement Obama stated, "I know that Sen. McCain felt as strongly as I did, feeling enormous sympathy for the victims of the recent flooding. I'm sure they appreciated the sentiment, but they probably would have appreciated it even more if Sen. McCain hadn't opposed legislation to fund levees and flood control programs, which he considers pork."

Obama's attack on McCain, even as flood waters continue rise in Illinois and Missouri, is a new low for Obama, as his attack on John McCain also through top Democrat Russ Feingold (led the opposition to the bill) under the bus. The McCain campaign justifiably returned fired by calling out Obama's distortion and failure to disclose the facts concerning the bill.

Just The Facts:

#1) In his speech Obama conveniently failed to mention the bill actually passed, despite opposition by a small Bi-Partisan group pointing out the fact that the bill failed to address needed reforms in the waterways protection system.

#2) John McCain never voted against the bill, in fact on the final senate vote and the veto override vote neither John McCain nor Barack Obama cast a vote.

#3) A Small group of Senators led by Russ Feingold opposed the bill because if failed to reform the process by which projects were prioritized and monitored, failed to reform the Army Corp of Engineers, and failed to establish a waterways commission; all of which were called for in the years prior too and after Katrina, as necessary reforms by the GAO, other oversight agencies and independent studies.

The bill which provided funding for water projects in all 50 states was opposed on principle by a small bi-partisan group on the basis that the bill essentially threw money to water projects without calling for accountability and reform within the agencies responsible for the nations waterways. The small group led by Russ Feingold, including McCain, did not oppose the funding of these projects and sent an amendment to the floor that would create a bi-partisan waterways commission to provide oversight, prioritization of projects, and implement reforms within the Army corp of Engineers and other watershed agencies.

Feingold stated in a speech on the Senate Floor, "After a decade of government and independent reports calling for reforming the corps and pointing out stunning flaws in corps projects and project studies, and after the tragic failures of New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina, the American people deserve meaningful reform. How many more flawed projects or wasted dollars will it take before we say enough is enough?”

The amendment, which Senator Obama voted against, unfortunately failed.

Senator Obama's attack upon McCain on Saturday is unfortunate and misleading. His inappropriate politicizing of the disaster in the Midwest is paramount to scraping the bottom of the political barrel. If anyone should be criticized for their voting record, support or opposition on this bill, it should be Obama. After all, the Senator opposed an amendment that would have created necessary reforms that private and government studies have called for, for years. The water-shed bill and Obama's opposition to genuine government reform and politicizing of the unfortunate flooding in the Midwest, is just another example of his "old school bossism" style of Chicago politics aimed at manipulating the facts and blaming the opposition for every problem that exists within our nation.

J Brown
June 22, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article up at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Is The Well Running Dry For Barry?

I was surprised (not really) by the lack of mainstream media reporting last night over the release of the Obama campaign's fundraising figures for May. There were no big press conferences, no Media fawning, Keith Olbermann was not crying tears tears of joy, for the most part there was sil. Why??

Barack Obama's campaign yesterday released their fundraising numbers to the FEC, reporting that the Obama campaign raised $21.9 Million in the month of May. Besting the McCain campaign's $21.5 million. Ironically, McCain released his numbers shortly after the end of may, which leaves me wondering if perhaps the Obama campaign has resorted to "fuzzy math" to avoid the embarrasement of being outraised by McCain. May represented Obama's worst fundraising month of the year, especially considering that he was still entrenched in a primary battle with Hillary Clinton. The McCain fundraising trend may have actually began in April, The Center For Responsive Politics points out that McCain outraised Obama on 15 days in April among voters giving more than $200.

Hidden away in Obama's fundraising statistics are a large number of his donors who have already maxed out their contributions for both the General Election and Primary as the Obama campaign has not discouraged them from making both contributions. This may present Barry with a problem as less than 10% of his donor have funded more than 60% of his campaign. Historically campaign contributions tend to level out during the summer prior to the party conventions, which may be the primary reason that Obama has abandoned his pledge for public financing.

Compounding Obama's problem is the fact that when combined with DNC and RNC contributions the Republicans outraised the Democrats by nearly $10 million in May. The lack of DNC funding has already forced the Democratic Nationional Convention to scale back its festivities.

The Obama campaign must tap into Hillary Clinton's supporters if they wish to restore the "messianic" levels of contributions that they experienced during the primaries. But you can be certain that a steady stream of criticism that the Republican party has been waiting to launch, coupled by some of Hillary's most ardent supporters who are openly attacking Obama, will be working to prevent that conversion. Groups such as PumaPac and Just Say No Deal (Democrats Against Obama), continue to gain support and media attention as they launch a massive "grass roots" effort to stop an Obama Presidency.

This upcoming week we will be focusing on following the Obama money trail including the some surprising revelations on who is funding his campaign and how contributions are being collected.

J Brown
June 21st, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article up at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement
Obamas Real Donors: The Money Trail (May Article)

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Criticism Without Solutions: What is Obama's Solution To Our Energy Crisis??

So What Is Obama’s Solution To Our Gas Crisis???

We are a nation that is in the midst of the perfect storm of economic trouble. It is a storm that is stemming from the mortgage crisis, rather one that is exploding due to rising oil prices, a weakening dollar, and inept leadership in Washington. Most Americans have yet to realize the scope of this crisis. This coming fall as temperatures cool, American families are going to be smacked once again. Natural Gas prices have risen as sharply as Oil prices, and this fall we will feel that pinch. Our Washington leaders, the Democratic controlled congress and Bush administration, do not yet, and may never, grasp the burden that rising fuel prices and food prices (partially due to ethanol) are placing upon this countries middle and lower class.

Washington can not hide from the reality that our society is dependent upon oil, not only from gas (which accounts for 69% of our oil consumption), but also from every product, such as plastic, that is made from petroleum bi-products. Rising oil prices go far beyond transportation costs and are fueling the fear of widespread inflation and impending stagflation in our economy. Ethanol demand has put massive pressures upon our agricultural industry, tripling the price of corn in just two years. Economists have warned of the over-dependency upon ethanol due to uncontrollable fluctuations in production and cooler temperatures coupled with Midwestern flooding is now expected to result in a 10% loss of this year’s expected corn production.

Over the past 18 months oil prices have doubled, and our congress, a congress that ran on a platform of lowering oil prices, has done nothing. Our politicians want to break down the economy and energy crises into separate issues, never acknowledging that we will never see a sustained economic turnaround unless we first address our energy crisis.

This past week Senator Obama once again went on the attack, heavily criticizing John McCain and congressional Republicans for their call to lift the federal moratorium on off-shore oil drilling and return the power back to the individual states. Senator Obama heavily criticized the idea stating that it would be at least 5-10 years before drilling could have a positive impact and that the price difference would not be realized. As an alternative, Senator Obama immediately proposed that our government…(blank).

Hmmm, the silence is almost deafening, isn’t it. Do me a favor next time you talk to an Obama supporter complaining about gas prices, ask them: “What is Senator Obama proposing to provide you immediate relief?

Their answer will be one of only 2 things:

1) He is proposing a windfall profits tax? OR 2) He is going to invest in new technologies and alternative fuels.

First, can anyone provide me an example of when higher taxes have ever lowered prices??? In fact, Obama himself admitted that the WPT, which failed after Carter implemented it, would not lower gas prices; rather the FEDERAL REVENUE derived by the excess profits tax would be used to invest in new energy sources and be passed on to the consumer in the form of federal rebate checks. Wow… a new government bureaucracy that supports higher prices, further colludes with the oil companies, dumps a majority of the money into research, and passes then issues rebate checks to whomever they determine is worthy of receiving them. Did you catch the part where Obama and Democratic leaders have all admitted that this will NOT LOWER PRICES?

Second, develop alternative fuels to wean us off of foreign oil… A fine sounding policy and one that should be pursued. However, again this is a long-long term solution that utterly fails to meet our immediate and intermediate energy challenges. Let’s assume that the “messiah” could magically produce a viable alternative to oil in the next 5 years (not likely), the infrastructure problem still exists. It has taken our nation 100 years to develop an infrastructure to deliver our oil needs, the conversion to an alternative source will take not just years, but potentially decades; just as an example: How percentage of Gas Stations in your community carry E-85, a lower-cost fuel alternative that has been available for 5 years?

Senator Obama has proven that he is a conventional politician, following the conventional rules for winning an election. So how do you win an election? You speak a populist rhetoric, remind Americans of better times and highlight the problems they face, and then you tell them who is to blame. That is how you win elections.

Senator Obama has shown an unsettling comfort in his ability to criticize any proposal that has stemmed from either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Yet, while attacking their positions, he has put forth no proposals to provide relief; a sentiment echoed in his own remarks concerning gas prices.

If Senator Obama wants to offer genuine regulation (taxation is not a form of regulation, it is a form of generating revenue), then he should propose it immediately. But, relying on a policy of increased taxation, promised redistribution of those taxes (that admittedly will not lower prices), and technology and alternatives that are not yet developed and may take decades to replace oil, is not a solution. A nation that is healthy & wealthy can commit more resources to developing viable energy resources and genuine energy reform than a nation that continues to export its wealth and impose economic stagnation upon its own people.

Our energy policies should not be based upon taxation (or a lack thereof) or simply conservation. Our energy policy must be based upon genuine regulation (keeping in mind that our Gov’t. has allowed the monopolization of our energy sector), increased efficiency and utilization of OUR natural resources, and conservation. Our energy policy will never work if it does not provide immediate, intermediate, and long-term energy relief and solutions. If the Americans believe that the most efficient method of immediate relief is to go after oil monopolies’ profits, then place a “profits cap” on the companies because taxation of “windfall” profits will do nothing but strengthen the collusionary ties between the government and oil industry.

Senator McCain’s’ solutions have been lackluster at best, but at least he is offering more than criticism. Drilling must be part of our strategy, and whether it is considered a temporary solution, does not matter. Americans need a solution, and if drilling is the first step, then do it. Drill Here and Drill Now.

Will it provide an immediate solution? NO! But it is a start to giving the US greater control over our energy needs, decreasing our future foreign dependency, and providing some undiscussed benefits such as:

#1) Stop the trend that reduced our domestic production of oil from 9.6 million bpd in 1970 to 5.1 million bpd today.

#2) Stop the exportation of billions of dollars of US wealth from leaving our shores and ending up in the hands of nations that oppose the US at every available opportunity.

#3) Creation of jobs. Whoa! There’s something you haven’t heard. More US production means more US jobs.

#4) Slow down the increase in global pollution directly resulting from our reliance upon countries that do not invest in, maintain, or enforce environmental regulations. The US maintains the fourth largest expenditure of environmental cleanup and protection of any nation on earth (as a percentage of GDP). Yet, instead of producing oil in our country, where we maintain regulatory authority and enforcement, we choose to import our oil from nations that have more lax standards and enforcement.

According to the Department of Energy, US regulated drilling platforms have had 149 spills in the past 12 years, with 58 of those spills resulting from Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita. Those 149 incidents have resulted in a total of 55,000 barrels of oil being spilled. As a comparison, according to a Miami Herald report, 23 spills in the Lake Maracaibo of Venezuela in 1998 resulted in the release of more than 60,000 barrels of oil. Additionally, in 2003 the Venezuelan Ministry of Environmental & Natural resources admitted to 96 spills in the Lake within a 2 month period. Some of the spills were estimated to be releasing up to 1,100 barrels per day into the lake. The Lake Maracaibo basins, along with the waterways in the Middle East are considered to be the polluted in the world.

In reports published by the ITOPF, they concur that an overwhelming majority of oil spills and leakage result from tankers rather than oil platforms and pipelines. For example, the 1989 Exxon Valdez spilled approximately 258,000 barrels of oil off the coast of Alaska; the 2002 Prestige Leak emptied more than 529,000 barrels of oil into the ocean; and in 1993, the tanker Braer lost its entire payload of 87,500 tonnes = 630,000 barrels of oil.

Us regulated drilling platforms have resulted in fewer spills and less extensive spills than most of the nations that we are now obtaining our oil from. It makes no sense for the US to continue to export our energy production, jobs, and environmental regulatory authority to other nations. Just consider how environmentally friendly the Cuban/Chinese drilling operations will be?

By the way, one last little fact, a study commissioned by the Coast Guard, found that global “extraction & exploration” only accounts for approximately 5% of the oil entering the ocean every year. More than twice that amount is discharged from Sewage treatment plants.

#5) The Department of Homeland Security considers a terrorist attack upon overseas oil production facilities to be the single greatest threat to our national security. That sentiment was once again realized when Nigeria shut down oil production facilities due to insurgent attacks just yesterday. Increasing domestic oil production inherently will help to protect against this threat.

Is McCain’s call to lift the federal moratorium on offshore drilling a solution to our energy crisis? No

Is it part of a comprehensive solution? Yes

Is it at a minimum more than what Senator Obama is proposing? Absolutely

Let me reiterate, Senator Obama is interested in one thing, and one thing only: Telling you what the problem is and who is to blame for it. That is how you win elections. Senator Obama realizes that John McCain will have a hard time convincing the American people that his energy plan will not work if he never actually proposes any solutions.

J Brown
June 20th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article up at Real Clear Politics

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Obama's New Campaign Strategy: Control Media Access & Manipulate Public Perception

According to the New York Times, the Obama campaign is tightening 'control of image and access' over the past few weeks in a clear attempt of prevent manipulate media coverage. On Monday in a meeting with African-American Civic the Obama campaign barred cameras from the meeting and recently refused to release the names of a group of religious figures Obama met with. According to the times report, the campaign went as far as providing a separate entrance to protect the identity and prevent press interviews of those in attendance. The new strategy has also resulted in this week's "head scarves" incident which has outraged much of the Muslim community; especially in light of the Obama's recent Jerusalem gaffe.

Yesterday, however, was a different story when Obama invited the press to snap as many pictures as they wanted of him with his newly minted National Security Team. A national security team made up of the "old, established, experienced" guard of the Democratic Party.

Obama and some press point to past campaigns whereas other candidates have also limited access to the candidate. But, wasn't Obama supposed to be the anti-candidate, claiming he wasn't the "quintessential politician" and calling for OPENNESS, TRANSPARENCY and HONESTY in government?

The Obama campaign has gone so far in their manipulation of the media that just yesterday reports surfaced that the Obama campaign was working diligently on the "Michelle Obama" edition of extreme makeover. Again, an understandable move, but one clearly made to manipulate the public perception of Obama, rather than allowing the American People to form their own opinion.

Obamas campaign strategists have defended the moves claiming that they believe they need to take extra steps to "prevent against attack". In reality, the measures are aimed at manipulating public perception.

The Times report was complimentary to the McCain campaigns stating "they still enjoy a reputation for giving reporters traveling with him an unusual amount of access." Again, a laughable irony considering that Obama expects the American people to view McCain as the typical politician in attempt to manipulate his 30 year record of bipartisanship.

The Obama campaign's new tactics are reminiscent of those used by the "propaganda ministries" of leaders of the past and those utilized by some of the most notorious "leaders" of today. The Obama campaign has become so afraid of Obama's gaffes, associations, and hypocritical statements that they now believe that Americans need to be told what issues and information are important and can be discussed. Sshhhh... Did anyone else just hear that crack in the foundation?

J Brown
June 19th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article up at Real Clear Politics & Reddit

Visit John McCain and join the PUMA Community and JUST SAY NO DEAL Community Today.

Reference: New York Times-International Herald Tribune: Obama's Campaign Tightens Control of Image & Access
Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

The Obama Bus Rolls Over Clinton & Her Supporters

The Obama Bus Rolls Over Clinton

UPDATE: Here's something for Clinton Supporters to ponder:
According to the Washington Post Report, Obama claimed to have known Solis Doyle for years and 'organized with her brother on the southeast side of Chicago years ago.'
"I've known the family for a very long time. I think that she will bring not only a set of skills that we're going to need as we put together our ticket, but she's going to be a terrific adviser and offer insight and judgment that will help us win in November," Obama remarked.

If Clinton supporters thought that the DNC threw Clinton and her supporters under the bus, yesterday they realized that Obama just drove the bus over them, put it in reverse, and repeated the process.

Over the past two weeks the Clinton Voter Coalition has broken up into 4 essential groups:

The Party Loyalists – Those unwilling to speak out against the DNC, the Die-Hard Democrats who will vote for the party and have bought into the belief that political power should rest within the hands of the Party, not within the hands of the individual.

The Willful Followers – Those individuals who are stuck in a 1970’s mindset whereas they will do what the party leaders tell them and vote for Barack Obama because he “is for the people” regardless of issues.

The Willfully Disinterested – Those Clinton supporters who are waiting for a grand gesture, such as a Clinton VP slot, to convince them to vote for Obama. These voters are hopeful, yet are likely to stay home if this grand gesture is never received.

The PUMAs – The Pumas are the most loyal and outspoken of Clinton supporters who are well-attuned to the issues and unwilling to sacrifice their values, beliefs, and love for this nation by voting for an “illegitimate” candidate. The PUMA embodies the independent ideals & spirit instilled upon us by our forefathers. The PUMAs understand the issues and will not be swayed by party rhetoric. The PUMA recognizes Barack Obama for the person he is: ‘A “Bossism-Style” Politician Molded by and Beholden to the Corrupt Chicago Political Machine’.

This November Barack Obama will need the votes of every one of Clinton’s supporters including the Willfully Disinterested and The PUMAs. However, Mr. Obama out of arrogance or ignorance apparently does not recognize this need. Earlier this week, the Obama campaign sent a clear message to the world that Hillary Clinton will not be his Vice Presidential pick. His message came in the form of the appointment of Patti Solis Doyle as the Vice-Presidential Chief-of-staff.

Solis Doyle was fired by Hillary Clinton in February as she utterly failed in her responsibilities to design a sound primary election strategy. The appointment by Obama, considered strange since vice-presidential nominees typically want a hand in choosing their chief-of-staff, was considered by many Clinton supporters as a slap in the face. Personally, I would equate to being “driven over by the bus”, especially considering this is the Obama campaigns first hire of a Clinton Staffer.

The hiring of Solis Doyle was unnecessary and the Obama campaign could have easily sought to hire a Clinton staffer who was well-respected by her voter coalition. Whether out of ignorance or arrogance, Obama and his campaign sent a clear message to Hillary Clinton supporters that they do not value their votes. Obama strengthened this message when he referred to Solis Doyle as “a terrific, experienced campaign hand" who will bring valuable experience to his campaign.

The hiring of Solis Doyle also suggests that Obama has already made his decision on the VP slot, considering that you would want to make sure the two could work together. More importantly though is that this hiring exposed that the Obama campaign has no intention of reconciling with Clinton Supporters, rather they still EXPECT Clinton Supporters to fall in line.

The Obama campaign had to feel a sense of relief yesterday when attention from the Solis Doyle hire was drawn away by Obama’s “terrorist” gaffe; but it is unlikely that Clinton Supporters will overlook the fresh set of “tread-marks” imprinted on their backs.

J Brown
June 18th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics.

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Obama's Return to 1993 Policies Toward Dealing With Terrorists

Obama’s Return to 1993 Policies Toward Dealing With Terrorists

In an ABC News interview Monday Night Barack Obama when questioned stated “What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated,” Obama said adding, "And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’ So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws…”

McCain advisors have been quick to attack to Obama as grossly ignorant of the realities of global terrorism. In a press conference held this afternoon, former CIA Director James Woolsey, was criticized Obama’s law enforcement approach by reminding the press that Usama bin Laden was indicted in 1998 before the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole explosion in Yemen. Woolsey also added that the convictions Obama cited as successful (which cost taxpayers $100 million) followed a process by which the CIA “did not get to see the evidence, which would have linked some of the perpetrators of the ‘93 bombing to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — in fact, they were relatives — and would have enabled many of the dots to have been connected well before 9/11 and, in my belief, would have given a good chance to have prevented 9/11. But since they were under grand jury seal and no one wanted the evidence and intelligence tainted in order to get a conviction, the CIA was not allowed to see that evidence and neither was President Clinton”.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, of course, went on to mastermind the 2001 World Trade Center bombings. Mohammed was captured by Pakistani authorities, sent to Gitmo, and just 2 weeks ago told a US Military Judge that he wanted the death penalty.

Obama’s new statements clearly undermine the very premise that we should be proactive in seeking and destroying terrorist threats, rather than engaging in a reactionary policy whereas we investigate and prosecute only after a terrorist attack has been launched.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Obama has adopted the “Winnie The Pooh” doctrine.

J Brown
06/17/2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics.

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement
Obamas Kid Gloves

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Energy Policy: the 800lb. Guerrilla on Obama's Back

Energy Policy: The 800lb. Guerrilla on Obama’s Back

In a year in which the Democratic Leadership expected to glide to victory in the presidential election, not all is laughs at Howie and Barrie’s Fun House. Yesterday, Barack Obama won the sought after endorsement of Al Gore, the Environmental Lobby’s Self-Appointed Chief Executive Officer. Although the endorsement may provide a temporary bump that Obama was not able to garner after Hillary Clinton’s concession, the Gore support may hurt Obama in a year when energy policy will undoubtedly come to the forefront.

In recent years Gore has called for a radical overhaul of US and global energy policies including heavy taxation of Coal, Natural Gas and Oil. Policies which certainly appease the environmental lobby but which provide no relief to the millions of middle class Americans struggling with record-breaking energy and food costs. The RNC has already launched their first volley of attacks aimed at Obama and Gore’s energy policies and statements through a press release this afternoon. The press release stated: “As Vice President, Gore Pushed For A 'Broad-Based Energy Tax.' 'Gore told the group he favored a broad-based energy tax - something not on Bentsen's list - such as a tax levied on the use of the British thermal units, or BTUs, a basic measure of energy. A BTU tax would be environmentally sound, he said, because coal, the dirtiest fuel, would be hit the hardest, though oil and natural gas would also be taxed. This emphasis would create political problems in coal states, he acknowledged, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, which were key to Clinton's election.' (Bob Woodward, The Agenda, 1994, p. 89)…

Obama Has Called For A Similar Tax On Coal And Natural Gas: Obama Told A Texas Newspaper: 'What We Ought To Tax Is Dirty Energy, Like Coal And, To A Lesser Extent, Natural Gas.' ('Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,' San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)…

Coal Is The Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For Nearly 49 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, www.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08) 'The U.S. Has The World's Largest Coal Reserves, With The Western U.S. Accounting For 55 Percent Of Current U.S. Coal Production.' (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08) Natural Gas Is The Second Largest Source Of Electricity In America, Accounting For 20 Percent Of U.S. Total Net Generation In 2006. (Energy Information Administration Website, www.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08) 'The U.S. Is The World's Largest Consumer And Second-Largest Producer Of Natural Gas.' (Energy Information Administration Website, tonto.eia.doe.gov, Accessed 6/9/08)...

As Vice President, Gore Also Cast The Tie-Breaking Vote To Raise The Federal Gas Tax:
Obama Has Said He Would Have Preferred A Gradual Increase In Gas Prices And Opposes Gas Tax Relief...

CNBC's John Hardwood: 'So could these high prices help us?' Obama: 'I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.' (CNBC's 'Your Money, Your Vote,' 6/10/08)..."

Obama’s campaign has focused heavily on Green Policies, which although popular, present a challenge to any politician seeking support from the large US middle class that is being hammered by oil prices that have more than doubled in the past 18 months.
Obama’s has been slow to present any solution aimed at providing immediate relief to the American Consumer and has adopted a stated energy policy that mirrors the failed attempts of the Carter Administration. His only attempts to address the issue have been through criticisms of John McCain and even Hillary Clinton’s suggestions while backing conservation and a windfall profits tax that would admittedly not lower prices and rely upon the “goodwill and entitlement” of the US government to fairly redistribute money collected under the tax. Most economists will openly admit that conservation is a long term solution that is environmentally needed, but that will never produce lower prices so long as Indian and Chinese demand continues to rise at its current pace. Additionally, with gas prices expected to rise to $5 per gallon by the end of summer, coupled by rising food prices driven by ethanol demand and widespread corn-belt flooding, Obama’s own policies and lack of solutions may come back to haunt him.

As we mentioned in an earlier post, Obama Energy Policy Snubs Canadian Oil, Obama has made clear his consummate support for new “low-emissions standards” in line with Al Gore’s agenda. These new emission standards provide a problem for the Obama campaign as they call for the levy of heavy penalties on companies engaged in refining oil derived from coal gasification and oil shale (huge untapped reserves exist throughout the upper Midwest), along with Oil Sand (Canadian Oil). The new standards could potentially end the ongoing attempts to increase utilization of US Coal and Oil Shale, along with decreasing US imports of Canadian Oil Sand (Canada alternates as the number one exporter to the US). As a result, the US would have to rely upon increased use of Venezuelan Oil (still high sulfur, but less refining than Canadian Oil) and the “Light, Sweet” Mid-Eastern Crude; both sources of oil that most Americans would prefer not to send their money too.

Despite any solutions that our next President enacts domestically, the next president will need to balance the application of pressure and strengthening of relationships with nation that can help ease our energy crisis. Earlier this week the Saudi government, in a move against OPEC policy, announced that they would increase oil production by 200,000 barrels per day. The increased production results in the highest level of Saudi oil output in history and follows their recent 300,000 barrel per day meant to offset an Iranian cut in production meant to manipulate the market. Whether you like Saudi Arabia or not, the fact is that the Saudi government has consistently worked with our government during the 3 administrations to counter the anti-American factions of the OPEC cartel. Regardless of any policy that the next president pushes (because it is obvious that the Bush administration and Democratic Leadership in congress are inept) he/she will need to continue a strong relationship with the Saudi’s.

Senator Obama in his “pandering diarrhea of the mouth” on the campaign trail has established how important he feels a strong relationship is with the Saudi’s. He has consistently condemned the positive relationship between the Bush Administration (“buddying-up”) and the Saudi Royal Family; while failing to recognize that over the past 20 years the Saudi’s have consistently increased production and provided a pro-US voice within the OPEC cartel. Is it desirable that we rely upon a country whose other actions have been incredibly undesirable? No, but for now, there is no alternative, unless the American people are willing to “buddy-up” with Iran.
Finally, American Energy Opinions are shifting as prices continue to rise, recent polls now point out that 57% of Americans support new initiatives for offshore drilling and drilling in ANWAR. Obama has made it clear that he feels the reestablishment of US domestic drilling would be a temporary fix to a long term problem. In reality, domestic drilling needs to be PART of a comprehensive long-term plan that focuses on conservation, utilization of domestic energy resources, increased use of low-cost alternative energy, and renewed energy independence. Renewed domestic drilling is not a temporary fix as it may take, depending upon numerous lawsuits, years to provide relief. But, the move toward domestic drilling will pressure and send a clear message to OPEC that North America (Canada & the US) will no longer accept their monopolization of oil. Furthermore, I want to protect our environment and believe that we need to systematically take steps that promote innovation in environmentally sound energy policies. But, it is ridiculous to continue to implement policies which restrict US regulated companies from drilling off our shores, while allowing other nations such as China and Russia (who have lax environmental standards and nearly no enforcement) to drill just miles off our coastlines. McCain in recent days has moderated his positions on offshore drilling, something that Obama’s polarizing policies will not allow.

As oil prices and the costs of nearly every consumer good begin to rise, hopefully the American people will begin to call for renewed leadership in Washington; leadership that will stand up too the polarizing and entrenched positions of the political parties and call for fair compromises aimed at helping the American People. Obama has shown no ability to be that moderate leader. His positions on energy policy have not been responsive to rising energy prices and only call for more of the same Carter-Era energy policies that failed our country 30 years ago. We need leadership that is not intent on appeasing the special interests on either side of the debate or willing to continue the massive overseas transfer of American Wealth. We need leadership that recognizes that our government has enabled the monopolization of our energy resources and that taxation, or the lack thereof, is no substitution for genuine regulation. What we don’t need is another pandering politician intent on instituting the energy policies that overwhelmingly failed the American People in the late seventies.

J Brown
June 17th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics.

Must Read: The Final Report-Democratic Disenfranchisement

Copyright 2008 This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

No Room For Dissent In The New Democratic Party

The New Democratic Party: Your Either With Us 100% or Against US

Wisconsin Delegate Stripped Of Status For Not Supporting Obama!

For the past year on the campaign trail we have heard speech after speech from Senator Obama calling for a change in Washington politics and claiming that he can end the polarization in Washington. However, less than 2 weeks after becoming the presumptive nominee the message from the Democratic leadership is clear: You either with us or against us.

Reports surfaced late last week that Debra Bartoshevich, a Wisconsin Delegate supporting Hillary Clinton, had told the Journal Sentinel that she would vote for Clinton at the convention and John McCain in November. Bartoshevich’s sister, who had served in Iraq, encouraged Bartoshevich to sign up for “Citizens For McCain”, which prompted her public announcement. Bartoshevich said, “I just feel you need to have somebody who has experience with foreign matters”.

The actions of Bartoshevich have embarrassed the Obama Campaign and DNC who have claimed to have been working to earn back the vote of Clinton supporters. However, the Wisconsin Democratic Party immediately invoked a DNC rule requiring delegate’s to support the nominee and voted for a resolution to prevent the DNC from seating Bartoshevich at the Democratic Convention. The head of the Wisconsin Democratic Party remarked, “It’s extremely important that we send a message that Democrats in the state of Wisconsin will never support somebody who supports John McCain for president”

According to the Wisconsin Journal Times [Since Friday’s announcement, Bartoshevich said she has been inundated with e-mails and phone calls from the national press, from other delegates and from people who have expressed their support.She said she hoped this year’s tight race makes the party re-examine its selection process.“I just think the Democratic process for selecting a nominee is flawed,” Bartoshevich said. “I don’t think anybody in the Democratic Party believed that it would be this close.”]

The Democratic Leadership, abetted by the mainstream media, has painted the picture that an unpopular Bush presidency has unified the Democratic Party. But, this weekend’s actions only strengthen my contention that the Democratic Party has become nothing more than a totalitarian regime in which anyone who fails to adopt any aspect of the party platform is branded a traitor and removed from the party.

Just 8 years ago Senator Liebermann was the parties Vice Presidential nominee and since has voted in line with the Democratic platform 99% of the time. But after disagreeing with the party platform in regards to Iraq, the party leadership abandoned the popular senator forcing him to successfully run for re-election as an independent. Today the democratic leadership continues to lambaste Liebermann for his support of John McCain.

In March of this year, Democratic leadership turned branded Clinton supporter and former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro as a racist after she criticized Obama. Since that time Ferraro’s influence within the party has been minimized by the party leadership.

This weekend’s actions in Washington are not the steps that a political party and campaign takes to attract moderate voters or re-establish support among Clinton supporters. The message from the Party Leadership is clear: You either support our candidate and our platform 100%, or you are the enemy.

J Brown
June 16th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at Real Clear Politics.


Copyright 2008This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Upcoming Week!

Have A Great Weekend!

This embittered middle-class american clinging to his guns (conveniently locked away at my parents house miles away from our children), religion, values and proud of his country taking his children camping for the weekend.

Be sure to check back at the beginning of the week for our next 2 reports examining Obama's lobby and PAC ties (we are hot on the money trail now with information that will wake up everyone to this Chicago Politician) and a special exposee that we pondering an offer from a mainstream media source prior to release (sorry, I can't give up the storyline).

Please be sure to subscribe by email on the sidebar and help us support the site.

Have a great weekend and if you have any suggestions leave them in the comments.

Delegate Contact Lists For Democrats Against Obama

A Special Message for PUMA Visitors

This nominating process should be a wake up call to Democrats to urge their party leaders to change their primary system; a system designed to allow the party, not the voters to determine the nomination. Democrats, Republicans, & Independents alike should demand “Equal Representation” not as a matter of suggestion but as the inalienable right that our founding fathers believed in.

But now onto the new issue…

Who are the Super delegates? Elected Congressmen & Congresswomen, Governors, State Party Officials, Former High Ranking Party Officials, and State-level congressional leaders.

Despite all of the early talk about these leaders voting with the people, it is surprising how many of them have not. For Instance Below is the list of House Members, Senators, and Governors not voting along the lines of their constituents, along with any recorded contributions from Clinton or Obama. (Isn’t their obligation first and foremost to their constituents?)

This list should not only serve the Puma Community but also as a warning to these Supers that they are setting themselves up fro ferocious attacks by their Republican Rivals in November.

Elected Officials Voting for Obama Who's constituents voted for Clinton

Robert Cramer – Alabama – UNCOMMITTED http://cramer.house.gov/NR/exeres/3AFBDAAF-1015-4C72-95FC-474743BC67C2.htm

Raul Grijalva – Arizona
http://grijalva.house.gov/?sectionid=49&sectiontree=249

Gabriel Giffords – Arizona – Obama $9,000
http://giffords.house.gov/contact/email/

Gov. Janet Napalitano – Arizona
http://www.governor.state.az.us/contact.asp

George Miller – California
http://georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/

Gerald McNerney – California - Obama Donation $5,000
http://mcnerney.house.gov/contact.shtml

Fortney Pete Stark – California
http://www.house.gov/stark/contact/index.htm

Zoe Lofgren – Cal.
http://lofgren.house.gov/emailform.shtml

Sam Farr – Cal.
http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=202

Dennis Cardoza – California – Obama $4,000
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Jim Costa – California – Obama $4,000
http://www.house.gov/formcosta/issue.htm

Howard Berman – Cal.
http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/

Adam Schiff – Cal.
http://schiff.house.gov/HoR/CA29/Contact+Information/Contact+Form.htm

Henry Waxman – Cal
http://www.house.gov/waxman/contact.htm

Linda Sanchez – Cal
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Bob Filner – Cal.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Sen. Barbara Boxer – Cal.
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Robert Wexler – FL.
http://www.wexler.house.gov/email.shtml

Ron Klein – FL. Obama $11,000, Clinton $2,500
http://klein.house.gov/content/contact/

Joe Donnely – Indiana - Obama $7,500 Donation
http://donnelly.house.gov/issue_subscribe.shtml

Baron Hill – Indiana – Obama $12,500 Donation
http://baronhill.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.shtml

Ben Chandler – Kentucky – wow Obama drew less than 10%
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

John Olver – Massachusetts
http://www.house.gov/olver/contact/index.html

Bill Delahunt – Massachussetts
mailto:william.delahunt@mail.house.gov

Gov. Deval Patrick Mass.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us

Sen. Ted Kennedy Mass. - $10,000 from both candidates
http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm

Sen. John Kerry – Mass.
http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Ben Stupak – Michigan
http://www.house.gov/stupak/IMA/issue2.htm

Gov. Bill Richardson – New Mexico
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/email.php?mm=6&type=assistance

Jeff Bingaman – New Mexico – Obama $4,200
http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/types/email-issue.cfm

Carol Shea-Porter – New Hampshire
http://shea-porter.house.gov/?sectionid=84&sectiontree=84

Gov. Brad Henry – Oklahoma
http://www.governor.state.ok.us/message.php

Patrick Murphy – PA Donations from Clinton $2500 Obama $18,826
http://www.patrickmurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=86

Sen. Bob Casey – PA
http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

Patrick Kennedy – RI
http://www.house.gov/formpatrickkennedy/IMA/issue.htm

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin – South Dakota
mailto:stephanie.herseth@mail.house.gov

Gov. Phil Bredesen – Tennessee
phil.bredesen@state.tn.us

Charlie Gonzalez - Texas
http://www.gonzalez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170

Eddie Johnson - Texas
http://www.house.gov/ebjohnson/IMA/issue_subscribe.shtml

Rick Boucher – Virginia
http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=645&Itemid=

Alan Mollohan – WV
mailto:CongressmanMollohan@mail.house.gov

Nick Rahall – WV
http://www.rahall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=521&Itemid=162

Sen. Robert Byrd –WV $10,000 from both candidates
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV – WV - Obama $5000 Donation
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila - PR
http://www.fortaleza.gobierno.pr/anibal04.htm

To Mass Email Superdelegates Please Visit: Lobby Delegates

If anyone should have direct email addresses please leave them in the contacts and I will update accordingly. Please remember to support Puma sites.


J Brown
May 22, 2008

Be sure to check out our other posts including those in May and please be sure to support our research donate on the sidebar.

Copyright 2008This article may not be reproduced without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint upon request.

Democratic Disenfranchisement: The Final Report

The Final Report: Democratic Disenfranchisement

In previous posts we have written about major discrepancies within the Democratic Primary System, from voter fraud to Caucus misunderstanding and manipulation to the more despicable inequality in the proportional delegation system.

In most Democratic primaries the vote has not been close enough for anyone to question whether the system was fair; but this primary process has been different. For years the Democratic Leadership has decried the Republican Party, accusing the party of voter manipulation, intimidation, and disenfranchisement; but those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. For those few who take the time to research how the Democratic Primary process actually awards delegate, they find massive voter disenfranchisement. The system has become corrupted by the DNC and State Party leaderships who adopted reforms aimed at allowing party leadership a greater say in who becomes the nominee.

So the question that has formed in recent weeks is this: How is it that Hillary Clinton could win the national popular vote (depending on whether you include caucus turnout ESTIMATES); win the popular vote in 30 more congressional districts than Obama; and yet lose the pledged delegate count by over 130 delegates?

To answer this question you must first understand how the Democratic Party Primaries are set up.

A) Caucuses – The caucuses are easily the most misunderstood system of nominating candidates. The system is a kickback to the days in which party leaders, not the people, determined who the nominee was. According to the Green Papers, “it was a system easily controlled - and, in many cases, manipulated - by the party hierarchy. In the Democratic Party of the early 1970's, the McGovern-Fraser reforms - seeking to reduce the influence of "bossism" in the nominating process- encouraged many states to change over from this method of choosing National Convention delegates to the Primary.”


B) Proportional Primary System – The proportional primary system was first instituted by the Democratic Party as a way of allowing the direct vote election of a nominee. The Democratic Party set up the proportional system to allocate delegates based upon 2 criteria. First the primary would award PLEO or At-Large delegates based upon the percentage of votes obtained throughout the entire state. Second, the majority of the delegates would be awarded at a district level, thereby fairly representing the interests of both urban and non-urban voters along with requiring that a nominee appeal to all democrats within a state rather than focusing only on densely populated areas. The system was designed in line with our overall “representative republic” system of government.

Since the 1970’s the State Parties, under directives from the DNC have systematically manipulated the allocation of delegates within both the Caucus and Proportional Primary Systems, shifting delegates away from districts that more independent or republican friendly, and into districts (primarily urban) that tend to vote more heavily democratic. The result of this systematic delegate reallocation is that the party no longer values all democratic votes as equal. Reference: How Much Does The DNC Value Democrats.

The original intent of the proportional primary system was to nominate candidates with a broader, more widespread appeal to Democratic Voters, yet today the manipulation has reached a point that candidates can now focus on the urban areas of a state and pick up large numbers of Delegates. Has this had an effect on this year’s primary season? You bet, here it is:

As of June 9th, 2008: Pledged Delegate Count - Obama: 1,766.5 Clinton: 1,638.5
*Counts Vary slightly by news sources, we use the AP & Green Papers Total

Imbalanced & Discriminatory Delegate Allocations

In our research we found 31 state primaries and caucuses in which Democratic Delegates were disproportionately allocated among congressional districts. These states allocated large numbers of delegates to congressional districts which tended to vote more heavily democratic, thereby discriminating against democrats living in more moderate or republican leaning congressional districts.

Included were: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, & Wisconsin.

Among the 19 remaining states the majority are either smaller states with few congressional districts (no room for disproportional allocation) or the following larger states who have maintained non-discriminatory allocations: Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, and Oklahoma.

23 of the 31 aforementioned states with imbalanced discriminatory allocations negatively impacted the Clinton campaign; while only 1 of the 31 states would have awarded Obama more delegates. The remaining states with no impact were primarily smaller states with few congressional districts. Among the worst offenders were the following states:

Alabama – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 3 CDs with 5 delegates, 3 CDs with 4 delegates.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-27 C-25
If Equal Distribution: O-29 C-23

Georgia – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 2 CDs w/ 5, 4 CDs w/ 4, 4CDs w/3.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-60 C-27
If Equal Distribution: O-57 C-30

Illinois – 3 CDs with 8 delegates, 3 CDs w/ 6, 6 CDs w/ 5, 4 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-104 C-49
If Equal Distribution: O-100 C-53

Missouri – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 4 CDs w/ 5, 2 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-36 C-36
If Equal Distribution: O-35 C-37

North Carolina – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 7, 5 CDs w/ 6, 4 CDs w/ 5, 1CDs w/4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-67 C-48
If Equal Distribution: O-65 C-50

Ohio – 1 CD with 8 delegates, 1 CDs w/ 7, 4 CDs w/ 6, 5 CD’s w/ 5, 7CDs w/4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-67 C-74
If Equal Distribution: O-63 C-78

Pennsylvania – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 5 CDs w/7, 1 CDs w/6, 6 CDs w/5, 5CDs w/4, 1CD w/3.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-73 C-85
If Equal Distribution: O-70 C-88

Texas Primary – 1 CD with 8 delegates, 1 CDs w/7, 2 CDs w/6, 6 CDs w/5, 15 CD’s w/4, 9 CDs w/3 & 1 CD w/2.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-61 C-65
If Equal Distribution: O-57 C-69

Virginia – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 2 CDs w/ 6, 3 CDs w/ 5, 5 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-54 C-29
If Equal Distribution: O-52 C-31

Also included were caucus states that distributed delegates on the basis of congressional districts:

Colorado – 2 CDs with 6 delegates, 4 CDs w/ 5, 1 CD w/ 4
Current Delegate Distribution: O-36 C-19
If Equal Distribution: O-35 C-20

Kansas – 1 CD with 7 delegates, 1 CD w/6, 2 CDs w/ 4.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-23 C-9
If Equal Distribution: O-22 C-10

Maine – 1 CD with 9 delegates, 1 CD w/ 7.
Current Delegate Distribution: O-15 C-9
If Equal Distribution: O-14 C-10

The Above states represent a sampling of the States whose democratic delegate allocations, as recommended and approved by the DNC are discriminatory and imbalanced. Below is a summary of the results had delegates been equally distributed among congressional districts:

AL – Obama +2, Clinton -2
CA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
CO – Obama -1, Clinton +1
CT – Obama -1, Clinton +1
FL – Obama -.5, Clinton +.5
GA – Obama -3, Clinton +3
IL – Obama -4, Clinton +4
KS – Obama -1, Clinton +1
KY – Obama -2, Clinton +2
LA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MA – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MD – Obama -2, Clinton +2
ME – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MN – Obama -1, Clinton +1
MS – Obama -1, Clinton +1
NC – Obama -2, Clinton +2
OH – Obama -4, Clinton +4
PA – Obama -3, Clinton +3
SC – Obama -1, Clinton +1
TN – Obama -1, Clinton +1
TX Primary – Obama -4, Clinton +4
VA – Obama -2, Clinton +2
WI – Obama -1, Clinton +1

In addition, the DNC imposed distribution plan for Michigan was far from representative of the actual vote of the state. If the uncommitted vote is to be attributed to Barack Obama and 50% of the delegation reinstated, then the delegates should have been allocated according to Michigan’s allocation formula which would have given Obama 27.5 delegates and Clinton 36.5 delegates. Additionally, if you reallocate the delegates in a non-discriminatory manner the count would be: Obama-27, Clinton-37

How does fair and equal representation affect the total delegate count?

Obama: 1,706.5 Delegates Clinton: 1679.5 (Obama’s Pledged Delegate Lead – 27)

*Important note: the above figure does not include 20 Edwards Pledged Delegates that have switched their votes, against the results of their states, in the past 2 weeks.

The discriminatory allocation of delegates, aimed at urban preference, resulted in a 100 delegate swing in the election results. However, the above numbers only represent a portion of the expansive disenfranchisement of Democratic voters.

What is not included in the above figures?

Idaho – Since the Idaho Caucuses there have been widespread allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. The caucus results themselves came under scrutiny by the Clinton campaign that expected a 20-30 point loss in the state, but not the 62 point loss that resulted in Obama picking up 15 of the state’s 18 delegates. What has not been widely reported is that on May 27th Idaho hosted a non-binding primary in which twice as many democrats went to the polls. The results of the primary were Obama – 56%, Clinton – 38%. The results of the primary fell in line with the original expectations for the state and reinforced the allegations made by Clinton supporters. If the delegation reflected the expressed will of Idaho voters Obama would have received only 11 delegates compared to Clinton’s 7; further narrowing the lead to 1702.5 to 1683.5.

Texas – The award for the most egregious example of discriminatory and non-representative delegate allocation easily belongs to the great state of Texas, which has adopted the worst of both worlds. The Texas primary allocates as many as 8 delegates to some congressional districts and as few as 2 too others. Moreover is that the state primary awards on no at-large delegates; opting instead to award those 65 delegates through a separate Caucus vote. As a result, just 42,000 Texans overruled the votes cast by over 2.4 million Texans earlier that day.

Obama supporters showed up in droves in the inner cities for the late-night caucuses, leading to a 38-29 distribution of the caucus delegates. Like Idaho, the Texas Caucus System has been plagued by allegations of voter intimidation, Clinton supporters that were blocked from entry, ineligible voter participation, and fraud. The caucus victory along with the primary’s discriminatory delegate allocation overturned the expressed will of Texas voters by resulting in Obama grabbing the lion’s share of the states delegates.

If the Caucus delegates properly and fairly represented the will of the 2.5 million Texas Democrats, the resulting Caucus delegate allocation would have been: Clinton – 34, Obama – 33; further narrowing the pledged delegate lead: 1697.5 to 1688.5.

Nevada - The abuses of the caucus system only continued in Nevada whereas Obama picked up 14 delegates compared to Clinton’s 11. The problem within the Nevada delegate selection is that the Caucus delegates arbitrarily awarded Obama 55% of the delegates when Clinton won the popular vote 51%-45%. Once again, the easily manipulated caucus system went directly against the expressed will of the Democrats of Nevada. It the caucus system proportionally represented the people of Nevada; the delegate count would have broken 13-12 in favor of Clinton. The non-discriminatory delegate count would have closed to 1,695.5 for Obama and 1,690.5 for Clinton.

One can examine the delegate lead above and argue that Obama still maintained the delegate lead, even if the system fairly represented all Democrats, thus all has worked out as it should. But I’m not done by any means!

For Instance, the State of Washington awarded Obama 52 of the states 78 delegates. The state, like others, awards delegates at a congressional district level with 1 district receiving 9 delegates; 4 districts receiving 6 delegates; 3 districts receiving 5 delegates; and 1 district receiving just 3 delegates. Once again Washington has followed the DNC lead in unrepresentative and discriminatory delegate distribution. We do know based upon the delegates awarded in each district that Clinton performed better in the districts with fewer delegates. However, the Democratic Party of Washington has not released any hard vote numbers at a congressional district level. As a result, we assume that based upon the demographics Clinton would pick up 1 to 2 delegates (a 2-4 delegate swing) by equally allocating delegates, but without hard vote totals we are unable to confirm.

Additionally, in the District of Columbia one of Clintons earned, pledged delegates have written a letter to the DNC switching their pledge vote to the Obama camp.

At the end of the day, if the allocation of pledged delegate were fair, non-discriminatory, and followed the original equal representation intent of the founders of the proportional primary system, this would be a horse race with a photo-finish. The superdelegates would have no alternative but to recognize the broad support and strength within the congressional district victories enjoyed by Hillary Clinton and perhaps would address this final travesty:

In August of 2006 the DNC Approved its delegate selection rules, that clearly laid out the penalty for violation of the primary timeline. The rules clearly stated: “in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation”.

Although provisions existed that granted the DNC, led by Howard Dean, to impose increased penalties, clearly this rule was violated by the DNC when they stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegations. Obama supporters attempt to contend that Harold Ickes wrote the rules, but in reality, Howard Dean is the Chairman of the DNC and the “Buck Stops There”.

I commend the Democratic Party of Michigan for standing up too the DNC and lambasting the DNC during the RBC meeting in May. But regardless of the rule, there is one more guideline that pertains to Florida that has not been discussed during this process. The DNC Delegate Selection Rules state, “In the event a state shall become subject to subsections (1), (2) or (3) of section C.
of this rule as a result of state law but the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, after an investigation, including hearings if necessary, determines the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith to achieve legislative changes to bring the state law into compliance with the pertinent provisions of these rules and determines that the state party and the other relevant Democratic party leaders and elected officials took all provable, positive steps and acted in good faith in attempting to prevent legislative changes which resulted in state law that fails to comply with the pertinent provisions of these rules, the DNC Rules and Bylaws
Committee may determine that all or a portion of the state’s delegation shall not be reduced.”

The above guideline was put into place years ago to allow an exemption of the 50% rule in situations whereas a Republican Controlled State would pass laws moving up a primary in violation of DNC rules. As we have pointed out in a previous post, the Democratic Leadership in Florida made no attempt to block Cloture and unanimously voted for the legislation to move up there primary. However, that is not the rhetoric that spewed out of the mouths of the members of the RBC and Florida Democratic Leadership during the May publicity stunt. Member after Member of the DNC and Florida Leadership came forth blaming the entire debacle on the Florida Republican Party. There was no mention of the DNC violating their rules and no blame placed upon the Democratic Leadership of Florida. The RBC and other DNC leadership laid the blame for Florida directly at the feet of the Republican Party. If the RBC truly believes the rhetoric that they spewed then why did they not reinstate the full delegation of Florida?

Clearly, this provision of the rules was put in place to protect against the very situation that the DNC claims occurred in Florida; therefore the fair solution would have been to fully reinstate the Florida delegation. What would that have done to the delegate tally?

We can talk in terms of "What Ifs", "Could Have Beens", and "Should Have Beens" all day, but at the end Clinton supporters will point to this massive disenfranchisement as just one more piece of evidence that the party they once knew, a party that valued the base of its coalition, has been hijacked and that Obama is an illegitimate candidate.

Obama supporters are going to flock to this site and proclaim that none of this matters; Obama played by the agreed upon rules; ran a more strategic campaign; and that now is the time to unite against Obama. After all the rules, the party and defeating McCain are all that matter to them. They will tell us that now is the time to focus on the issues, and in between the occasional expressed hatred and slights they will spin this issue into an attack on Clinton and McCain.

First, any derogatory remarks will be deleted and any ridiculous spin trying to change the subject will also be wiped clean. Second, the Obama supporters are right; we should focus on the issues.

Let’s begin with the issue of what constitutes the very basis of our representative republic. Our founding fathers adopted a form of government, constitution, and laws expressly for the purpose of supporting and protecting their belief in equal and fair representation. They believed that all Americans, regardless of whether they resided in the heavily populated northern colonies or less populated southern colonies had the right to equal representation. That is why we have congressional districts; that is why we elect representatives and do not directly elect our president. They believed that a voter in Allentown Pennsylvania should have the same level of representation as a voter in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Democratic Party was once a party that embraced the ideals of fair and equal representation; after all they are the party that first developed a proportional primary system. If the leaders of any party are willing to adopt discriminatory representation as a basis of their party platform, then what will prevent them from doing the same to the entire electorate?

This election is about issues, and at the heart of those issues should be fair and equal representation. What has occurred in the Democratic Primary Process represents the very reason why our founding fathers feared and detested political parties.

Are things likely to change? I guess that depends on what happens in November.

J Brown
June 11, 2008

Please be sure to vote on this article starting June 12th at: Real Clear Politics and Digg It

Be sure to check out our other posts including those in May and please be sure to support our research donate on the sidebar.

Copyright 2008This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Sources available upon request including each States Democratic Party, Republican Party, Secretary of State, The Democratic National Committee, The Green Papers, The Associated Press, The National Archives, and others.

Obama Energy Policy Snubs Canadian Oil!

Obama Energy Policy Snubs Canadian Oil!

For over 200 years Canada and the United States have shared a unique relationship built upon collective security and strong economic ties. But today that relationship may be headed in the wrong direction.

There is growing dissent for the policies of Presidential nominee Barack Obama within the government and general public of Canada. The concern over an Obama presidency began with his calls to redraft NAFTA, an agreement that has generally not been beneficial for the United States; except in regards to our Canadian partners. But the concerns have deepened in recent weeks as Obama has promoted his Carter-Era energy policies.

Unreported in US Media outlets, but becoming a top-issue in Canada, is concern over the export of nearly 1.6 million barrels of Canadian oil per day to the US. Although both McCain & Obama support uniform emission standards, Senator Obama has introduced & supports and the call for new “low-carbon fuel legislation”. Specific to Obama’s policy are steep penalties imposed upon refiners who use oil sand crude, the source of Canada’s 1.6 million barrels per day.

Canada currently alternates with Saudi Arabia and Venezuela as the #1 importer of US oil. US oil refineries are currently seeking expansion to increase their processing capacity for Canadian crude. In fact, the newly approved South Dakota oil refinery is being established for that purpose.

The concern over Canadian oil is the stigma that the crude is “dirty”; meaning that it requires more refinement than the light, sweet crude of the Middle East. Obama’s policies that would heavily penalize the use of Canadian oil could be lightened if Alberta producers dramatically reduced their production emissions; which is paramount to Obama telling the Canadians what they can and cannot do.

Regardless, Obama’s energy policies would lead to an increased cost for Canadian Oil coupled with a reduction in supply. The result would mean that the United States would have to replace much of the 1.6 million barrels per day with oil from Venezuela, or the preferred “light, sweet crude” of the Middle East.

Obama’s energy & trade policies are likely to strain relations with Canada. Policies that will discourage and penalize the use of Canadian oil will not only have a profound effect on the Canadian economy, but will also heavily damage our own.

First, Obama’s newly proposed “low-carbon” emission standards will reduce our purchase of Canadian oil. With global demand rising exponentially, replacing the majority of Canada’s 1.6 million barrels of “dirty” crude per day will be a nearly insurmountable task. None of our trading partners have the extraction infrastructure, let alone the willingness (OPEC), to replace the oil. Even if new technology aimed at replacing oil was developed today, the infrastructure needed would take decades to put in place. What this means in practical terms is a shortage of oil in the US, leading to higher prices at the pump and higher prices of consumer goods.

Second, forget about the damage to the longstanding and positive US/Canadian relationship; because we will not only be turning our back on a strong ally, but more importantly will be transferring huge amounts of our wealth to less reciprocating countries. The Obama policies directly target Canadian “dirty” crude, meaning that we will have to increase importation from Venezuela (The Fascist Chavez Government), or the Middle East. I am sure that most Americans would agree that it is in our best interest to increase trade with Canada, not well-known for radicalism, anti-American hatred, jihad, or terrorism; rather than transferring a greater portion of our wealth to those other countries with whom we suffer huge trade-imbalances and for which we are indirectly financing those who would harm us.

Third, the audacity of Obama is unbelievable. He has proposed policies that would essentially force new environmental regulations upon Canadian companies, or else they would lose our business. It is not his place to directly or indirectly legislate Canadian Environmental Policy; I was under the assumption that they were a sovereign nation and ally of ours. Instead of condemning our trade relations with Canada, perhaps it might be wiser to Obama to adopt a policy by which we could increase our importation of Canadian oil, wean ourselves off of Venezuelan and Mid-East oil, and work with the Canadian government and Canadian Producers on a partnership basis to mutually improve upon environmental issues.

Thirty years ago the Carter Energy Policies failed our nation, decreased domestic production and led to increased reliance upon foreign oil. The Obama energy policy is a rehash of this 1970’s failure, nearly identical in every proposal. We are in the midst of an oil crisis, deepened by a weakening dollar and no politician will be able to solve our economic problems without effectively increasing oil production and refinement as part of a truly comprehensive energy package. As it stands Canadian producers have plans in place to double their exportation of Crude to the US by 2020; plans that will be reversed under the Obama proposals.

J Brown
06/10/2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics

Copyright 2008This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

Collusion: The Windfall Profits Tax Will Not Lower Prices

The Windfall Profits Tax Will Not Help The Consumer

Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid put forth a bill calling for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. This bill is clearly political pandering in light of record high oil prices and worldwide outrage at inflated gasoline prices. But before the public blindly falls in line with the “trust me” solution, perhaps they should sleep on it.
There are three questions that we should all consider before implementing a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

#1) If this is a profound solution, why hasn’t the democratically controlled congress passed this legislation prior to now? This questions is perhaps the most important considering that the 2006 Democratic platform promised to take control of the then record high prices and oil company profits. Yet, the Democratic energy policy passed last year focused on conservation with no mention of a windfall profits tax. Why Now?

Is it because the Democratic leadership and nominee Obama believe that this is a “change” for the good of the nation’s economy, or is it political expedience. Over the past 18 months of Democratic Congressional control gas & oil prices have more than doubled.

#2) Is this the “change” policy that Obama and Democratic Leadership Believe In? “The Windfall Profits Tax” is not a new idea, it is an extension of the Carter Era Energy policies that led to record oil prices and contributed to stagflation. On April 2, 1980, Jimmy Carter signed into legislation the “Windfall Profits Tax” that placed levies on Oil companies. The result were devastating, leading to lower Domestic production, increased reliance on foreign oil, and raised less than 10% of the original expected revenue. Eventually the Windfall Profits Tax would lose all congressional and public support; the New York Times said it best “time for the windfall tax to fall”.

This time around Democratic legislatures have informed us that they have addressed the failures of the 1980 bill; that this time it will be better. Unfortunately this is the same “trust me” mindset that legislatures had in 1980. The original bill and the one now being proposed are based upon wartime profits taxes that were imposed during WWI, WWII, and Korea; however, these bills were established to raise government revenues, not to control or lower consumer prices.

Raising taxes on the oil industry will do nothing to lower the price at the pump. In theory tax aims to encourage lower prices by oil companies out of fear of taxation. In reality, however, the bill sends a message to the oil monopolies that “we will let you maintain your record profits, so long as we get our share”. Without a second though the oil companies will pay the tax, the government will collect revenue, and refined oil prices will neither lessen nor stabilize. It is ridiculous to believe that imposing taxes on any product will ever lower consumer prices on that product. In other words, let me challenge each of you to answer this: Name a time when any government has imposed a tax on industry that resulted in lower prices?

#3) The democrats and Obama agree that this tax is not likely to lower prices; but they have a plan. Congress will take the revenue collected through the WPT and redistribute it to the American consumer to offset high price (after subsidizing businesses researching alternative fuels). Sounds like a grand plan, except, how would this revenue (if the plan worked) be distributed?

Would the Government Issue blanket checks to the American public? Not likely.

Would the plan be based upon income? The least bureaucratic idea. However, an income based distribution would most likely exclude the thousands of businesses who are suffering from higher prices and passing those costs onto the consumer. An income based distribution would also most likely include income caps or phase outs. So are we now to assume that government believes that some should be forced to pay $5/gallon for gas, while other only need to pay $2.50/gallon. What about self employed salespeople, truck drivers, delivery workers, suburban commuters, and farmers who are required to use much greater levels of fuel. Just imagine the bureaucratic expansion within a tax code that is already too complex and too lengthy. The 1980 WPT, by which a democratically controlled congress repealed, was opposed by Reagan, The Treasury Department, and IRS who found that the tax cost over $150 million per year to administer.

Do we base this government offset on actual mileage driven? This would be the fairest of the distribution plans; but would also be easily corrupted. How could the government assure that the mileage submitted could possibly be the real number? Businesses and individuals alike would abusively overstate their mileage, and lower income families driving less efficient vehicles would reap the least benefits.

Do we base the distributions on actual expenses? Sure, if you believe that intrusive big brother government genuinely works for the will of the people. Do you really want the government in your pocketbook & monitoring your expenses?

Regardless of the plan, the WPT has failed in the past and taxes are designed to generate revenue, not control prices.

Now let me state that I do not agree with the republican view that lowering taxes will provide lower prices. Although this is a sound and proven theory; it is a theory that only works when there is genuine competition within the marketplace. There is no competition with the oil industry, the raw product is based upon commodity prices, not competition based expenses & profit ratios. The refined product prices are based upon their preferred expense & profit ratios; however, in an environment lacking competition the company, not the marketplace, defines those ratios. Today’s oil companies are nothing more than government enabled monopolies. 80% of the marketplace is controlled by just 5 companies. If we as a society are going to allow government enabled monopolies then our leaders need to impose genuine regulatory policy designed to protect all consumers, not just those deemed worthy.

Our nation needs a return to the reform policies of the true progressive era presidents: Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Over the past 100 years our legislature has abandoned the regulatory policies of these presidents and has adopted the belief that taxation is a sound method for regulation. Again, taxation in neither a method nor substitution for regulation. In an environment lacking competition, taxation or the lack thereof has no ability to control consumer prices or protect the consumer. If the government wants to attack the oil monopolies profits in an attempt to lower prices and provide greater stability, then they should institute a profits cap. Not a price cap, but a profits cap, with built in incentives and flexibility, that allows the government sponsored oil monopoly to maintain reasonable profits, while protecting the consumer.

Any attack on monopoly profits must be accompanied with a change in our monetary policy, renewed global pressure on OPEC, and a focus on moderate intermediate and long-term energy solutions (including an increase in domestic and North American energy production, consistency in fuel blending standards, increased refining abilities, and conservation).

Again let me conclude by reiterating that both Obama and Democratic leadership proposing this bill have stated that the WPT is not likely to reduce the cost of refined oil. Their solution is not designed to provide measures to reduce the cost at the pump, but rather to redistribute the tax revenues generated under the WPT. The WPT amounts to nothing more than collusion between the oil monopolies and our government. The WPT creates a policy by which oil companies are allowed to retain record profits so long as the government gets their cut. Today we have a government that provides us with a Social Security System headed for bankruptcy, a nationalized healthcare system called “Medicare” that is headed towards bankruptcy and the lengthiest and most complicated tax code in human history; and they now want to adopt an oil profit redistribution bureaucracy to the mix.

If we want congress to quickly develop and act upon genuine legislation aimed at price relief, then we should take away the paid flights and limousine service that they are provided and make them drive to work and across the campaign trail every day.

J Brown
06/10/2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Digg IT

Copyright 2008This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a low nominal donation or fee.

UPDATED - The New American Disenfranchisement

The following is an article that was first published on May 5th; I have updated the entire article with new information. I felt it was important to publish this article as a prelude to the “Final Report” on delegate manipulation that will be published in the next day or two. I have been working on the story for over a week as it takes some time to gather the necessary statistical data. The Final Report will point out how widespread Democratic Disenfranchisement has become, from Maine to California (literally). The report will also answer the question, “What If the Allocation of Delegates Was Balanced?”

Democratic Elitists And Their Role In Hijacking The Democratic Party!

Our nation’s founding fathers and early leaders set out to create a government for the people and by the people. As educated men who sought to understand the history of the worlds great cultures, they set out not to create a new concept to preserve individual freedom, opportunity, and liberty; but rather to improve upon the previous great democracies.
Our leaders used early Greek and Roman democracies as the basis of our government. However, they equally set forth to establish a system which would protect and preserve the democracy against the failures that led these early societies down a path to demise. Our early leaders realized that a direct democracy could easily be manipulated to allow for the rise of elitist and power-hungry leadership that would strip the democracy of individual rights and liberties. During times of geopolitical, sociopolitical, and economic turmoil, power-hungry leadership could easily emerge through the use of populism, just as Caesar used populist rhetoric to morph the roman democracy into an imperial power. Therefore, our leaders determined that a representative republic in which voter equality and a system of checks and balances would protect against overt populism and the rise of the elite.
Additionally, when our government was created the nation’s demographics were very similar to today’s United States. Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, accounted for a large percentage of the nations population. Our early leaders realized that another reason for the demise of the Roman Empire, and the rule of the British Empire they broke free from, was that power was retained and centralized within a relatively small geographic region. Political Leaders pandered to the population in London, or previously in Rome, importing a majority of the nation’s wealth and prosperity into these power centers while ignoring the needs and suppressing opportunity and rights within the rest of the empires. Fearing that a single group of elitists could seize power within the US by pandering to the heavily populated cities, our early leaders created the electoral and congressional system that has been upheld for over 200 years. The electoral system is simply designed to equalize the rights of all Americans and prevent the election of extremist politicians through populism based upon cyclical periods of turmoil in the country.
Today, our nation once again faces a period of turmoil in our economy & global and domestic security issues. Americans are fed up, disenchanted and frustrated. During this time of turmoil, and political season we have a chance for genuine change. But change is not always positive, and we all need to recognize the difference between populist pandering and a return to the principles and policies that have made our country great. No politician can solve our individual problems. The best that they can provide is sound policies that protect our and our allies’ sovereignty, promote economic capitalism through creating competition, opportunity, consumer protection and prevent the monopolization of industry, and preserve the individual rights, liberties, and the American Dream.
During this period of turmoil, the American public has an obligation to itself to beware of today’s politicians. Politicians that unlike the great leaders of the past century have turned to populist rhetoric, reminding Americans of better times and promising them that THEIR GOVERNMENT can ease the burdens they face. We have a duty to ourselves to remember that our democracy is built upon our freedom, individual rights and liberties. The more that we allow the government to become involved in our individual lives, the more of those individual rights and liberties will be stripped away.

This year’s primary season has led to the nomination of John McCain, a republican with a long history of moderate views and bipartisan cooperation. In the Democratic Party, we were faced with a choice of 2 candidates who were entrenched in an undeclared civil war in the Democratic Party. A civil war brought on by Democratic Leadership, and fought with weapons such as voter disenfranchisement.
The media has portrayed this race as a battle between two very good candidates that has reached a point that could hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in November and damage their voter coalition. However, the reality is that this is a battle between the Wealthy & Elitist Far-Left Leadership & Supporters of the DNC and the Left-Of-Center Clinton Political Machine. This primary turmoil was directly brought on by the far-left of the Democratic Party who have turned to Populism, Voter Disenfranchisement, and taken advantage of states with inequality in how they award pledged delegates.

Let Me Take You Back…

Nine months ago Rudy Giuliani appeared to be the Republican front-runner along with Hilary Clinton as the Democratic front-runner. At the time, the general consensus was that the Democrats would likely retake the presidency in 2008, regardless of who their nominee was. However, the now far-left DNC leadership, along with their far-left, wealthy and elitist contributors had concerns. First, of the Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, was considered polarizing, with 35% of voters stating that they would vote against Hillary Clinton regardless of whom the republican nominee was. Although this was disconcerting, the elitist leadership of the party was more concerned with the issue of whether or not Clinton would carry through with their radical agenda of massive government expansion and social reform.
The best gauge of a Clinton Presidency is to look at Bill Clinton’s presidential record. Since leaving office, Bill Clinton, has struggled with his legacy, primarily because there was no world changing event on his watch and no single societal changing policy that was instituted under his presidency. Bill Clinton, as president, operated in a reactionary mode, never rocking the boat, nor instituting controversial changes in the American political landscape. Because he never pushed for massive change in the U.S., he was able to maintain high popularity among moderates and independent votes. Additionally, Clinton also crossed party lines instituting legislations such as Welfare Reform, NAFTA, and the Tax Relief Act of 1997 that were highly unpopular with the far-left elite of the Democratic Party. Howard Dean and the Far-Left, Wealthy, Elite of the Democratic Party fear that a second Clinton presidency would also focus on political expediency, reaching out across the isle when necessary, and failing to implement their radical agenda and failing to focus on their attempt to seize total political control.
As a result, the elite of the Democratic Party decided that their best interests would be served by supporting a candidate that would drive forward their agenda and would not depart from the elite party line. The DNC leadership along with the powerful and wealthy far-left elite decided to turn their back on Clinton, just as they previously had turned their back on Joe Lieberman.

So here is the question… How do you overcome the Clinton Political Machine and install your own elitist candidate and take political control of your party? Last fall, Clinton was the quintessential Democratic front-runner. She garnished popular support from nearly every segment of the Democratic Coalition: Low Income and Middle Income Democrats, Democratic Senior Citizens with high voting consistency and turnout, Unionized Democrats, the African-American Community and Hispanic Community.

The Answer… You create your own candidate from a blank slate and opportunistically disenfranchise large segments of the Clinton voter coalition.

The far-left elite of the Democratic Party had found the ideal candidate: A well spoken, inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. Barack Obama was a blank slate: inexperienced (no political skeletons in the closet), a powerful speaker, African-American, and had never crossed party lines or the Democrat Elitist Agenda on any major issue. The wealthy and elite now had their candidate.

Step One: Paint your ideal candidate as a great unifier, able to end the divisiveness in Washington and change the political polarization that Hillary Clinton represented. Although Barack Obama had little experience, he also did not bear the scars of previous political fights and was perceived as having no political skeletons in his closet. Although Obama has essentially voted directly down party lines and has shown no ability to work with the Republican Party, the DNC, unchallenged, was able to paint the highly liberal Obama as a moderate politician able to transcend party lines.

Obama’s record, however, is far from blemished, and as the Clinton campaign and supporters would try to focus on Obama’s character, judgment, and poor decisions, they would find the DNC along with some media outlets turning their back on them. Instead of a campaign that addressed the meaning of Change and legitimately debated the character, judgment, and decision-making ability of the candidates, this campaign season would turn into an election in which we were told what we could and could not talk about.

Prominent Clinton supporters who questioned Obama’s associations were quickly branded as “racists” and “race-baiters”. If Clinton discussed specific positions on any issue, the Obama campaign would attack her position, talk about change, but never provide specific solutions to the problem. For instance, when Clinton discussed a temporary Gas Tax Holiday, Obama was quick to criticize, never mentioning he once supported and voted for a similar gas tax holiday in Illinois. Despite the harsh criticism, Obama has never offered any solution to the immediate energy problem, rather focusing on long-term conservation and the creation of new energy sources; all of which will take decade or longer to have any impact. The Obama and DNC mantra would become a policy of attacking your opponent, while providing no specific position that could be attacked itself.

Step Two: Overcome Obama’s inexperience by utilizing his great speaking skills. Because Obama is a great speaker, he is able to talk about change and focus the election, not on his experience, but on his Judgment of opposing the “evil” Bush Administration. By pushing a highly populist agenda that a large government can solve our individual problems, and deflecting all of our nation’s problems onto the unpopular Bush Administration, American Voters have been hypnotized into overlooking Obama’s lack of specific policy positions and elitist views. For instance, Obama's calling for an increase in taxes on people making over $200,000 per year, so that the middle class does not suffer higher taxes. But at the same time, calling for the raising or removal of the tax cap on social security; a policy that would automatically increase taxes by over 6% on every middle class American making $100,000 - $200,000 per year. Obama supports the roll-back of taxes such as the Alternative Minimum Tax, a tax once meant for the wealthy, but now directly affects middle class families making well-under $100,000 per year.

Step Three: Break up the Clinton voter Coalition. By choosing Obama, as the elite-left’s choice, Dean and his cohorts automatically removed a major segment of the Clinton Coalition: The African American Vote. As any politically attuned person knows, Democrats traditionally carry 80%-90% of the African-American Vote. In a general election the black vote makes up 15%-20% of the electorate, with an even higher ratio of 20%-40% in the democratic primaries. By removing this block of Clinton Supporters, the DNC was able to drastically change the outlook of this primary.

Next, the elite-left leadership put together a strategy for Obama to campaign directly to the middle-upper class of the Democratic Party and take advantage of Obama’s youth and idealistic inexperience to attract the youth vote from the University systems. Although a relative non-factor in past elections, a motivated youth vote could offset the Clinton stronghold on the senior voters and the blue-collar backbone of the Democrat Party.

Step Four: Use A Rove Strategy. During the primary season, candidates have typically relied upon only a handful of key states that vote early in determining the outcome of their candidacy. Most candidates dump a majority of the resources into these key states. Using a Karl Rove type strategy, the elite-left leadership encouraged the Obama Campaign to focus not on states such as New York, California and Massachusetts, where Clinton would likely pick up large numbers of delegates; but rather focus resources on smaller Midwestern & Western caucus states in which voter turnout was typically low (meaning that an influx of younger voters and African-American voters could easily swing the outcome), and Obama could piecemeal enough small victories to offset the delegate counts from the larger states. The caucus system is a direct kickback to the days in which only party leadership determined the candidate; for the most part the caucus system is misunderstood and easily manipulated. For instance, in Nevada Clinton would win the popular vote by 4 points, yet the state caucus delegates would override the popular vote by awarding Obama 55% of the states delegates.

The strategy would give Obama an opportunity to make this race tight, but it would also require that he win early and build a lead. Here is where the DNC took full advantage of voters. With 20 states, such as Illinois, moving up there primaries to have a greater influence; states such as Florida and Michigan, which have traditionally been key states in general elections looked to maintain their importance by assuring that their primaries played a more influential role. The problem for the elite-left was that these states were Clinton strongholds, and they knew that the traditionally the candidate who became the front-runner after the early primaries, would also become the benefactor of momentum and massive endorsements as the party unified behind them. In order for the elite-left to maintain any opportunity to seize total control of the party, they made the decision not to penalize Florida and Michigan, but rather to completely strip, then reinstate half of these states delegates. The DNC leadership directly disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters residing in key general election states. Prior to the DNC delegate stripping plan, most pundits expected the DNC to follow their own rules and previously established precedents by penalizing candidates (not the voters) who campaigned in these states with up to half of the delegates from the states. Thereby, allowing Florida and Michigan voters to have a strong influence in the election, but also penalize the states by removing the campaign attention they received. In previous precedents the DNC had either provided a waiver of the Feb. 1st rule, or had only penalized candidates who actually campaigned in the state. The stripping of delegates and DNC violation of their own rules is not only important because these were well-known Clinton strongholds, but more importantly, the early momentum Clinton would have gained from these contests would have carried over into Super Tuesday.

Dean and the rest of the far-left elite knew first hand the importance of the earliest primaries. After raising millions on-line early in 2004, Dean quickly became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, fortunately self-destructing as quickly as he had risen. With Florida and Michigan’s 350+ delegates removed (roughly 8%-9% of the total available delegates) attention was focused on the Iowa caucuses. Knowing that Clinton & Edwards would split the working class vote, Obama’s campaign was able to take the state. With Iowa came momentum, a wholesale shift in African-American Support, and a steady flow of democratic endorsements.

The wealthy and elite far-left of the party however still had to overcome the other large states where Clinton garnished support. They needed to take advantage of the ways delegates were awarded in order to suppress a potential comeback by Clinton. On Super Tuesday and afterwards, the Obama campaign and far left have focused on caucus states with lower turnout and more easily manipulated by the influx of first time African-American and youth vote turnout. Building a small lead on Super Tuesday, the elite left began rolling out endorsement after endorsement for Obama, and worked diligently to create the façade that Obama’s delegate lead could not be overcome. With a lead established in the pledged delegates Obama supporters bombarded the press and media outlets to apply pressure to the Superdelegates. The calls were simple, “follow the will of the people”, statements which we never heard again following Clinton’s turnaround at the end of March. In previous primaries, these endorsements and calls to unity worked, and Dean and the Elite-Left assumed that the unprepared Clinton campaign would fade quietly into the night, therefore solidifying their power-grab.

Despite the fact that I DO NOT support Hillary Clinton, I have actually gained a new respect for her. The Clinton’s fight-on not only to preserve their families’ political influence, but I believe that because both Clinton’s genuinely care about the United States and our proud of this nation. Although Hillary Clinton continues to campaign on a populist platform, which I believe is not what has made this country great, she does maintain a genuine concern and appreciation of the public. Unlike Obama, Clinton does not view this nation as a second-class society that needs to have their hands held by those few enlightened individuals who look down upon America and speak to Americans as if we are misguided children.

STEP FIVE: DO NOT TREAT ALL VOTES EQUALLY. Our forefathers had the insight to abandon a pure democratic society and implement policies that would equalize & protect American voters from politicians that would pander on focus on only densely populated areas, unequally distributing rights and wealth into these areas, in an attempt to secure and maintain political power. They understood that the lifeblood of our vast and diverse nation existed in every American, not just in the big cities. It is ironic that today, the very fear of our founding fathers is coming to fruition before our very eyes. The elite-left understood that with their proportional delegation system, that if Obama could piecemeal together enough delegates through the caucus states, and states with a large African-American turnout, then his home state of Illinois would give him enough delegates to prevent Clinton from overcoming his narrow lead. The Elite-Left focused on imbalanced delagatory policies that existed within Clinton Strongholds.

What the DNC doesn’t want people to know is that over the years they have manipulated the primary system to create an imbalance in how delegates are awarded. Years ago the Democrats were the innovators of the proportional primary system. The intention was 2-fold.

#1) To protect against situations whereas one candidate might receive 49% of the vote and not receive any delegates.

#2) To establish a delegate structure that reflected the basis of our representative republic form of government. The idea was to assure that candidates would have to appeal to broader democratic base and protect against candidates who might focus only on large urban areas while overlooking a majority of the state.

As a result the Democratic Primaries allocated a number of “at-large” delegates based upon the overall vote in a state; plus, a larger number of delegates distributed and based upon the popular vote of individual districts. Over the years however the DNC and state party leaders has corrupted this balanced system by stripping more independent or republican leaning districts of delegates and shifting them to more preferred districts.

Ohio: Clinton Wins Ohio by 10 points (54%-44%), a landslide by political standards. Obama only wins in 5 of the over 70 counties in the state, and Clinton also achieves victories in 14 of the 18 congressional districts. Yet, because of delegates being disproportionately awarded to districts in densely populated areas, Obama walks away with nearly 48% of the delegates. How? Districts centered in Cleveland received 8 delegates, while other districts in Ohio received fewer delegates, with 7 of the 18 districts receiving only 4.

Pennsylvania: Clinton wins by 9 points, again a landslide by political standards.Clinton wins in over 90% of counties and 14 of 19 congressional districts. Yet, like Ohio, Obama walks away with nearly 47% of the delegates. Congressional districts in PA received as many as 9 delegates, with some receiving as few as 3.

This however is not a problem limited to just these states, in our analysis which will be published within the next 2 days, we will point out more than 32 states in which delegates are no longer distributed evenly, representing the vast majority of those states with more than 1 or 2 congressional districts or that allocate delegates only on a statewide basis. If delegates were distributed equally, as was the original intent, Hillary Clinton would have picked up delegates in nearly every one of the 32 states, making this race much different (coming in a couple days). As posted previously, this imbalance essentially treats Dems living outside of the favored districts as second-class citizens whose votes do not count equally in the eyes of the DNC.

As we will report in the next couple of days, one state in particular has been subjected to both the manipulation of caucuses and the manipulation of primaries. Texas: Clinton wins a majority vote with a 4 point lead. Clinton also wins in over 80% of all counties in Texas and 18 or the 31 districts. However the 65 delegates awarded in the primaries were based upon some districts receiving up to 8 delegates, while 9 districts received 3 del., and one district received only 2. Additionally, as an alternative to having at-large delegates, Texas Democratic Leaders have maintained the caucuses as a means of conveying the will of the people. Less than 4% (42,000) of Texas democratic primary voters participated in the caucuses beginning after the polls closed. As a result, Obama walked away 99 Delegates to Clinton’s 93, essentially disenfranchising the 1.45 million Texans that gave Clinton a Primary Victory.

At the end of the day, Obama, by a majority of the popular vote scenarios lost the popular vote. Additionally, these numbers were echoed in the fact that Clinton won 233 congressional districts (as opposed to Obama’s 202). The state that made the difference for Obama was Illinois, where he won by more than 600,000 votes; a state in which the prospects of the Democratic party are quickly deteriorating due to rampant corruption, resignations, and a possible impeachment of the Democratic Governor. Yes, I said impeachment; something that the Democratic House Leader has his attorney’s putting together a report on. Yet these numbers aren’t as important as the inconsistent and imbalanced method of awarding delegates in states across the nation, such as in Pennsylvania that demonstrates that a vote in Pittsburgh doesn’t quite equal a vote in Pennsylvania.

Howard Dean and his far-left, wealthy, and elitist backers, expected the Clinton Campaign to fold after Super Tuesday. Supported by elitist endorsements, media friendly coverage of Obama, and the disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters nationwide, the elitist far-left has clearly shown that this election is not about working class America but rather about power.

The Democratic Elite have blamed the Clintons for causing chaos in the Democratic Primaries and possibly damaging the party in November. However, let’s remember that the party leadership is responsible for the imbalance in delegates and until January, Clinton was the front-runner and presumably would be anointed the Democratic nominee. Most political analysts agreed that unless she stumbled and fell, or self-destructed, she could not lose the nomination. The fact is that Hillary Clinton did not stumble or fall, her campaign did not self-destruct. So I ask: What Changed????

Many political pundits wanted to compare this primary season to the political civil wars that happened in 1912 and 1968. However, unlike those previous party breakups whereas moderates battled for control against the far-right or far-left; the civil war occurring now in the Democratic party is being fought by the far-left elitist faction and the left-of-center Clinton machine, with moderate Democrats dumbfoundedly sitting on the sidelines. Unfortunately the moderate Democrats have not stood up to the rich, elitist, far-left leadership of their party and have not ended the polarization caused by these elitists who will suppress any voice of opposition.

At the end of the day, Clinton conceded, holding on to her delegates (just in case), but nonetheless unable or unwilling to go it alone against DNC leadership.

Will things change within the ranks of the party leadership and their continued disenfranchisement of their party members?

Will Democrats accept a flawed and disenfranchising system as the “status-quo”?

Will Democratic votes fall for the rhetoric to “focus on the issues and rally behind the anointed nominee”, as opposed to focusing on THE issue of FAIR AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION?

Our founding fathers detested political parties, fearing that the power and “good” of the party would become more important than the power and “good” of the people.

J Brown
06/08/2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Digg IT

Copyright 2008
This article may not be reprodued without permission. Please feel free to link to the article. The article is available for republishing or reprint, upon request and a nominal fee.

Obama Flips On Jerusalem, Again!

Obama Flips On Jerusalem, Again!

Is Barack Obama the quintessential politician who will say anything depending on the group he is in front of?

Obama won widespread applause from the Jewish community and Israeli citizens after he became the first president since 1967 to make public his opinion that Jerusalem should remain the “undivided” capital of Israel. The remarks were clearly made to pander to the AIPAC membership, the nations LARGEST JEWISH LOBBY.

Obama’s statement is that it immediately drew widespread criticism from the Palestinian government and Arabs throughout the Middle East. As mentioned in a previous post moderate Palestinian President Abbas condemned the remarks, further announcing yesterday that the Fatah party would now hold talks to reconcile with Hamas and move up the nation’s election. The announcement of these meetings has dark undertones for the prospects of any peace agreement occurring this year, as Obama inadvertently brought the most contentious topic in the peace talks to the forefront.

Obama’s statements are a reversal of nearly 40 years of American & International Foreign policy refusing to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied city. Following the Israeli occupation of the city in 1967, every nation, including the US pulled their embassies from the town in protest. Even today, there is no nation with an embassy in the city. In an effort to further Middle East Peace talks the International community, including our last three administrations, has avoided involvement in the Jerusalem issue; instead the US has attempted to maintain its status as an honest peace broker allowing Jerusalem to be settled directly by the Israeli & Palestinian governments in accordance with International consensus.

An editorial appearing in the Arab Newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi's stated, "This cheap way of throwing himself at the feet of this lobby harms American interests … and encourages violence and terrorism by giving justification to extremist groups, such as al-Qaida," newspaper

With US media still rejoicing in Obama’s victory and focusing on the “Hillary Issue”, the Obama campaign made an attempt to get in front of the story yesterday. According to the Jerusalem Post “a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."”

This reversal in course echoes similar statements made by the white house a day earlier. In addition Obama himself told CNN yesterday, “"As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

The Obama reversal immediately drew sharp criticism by Israeli newspapers and lobbying groups.

Regardless of Obama’s personal positions on Jerusalem and the blunder that he has made in his remarks; the issue is that his remarks as a presidential nominee have consequences. In just three days following his nomination he has focused the undermined the ongoing efforts of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negations, enraged the Arab community, now angered the Israelis community by reversing course, and more importantly has directly contributed to the “peace-seeking” moderate Abbas’s newly announce efforts to unite Hamas and Fatah.

Is this the foreign policy we can expect, a policy based upon pandering to lobbyist organization and undermine long-standing international and US positions. Obama's long-standing positions drew him an unwanted endorsement of Hamas; His statements on Wednesday moved his Israeli policy to the right of any President in the past 40 years; and now he has just angered both sides and left the question up in the air. In the meantime, this current President must deal with Obama's blunder and undermining of the peace process.

J Brown
05/06/2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Digg IT

Related Articles:
Obama Statement Undermines US Positions On Middle East Peace - Politically Drunk
Obama Campaign Flip-Flops On Undivided Jerusalem - Israeli Insider News Magazine
Obama Back Away From Comment On Divided Jerusalem - Washington Post
Obama Modifies Jerusalem Stance - Reuters

On Obamas Foreign Policy:
Barack Obama - Unilateralist?

Obama Statement Undermines US Positions On Middle East Peace

Obama Statements Undermine US Foreign Policy Positions

On Wednesday, Barack Obama presented a speech to the AIPAC Policy Conference. In an attempt to reconcile concern over his Middle East Policies, Obama highlighted his commitment to Israeli Sovereignty. During the speech Obama highlighted his lack of understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, drawing sharp criticism from the moderate Palestinian President and undermining policy positions held by both the Clinton & Bush Administrations.

During his speech Obama stated, “Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided...”

For 18 years US leadership has steered clear of the Jerusalem issue. Palestine claims Jerusalem as their capital and has been unwilling to compromise on the issue. Jerusalem is the holy capital of the world and birthplace to the worlds’ major religions. The city represents the most contentious and divisive issue between the two nations, noted by more than 700 years of conflict surrounding the city. Both the Clinton & Bush administration have understood that supporting either state’s claim to Jerusalem would drive a wedge into any potential peace talks. Obama’s statement on Wednesday was made out of political expedience; but when a presidential nominee speaks, it has consequences.

Moderate Palestinian President Abbas, a vocal Opponent to Hamas who is currently negotiating with Israel, lambasted Obama’s position. “"This statement is totally rejected…The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital."

Obama’s position on Jerusalem only highlights his lack of Foreign policy experience and comprehension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Bush administration has taken extra steps over the past few years to avoid the Jerusalem issue because of the continuing peace efforts of President Abbas. Abbas has worked to maintain open relations with Israel and counter Hamas’ influence. Any public US position on Jerusalem is likely to increase Hamas’ influence and damage our relationship with the moderate Palestinian President. Obama’s campaign advisor’s need to realize that they he is now a presidential nominee and his words carry weight. He must carefully avoid making statements that undermine US policies aimed at encouraging ongoing peace negotiations.

By the way, I believe he is right in his position, but it is still a “PUBLIC” position that undermines ongoing peace talks and drives a RELIGIOUS and political wedge between the Palestinians and Israeli’s.

Check Back Later For Another Article On Events Unfolding In The Mid-East.

J Brown
June 5th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Digg IT

New Reference: http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/06/05/obamas_aipac_speech_shocks_arabs/9021/

New Link:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/05/obama-speech-reaction.html

Yet Another:
Monsters & Critics
7Days - United Arab Emirates
Obama Gives AIPAC "Undivided Jerusalem" As a Free Gift
Reuters
Jewish Action, NY
Washington Post

This is great, Now Abbas wants to reestablish ties to Hamas.
Jerusalem Newswire

Ralph Nader - Obama this morning told AIPAC that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
Did Obama mention that this pledge undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan?
He did not.

$4 Gas, Record Oil & The Tale Of Two Energy Policies

A TALE OF TWO ENERGY POLICIES

What happens when idealism overtakes realism in America?

The reality within the US is simple: We need a comprehensive energy policy that addresses the IMMEDIATE ENERGY CRISIS, Plus Intermediate and Long-term Energy Needs focusing on new technology and new renewable sources of energy.

We hear politicians on the campaign trail offering no real solutions, instead blaming the Bush Energy Policy for prices that have jumped administration has taken office a barrel of oil has increased from around $25/barrel to upward of $125/barrel.

The reality though is that there is plenty of blame to go around for the current energy price crisis. It is true that the average price per barrel in 2000 when Bush was elected was $27.39 per barrel, but in 2006 when Democrats regained control of Congress the average cost per barrel was $58.30. So how does a Democrat controlled congress explain how oil prices doubled, on their watch, in just 18 months?

It is true that the Bush Energy Policy focused on tax cuts, in which the reality is that tax policy is no substitution for addressing the supply, demand, and usage aspects of energy policy. It can also be pointed out that the Democratic congress passed their own energy policy, which again failed to put forth a solvent comprehensive energy policy, instead focusing on conservation. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for this mess and what Washington needs is the end of the partisan black-&-white view of energy solutions. We need a comprehensive policy that does not focus only on taxation and conservation, but rather creates a moderate solution addressing the immediate energy crisis along with securing our intermediate and long-term energy needs. A policy that does not cater to the oil companies, does not cater to the environmental lobbies, but a policy that caters to the American people.

Oil is the 800LB Guerrilla on the back of our economy. The media focuses on gas prices because they are posted everywhere; but the real story goes beyond gasoline. Every product we buy and own is manufactured using oil, and is transported using oil and nearly every product contains petroleum bi-products. From the keys on your computer, the cell phone you are talking on to the cleanser you used in the shower, they all contain and use oil. High oil prices lead to inflation and for the past year there has been mounting concern that we may be entering another period of stagflation. We need leadership that will provide immediate solutions that do not cater to any single interest group but rather to all Americans; solutions that provide immediate relief to the consumer and industry, thus strengthening our economy.

This election cycle has discussed a lot about change and naturally we think of change a progressive, new and exciting. But buyer beware, change isn’t always good.

Let Me Ask You: Does This Energy Policy Sound Familiar:

The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly. It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse…

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren. We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us…

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy…

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption… the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce...

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources...

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.
Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process…

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price…

Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions…

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.
The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.
The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.
The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.
The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.
The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.
The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.
The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.
The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century...

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future...

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people...

Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.
And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.
I've given you some of the principles of the plan...

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country...

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence, and freedom.

Does this policy sound familiar, much like the policy of Barack Obama?

The fact is this is the hallmark energy policy introduction of Jimmy Carter presented on April 18th, 1977. At this time the United States was faced with rampant stagflation and an impending energy crisis. When Carter introduced his Energy Policy, based upon conservation, the 2007 inflation adjusted oil price was $49.88 per barrel, by the time that Ronald Reagan was elected president in Nov. 1980, that inflation-adjusted price was $95.50 per barrel. The Carter Administrations policy never addressed the immediate needs of the American Economy, it focused on long-term solutions and idealism. It failed, and no one can argue that fact. Just a note: By the time Ronald Reagan left office at the beginning of 1989, the inflation-adjusted cost of oil was $26.45; roughly a quarter of the legacy Carter left us with.

If the policies above sound familiar to those of Barack Obama, it’s because they are. Here is Mr. Obama’s Stated Energy Policy as taken directly from website:

Barack Obama's Plan
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

Support Next Generation Biofuels
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.
Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

So tell me, at what point does this resemble a comprehensive energy policy that first and foremost addresses our IMMEDIATE ENERGY CRISIS. It doesn’t, this is a great conservation and green policy, but this is no energy policy. At what point has Mr. Obama, in any speech, in any legislation he has written, in any congressional action he has taken, supported a policy designed to address our Immediate Energy Needs.

Mr. Obama’s energy policy is a return to exact energy policy of the Carter Administration; a policy that failed, increased the level of energy shortages, increased energy prices, and left the next president to clean up the mess.

Our nation does need to lead in protecting our environment, but a wealthy nation can do much more to further that cause than one who ignores the immediate rise of energy and food costs. We need leadership that understands that government has never been and will never be the solution to the challenges we face; the resolve and ingenuity of the American people are what we need to focus on.

Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame for skyrocketing energy prices today. We cannot blame just the Bush administration for their lack of oversight, but also must blame a Democratic-Controlled Congress which has held hearing-after-hearing but has yet to take action against oil prices that have double during their watch.

We need leadership that will stop catering to both the special interests on both sides and will stop using taxation as a substitute for genuine regulation of the government –supported energy monopolies. We need leadership that will do the right thing for today’s America and what we don’t need is another politician that will so eloquently call for change while adopting the failed energy policies of Jimmy Carter.

When an Obama Supporter begins talking about gas prices, ask them what the “messiah’s” plan is for those gas prices?

J Brown
June 4th, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Digg IT
Statistics Based upon average annual oil prices provided by Department of Energy

Ahmadinejad Speaks, The Pope Refuses To Meet And Obama’s Response

Ahmadinejad Speaks And Obama’s Response

The Mehr news agency reported yesterday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted the “fall of the SATANIC POWER OF THE UNITED STATES” and that Israel would soon disappear.

In a speech on Monday, Ahmadinejad presented these statements:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene…Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

He continued, "I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed."

Ahmadinejad also expressed his ongoing view that tyranny in the world be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi alongside great religious figures including Jesus Christ. Ahmedinejad is a believer in a radical sect of Islam that believes that the Mahdi will return only at a point of massive chaos and suffering in the world. The same sect has subscribed to the belief that they will play a role in causing this chaos.

Ahmedinejad continued his tirade stating, "With the appearance of the promised savior... and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world."

Meanwhile Back In The US…

Barack Obama, who is the proudly the only Presidential candidate who supports direct talks with Ahmedinejad, stated in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that he opposed last falls , bipartisan led, non-binding resolution designating the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization on the grounds that is committed American Troops in Iraq to countering Iranian Influence.

Obama has come under criticism for statements that the presence of American troops in Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran; a position that General Petraeus disputed last month citing, "The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the region has the potential to counter malign Iranian influence against the Government of Iraq, build common cause in the region, and expose the extent of malign Iranian activities to the world.”

Obama continues to support the widely criticized position of wanting to hold direct talks with the Iranian President. A view that apparently the Pope doesn’t share as his office announced yesterday that Pope Benedict XVI would not meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad when he visits Rome later this month.

The question still needs to be asked of Mr. Obama: So you want to talk to Ahmedinejad, but what are you going to talk about?

Perhaps they could discuss this statement, also made on Monday, "the Zionist regime, with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene."

J Brown
June 3rd, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Digg IT

Must Reads: 6 Years Later The IAEA Concludes: Iran Not Cooperating

Obama's Kid Gloves: 4 Part Series on Obama's FP

A Special Message To Democrats & Independents Opposed To Obama!

A Special Message To Democrats Opposed To Obama!

Last night I had a though, the only chance that Clinton supporters had left was to pursue the remaining Superdelegates along with some pledged supers to switch their votes. Chances are Clinton will suspend her campaign later this week. The media will proclaim this a victory for Obama, but in reality, suspending her campaign allows the conservation of funds that are needed to pay down debt and potentially contest an Obamanation (I mean Obama nomination) later on. Sending emails and contacting supers is important, but ultimately individual emails have little effect.

Last night I began surfing the net looking for petitions in support of Clinton and Opposed to Obama. I found dozens upon dozens of such petitions amounting to thousands of signatures but without any coordination or organization to them. So here’s the deal:

First as I have made no secret in the past, I am a McCain Supporter, but also believe that a presidential race should be a contest between the best qualified candidates, who are more interested in providing solutions rather than aimlessly calling for change. I do agree that an Obama nomination would provide a better chance for my candidate to win; but any chance of Barack Obama winning is a chance this country can not afford.

So…If you are a Democrat who does not support Barack Obama, follow the link below to a petition. Sign the petition, your name and email address, city, and zip code will be recorded, but the only information made public will be your initials and city. The information provided in the petition will be held in complete privacy and will never be used to contact you.

The petition is clear and concise, the undersigned are petitioning the Democratic Super Delegates to forego their support of Barack Obama and support the nomination of Hillary Clinton. By signing the petition you are pledging, as a democrat, that in light of the massive manipulation exercised in the primaries you pledge to refuse to vote for Barack Obama and thus will write-in Hillary Clinton’s name or vote for John McCain.

Now for the organization:

#1) If you are a web publisher, please link to this post and we will add your website on our upcoming stop-Obama blogroll and as a sponsor on the petition. By using our websites in unison we can attract allow the voice of the true Democratic Base to be heard.

#2) If you are a petition signor – please return to this page after you have signed the petition and click on the email link to send this post to at least 10 friends.

Working separately, the Super Delegates will continue to be beholden to the DNC in the name of party unity. But if the supers received a petition with hundreds of thousands, or even millions of signatures, then watch out. This petition will also serve as a clear message by Hillary’s supporters that you are with her and she should continue to fight.

If this attempt is in vain, I’ll remove the petition after a few weeks. If it works then we can send a clear message to the Supers and Howard Dean that you will not accept the coronation of their "messiah".

CLICK HERE FOR THE STOP OBAMA PETITION


PERMALINK


EMAIL POST

Please be sure to support the blogs that continue to stop the cycle of Obama Spin by visiting and supporting advertisers or donating.

Good Luck,
J Brown
June 3rd, 2008
Please be sure to vote on this article at: Real Clear Politics & Propeller & Digg IT

DNC & Democratic Leadership Blatantly Lie To The American People

Democratic Leadership’s Blatant Lie to the American People

Saturdays DNC meeting deciding the voting fate of millions of Americans amounted to nothing more than a publicity stunt aimed at creating the appearance of open communication and fairness within the Democratic Leadership. Saturday’s decision by the DNC came as no surprise to anyone that has kept up on the process, the decision of the DNC was made more than a week ago and DNC paid lawyers made sure to support that decision through a memo released last Tuesday. However, Saturday did serve an opportunity for DNC leadership to create the impression that they were willing to compromise to support the voters.

The question that was debated on Saturday was that of whether the DNC should uphold their rules or should uphold the wishes of the people of Florida and Michigan. The only question that should have been asked is “why hasn’t the DNC established rules that represent the people?”
The DNC and Democratic leadership used the forum Saturday as a political soundstage; making the case for their states, yet following the DNC directive not to damage the party. Statement after statement made during that meeting put the party first, not the voters; and led to nothing more than leaders pointing out the problem and who is to blame for it.

Senator Levin was the sole voice of honesty and integrity during Saturday’s meeting. He did not sugarcoat or deflect from the fact that Michigan Democrats share responsibility for moving up their primary. He made it clear that Michigan has long been overlooked by both parties, suffering years of economic recession, and receiving no attention at a national level. He did not place the blame for Michigan’s decision on anyone else’s shoulders; he pointed out that the DNC had consistently refused Michigan requests to be at the forefront of the primaries; and he pointed out that there was no precedent for the DNC to fully strip a state’s delegation. I commend Senator Levin, he holds the sole distinction as a voice of honesty, fairness, and integrity in Saturday’s hearing.

On the other hand, the DNC and Democratic Leadership of Florida should be ashamed. Florida’s representatives absolutely refused to accept any responsibility for their part in moving up Florida’s primary. In statement-after-statement emerging from Florida leadership and the members of the Rules committee, Democrats painted a picture that their voters were being disenfranchised as a result the Florida Republicans. It is unbelievable that the DNC would use a forum for addressing their internal problems to blame the Republicans for it. I’m surprised that no one blamed Bush. This attempt to create sympathy for the Florida Democratic Leadership was a shame, meant at creating sympathy among Florida voters and attempting to unite the Democratic Party against the evil disenfranchising Republicans. This distraction was a blatant lie and manipulation of the facts.

Was the legislation that moved up the Florida Primary put forth and supported by the Republican Majority in Florida? Yes

Could Florida Democrats have enough votes to block the legislation? NO

But here’s what they haven’t told you:

• The Bill had 24 co-sponsors including 7 Democrats: Mary Brandenburg, Susan Bucher, Martin Kiar, Ari Porth, Yolly Roberson, Franklin Sands, and James Waldman!


• The bill first passed the Florida House Of Representatives on March 21, 2007; the vote: Yeas: 115 Nays: 1 Total Missed: 3
  
  That’s an odd vote considering there are 42 Democrats in the Florida House
  
  The bill was sent to the Senate and was passed on April 27, 2007; the vote:
  Yeas: 37 Nays: 2
  
  Are There Only 2 Democrats In The Senate?
  The combined bill was then sent back to the House and passed on May 3, 2007, the vote: Yeas: 118 Nays: 0 Missed: 2
  


• Ok, so the question exists, if Florida Democrats, knowing that they would face DNC sanctions, voted for the bill; how can they now place the blame at the feet of the Florida Republicans? The final vote was unanymous.
  
  Do they just go along with everything that the Republicans do? The vote was unanimous. Florida Democrats 100% supported this bill by voting for it.
  


• Newsweek and the Times were certain to point out that the Florida Democrats did not have the votes to block the bill. But, again I can find no record of an attempt to block the bill. How can they blame the Republicans when they never attempted to stop the legislation and then voted for it?
  


• After the bill was passed, the Florida Democratic Party could have elected to make the January primary non-binding and hold a separate binding primary that they would have to pay for. Again, there was no discussion of this until March of this year.
  

The bottom line is that I do not agree with either the Republican Party or Democratic Party penalizing either of these states. We are a nation built upon state rights and the belief that the will of the people should override party loyalty. The DNC and Obama campaign has made this an issue of upholding rules, yet the DNC broke their own rules when they stripped these States of their delegations. The previous precedent established by the DNC was that the State would not be penalized, but that any candidate campaigning in the state would lose half of their earned delegation. The DNC precedent was never a 50% penalty.

More important is the complete politicization of this issue. The DNC determined weeks ago how they would handle Florida & Michigan, Saturday’s meeting amounted to nothing but a compilation of lies and manipulation of the facts in an effort to appease the voters (by giving them half), create the appearance of equality and unity within the party, and ironically to bring voters in these state back to the Democratic Party by BLAMING THE REPUBLICANS.

Kudos to Fox News for reporting actual news on Saturday rather than carrying 8 hours of a DNC infomercial. Shame on CNN & ObaMSNBC for not questioning the misleading rhetoric stemming from this event. The DNC and Obama Campaign have made one thing clear this election, they are not interested in fixing their disenfranchising primary system; they are not interesting in upholding the will of the people and adopting policies that uphold that will; and they are certainly not interested in taking action that might result in their anointed candidate losing his privileged status.

BOTTOM LINE: The Democratic Leadership brewed this stew; they accept no responsibility for; they are not interested in fixing it; Republicans are not to blame for it; and now they need to sit in.

J Brown
June 2nd, 2008

Recommended Reading:

Rezko Watch: Bad news for Obama, Hillary's not conceding#links