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.