Response to “God Bless America”

In Response to “God Bless America” found at http://grantpant.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-bless-america.html

Grant, I couldn’t agree with you more. This is the greatest and “freest” nation in the world. Through out my life, I have had the wonderful opportunities of visiting many countries across the globe. Prior to exploring those other countries, I was of the opinion that any where was better than where I was. I had the opportunity to see life first hand in Russia in 1993-1995 while Communism fell, I’ve seen children who were purposefully disfigured by their parents to make them better beggars on the streets of India, and I’ve seen the wonderful “protection and programs” offered to Western Europeans at the cost of a 50% to 75% tax rate. I’ve also spent a lot of time in many other Asian and South American countries and I have come to the conclusion that this is the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

For now.

If we do not participate in our political process, things could go just as sour for Americans as they have in many other places. We have a duty as citizens to ensure that we elect the best people that we can not only for the office of president, but starting at the local level. We as citizens must do every thing we can to ensure that freedom we hold so dear. Granted, there are injustices and scandals. Human nature prevents the possibility of Utopia. Everyone speaks of their rights as citizens and there is public outcry if they are infringed upon. In contrast, how often do we shirk those duties that ensure the rights we enjoy? I understand that doing a duty means work, but it is a necessary and proud duty that every American needs to perform.

I have just figured it out.

I have just figured it out. Ariana Huffington is the bastard love child of Zsa Zsa Gabor and Nikita Khrushchev. It may have been a threesome involving Joseph McCarthy.

A Little Fun

I'm clapping like this.

Vote or Die?

In the midst of the intense media frenzy surrounding the Presidential Primaries, a much larger than average number of citizens are engaging in conversations about politics and the political process. One can hardly eat in a restaurant without over hearing a debate on who would make a better president. Campuses are over flowing with people handing out pamphlets for one political party or the other and the debates around the water cooler are heated and deliberate. Although most begin as a debate on “who is cooler” or which candidate will end the war sooner, some portend to go deeper and center on “exercising your Federal duty and God given right to vote.” Others delve in to the subject of efficacy and the continued existence of the Electoral College.

Many people contend that we as American citizens have a God given right to vote and that right is protected and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

However, this is not the case. Aside from the fact that I never voted for God, the United States Constitution simply does not guarantee the right of all humans to vote in Federal elections.

Some would argue that the Constitution does grant the right of universal suffrage and will point to four different amendments:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.— Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.— Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920) The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.— Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1964) The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.— Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1971)

While it is true that the issue of voting is covered in the fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fourth and the twenty-sixth amendments it was decided by the Supreme Court that these stipulations apply to States who have State Constitutions that guarantee the right to vote in State and local elections on multiple occasions. The

In McPherson v. Blacker (1862) the Supreme Court ruled “The second clause of Article II of the Constitution was not amended by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and they do not limit the power of appointment to the particular manner pursued at the time of the adoption of these amendments or secure to every male inhabitant of a state, being a citizen of the United States, the right from the time of his majority to vote for presidential electors” In essence, McPherson v. Blacker (1862) defers to the Electoral College to pick the President and states that the inhabitant does not have the right to vote for President.

More recently, in Bush v. Gore (2000) the Supreme Court reiterated “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

These and other rulings are a clear threat to voter efficacy. If the people feel that they have no bearing on the delegates that are selected to represent them in the Electoral College, why should they even vote? The answer is that until an individual participates in the entirety of the political machine they truly have no bearing on the leaders of this Nation. It can be said that until a voter participates at the very base levels of the state government and understands who they are placing in the seats of their State Legislature, they can have no impact. While it is true in some states delegates to the Electoral College are compelled to vote with their states election outcomes, there is no constitutional requirement for the delegates to do so. So yet again, it is possible that the will of the people and efficacy could be threatened.

What then can be done in order to ensure the will of the people and increase efficacy?

Some, such as Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. believe that we need an amendment to the constitution to explicitly grant the right to vote in Federal elections to all citizens. Others contend that such an amendment would be a solid affront to states rights and would dilute the already depleted powers of state governmental bodies resulting in further disenfranchisement of voters.
However, there are others who believe there is a much better way: Abolish the Electoral College and rely on the popular vote.

The origins of electoral colleges are known to predate even the Visigoths when the law of the Germanic tribes dictated that a King must be elected by the court of his nobles. During the founding days of the United States, the Electoral College was still a viable and necessary means of presidential election. The Electoral College simplified the voting process so that it was not necessary for every citizen to travel to the Capitol to vote or to tabulate each and every paper ballot. However, The Electoral College has the undesirable effect of allowing the parties to send members who will vote strictly on party lines and not on what is best for the Population as a whole. A well known example and exercise in this matter was the use of delegates to the Electoral College by the southern states to ensure the question of Slavery was never broached in the early days of the Nation. Simply stated, The Electoral College is no longer required and in fact does the people of America more harm than good. With the advent of high speed travel, electronic media and a more aware voting public, the time has come to amend the constitution not to federally guarantee the right to vote, but to abolish the Electoral College and establish a nomination process based on the will of the people.

While the issue has been raised before, not much has ever come of the motions. Most notably, there was a terrible outcry for the abolishment of the Electoral College after Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the Presidential election in 2000. In December of 2004, Senator Diane Feinstein proposed the abolishment of the Electoral College; however, her efforts were tabled until recently. In September 2007, Feinstein again began ushering her cries for the abolishment of the Electoral College. However, not much more than lip service had been paid to the effort until March of 2008 when Senator Bill Nelson proposed a new nomination process based on the popular vote.

Call me cynical, but I see the entire issue dissolving in to nothingness within months after the next presidential election. It is our duty as citizens to ensure that it stays in the conversations around our water coolers and in the halls of Congress long after the Election has come and gone.



Some sites with more information on the electoral college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

http://www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

http://www.therestofus.org/electoral_college/FAQs.htm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electoralattack.htm

http://www.petitiononline.com/ctd2000/petition.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-bill-nelson-abolish-electoral-college-2008-03-27.html



Of course, there are those who would argue that by putting too much faith in the hands of a generally uneducated public, we could end up with this guy as president.

Still taken from the movie Idiocracy

Response to We Need More Money

Response

We Need More Money
I am sure that most of you drove past the gas stations this week and saw how ridiculous the gas prices were. $ 4 a gallon is just ridiculous. If the president would just listen to me, I have an idea on how to help the average person to pay for there gas. The government should set a National minimum wage that is 7 dollars or higher to help the people cope with inflation.In the last year, the cost of gas has risen a considerable amount. More than most of us could have ever imagined and to be honest no one has a set idea as to why. Many believe its because of the war and others believe its our problems with other foreign nations. Either way you look at it, the people get the short end of the stick. 5 dollars and 15 cents an hour barley gets you a gallon and a half of gas, but compare that to all the other things we have to pay for like medical insurance, food, shelter and clothing, the average American person will simply not be able to live if the price of gas and inflation keep going up and the minimum wage stays the same. All our government has to do is raise how much we get paid hourly, and then we will spend more and in return our economic spending will increase.But lets just face it. Were going to end up the poorest country in ten years if this keeps up.
Response to We Need More Money

In the article titled We Need More Money, a few claims are made which require debate.

First, the article proposes that we simply raise the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour. This is no simple task and its implications are extremely far reaching. On May 25th of 2007, Bush actually did sign a bill that would increase the minimum wage in 3 parts. “to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009” In economics, it has to be understood that if an employer has to pay more for each employee and the income of the business does not increase, than that employer will in turn have to lay off employees in order to keep the business from failing. In fact, since the minimum wage was just raised to 5.85$ on July 24th, 2007 several people have alluded to a correlation with the downturn of the economy.

Second, while the prospect of gas at $4.00 a gallon is not the happiest moment in my day, I will say that anyone who has ever had to buy gay in another country still isn’t all that shocked. While I was an exchange student in Voronezh, Russia in 1993 and 1994, almost 15 years ago, “Petrol” or Gas was around $5.00 U.S.D. In 2006, I traveled to Ireland for work. Gas there is sold by the liter. At the time, gas was at about 2.09 Euro for a liter. Given the exchange rate of Euro’s to Dollars of about 1.59$ and 3.785 liters to the gallon, I paid about 12.57$ per gallon (2.09 x 3.785 x 1.59). I’ve been told that it is up over 3 euro per liter there now. In Vancouver, Canada last year, I paid about 4.50$ per gallon.

How do people survive in Russia, Ireland, and Canada with gas prices that high? They use the public transportation system. You’ve actually already paid for it in your sales taxes, why not use it and save the money for more important things like food and shelter; and be glad your income tax rate is no where near as high as it is in those other countries.

Obama: Hope or Hype?

George Washington. Abraham Lincoln. Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King Jr. The names of these men are almost universally associated with greatness. All of them have brought true hope and change to their countries in times of strife and struggle.

Does the name Barack Obama deserve to be uttered in the same breath as these men? Can Barack bring about the changes and provide the hope that he has claimed on so many occasions that he can and will do? Is Barack the “new generation of leadership” as Ted Kennedy has claimed? Can he “bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad?” as Bill Richardson has claimed? Can he “Heal our nation and save our souls” as Michelle Obama has asserted? Or is it just politics as usual on the campaign trail?

No one can answer these questions with a definite yes or no. Therefore, we need to take a look at what kind of leader Obama has been in the past and what experiences have shaped him as a human being. We as voters have a duty to ourselves and to our country to see what kind of people the leaders we elect have been in their lives and how they have led.

At first glance, Obama is an impressive man. Obama is a brilliant orator and as any good lawyer should, he possesses a strong and persuasive voice. Obama’s speeches have been known to be touching and inspiring. He has bridged the issue of race. He has vowed fight inflating health care costs. He has vowed to never take any money from political action committees or big corporate lobbyists. He has vowed to take on NAFTA. He has stated that he has the experience to lead. Can we believe him?

Who is Barack Obama?

As we discussed in class, a persons ideologies are formed early in their lives.
Obama was born in 1962 in Honolulu, Hawaii. His mother and father separated when he was 2. When he was 6, Obama moved with his mother and new step father to Indonesia where he lived until he was 10 years old. At this point in his life, Barack or “Barry” as he was called at the time returned to Hawaii to live with his Methodist, “typical white grand mother” in her high-rise apartment where he lived until his high school graduation in 1979.

Obama attended Occidental College and Columbia University, receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983. In 1985, Obama moved to Chicago where he first joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ congregation.
In 1988, Barack attended Harvard Law School and graduated in 1991. He was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

Obama returned to Chicago and was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, where he served 4 terms.

One fact that is of no importance but is interesting none the less is that on his mothers side Obama has “blood kinship with Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell, George Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, James Madison, Dick Cheney, Brad Pitt and confederate general Robert E Lee”

Can Barack stand on the issues?

Obama began his political life in the Illinois State Senate where he championed ethics and health care reform; Issues that have persisted in to his U.S. Senate experience and in his Presidential bid.

While it is normal for a presidential candidate who is in the house or the Senate to miss a few votes while running for office, Barack has missed 37.4% in the 110th session of Congress. However, in his first ever term as Senator in the 109th session of Congress Barack only missed 1.7%. Barack’s votes have been fairly consistent with his positions developed in his early career. However, Obama has regularly avoided votes on abortion laws.

In 2004, Barack spoke at the Democratic National Convention giving a speech that inspired many people including Oprah Winfrey. After which, Oprah began throwing around Obama’s name as a man who she would like to see run for president. And if Oprah says it, the people of the world must obey or suffer the wrath of Dr. Phil.

Most of Obama’s national identity has been during his campaign. Unfortunately, Obama has had several recent flaps that have been highly publicized which may impact his presidential bid.

In September of 2007, Obama slammed Hillary Clinton in regards to her comment that it was ok to take money from P.A.C.’s and Lobbyists as they represented the common people. Obama had stated that he would not take campaign contributions from lobbyists. However, while he was serving in Illinois he did take money from health care lobbyists while he was working on healthcare legislation. Seems like politics as usual to me.

In March of 2008, at the Democratic primary debate in Ohio, Obama stated that he would renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and Canada and stated that he had been consistent about his position on the issue. However, when Barack was questioned about NAFTA in 2004, he stated that he would not repeal NAFTA as he thought that it would cause more harm than good giving to the fact that NAFTA has been entrenched in to America’s economic system for 10 years. Even worse and more “Politics as usual”, Canadian CTV reported the day after the debate an Obama staffer contacted the Canadian Embassy and assured them that Obama’s statements were just “Political rhetoric” and insinuated that no matter what he said, Barack was simply trying to get elected.

Of course no discourse on the recent history of the presidential campaign would be complete without mentioning the shit storm that surrounded Barack’s ties to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. While I will not rehash the comments made by Wright, his “retirement” and Barack’s subsequent inspiring “A More Perfect Union” speech trying to explain the race relations (that he fully experienced in Hawaii and Jakarta.) I will say that if Barack wanted to experience true America, he should have chosen a different congregation.

In Summation, I feel that Obama is simply another Hamiltonian politician who believes the elite know and understand what’s best for the common man. Obama is a Marcus Garvey for our times if you will. He is a man whose own privileged upbringing taints his views and will lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the rest of the population.

Tories and Whigs: Just to Answer My Own Question

Taken from http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Whig_And_Tory

“The origin of "Whig" has been much controverted; it has been associated with the Scots for "whey," as implying a taunt against the "sour-milk" faces of the western Lowlanders; another theory is that it represented the initials of the Scots Covenanters' motto, "We hope in God"; another derives it from the Scots word "whiggam," used by peasants in driving their horses. It was, however, a form of the Scots Gaelic term used to describe cattle and horse thieves, and transferred to the adherents of the Presbyterian cause in Scotland. "Tory" is derived from the Irish Tar a Ri, " Come, oh king!" associated with the creed of the Irish native levies enlisted in the civil wars on behalf of the loyalist cause; the outlaws who fought for James in Ireland after the revolution were similarly nicknamed Rapparees or Tories”

“The persistency of the names of the two parties is mainly owing to their essential unmeaningness. As new questions arose, the names of the old parties were retained, though the objects of contention were no longer the same.”


Taken from http://www.etymonline.com/

Tory
1566, "an outlaw," specifically "a robber," from Ir. toruighe "plunderer," originally "pursuer, searcher," from O.Ir. toirighim "I pursue," related to toracht "pursuit." About 1646, it emerged as a derogatory term for Irish Catholics dispossessed of their land (some of whom subsequently turned to outlawry); c.1680 applied by Exclusioners to supporters of the Catholic Duke of York (later James II) in his succession to the throne of England. After 1689, Tory was the name of a British political party at first composed of Yorkist Tories of 1680. Superseded c.1830 by Conservative, though it continues to be used colloquially. In American history, Tory was the name given after 1769 to colonists who remained loyal to George III of England.


Whig
British political party, 1657, in part perhaps a disparaging use of whigg "a country bumpkin" (c.1645); but mainly a shortened form of Whiggamore (1649) "one of the adherents of the Presbyterian cause in western Scotland who marched on Edinburgh in 1648 to oppose Charles I." Perhaps originally "a horse drover," from dialectal verb whig "to urge forward" + mare. The name was first used 1689 in reference to members of the British political party that opposed the Tories. American Revolution sense of "colonist who opposes Crown policies" is from 1768. Later it was applied to opponents of Andrew Jackson (1825), and taken as the name of a political party (1834) that merged into the Republican Party in 1854-56. Whig historian "one who views history as an inevitable march of progress" is recorded from 1924.

House Democrats May Split Spy Bill

With all of the hoopla, titillation, and hullabaloo surrounding the Presidential primaries in the media of late, it’s been hard to keep an eye on what our government is doing while not on the campaign trail kissing babies and hugging veterans. While it’s hard to argue that congressional proceedings lack the sex appeal of electing the next presidential contenders, it is still important to keep an eye on what’s being done.

In the March 1st episode of the L.A. Times national security correspondent Greg Miller , who is an alumnus of Stanford, gives a short but thorough update on an ongoing issue that everyone should be paying attention to: warrantless wire tapping.

If you haven’t been paying attention, here is a little back ground. Soon after the September 11th, 2001 attacks Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists Act. In Section 2 paragraph (a) the act gave the President of the United States the authorization “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

In December of 2005, the New York Times published an article called “Bush lets U.S. Spy on Callers without Courts” written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau. In the article, the authors reported: “Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda”

The current issue began in August of 2007 when a new temporary law: the Protect America Act was signed. The P.A.A. increased the National Security Agency’s ability monitor communications and gave a “legal framework” for surveillance that was done without the blessing of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as mandated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 by linking P.A.A. with F.I.S.A.

In mid-February, United States Senate passed legislation renewing the P.A.A. However, the United States House of Representatives allowed the P.A.A. to expire. The key issue being a clause in the updated legislation that protects communications companies from legal action if they participate in the wiretaps. The House has been blocking a vote ever since.

In his article, Greg Miller reports on a new plan to separate the legislation in the House in order to “allow Democrats to register their objections to the immunity provisions.” Miller also points out that Bush is opposed to passing the law without the immunity clause.

Both sides agree that if the issue were to come to a vote that the bill would most likely pass as it stands. The implication is that the bill will pass overwhelmingly without the immunity clauses.

In either incarnation, the message is clear: The Government wants to keep tabs on the population; however they don’t want to be held responsible when the shit hits the database server cooling fan.

picture taken from http://psburton.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/phonetap.jpg

In Case You Were Interested:

DISCLAIMER: This is a post about my own personal experiences on Friday February 29th, 2008 at a Dell Political Action Committee sponsored town hall meeting featuring Presidential hopeful Arizona Senator John McCain. What follows are my own views and in no way reflect on Dell, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries.

On Monday February 25th I received an email announcing that John McCain would be coming to Dell to hold an informal “Town Hall” meeting with Dell employees. Being in a U.S. Government class during the primaries, I thought it may be an interesting way to become more involved in the subject matter if I were to attend. The only issue I saw was that registration was on a first come first serve basis and there were only about 300 seats available to employees. I waited until the designated time and registered as many times as I could. Rumor has it that all the seats were spoken for within 6 minutes of open registration. On Thursday, I received a confirmation email with information about the meeting.

While not a big fan of John McCain, I was very excited for the opportunity to attend and to be a part of the function. On Friday morning, I went directly to the site of the meeting. As I pulled in to the parking lot 2 hours before the event, I was greeted with a spectacle to boggle the mind. The front half of the lot was cordoned off and all along the front curb about seven or eight satellite trucks from every media outlet crowded together. There were hundreds of media people all running around trying to get ready for the arrival of John McCain.

Picture from http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2205/2300705739_b565a49b00_m.jpg

As I entered the lobby, the place was already packed. Michael Dell and Don Carty sat casually off to one side on the only couches available and hundreds of people wandered around aimlessly while camera crews strung a plethora of wires in and out of the building. About 9:40, ushers began to line people up and advised us on where we could find our name tags.

I entered in the room I was greeted with softly playing house techno and a scene bathed in neon blue light with Dell logos pasted on the walls. I took my seat almost dead center second row from the back. The room was filled to the brim with camera equipment and media people. Video cameras and crews sat atop risers all along the back row as people slid in to their seats all around me. Suddenly, there was an usher to my right telling our row that we will need to be ushered out first because McCain will need to stand exactly where we are for the follow up news conference. Looking around the room, it’s clear that this is a standing room only affair. A little more hustle and bustle and news reaches us that the McCain “Straight Talk Express” has arrived and the proceedings are about to begin. Dozens of photographers jockey for position to get the best shot of the participants coming in. In some cases, it looks as if the photographers might come to blows. In my opinion, it was an oddly garish welcome for a presidential candidate.

As I pondered the Rock-star like atmosphere, Don Carty took the stand and began to introduce the dignitaries. Former Senator Phil Gramm was first in and took his seat to far stage right. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was next followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry and finally Senator McCain. As Don Carty continued the introduction, he made a comparison of the hoopla over McCain to the Frenzy that was the Hannah Montana concert in Austin a few weeks ago. When the floor was finally turned over to McCain, he was greeted with a standing ovation

McCain began with a few general remarks about why government matters and a joke for the benefit of Rick Perry – not sure what he meant by it, but neither did Mike Ward. McCain spoke a little about each of the political figures with him on the stage and sang their praises. Gramm, Hutchison and Perry have all been previously mentioned as possible candidates for the VP slot. In fact, Texas Senator John Cornyn had suggested Hutchison would be the best fit for the job.

As McCain took the stage, it was apparent that he was comfortable but obviously fatigued. McCain walked around the stage quite a bit and spoke his mind on several subjects. McCain first made references to other failed presidential bids by people politicians from Arizona including Morris Udall and joked that “Arizona is the only state where mothers don’t tell their children that they could grow up to be President”

McCain began to get serious and spoke about the economy. McCain stated that although he was not sure if America was in a recession, he was sure that the fundamentals of America’s economy were still strong. He stated America had the hardest working and most innovative employees in the world. McCain stated that he was in favor of “Displaced Worker Education Programs” being revamped. He stated that the current programs were designed in the 1950’s and had not been updated since. …and here’s the kicker… He said “I want to revamp and update these programs so those displaced workers can get a better education and to come work here, at Dell.”

McCain also spoke about making the tax cut permanent and stated that America has the second highest tax on businesses in the World with Japan having the highest.

McCain stated that he thought climate change to be a real problem and spoke about the high cost of foreign oil. McCain stated that if he were elected, he would push for green technologies and nuclear power.

McCain made clear that he still believed that the single most important issue was that of Radical Islam and vowed to follow Osama Bin Laden strait to the “Gates of Hell”.
A few minutes later, McCain reiterated that he feels the “Surge” is working

McCain also took a pot shot at his Democratic rivals stating that Canada may not be too happy with the United States if the government were to pull NAFTA and praised Canada’s continued support in Afghanistan.

As the focus was changed from McCain speaking to McCain answering questions and volunteers jostled around with microphones looking for people to ask questions, I looked at the politicians on the stage. Senator Gramm looked like he have fallen asleep for a moment. Kay Bailey sat in an unmoving statuesque pose and Perry shifted uncomfortably in his seat with a dour expression on his face looking as if he were suffering form a hemorrhoid flare up or possibly wishing he were sitting behind Rudy Giuliani instead.

The first question was from a former Marine who had served in Operation: Iraqi Freedom on what could be done about soldiers coming home suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or P.T.S.D. McCain first thanked the man for his service and quoted George Washington saying, “The willingness of future generations to serve is dependent on how we treated veterans from previous wars.” McCain proposed to extend vouchers to Veterans who had routine issues that could be used at the doctor of their choice in order to free up the V.A. to focus on other more pertinent issues.

McCain answered several other questions, a few of which were obviously loaded, and wrapped up his remarks. As the town hall portion of the meeting was coming to a close, my row was quickly ushered out the door in order to make room for the press conference portion of the meeting. We were told that we were welcome to wait in the lobby for McCain’s emergence, however, I was unable to stay and left before the traffic really got bad.

Topics of the other questions addressed in the Town Hall portion:
Expansion of National Passenger Rail systems
NAFTA Super Highway (more)– Creation of a North American Union
Tax Incentives for companies that do not outsource overseas
Immigration Policy – failure of Cuban Embargo
Supporting our Troops
Vaccine Induced Autism (more) response from Washington
Federally funded Cancer Research – Lance Armstrong Foundation
Gas Taxes
Question from another man born on a U.S. Military base who had to get a green card to work in the U.S. even though his parents were both citizens on how the law could be change to prevent future issues. (McCain was also born on an overseas military base and has had his citizenship questioned in the past.)



All in all, I have to say that I enjoyed my first real political experience. The sensory overload that I experienced was quite exhilarating. Next time I’ll have to attend a function for a candidate that I’m actually passionate about one way or the other.


Here are some links to Media coverage – in no particular order
Articles:
News 8 Austin
KVUE
Austin American-Statesman
KXAN/MSNBC

Pictures:
Austin American-Statesman
Zimbio
PoliticalBase
KVUE

Video:
News 8 Austin - you can see the back of my fat red head in this one as the first veteran asks his question and I furiously scribble notes
KVUE
K-EYE TV
Fox – 1
Fox - 2

Blogs:
View From My Right
McBlogger
Post Cards from the Lege


There are many other links, but that’s what Google is for ;)

Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote

New York: One of Americas original Thirteen Colonies. New York: The state represented by Hillary Clinton in the United States Senate. New York: Would Hillary cheat to win her home state?

In this February 16th article in the New York Times, Sam Roberts takes an objective look at the vote tally issues that faced New York Democratic Primary voters. The article explains how major voting errors were initially reported during the primary. In New York’s “94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District” it was initially reported that Obama did not receive any votes at all. Although there have been several articles on this subject, Roberts article has been the most objective and the most thorough in its speculation of what has happened.

Some articles have decried blatant fraud such another February 16th article in the rival publication the New York Post. In her article “Obama ‘Robbed’ in NY”, author Ginger Adams quotes Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron as saying "I think this is an all-out effort to stop a campaign that is about to make history and render America's first black president,” As it happens, Barron happens to be a former member of the Black Panthers and holds some rather controversial views of American Government. Adams did not quote anyone else in her article.

In what could only be described as a side bar in the February 20th edition of the New York Post, “Mike Claims Vote ‘Fraud’”, David Seifman used only 64 words to quote New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as saying "If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," Seifman offered no other explanations or elaborations in this poor simulacra of an article.

Of Course Alex Jones, whom I single-handedly blame for Ron Paul’s loss, (yes that is bias boys and girls) is still busy with the supposed fraud in New Hampshire and Willie Nelsons calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush

Even with the media hysteria over the caucuses and primaries of late it seemed that this issue has had a very light level of coverage. Our very own Austin American Statesman held no coverage of the alleged voting issues

However, in Sam Roberts’ article many options are explored. Roberts and his staff look at the possibility of “Voter confusion”, a term anyone who watched the 2000 elections is familiar with. (Think “Hanging Chads”). The “Voter Confusion” Theory was attributed to Jerome A. Koenig. Koenig happens to be an advisor to the Obama campaign and is also a former chief of staff to the State Assembly’s Election Law Committee. Magnanimously, Roberts, et al. do not stop there. The article also quotes Gordon J. Davis who is an Obama poll watcher claiming that “the machine had a mind of its own” In his previous job as the President of the Lincoln Center for Performing Arts, many New Yorkers would say Davis had the same issue.
The article also poses some very interesting points as to who was in charge where during this election primary.


In spite of all the speculation and finger-pointing, it is thought that the full recount and final confirmation will not be complete for several weeks.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin

Flip-Flop to the "Dark Side"

In a short Op-Ed piece in the February 6th, 2008 edition of the New York Post, D.C Bureau Chief Charles Hurt expresses what most people already know in their heart of hearts: “Once John wins, He’ll make a left.”

In his Op-Ed, Charles reviews McCain’s history as a Washington insider who has always had very liberal leanings on the issues of immigration, tax reform and many other social issues. Charles also points out that McCain’s victory may have more to do with his former opponents’ dislike of Romney than his own agenda.

The one point of note in the article that I personally found vey disturbing was a reference to a group of conservatives that Charles dubs “Suicide Voters”. These “Conservatives” have “vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.” I find it interesting if not disconcerting that anyone regardless of personal platform would vote against a candidate at the cost of their own values. In this situation the people whose core values align closer to the candidate they are voting against than the quasi-socialist agenda of the candidate they are voting for will be shooting themselves in the foot….and they’d be doing it on purpose… I guess anyone can be an extremist.

In a comment during the 2000 election, McCain compared himself to an Iconic Hero of our times while at the same time belying his intentions to do what ever it takes to become President of the United States: In his comment, McCain said he was like “Luke Skywalker trying to get out of the death star. We're going to kill them. We're going to win this election." Link Of course we all know that Luke turned left to follow the Millennium Falcon out of the blast….

And for the hell of it – Another Famous McCain/Skywalker quote

"I feel like Luke Skywalker about to ram my magic glowing sword up Darth Vader's ass."
~ John McCain speaking a group of proctologists at a medical convention in Iowa City


Column source http://www.nypost.com/seven/02062008/news/columnists/once_john_wins__hell_make_a_left_852521.htm
Ron Paul is sad.

Onion Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters