Obama's Secret White Constituency

My hometown has fewer than 3000 citizens. The average income is less than $30,000 per year. The economy is hurting here as it is in most areas of the United States. Recently, I have been trying to gauge how people here will be voting in the Presidential Election in November. Although our county is very strongly Republican, I have heard many people quietly talking about supporting Barack Obama. When I say "quietly," I mean that literally. A few days ago, I got into a discussion with an older gentleman about the Presidential election, and when he began talking about his support of Barack Obama, his voice got very quiet and he became very aware of who was around us. There is a very real intimidation from the McCain supporters that is felt by people who live here. Rather than face public ridicule from those McCain supporters, people are quietly supporting Obama. They are not putting up the yard signs or putting bumper stickers on their cars, yet they are secretly but certainly going to vote for Obama/Biden. I am only guessing, but I believe that this "quiet support" exists in many predominantly white rural communities throughout the country. Obama may not have the majority of votes in these areas, but it may well be enough to give him a commanding victory in November.

"COUNTRY FIRST" - Not for this American

Recently John McCain gave a speech to supporters in front of a large banner that said, "COUNTRY FIRST." I am certain that particular theme plays well for many people in the United States, but not for this citizen. For me, God and family are placed above "country." My "allegiance" to God and family will always trump my allegiance to country if ever those loyalties are opposed to one another. The Republican Party has repeatedly confused and substituted the term "government" for the term "country" making it even more difficult for me to profess my devotion to our country. My country - the United States of America - is NOT the government of the United States of America. It is disheartening that John McCain and so many other Republicans do not understand this. The territory of the United States and the people who live within its borders are this country. It is not the monstrous government and those who control it that define the term country.

What's more is that John McCain is from the party that supposedly wants "less government." Yet, the current Republican administration has reached deeper into our homes, our wallets, our churches, and virtually every other part of our lives than any other presidency in the history of this nation.

Recently, I had a very long, thoughtful, and friendly discussion with a friend of mine who happens to be a conservative southern Democrat. On practically every issue we agree - except one, the war in Iraq. Although we agree that we should never have gone into Iraq - unlike me, my friend believes that since we are there, we need to "finish the job." I have serious problems with his reasoning. Saying that we need to "finish the job" in Iraq, is like saying that a surgeon who has begun amputating the wrong limb should "finish the job." Of course, this is absurd. The surgeon should do his best to undo the damage he has done, and get out. That is exactly what we should do when it comes to Iraq. We should do our best to correct the damage we have done and get out. If the Iraqi people are not willing to fight for their liberty, then why should we? You can not "hand" democracy to a people and expect them to appreciate it. In every instance, where democracy has succeeded, it is because the people were willing to demand it and, in most cases, fight for it. This has not happened in Iraq.

My friend made an interesting statement during our discussion. He said, "You know, Lon, there are only two things that I am passionate about. The first one is my country - because country is 'home.' The second is my woman." I replied, "I would add God to the top of my list. Before country would be my wife and family - because they ARE my home, no matter where we live. If I am with them, I am at home." My friend smiled and said, "I respect that. I'll have to think about it. It makes sense."

Paulson, Bernanke, & Bush Making Economy Tank

The proposed "economic stimulus package" from the Bush administration is "too little, too late" and actually exacerbates the underlying difficulties that Americans are currently experiencing. What is being proposed are tax cuts that will increase consumer spending, raise prices even further, and be of no assistance in the debt to asset ratio that is already hurting so many consumers caught in a severe mortgage crisis. It is a fact that higher prices in oil have already worked their way through the economy causing the consumer to pay higher prices for practically everything they need to survive. Meanwhile, higher wages are non-existent and healthcare costs also continue to climb.

What does the Bush "plan" actually provide to the average American taxpayer? Some analysts have suggested that most people will see a $250 tax break. Think about this. Two hundred fifty extra dollars in your tax return is not enough to make a mortgage payment. Even if the $250 is put back into the economy in the form of consumer spending, it will not stop the recession (which I believe began last quarter). When everything from groceries to automobile parts cost 30% more than they did 2 years ago, but wages have remained flat, there is no way to stop a recession from occurring. It certainly cannot be stopped by increasing inflation and sinking the dollar to new all-time lows against currencies of other industrialized nations. I don't know about you, but this is the first time during my lifetime that the Canadian dollar has traded at a premium to the U.S. dollar. Bush can talk all he wants about lowering taxes, but THERE IS NO GREATER FINANCIAL TAX THAT YOU CAN PLACE ON THE WORKING CLASS THAN INFLATION. And inflation happens when the dollar's value deteriorates - it takes more dollars to buy the same products.

So, what are going to about this? Are going to allow Bush & Co. to crap on us one more time, or are we going to scream bloody murder until they start addressing the real issues behind this recession? Remember, it was just 8 years ago that we had a balanced budget and no deficit spending. If we can have it under a Democrat as President, surely we can have it under a Republican if he sticks to the ideals of his party.

Elections: A Delegate Situation

Our election system has many flaws, the most serious of them - in my opinion - being the lack of accountability and security in casting and counting votes. However, another problem that is almost as important is the use of delegates to send to a convention where the candidates for the major parties will be selected. I have just looked at the numbers from the Iowa Caucuses, and I find them to be quite disturbing. See if they make sense to you.

For reference, the population of Iowa is 2,926,324. The percentage of the population who cast a vote in this caucus: 4%

On the Republican side:

• Delegates at stake: 40 
• Super Delegates: 0
• Total Votes Cast for Republicans (with 96% of precincts reporting): 116,114
• Percentage of Total Population Casting Republican Votes: 3.96%

Candidate Numbers (with 96% of precincts reporting)

• Mike Huckabee - Votes Received: 39,814 (34%)  Delegates Received: 30 (75%)
• Mitt Romney - Votes Received: 29,405 (25%)  Delegates Received: 7 (17.5%)
• Fred Thompson - Votes Received: 15,521 (13%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• John McCain - Votes Received: 15,248 (13%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Ron Paul - Votes Received: 11,598 (10%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Rudy Giuliani - Votes Received: 4,013 (3%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Duncan Hunter - Votes Received: 515 (0%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)

Percentage of Voters Ignored by Delegates: 46%

On the Democrat side:

• Delegates at stake: 57
• Super Delegates: 0
• Total Votes Cast for Democrats: 2,497
• Percentage of Total Population Casting Democrat Votes: 0.09%

Candidate Numbers (with all precincts reporting)

• Barack Obama - Votes Received: 940 (38%)  Delegates Received: 16 (28%)
• John Edwards - Votes Received: 744 (30%)  Delegates Received: 14 (24.5%)
• Hillary Clinton - Votes Received: 737 (30%)  Delegates Received: 15 (26%)
• Bill Richardson - Votes Received: 52 (2%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Joe Biden - Votes Received: 23 (1%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Chris Dodd - Votes Received: 1 (0%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Mike Gravel - Votes Received: 0 (0%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)
• Dennis Kucinich - Votes Received: 0 (0%)  Delegates Received: 0 (0%)

Percentage of Voters Ignored by Delegates: 22.5%

This is screwed up! It's RIDICULOUS! Less than 8% of eligible voters went to the polls to vote in this Caucus. In the Democrat's Caucus only 2,497 total votes were cast to win a total of 57 delegates. That's insane!! Only 44 votes per delegate?! Why? hmmm.... let's see. Could it be that the voters believe that their vote will count for NOTHING?!? Thirty percent of all Iowans are registered as Independents. They are automatically shut out of the Caucuses. This is abhorrent, but I will save that discussion for another time. The huge majority of the remaining registered voters do not vote in the primaries, and it is no wonder. If I had voted in the Republican Caucus for Fred Thompson (who received 13% of the vote), my vote would have been for NOTHING! Mr. Thompson will not receive a delegate from this Caucus. If I had voted in the Democratic Caucus for Barack Obama, my vote may well have been one of the 26% of the votes for Mr. Obama that will not be represented by a delegate. Again, I would have voted for NOTHING!

Everyday, the federal government steals more and more of our wealth, our freedoms, and our country away from us. If want it to stop, you cannot keep your mouth shut and sit on your hands.

Limbaugh Speaks His Heart, Bigoted As It Is

In a supposed dissertation on Darfur, Rush Limbaugh states that the Democratic support for involvement by the United States and the United Nations in order to end the violence in Darfur is all because Democrats think it will win them the support of African American voters. What is worse is that he criticizes support of Nelson Mandela and our sanctions on the former Apartheid government of South Africa during the 1980's. This is appalling, vile, and inexcusable. There needs to be a cry of outrage over Limbaugh's statements. Advertisers should sanction his show until he makes a full retraction of his statements concerning Mr. Mandela, our sanctions of the former Apartheid government of South Africa, and the relationship between Democrats and their support of U.S. and U.N. involvement in Darfur. I believe Mr. Limbaugh is showing his true colors and will be making more frequent and more outrageous comments in the future.

Why I Don't Trust Conventional Media News

Publisher Murdoch gets nipped by his own paper | Lifestyle | Reuters

Rupert Murdoch is one of the bigger reasons that I do pay any attention to the Big Four media corporation's news outlets. In fact, I consider them to be the Big Three since MSNBC/NBC is so intimately in bed with FOX news. Whatever the situation, when people like Murdoch have control over what news we see and hear and what we don't, it is difficult to believe what comes across the wire. So much of it is twisted, watered down, or simply omitted that there is little reason to put faith in its validity. Murdoch, in particular, is one of the most twisted minds in corporate America. He wants us to still believe the lies that raised support from the American public for the war in Iraq, despite evidence from the current administration's own members that the intelligence was not trustworthy and in many cases, completely false. He wants us to forget about Darfur and the killing and torture of innocent Christian men, women and children there who refuse to convert to Islam. He wants us to believe everything negative about the Democratic candidates for the Presidency of the United States and especially about that dangerous, rogue Republican candidate, Ron Paul who dares to hold true to the original Republican values o small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, upholding the Bill of Rights and being true to the Constitution of the United State of America. Yes, Murdoch is a problem, along with the rest of the corporate media news outlets. If he ends up in control of the Wall Street Journal, I do not have an idea of who we will be able to trust in reference to financial news and information. Let's pray it doesn't happen.