I don't care who you are...

This is amazing. Amanda Jones' father was a slave until he was a young adult. Her mother was born just after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. She has been an active voter, her first vote was for FDR. She voted when there was much persecution against black voters, and even had to pay a poll tax. I can't comprehend the true change she has seen our country go through. Watching her people evolve in the eyes of the majority from less-than-human status, to second class citizens, to equals in the human family, and now possibly filling the most powerful position in the world. It is an amazing transformation our country has been through in the past 250 years.

The entire world suffered from the slavery plague, and our country fought a divisive and bloody battle to give them their freedom.

It has been over 150 years since people like Harriet Tubman, and Fredrick Douglass fought for the abolition of slavery. It has only been 145 years since the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by the great President Lincoln giving the slaves their freedom.

It has been 53 years since Rosa Parks was thrown into jail for sitting at the front of the bus, sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and lead to the desegregation of the transportation system.

It has only been 47 years since the Freedom Rides began their lunch counter sit-ins, changing our society with non-violence. It has only been 45 years since Martin Luther King, Jr gave his "I had a dream" speech. It has only been 43 years since the Voting Rights Act was passed, allowing for equal registration for black citizens.

Only in our country is it possible for this dramatic of a change to happen in such a short amount of time. You can feel it among all voters, the excitement of this historic election. Early voting actually has lines of people waiting!

Whether you are voting for Barack Obama or John McCain, or even Bob Barr; you can't deny it is a turning point in our country. And for someone like Amanda Jones, who is voting for Barack Obama, has witnessed this evolution firsthand.

Just thinking...

Can you tell I've had a lot on my mind? (And my son is taking really long naps. That is the only way I can post!) I was just thinking...

What it would be like to be the first President in the 21st Century. We have never before had such ability and accessability to scruitinize every single move our Commander and Chief makes. The internet. Youtube. Google. The era of Instant Media. Even President Clinton was on the beginning of the technology age. Can you imagine how much worse the "Monica-gate" would have been with Youtube? It makes you wonder, with how quick we get information, how much faster the government and President has to make decisions. We have immediate intelligence, which can change in an instant. Presidents of the 18th Century, Washington and Adams, had months to methodically react to world and local events. Presidents of the 19th Century, Lincoln and Grant, also had weeks to plan and plot the movements of the Civil War. Presidents of the 20th Century, FDR and Kennedy, were given some breathing room to not give knee-jerk reactions, which avoided major catastrophe's. But as I've watched the Bush Presidency, I've almost pitied him for welcoming this new wave of politics. Not only is he put under an extremely focused microscope, he doesn't have as much time-luxary as previous Presidents, who are only now being more scruitinized. Can a 21st Century President be successful? Or will the technology age essentially assassinate each President?

Extremes

Which is more disturbing?

Who is this?

This man's life began being born in one of the smallest states in the U.S. He graduated with his undergrad at a prestigious college, receiving a bachelor's in History/Political Science. He furthered his education at Harvard University. In his early years he abused alcohol, but has since changed his ways and become a much more 'moral man'. He is married and has two daughters. He began his political career by serving his state. He actually lost a run for the House of Representatives. But has obviously had future success. When running for U.S. President, he was described as charismatic, engaging and relatable. His opponents said he didn't have enough experience, especially international. He picked as his Vice President someone with foreign relations expertise, Washington DC experience, and could be described as 'gravitas'.

Do you know who it is? Give you a clue, its one of these two men:

We all have more in common than you think!

Obama Overload

T-shirts. Pins. Yard signs. An OBAMA cable channel streaming Obama 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And now...

The OBAMA Variety Show!

I wish. That would be so much more entertaining than an Obama-infomercial. Will he be selling knives? Or maybe spray on hair? Or a food dehydrator! The insiders tell me, Sen. Obama has fired David Axelrod as his campaign advisor, and hired none other than...

RON POPEIL!

Tonight, there will be a half-an-hour long infomercial featuring the greatest product of our 21st century! The Obamanizer 2001! (Crowd: oooohh, ahhhh!) Not only does this amazing innovation organize, and makes lots of changes, but also has the ability to bring in $639.2 million! We promise to eliminate poverty, provide college education for everyone, and world peace. You can begin ordering next Tuesday. Have your 401K's, tax stubs, and savings accounts ready! It will only cost you 3 easy payments of higher taxes, but keep in mind we are spreading the wealth. Your other 2 payments will provide this transformational product to those who can't afford it! I know you can't wait to get your hands on the Obamanizer 2001!

Halloween brings out the CRAZIES!

Exhibit A:

Ashley Todd, a student residing in Pittsburg filed a false police report last week. She alleged that while being mugged, her attacker saw her McCain*Palin bumpersticker, then carved a B (obviously for Barack!) on her face. The police wondered whether her attacker was either illiterate and wrote the B backwards, or she is an idiot and wrote it while looking in the mirror. And of course, the latter was right.

Exhibit B:

Daniel Cowart, along with his cohort Paul Schlesselman, had a master-plan for their master-race. They had targeted a pre-dominantely African American high-school, where they would go on a killing spree. Then, dressed in their formal white tuxedo's and top hats, they would perform their grand finale, of attempting to assissinate Sen. Barack Obama. They knew that their mission would most likely have taken their lives. The FBI has stated their plot was highly unlikely to be successful, but they don't take any chances.

Scary.

The Constitution

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

Every aspect of their lives are put under a microscope. Who did they serve on a board with 10 years ago? Did he cheat on his wife? Who's baby is it really? What kind of father or mother are they? How much did they donate to charity? What are they wearing? What church do they go to?

ENOUGH!

Some of these questions should be asked, and we should expect and honest answer. However, with 8 days (and counting) left before our new commander and chief is elected, my biggest criteria has been vastly overlooked. The strictest form of scrutiny we should put our 'politicans' through is how they interpret the Constitution, and the powers it enumerates them. As many of you know, an interview Sen. Obama had in 2001 with Chicago Public Radio, has recently resurfaced . When I first heard about it, I thought, "Oh great, this is going to be another Ayers or Wright scenario. Just a big distraction from real issues." After quite a bit of searching, I found a full transcript, of all places on Fox News. (Here it is.) Democrats, don't go running for the hills yet. Just stick with me, you might be partially surprised. The full 45 minute interview includes two other Professors of Law, Dennis Hutchinson and Susan Bandes; and is wordy, lengthy and if you are not interested in law (and even if you are) reading it could make you go blind. I decided to take one for the team, sacrifice my time, eyesight and brainpower to read every word.

My Take: After reading the full transcript, quotes were taken out of context and were somewhat misleading. The quote that is used on replay is "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." Could it be because he used the term 'redistribution of wealth'? At least in this reference, and one previously which isn't blasted in talk radio, he is specifically talking about desegregation of schools. Although the courts mandated it in Brown vs. Board of Education, it cannot happen without funding. 'How do we get more money into the schools' or an 'equal educational opportunity', in referring to the civil rights era. (Both quotes following the 'redistribution' quote). And further makes a point that it is the legislators who should provide funding, not the courts. (And the legislators, then and now, take that job very seriously!) Do I find this statement what it is made out to be? Not entirely. Do I feel he is overly comfortable with the concept of 'redistribution or wealth'? Absolutely. When referring to the 60's need of spreading the state funding amongst all schools, black and white, equally; I am in complete agreement. When talking with the current American population who are struggling financially and looking for an easy, or any, way out using the same 'spread the wealth' concept, I 100% disagree. However, the statement that truly worries me is:

"...the constitution is a document of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted."

This brings me back to my original quote from the ultimate law of the land, our Constitution. Our Civil Servants, including President Bush, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are bound to support this Constitution." Our founding fathers intentionally wrote the Constitution as giving the federal government defined powers. The colonies fought a bloody war against an over-reaching government, and wanted 'negative liberties' expressed specifically to limit the new government. One of their greatest cries against the King was "taxation without representation". How many of us can identify? I do not feel my opinions or my voice are being represented in Congress, especially regarding taxes and how they spend them! Our current form of a federal government is already over-spending, and over-reaching it's enumerated powers. What happens when we have a democratic majority in both houses and in the White House? Will they then fulfill Sen. Obama's idea of 'what the government must do on your behalf?' There will be no check of their powers, or balance to their political agenda. Has Sen. Obama passed my Constitutional scruitiny test? Failed with flying colors. Would President Bush or Vice President Cheney pass? I don't think so.

Funny?

I read this on another blog today and thought it was funny, just had to share.

As I was reading our local paper this morning I came across this in "The Vent" section.

On my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference. Just imagine the coincidence. 

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need........the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more.

Shouldn't we get to decide who it goes to if we have to "share"?

Extreme Makeover: Palin Edition

Designer Funky Monkey pumps: $80

Designer Suit: $2000

Looking Vice Presidential:

Priceless

14 Words

Disclaimer: I have thought for quite a while about how to approach this issue facing California. I had a great discussion with someone recently, who I highly respect their opinion. They were not supportive of Proposition 8. They brought up concepts that I really had to think about, and form my own opinion on. Here is what I’ve come up with.

Natural Rights vs. Civil Rights
Natural rights are those that can not be given by a government. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. “The right to personality”. What you believe, how you respond, the core of who you are. Then there are civil rights, or legal rights. Legal rights are dependent upon laws, customs or beliefs of the society. Just like a drivers license, the right to vote, entering into legal contracts, there are certain regulations which determine who is able to enter into such an agreement. These regulations have been determined on social values. Up until now, the social values have excluded same-sex, underage, and multiple marriages.

History:
In 2000, California passed Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote. Proposition 22 simply stated in 14 words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." This was an amendment to the previous wording, “marriage is the right between two consenting adults.” In 2004, the Mayor of San Fransisco, Gavin Newsom issued altered marriage applications and licenses. The following day the Proposition 22 legal defense team filed actions to prohibit the Mayor from doing so. The courts denied their request. They appealed to the Supreme Court of California, stating these actions violate the amended California constitution, in the In Re Marriage Case. In June of 2008, the court ruled in a 4-3 decision to uphold their previous ruling, allowing gay-marriages to be legally recognized. Majority decision states that gay marriage is a “basic civil or human right of all people” and that these rights can not be “eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process”. Dissenting opinions stated, “California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow.”

Proposition 8:
The court ruling will not take full effect until after November elections. In November, residents of California will be voting on the exact same wording as in 2000, the same 14 words. “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”.

My Take:
Marriage is a sacred institution, which has been such since the beginning of humanity. Marriage should only entered into by a man and a woman who see it as a life-long (or eternal) commitment, not just an optional step in a relationship. Do I believe that there should be rights of kinship for those of the same sex? In most cases, yes. (Hospital visitation, power of attorney, inheritance, etc). However, here are some possible concerns that allowing same-sex marriage could implicate:

- Removal of Officiating Authority: Ministers within a large variety of churches are concerned that their authority to marry couples will be stripped from them, if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. Although the courts have stated that this won’t happen, as we have seen in the past, all it takes is one “legislative” court to find this ‘discrimination’ unconstitutional and that these churches are not abiding by the laws of the land, and remove their authority.

- Religious Adoption Agencies: For the same reason listed above, the agencies refusal to adopt children into same-sex marriage homes would leave them vulnerable to law suit.

- Schools: This area is very much ‘he said, he said’ (sorry I couldn’t help myself). Proponents of Prop. 8 have cases from Massachusetts and California of teachers introducing same-sex marriage to elementary school age children, without the consent or notification to the parents.

These are just a few possible scenarios of the legal ramifications of Proposition 8 not being passed. It is apparent the courts overstepped their authority, especially disregarding the will of the majority in California. I have heard suggestions separating the issue into a legal and moral decisions. However, our founders of our country and Constitution believed that the morality of a society was intertwined with the laws which govern. A self-governing society would only survive when there are public morals. Immorality is rampant and condoned, while virtue and chastity are criticized. If you don't believe this will affect you, talk with a junior high student about what is happening with their classmates. Also the following states have made gay marriage, domestic partnerships or civil unions legal: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Maryland. Other states who have already voted on and written into their state constitutions a similar amendment, several court findings have found them unconstitutional. What I find unconstitutional are judges usurping the will of the people, and deciding for us what laws are appropriate. Tell me how you feel on this controversial issue.

Do No Wrong

(My apologies for this cartoon, I thought it was too funny.)

I could make a list of things I disagree with John McCain or Sarah Palin about. I think it is safe to say that those who are voting for the Republican ticket in the Presidential campaign are going in with eyes-wide-open. Of course there are those right-wing crazies who's talking points consist of "Barack Obama is a terrorist in hiding" or "Barack Obama is the next Mao" or even worse, "Barack Obama is the anti-Christ". They are among the extreme minority, my guess, less than 5%. Probably the same percentage of those on the extreme left who believe President Bush orchestrated 9-11. With those taken out of the mix, I would guess over 75% know Sen. McCain is not going to be the answer to all their problems. Most Republican's voting for Sen. McCain understand what they're getting, blemishes (or sunspots) and all.

On the other hand, I have been overwhelmed with the feeling that many (not all) Sen. Obama supporters either do not know or will not accept factual faults of their Presidential candidate. I will be the first to admit Barack Obama seems to be a hard-working, loving, family man. I will defend him to anyone who tries to demonize him. However, I have seen small amounts of scrutiny on his policies, positions or character traits by his supporters. Am I alone here? I know we have several Democrats who read this blog, and I would love to hear your take. I know I roll my eyes when people try to make John McCain into something he is not just to get him elected. Do you have the same reaction when you see thronging crowds chanting Obama's name with tears in their eyes, or when elementary school kids sing a song praising him? Neither candidate will be able to fulfill their promises. Like John Stosel said, they are not Santa Claus or our Savior.

Am I alone in being sick of the glorification of our candidates, by their supporters?

So shocking!

This clip is very telling of the mindset that an Obama administration will have.


So in this, the worst of economic times Barney Frank's bright idea is to council Obama to "increase spending and tax tax tax the wealthy". Then the funniest of all, "deficit fear should take a backseat"? You are kidding me? This is no surprise they are just finally admitting it.

This is the great change that is coming????
Wow, that is all I can say WOW!


Then there is Joe Biden who has had more gaffs than Sarah Palin could dream of. You didn't know that? Oh that would be because the media over looks all of them.
What is heavens name was he saying? Obama will be tested, he will need help and we need to stand by Obama when he makes decisions that appear to be wrong. Ok, no problem Joe.
What is he smokin?

What are my Rights?

What are my "Rights"? I hear this word thrown around so much both in the campaigns and amongst voters. This goes hand in hand with entitlements.

According to Thomas Jefferson;

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

So according to Jefferson a right should be something derived from the laws of nature, not some gift given to us through campaign promises to win elections.
As our society moves more and more away from the fundamentals of morality, God, religious vigor, and faith we seem to be moving toward a system of wanting more and more of our rights to be bestowed as a gift from our chief magistrate. I wonder why.

This is a Republican and Democrat problem. Bush was responsible for huge amounts of spending and now he has overseen the largest bailout of financial institutions by the federal government in our history. This is not about political parties, this is about a move away from what our founding fathers envisioned. Why is this ok and why do so many seem numb to this movement in our political system? More and more I find myself aligning with the Libertarian party...the more we look to government to take care of problems the more problems seem to arise. I love this clip from 20/20 this week. It says it all.

I spent hours and hours over the weekend pouring over the words of our founders and I was inspired, uplifted and in awe of the great men who were at our helm.
Here are a couple of my favorite quotes.

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stewart, Dec 23, 1791

If they can laugh....

We can laugh!

Follow-Up: Sarah Palin

At the request of Lula, and in all attempts at being the real "fair and balanced" news source (he, he, he) I am following up on a few issues she raised about Sarah Palin. This was an interesting search, because it depended on the date it was published. Articles published at the beginning of September, even from large news sources (Times, New York Times, Washington Post, etc), would list different issues or isntances against Sarah Palin. But after a few weeks, some corrections or changes would be made to original stories (never retractions though!) She is a difficult one to research because so much of it is 'he said, she said'. So here we go:

You're fired!: When she was first elected as Mayor of Wasilla in 1996, she asked for updated resumes and letters of resignation from Chief of Police, public works director, finance director, and librarian. Majority of these department heads openly supported the long-time sitting mayor in Wasilla, John Stein, during the election. She stated in a local newspaper during this time, "Wasilla is moving forward in a positive direction, this is time for the department heads to let me know if they plan to move forward or if it's time for a change". From those, the librarian stayed in her position. She had also asked her department heads to temporarily consult her before reporters (some labeled a gag-order) while they are becoming familiar with her policies.

I Kan't Raed Boox: Around the same time, there are two accounts of Mayor Palin asking the library director her position on censoring books. According to the records, it was never more discussed than this, and no books were removed from the library. Gov. Palin said, "it was more rhetorical and included in policy discussions".

Click, Click, Bang, Bang: In regards to the firing of the Chief of Police, he said one possible reason was "he had opposed a bill in the state legislature, supported by Palin, that would "permit concealed weapons in schools and bars." The actual bill prohibits carrying a concealed weapon to or near the following places: law enforcement or correctional facility, school grounds or bus, a courthouse, a residence other than the permittee's unless obtaining permission, state or federal office, a financial institution, university campus, or any other facility or business that has a notice posted that a concealed handgun is not allowed. (There were many others, but it was getting too long!)

Extreme Abortion View: Gov. Palin has not denied that even in cases of rape or abuse, she personally is against abortion. She has said in many interviews she would not make it illegal in those cases, but feels we should be more of a 'culture or life' and giving those victims an 'opportunity to consider turning a horrible sitution into a blessing for others'.

Creationism: It was hard finding anything credible in regards to this claim. My searching brought up many blogs and youtube videos, but no actual accounts where she pushed for that in Alaska.

My Take: Do you really care what I think? If you don't, skip this! When reading about her first term as Mayor, I was somewhat concerned. I am a little sensitive to 'lay-offs', even though the courts supported her decision in a law suit. Although she may have been justified and within her powers, it is one red flag in my book. Speaking of books, I don't see any reason to believe she actually pushed or desired to ban books. I believe "Actions speak louder than words", and she didn't act in that direction, so maybe it was just a rhetorical question. As far as the concealed weapons legislation, the Police Chief admitted he was against the bill which did ban what he said it didn't, but was obviously unaware of what the bill contained. Abortion, I've said it before, if the woman didn't choose to have sex, I would not make it illegal to have an abortion. Creationism, my kids will be taught that in the home and at Church, and they are not in school yet, so I don't have experience with it.

Scandal: Part Two

Our blog needed a little eye candy.

I feel like Bear Grylls, starring in my own "Mom Versus Wild" documentary, trying to make my way through the savage terrain of politics. My latest assignment, is being dropped in the middle of Alaska. I am scavenging for truth in this bitter climate, attempting to piece together some sustaining morsels to devour. Here is what I've come up with:

Troopergate: During a messy divorce from her sister and Mike Wooten, an Alaska state trooper, a then Gubernatorial Candidate, Sarah Palin overheard Mike make a death threat against her father. After a month, she e-mailed the Chief of the Alaska State Police to notify him that Wooten is a 'loose cannon'. An investigation soon took place, finding Wooten guilty of the following: death threat, shooting a moose without a permit (who hasn't done that?), inappropriate use of a taser (on his 11 yr old son), and on one occassion driving with an open bottle of beer while off duty. He was then suspended for five days. Few months later, Gov. Palin took office, and appointed Walter Monegan as Public Safety Commissioner. Todd Palin met with Monegan soon after to look into the "Wooten" issue. After doing so, he informed him nothing could be done. There were a dozen or so contacts over a 20 month period, made from Todd Palin and Gov. Palin's associates concerning the issue, none coming directly from Gov. Palin or ever asking Wooten to be fired.

In July 2008, Monegan was offered a position as director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control board, but turned it down. Although he said it came 'out of the blue', he also stated "For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff." It wasn't until after Gov. Palin becoming the VP candidate did his story change. There have been two separate investigations done looking into this, a bi-partisan legislative council and a state personnel board investigation. Legislative council did find Gov. Palin had overstepped her authority and abused an ethical guideline, but nothing illegal. They also have no authority to take action against her. The state personnel board is still investigating, and they have the actually authority to take necessary action.

Baby Mama Drama: After typing in "Sarah Palin" and scandal into Google, it brought up Troopergate, but then the majority of the other links were in reference to either her teenage pregnant daughter or her downs-syndrome infant, Trig. I find both of these 'scandals' ridiculous and won't give them more attention than they deserve.

Bridge to Nowhere: Before taking office in 2006, Alaska received a $442 million grant from the federal government to put towards 'transportation funding'. While running for Governor, she supported the bridges construction. But once she took office, she stopped the project, saying it had been 'inaccurately portrayed'. Instead of turning the money back over to the feds, she put it into other 'transportation projects', which includes a road now deemed, "The Road to Nowhere".

My Take: In regards to Troopergate, do I think Gov. Palin or those around her pursued this farther than it could go? Yes. Do I believe Comm. Monegan was fired (or technically turned down a different position) solely because he would not fire Trooper Mike Wooten? No. Do I believe it should disqualify her from public office, including possibly the highest office in the nation? No. Referring to Baby-Mama-Drama, I find it deliciously ironic that those specific liberal pundits, fighting the woman's fight, are now questioning whether she could be a good mom to a special needs baby and be a Vice President. Would I run for VP at this time if I were her? No. Will I hold that against her? No. Now to the Bridge to Nowhere. I have noticed that she, nor John McCain, are referencing this as a highlight achievement of hers any more. It is not as clear cut as saying "thanks, but no thanks". But considering these three things have been all of the 'dirt' the media could find on her, I see that as a good sign of her character. Only time will tell!

Declare yourself!

Ok, at this point I think we have an articulate group of politically active women and men who are reading and commenting on this blog. I love it that like minded people can come together to vent, discuss, and enlighten. Let me clarify what I mean by like minded. I mean people who have an interest in our country, the government that runs it, and what we as citizens can do to make it better....ha ha you thought I was going to say that like minded meant that we are all Republican. No I happen to know that there are many people reading this blog who are Democrats and yes, Republicans also. I am ever an eager learner and always an opinionated voice. I respect other views and always try to learn from them, therefore:

Here is what I want to do; Declare myself and I want you to do the same. I will pick a topic, share my views and I encourage you to give yours. Use the comments section to share your position and enlighten others. I only ask that we be respectful to each other. Anger is just stupidity. Every so often we will pick a new hot topic and we can have our own version of Hannity and Colmes. Maybe we will find we are all 'Hannitys' but I hope we have a few vocal 'Colmes' because that is how we will learn from each other.

Let me start. Entitlements I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. I would have no problem voting Democrat if I felt that man or woman will do a better job for our country. That being said, here is one of my fundamental problems with many in the Democrat party. Their mantra often is "we are about helping the little people, the party of compassion". To me this can be demeaning and often keeps people in a victimhood mentality. Who are these little people? Why do we patronize them as less than others and always needing a hand up? Why are we so afraid in our country to just let people struggle or fail? It is often in failure that people will emerge and create great success. I just have such a deep belief in the human spirit. Aren't we all little people at some point? I have been in the little people category many times in my life and I never even considered the government an option or answer. I have yet to see a government entitlement program that is effective and not riddled with bureaucracy and waste. These programs are pontificated about from political pulpits but when executed are ineffective and otiose. Are there people in need? absolutely, but I have always found that churches and charities, though imperfect, are are so much more effective in handling these needs. When did the government become a charity? If tomorrow we just obliterated one or more entitlement programs what would happen? Would the world come to an end? No the loss would create a vacuum of need, and people would step up to the plate. Churches, charities, and individuals would come together to help. Would it be perfect? No but I believe it would be better. The less government in our lives the better.

People are generous. We give and give till it hurts and then we give more. We saw that after 9-11. I believe in letting a free system determine how and what we give, we will always rise to the occasion. Some won't give but that is what freedom is about. Did you know that over half of all federal spending is on entitlement programs?

I find it interesting that this week when questioned by a man about taxes Obama said we need to "spread the wealth around". In truth this is called a punitive wealth transfer program, or socialism. Yet according to the NYT the Obama's yearly charitable contributions were less than 1% of their income for 4 years prior to the beginning of his political career. According to the New York Times "Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president." I looked over his tax records and contributions were at or well below the 1% mark until political aspirations began to take shape. Yet even at the highest their contributions were only at 6.1% of income. He wasn't spreading the wealth around back then now was he? And this man wants me to entrust him with the job of taking my money so he can "spread it around". That seems wrong to me on so many levels.

I know I may not have a complete view of this issue. I am a Mom with 4 busy kids and can't spend the time necessary to understand all the ins and outs so I would love to know what your view of this issue is. Declare yourself! (That is funny to me!) It sounds like we think we are very important. I am laughing.

Requested Follow-Up

As requested by Gale, I decided to do another 2 person follow up. I left out William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright in my first Obama disection. I did intentionally leave these two names out, because I want to stay away from sounding like a cheap (and less experienced) immitation of the Radio Talk Show hosts or Fox News commentators. These two names create automatic responses, and I would rather have a deeper conversation than regurgitate the rhetoric from conservative pundits. (Although I feel that these connections are important.) So I will try to give a more balanced view and analysis. (Try, key word!)

William Ayers: Since most of you who read this blog probably listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, you have heard this name repeated like a broken record. He is infamous for founding and leading the Weatherman Underground Organization, a radical leftist group who utilized a non-collateral yet violent means to promote their anti-War, anti-establishment agenda. The only ones who actually lost their lives in their riots, raids and bombings were members of their organization who were assembling a nail bomb when it went off. William Ayers stated "we were very careful from [that incident on] to be sure we weren't going to hurt anybody, and we never did hurt anybody." Yes, he did turn himself into the FBI after almost a decade of hiding, and after the charges were dropped. He espouses communist ideology, and his teaching style is critical pedagoy, which is anti-establishment or challenging status quo. NOW, what does he have to do with Obama? They worked together on two non-profit boards together, the previously mentioned Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund of Chicago. Ayers also hosted a political gathering at his house to promote Barack Obama.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Disclaimer: I hesitate writing anything critical of someone's religion, because there are plenty inaccuracies written about mine. I am using all information from their specific website, stating their beliefs as they have stated it. His Church, Trinity United Church of Christ, believes in Black Liberation Theology. It is traced back to the 1960's, when a group of Black pastors were trying to make Christianity relevant to the Black community, who at the time was extremely oppressed. Instead of following in Christ's footsteps of being meek and submissive, they believed God's power was with them to fight against the White Power. Yet, although the culture and social climate has changed, their beliefs have not. It also follows a marxist theology, not just equality in opportunity but in everything. NOW, where is the Obama connection? Sen. Obama started attending this Church in the 1980's, Rev. Wright officiated their wedding, and the baptism of one of their daughters. Sen. Obama attended his church for almost two decades, and had asked Rev. Wright to give the invocation before his Presidential candidacy announcement, which he retracted when this was all made public.

My Take: With all those that I have researched, from Wright to Ayers, from Rezko to Acorn, there is an underlying theme of Marxism. Equalizing the social divide, not through creating opportunity to thrive, but stealing from the hard-working and giving to the lazy. There are too many coincidental acquaintances to ignore. This brings me back to my original problem: Either Sen. Obama has blind optimism in people's goodness or he will use whoever he can to get ahead. Even worse, he might espouse the same beliefs that all those listed share. Again, educate yourself and decide how these connections influence his judgement and your vote.

There are a lot of headlining scandals which are questionable. A lot of accusations but not a lot of actual information. There are several surrounding each candidate, especially Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. No politician has a clean history, and yet each side picks the most salacious and inflammatory detail from 10 + years ago, and makes it seem relevant and essential. I think the most important thing is to educate yourself and decide whether it is relevant and persuasive enough to swing your vote either way. So I am attempting to break down certain accusations, questionable connections, and down right lies and give you the real story. I am starting with Senator Obama.

Sidenote: In my attempt to find 'facts', I started at what I thought would be the most unbiased and reasonable resource, factcheck.org. As I tried searching the 'facts' about Sen. Obama, I was noticing the majority of the articles were about the McCain-Palin campaign. Some would argue it is because they are spouting most of the lies. I would like to throw out there that this website is not delving into Sen. Obama's past because their financial contributor, Annenberg Foundation, was at one point Sen. Obama's employer. He worked as the founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an educational innitiative.

ACORN: To many of you, including my husband, this is simply a nut, a fruit of the oak tree. But in the political scene it stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. I am sure you have heard about them in the news for voter fraud. Michigan, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota...hmmm, all swing states? ACORN has come under investigation because they hold the majority of the fraudulent registration forms, including Mickey Mouse, Dallas Cowboys roster, etc. What does this have to do with Obama? Sen. Obama represented ACORN in a legal dispute in the early 1990's, and also did training seminar's to help with their Project VOTE campaign. Also, ACORN receives a majority of their funding through federal grants, including a chunk from the Bail Out Bill. Of course they would benefit from having one of their own in the White House, but I don't believe that Sen. Obama is personally pushing for voter fraud.

Robert Blackwell, Jr: In 2001, after losing a bid for the U.S. House of Representatives, Sen. Obama went back to working in the Illinois State Senate, but needed some additional forms of income. He received a legal consulting contract to represent Robert Blackwell's company Electronic Knowledge Interchange, a $8000/month retainer. After being compensated in full (around $112,000 dollars), then state Senator Obama sent a 'request on state letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin'. Since then, Blackwell and his company Killerspin, has been recognized as donating $100,000-$200,000 to Sen. Obama's Presidential Campaign.

Antoin Rezko: A well-known corrupt Chicago entrepreneur has been connected to Sen. Obama in a variety of ways. Initially, Sen. Obama did some legal representation for Rezko's company, Rezmar. (Reportedly helping the company get $43 million in government funding). Rezko served on Obama's 2003 U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, helping raise money. Rezko also threw a fundraiser in his home. After he won the senate race, he used Rezko's real estate connections to buy his home. The sellers were selling both the home and the adjacent lot, which Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house on the same day Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land. At the time of Sen. Obama's connection with him, Tony Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.

My Take: I could make a guess that as I look into all of the names on the Presidential Ticket, I would find similar scandals. I would love to find anyone in Washington that doesn't have some 'questionable' dealings in their past. BUT, the media has focused majority of their 'scandal coverage' on the right of the aisle, had hasn't scrutinized Sen. Obama's past. All of it needs to be discussed, not just the dirty laundry in the Republican basket. Sen. Obama appears to be a genuinely decent man, with questionable judgement. Either he has blind optimism in people's goodness or he will use whoever he can to get ahead, both of which are not the best qualities in my book. I apologize for such a lengthy post, but I find it very important to get to know every aspect of each candidate. Next, I will attempt to take an unbiased look into Sarah Palin's scandals, including Troopergate.

Amazing Quote

Gale added this amazing quote in a comment, of the previous post. It is eerily telling of where our country could lead. In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Let us pray that we are still in the majority.

ADD Moment

BoogeyMan

Have you ever had one of those dreams where you are being chased by a boogey man, but your feet won't move and you can't scream? You keep looking back, but no matter how loud you scream or try to run the nightmare is gaining on you. This is the only way I can describe how I feel watching our governments intervention with the economic crisis. Majority of American's are fuming mad, screaming at the government to "RUN!!!" from bailing out Wall Street. But they just won't listen, or budge. What do we do? When do we wake up?

Scrooge vs. Santa

I would much rather have a Scrooge than a Santa for a Presidential Candidate.
Bailout? "Bah, Humbug!"
More funding for entitlements? "Bah, Humbug!"
Tax cuts in a time of outrageous government spending? "Bah, Humbug!?!?!"

We need someone who counts every penny. We need someone who doesn't care about image, or polling. I am tired of listening to both candidates play a pseudo-Santa, promising to drop entitlements, hand-outs, refunds, stimulus packages, down our chimneys, hoping it will make us happy. I don't want a Christmas this year, I want a stable and balanced economy.

McCain or Obama? "Bah, Humbug!"

My apologies for being a little disjointed in my thoughts. I am a tad flustered, and haven't had time to actually collect my thoughts in an organized fashion. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Need I say more!

I love these “Get Out the Vote” posters. Hundreds of graphic artists submitted to the AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) and the top 24 were chosen. Click over to check them all out.

Money $aver

With a money cruch happening throughout the world, many people are struggling to make ends meet. Having an unemployed husband for 5 months, we felt more than a crunch. We went into survival mode. I feel like I learned a life lesson early in life, and pray I never forget it. More than that, I want to pass on a few tips to help you avoid a major crunch or survive your own.

• Save at least 10%. If you have a steady income, force yourself to save 10%. Our little savings we had made a HUGE difference when things were tight. Be proactive, not reactive.
• Cut non-necessaties. Get basic phone service, or if you have a cell phone, get rid of a land line. Down-grade to the slowest internet service or keep high speed and cut your cable/satellite. Many shows are offered online. It could save you at least $50 a month.
• Eliminate "want" shopping. Do you really need a new shirt, new towels, or even a new mop? I cut absolutely everything out except what we need everyday. I also bought everything generic. Also, during these five months was both our birthdays, Mother's day, Father's day and our anniversary. We did not get any presents, or go out to dinner. Does it make me sad looking back? Absolutely not! Make sacrifices today for peace of mind tomorrow.
• Get freebies. We love watching movies. We signed up for a Redbox free movie Monday promotion, and waited to rent something we wanted till Monday, and got it free! There are many "Kids Eat Free" promotions at local restaurants, search them out!
• Get your hair cut at a Beauty College. We have a GREAT beauty school in town, and I have never had a bad hair cut. Especially when they have experienced instructors checking their work. (I would avoid getting color done or ask for someone graduating soon). And I just got my hair cut and it cost me $18 (including tip!)
• Cut your husbands hair! I have cut my husbands hair every since we've been married. Bought a clippers set at Wal-Mart, and have been doing it for 6 1/2 years! It has saved us a lot of money!
• BARDER!!! I know many people (including myself) who have bardered for dental work, medical services, piano lessons (wink, wink), child care, vacations, driving school, you name it!
• Sell Unused Items. I LOVE craigslist. We sold a futon, entertainment center, and when things got extremely tight, my husbands car. We are a nation of 'stuff owners'. How much stuff do you really need or use around your house? If you don't use it, sell it! Although it was hard selling his car, it kept us out of credit card debt, and I don't regret it at all.
• Donate to charity. Now this might sound contradictory, but it is not. I am a firm believer in "the more you give, the more you receive". We continued to donate to our Church, donate clothes or household items to fund raisers. You may call it Karma, but I know that when you are generous with others, God will be generous with you.

Ok. I am off my soapbox. I just know that financial stress can do extreme damage to a marriage, a family, and self-esteem. Like I said before, be proactive not reactive.

How have you saved?

Easy-Way-Out 101

Under our fearless leader, John McCain, there is a way for those poor citizens who over-extended themselves by buying a large home with a 125% loan to stay in their homes. It is their inalienable right to have a home, and health insurance, but that is another post. But what about those of us who were fiscally conservative? What about us Fat Cats who actually make our mortgage payments? I will outline a plan of action to take advantage of this latest shallow promise of McCain's to have Sect. Paulson to buy up bad mortgages. Here's what to do:

1. Stop paying your mortgage. It isn't considered a bad mortgage while you are paying on it! Swallow your pride and quit giving your hard earned money to a corrupt bank. Instead take what you're saving and go finance a boat or a new car.


2. Destroy your home. Your homes value also needs to decrease considerably, so you will be 'Upsidedown'. This means your home is worth less than what you owe. So pick up the sledgehammer and go at it like you're being foreclosed on. Why update your home or take pride in ownership, when you will only be increasing the value of your home and making you ineligible for McCain's mortgage plan.


3. Get new appraisal. Call the bank over, and let them evaluate the value of your home. You need it documented that you are upside down.


4. Vote for McCain. Or actually, a vote for Obama will also most likely bring the same socialist market plan. Keep voting back the same Democrats and Republican's who voted on the Bail Out Bill, so there won't be any way to filibuster such a bill.

I would like to understand WHY I should keep working hard to pay my bills. Why take responsibility for my financial decisions when I will be able to stay in my home regardless? I have so many fantastic ideas on my "Wish List" if I didn't have financial responsibilities. What is the point to be an honest homeowner? Where are my rewards? Although we are a dying breed, apparent in Gale's last post, I would rather die with dignity and honor. Does it sound melodramatic? Probably, but I am absolutely serious. How many people under the age of 50 feel the same way as us? Those of us who take pride in ownership. Those of us who work hard for what we have, are honest in our dealings with our fellowman, are now the minority. I feel like I identify more with the grandma's in the Nursing Home, who still save their pennies in a jar. Who patch up their husband's pants instead of buying new ones. Who can fruit and veggies for food storage, instead of eating out every night. Who prefers a smaller government to a large, over-extending hand-out government. Who doesn't buy a new t.v. or car or computer till the old one breaks. So you, I, Ethel and Viola can sip on some prune juice, while rocking in our recliners, reminiscing about the 'good ol' days'. And where do we go from here? Review Gale's post "What Can I Do?".

Please sir, can I have some more!

This debate was particularly frustrating for me....It was my fault for choosing CNN as my network of choice to watch the debate. CNN carried the debate without interruption as all the other networks did with one exception, along the bottom of the screen they had a graph with immediate reactions of independent voters streaming in real time. There were 2 lines, one yellow that represented women, and the other green for men. So as the debate went along viewers could see the positive and negative reactions that these two demographics were having to the things being said by the candidates.
I imagined these people in a little room in comfy chairs with buttons to push indicating a positive or negative feeling about what they were hearing. I found myself mesmerized by those little lines. I don't know how much of the debate I "saw" as I was drawn to this little graph like it was my lifeline to understanding. This is where the frustration began.
Literally every time that Barak Obama (or John McCain for that matter) spoke of a policy based on giving Americans more stuff, meaning programs and entitlements the lines went into the positive to the extreme. When Barak pronounced that health care was a "right" the lines almost jumped out of the screen and spilled yellow and green ink all over my living room floor. When Senator McCain called it a responsibility our little line folks were so low they almost needed Prozac. Women were especially taken by these pronouncements of gifts from the government and I was fuming mad every time it happened. The men were just as bad just not quite so slap happy about it. Then each time the candidates stood and talked of less government or government getting out of the way, the lines dropped like flies and people weren't so happy (or so the little lines said).

Almost every time that I was pushing the positive button in my mind the lines on the TV were going the opposite way. This tells you one of two things. One, I am very out of touch and need to leave politics alone, or this world is changing very fast right before my eyes. I assume that I have lived too long in prosperous times where people were ready to take responsibility for their lives and take hold of their future. We know from past history that when times get bad people are much more ready to have government give them a hand-up.

Now I don't want to act like a scrooge. I in no way believe that government shouldn't be part of our lives or that we don't have legitimate health care problems. I am not a Libertarian yet, I just see that role as being much more limited than the current political climate is pushing toward. When people are hungry they will too easily turn over their power in hopes of relief. The problem is, that power never comes back to the people and we inch slowly and painfully toward socialism.

I trust Sarah (this blog administrator and my co contributor) will post and give great analysis of the debate last night as she always does, as for me I am still washing off the yellow and green ink that spilled out of my TV while viewers held up their little proverbial wooden bowls and asked "Please sir can I have some more!"

Town Hall Debate

Just don't hurt me!

Tonight is a Town Hall style debate between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. The moderator is Tom Brokaw, but the questions will come from 'undecided [planted] voters' in the audience. The candidates will have 2 minutes to respond, and 1 minute of discussion. Cross your fingers folks, John McCain has more experience in this format and hopefully he will come out on top! The biggest question for me is, will the questions and 'undecided voters' be blatantly prompted and planted, or will it be more discrete? If I was in the audience, I would LOVE to ask:

Because the United States Constitution enumerates your powers as an Executive, your understanding of the Constitution is vital. What do you believe is the most important part of the Constitution and needs the closest protection?

What would you ask?

Register to VOTE!

If you have not registered to vote, do it NOW! Many states close voter registrations today. Here is a link to find out your registration deadline.

New E-mail

Hey Moms! If you have an idea or issue you want us to look into, e-mail us at momsintopolitics@gmail.com!

Fact Finder

After listening to the Vice Presidential debate, you ask yourself, "Self, should I take them at their word? Were they both on the 'Straight Talk Express'?" I am here (along with factcheck.org) to set their stories straight. Here are some statements, followed by the facts:

Palin:

• "Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year." FACT: It was individuals making $42,000 a year, not families. Families making $90,000 he voted to tax.
• Claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. FACT: At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.
• "Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause." FACT: Here is Obama's actual quote: "We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."
• "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" FACT: As of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.
• "He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That doesn't cost the government anything...that's budget neutral." FACT: Experts predict that McCain's Health Care proposal would increase the the deficit over 10 years by $1.3 trillion. The same experts predict Obama's would increase the deficit $1.6 trillion over the same time frame.

Biden:

• Biden repeatedly claimed "McCain voted the exact same way" on a budget bill. FACT: McCain actually voted against it.
• "John McCain said he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now." FACT: In a radio interview when asked if he would meet with the President of Spain, McCain responded: "I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion". He did not commit to meet with him, but did not refuse.
• "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan". FACT: Although Gen. McKiernan said, "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge', what is required is a 'sustained commitment'"; he followed it up with saying Afghanistan would need an infusion of American troops "as quickly as possible."
• Biden claimed that McCain said in a magazine article that he wanted to deregulate the health care industry as the banking industry had been. FACT: McCain was talking specifically about his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.
• Biden claimed 5 times that McCain would give oil companies a "$4 billion tax cut." FACT: McCain’s plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent — for ALL corporations, not just oil companies.
• Biden said that Iraq had an "$80 billion surplus." FACT: Iraqis have $29 billion in the bank, and in August passed a $21 billion spending bill.

My Analysis: Politicians always inflate numbers, and fudge facts. When looking at both of their inaccuracies, it became obvious to me the differences. Gov. Palin's numbers were over-exaggerated, she flubbed Gen. McKiernan's name, gave a shout out to 3rd graders, winked excessively, and changed the topic of the question several times. I also wish she would have left out the "darn its" and "heck of.." and "soccer moms". She can be relatable without sounding common. However, I believe Sen. Biden knowingly lied about McCain's voting record, hoping Gov. Palin wouldn't be able to catch him on that, and she didn't. He spoke elloquently, yet repeating the same inaccuracies. He was the typical groomed and seasoned politician. On the surface you could conclude he handly won the debate. I would argue that I am tired of 'experienced' politicians who can talk their ways out of messes and into personal gain. And to me, Sen. Biden represented the Washington establishment beautifully and even said at one point, "You know who I am, I'm not going to change". Then why spend millions of dollars on campaign signs plastered with the slogan "CHANGE you can believe in"?

What did you think?

p.s. sorry for taking so long to post this, I had to tend to a sick child all weekend!

Where's the Maverick?

"I will make them famous, and you will know their names!" Senator John McCain energetically proclaimed to awaiting republicans at their national convention. Well Senator McCain, I want names. I want to know who got us into this mess. Democrat or Republican. I don't care, I want them out! Even on his website it reads,

"John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous....Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets....Eliminate broken government programs."

Why did he vote "yes" on a bill which added $100 billion in earmarks to it? In probably one of the most pivotal crossroads our country has ever been in, he falls in line with the rest of the good ol' boys. And since when is pork considered a "sweetener"? Splenda, Sweet & Low, Ensure and pork? There is enough pork in this bill you would think it would offend well-known Jew, Barney Frank, instead it is making him salivate. The fact that it went from a 3 page document to over 400 pages does not surprise me. The fact that Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted 'Yea' does not surprise me. But the fact that Senator John McCain when given the perfect opportunity to be a 'maverick' and actually have the majority of the people of the United States behind him, it is shocking that he follows the democrats lead. And I have heard many representatives, including my own, actually say that the bill has been improved. How has more spending improved an already insanely bloated bill?

On another note,

Vice Presidential Debates. I am no longer excited. My fervor has fizzled. My interest is lost. My curiosity quashed. Of course, out of duty, I will begrudgingly watch. And I will try not to yell at the t.v. I will make no promises though, because unlike politicians, I intend to keep them! The only draw for me to watch, is you never know what will come out of Sen. Biden or Gov. Palin's mouths.

Will Sen. Biden say 'facts sometimes get in the way' or ask a freshly injured moderator Gwen Eiffel to "please stand up"?

Will Gov. Palin just not have an answer to a question or start spouting out campaign phrases like 'job creation', 'reformer', 'pitbull', 'tax cuts', like an overfed robot with turrets syndrome?

Our country needs more than campaign slogans and smear campaigns. It needs more than "change" or a "reformer". It needs solutions. I have not heard real solutions from either candidate, or anyone on Capitol Hill. The Bail Out Bill is not a solution, it is just one more shovel full of dirt while digging a very deep grave. The debates are no longer an opportunity for us to find a candidate who has similar standards, they are a forum to deliver well-crafted and generic lines to a gullible public. Do I sound pessimistic and disenfranchised? I hope so, because I am! Give me real solutions from a real person, and I will give you my vote.