I've Changed As Others Have

In the recent past some bloggers have written about their sites being locked after posting anti-Obama or pro-Clinton articles on Blogger.com. It was recently revealed that blogger.com, owned by Google had contributed money to the Obama Presidential campaign, therefore, Google was determined to protect their investment as any good business would do.

So far, I've apparently minded my manners because my blog has not been locked by the Google gestapo, otherwise known as Google/FISA officials. Considering that I'm not a member of the Obama choir though, and don't plan to become one anytime soon, I can already see the storm clouds forming in the distance.

So after reading a number of reviews, and with few expectations, I decided to check into that rival blog that will remain unnamed. The reviews I had read to that point led me to believe blogger.com was much more simple to deal with and by far the best. Now keep in mind I am NOT a blogging guru; I can barely find the publish button at this point. So, when I first went to Blogger.com's rival website I wasn't very hopeful about that being my future home for any serious sounding off articles. Much to my surprise though, the praise I had read about blogger.com was not completely true. I wonder why??

Yes, there are features on that other blog site that I haven't figured out yet but that was also true of blogger.com. I never did figure out all of blogger's features and may not even bother trying to figure them out now.

After a few days of reading and checking ease of features I officially moved my blog to that rival site, under a different name of course. At this point I'm having a ball sounding off concerning issues that the blogger.com gestapo would probably raise an eyebrow at. Those subjects of course involve Obama's flips on issues moderates and liberals were looking to him for leadership on.

So it is not without some serious sadness that I announce my days at Blogger.com are definitely numbered. But just in case someone at Blogger.com scrutinizes this article I want to set out my reasons for moving on.

For seven-and-a-half years we've lived under the very worst White House dictator this country has ever been cursed with. Why? In 2000 there were apparently enough idiots at the polls and in Florida that decided this creature would be a "person I could have a beer with". The mentality it took to come up with that has to this date totally escaped me. During those long seven + years we've had more and more of our Constitutional rights taken away to the point that our Bill Of Rights and Constitution are now in tatters.

Fast forward eight years and here we are faced with another general election that holds no possibility of improvement to life in this United States. BOTH Presidential candidates voted for the latest FISA bill that now gives companies who spy on Americans total immunity. Google and their free blogging website Blogger.com is one of those companies that are now immune from any legal prosecution for spying on me and other Americans, who do nothing more than express an opinion. By the way, that is the First Amendment to that Constitution that no one has to follow now.

I want someone or some company in a position of power to stand up and say enough is enough - WE WILL NOT SPY on law abiding Americans. Is Blogger.com's rival blogging site just such a business?? That is yet to be seen but we know blogger.com is not. So I am moving on in the hopes that Blogger.com's competition shops some backbone.

Good Bye

My Vote Can NOT Be Taken For Granted Again

For about half my adult life I’ve been an Independent with moderate to liberal leanings and so most of the time, like it or not, I have ended up voting for the Democratic Party Candidate in the general elections.

Another thing that influenced my vote in the past was the response, or lack of, I received when writing or calling one of my elected officials. When contacting an elected official from the Republican Party I never, I repeat, NEVER got a response of any kind. On the other hand, when contacting an elected official of the Democratic Party, with a request or message, often I received a form letter in the mail, within a few days, thanking me for contacting their office. The letter was never hand written or even personally signed but it was at least an acknowledgement of the fact that I had contacted the person’s office. I surmised that if my elected officials couldn’t remember I had contacted their office long enough to hit the print button on a computer, then they probably wouldn’t remember any of their campaign promises after winning an election either.

I think those days have just come to a screeching halt!!!!

Someone sent me an email claiming that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was blocking efforts by the Judiciary Committee to bring contempt charges against Karl Rove. The email I received went on to list all the Democratic Party members of the Judiciary Committee and urged people to let the Committee members know what they thought of Nancy Pelosi’s actions.

I decided I could easily do that and as I reached for the phone and I decided to begin at the bottom and work my way to the top of the list. The bottom name on the list was Representative Keith Ellison and when a female voice answered the phone I told her the reason for my call by saying, “I know Rep. Ellison is on the Judiciary Committee and I hope he will go ahead and press contempt charges against Karl Rove even over the objections of Nancy Pelosi. It is my understanding that Pelosi is blocking this as well as having taken impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney off the table. Democrats need to find out what Karl Rove has over Pelosi and deal with it and then do what is right, which is make this criminal Administration and their advisor's pay for what they’ve done to the American people."

The woman then asked if I lived in Rep. Ellison's district to which I truthfully answered "No". She then asked if I knew who my Representative was and of course I answered, "Yes, but my Representative in not on the Judiciary Committee and I specifically want to get a message to each and every person on this Judiciary Committee."

The woman then went on to say, "Our office is limited to taking messages from those in Rep Ellison's district only. You can, however communicate this same message to your Representative who can then communicate with Rep. Ellison."

By this time I was fuming so I said, "In other words the Democrats are going to do what they darn well please and any little excuse they can use not to listen to the people of this country is just fine with them. I specifically remember when Rep. Ellison was campaigning for office, him stating a number of times that he would represent all the people. Here is his chance and he has a convenient excuse. Apparently, just as Barack Obama is doing now, Rep. Ellison said what he needed to say about representing all the people in order to get elected. Now that he’s in office he knows he can do as he pleases and all he has to do is claim someone is not in his district. Whether you take down my message about the Judiciary Committee or not, you might want to tell Rep. Ellison that the more get lost type responses like this one, and you may well loose more than just my vote in November. I was willing to suck it up and vote for Mr. Obama in November just to keep John McCain out of office. With a response like this one though, you could pay me a billion dollars and I wouldn't vote for any Democrat on the ticket now."

OMG - I was absolutely fuming!!! I hope this was a one-time, one-person response and that others will at least listen. Right now I am just too angry to find out but hopefully I’ll calm down in the next day or so and at that point I will call more people on the list. In the meantime, maybe I will email all of them and see if the response is a bit more positive.

At this point, my vote in November is most definitely not an assured thing.

Please do contact your Democratic House of Representative Judiciary Committee Members can be found at and let them know your opinion of Nancy Pelosi’s attempted influence.

Please Understand My Apathy

No I’m not trying to get myself in any trouble by using someone else’s acronym. Instead I’m trying to show that while P.U.M.A currently means “Political Unity My A##”, it can also mean different things to different people. Basically it all boils down to many unhappy, unaffiliated, and unconvinced voters who might have a surprise or two in store for both major political parties. We are the “Undecided”, the “Independents”, and the new P.U.M.A’s that both parties should set up and take notice of because they are going to need us in November.

By no means am I a cast-in-stone Democrat but admittedly my political beliefs usually fall just left of the political middle. Meaning, of course, that I’m a liberal to moderate Independent, depending on which party is courting my vote at the moment. I tend to lean toward whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be because, among other issues, as a female I don’t want anyone but me, my doctor, and my god, determining what I can and cannot do with my body. On top of that I’m not at all happy with the war-mongering attitude of the Republican Party either. Nor do I want someone in Washington, DC, who doesn’t even know me, determining who I can love and who I can marry. I don’t tell anyone else what he or she can and cannot do in their personal life so let them stay out of my personal business and everyone else’s.

My first choice of a Presidential Candidate, out of the entire field of Democratic and Republican candidates, was Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico. He’s had foreign affairs experience under the Clinton Administration, he has dealt with state budgets, has experience dealing with illegal aliens and border problems, has a long record on issues that can be traced and examined, and would have made a wonderful President.

Short of Bill Richardson, I was willing to consider any candidate the Democratic Party nominated to carry the party banner even though the candidate may have been far left of what I would have preferred. That was until Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC stepped in and high jacked the entire Democratic Party. They demanded that delegates and super-delegates announce their Presidential Candidate choice before the Convention in Denver. In other words a candidate was again appointed for the people, instead of the people being the ones to do the appointing. This country has been plagued with voting problems and with Presidential Candidates being appointed for us since 2000, so maybe I shouldn’t have expected anything less this time around.

I did expect something different though; I expected a Democratic Party candidate who would lead Democrats and many Independents to the White House as a united force. We expected a candidate who would work to overturn many of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. What we got was Mr. Flip-Flopper, better known as Barack Obama. Many people are now wondering if he even knows what he’s talking about. As “David Brooks” puts it writing on “The American Mind” web site,“But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.”

I’m sorry but this is not my idea of a Presidential candidate. Oh, I know I’ll be accused of being racist, tied to the past, a “Hilbot” as was posted on one web site to someone else, or who knows what else the Obama devotees will come up with next. This, however, has nothing to do with race, sex, or any such thing. This has only to do with the qualifications of the person we need to undo the disasters of the Bush Administration.

The Worst “Lesser Of Two Evils” Presidential Campaign

I’ve voted in a few Presidential campaigns, volunteered on the campaigns of a few candidates, so it’s not as if this is my first Presidential campaign experience. I’ve seen issues and candidates that gave me hope for this country, and also saw things that gave me pause for the collective mentality of my fellow Americans. Rarely have I seen a Presidential race like this one though and hope I don’t ever see a similar one.

We started out with a number of mediocre to good candidates on the Democratic as well as the Republican side that couldn’t get enough votes to continue running or didn’t have the enormous amounts of money to continue a modern day campaign. There were some candidates in the early running that may have stuck to their word a little better than these two are doing. I didn’t agree with the politics of some of these candidates but, in my humble opinion, they would have certainly out shined the two major candidates that we are left with.

If my only choices for Presidential candidates had been from the far right it would have been a toss up between Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, with Tom Tancredo topping the list. Ron Paul claimed he’d deal with the financial mess this country is in, starting with the repeal of the Income Tax among other things. Almost as conservative was Tom Tancredo who vowed to do something about the 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country. He talked the talk and walked the walk by writing to the Mexican President, "In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico’s own policies toward illegal entry across your own southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy."

Then there was Mike Huckabee, the Govornor of Arkansas who opposes abortion, same sex marriage, civil unions, and homosexuals in the military. Mitt Romney, a member of the Mormon church began as pro-choice but after a change of heart became pro-life and claimed, I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative.

Moving over toward the left we had candidates who would have naturally ruled from the middle. Joe Biden Senator from Delaware He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict. From the entire field of Presidential candidates my favorite by far would have been Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico Under President Bill Clinton served as US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 to 1998 when he was appointed US Secretary of Energy. With his extensive foreign affairs experience he would have been much more capable of restoring this country’s standing in the world.

Moving to the far left was Dennis Kucinich a member of the House of Representatives from Ohio. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, advocated US withdrawal from the NAFTA because, in his view “…it causes the loss of more American jobs than it creates”. Criticized during his 2004 campaign for changing his stance on the issue of abortion he explained, "I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose.” Next is Ralph Nader, American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, perennial candidate for President of the United States and spoiler of the 200 election by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes. In fact, all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes.

The only candidate who did not drop out of the Presidential race of their own volition, but in many people’s opinion, including mine, was knifed in the back by Howard Dean and misogamy attacks the DNC did not vigorously condemn was Hillary Clinton. The former first Lady between 1993-2001, and current Senator from New York, is a member of The Senate Armed Services Committee. She believes believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans, supports Roe v. Wade claiming, “Throughout my career, I have fought to ensure that every woman has the right to make the most personal of life decisions with her family and her doctor.” Had she become President she promised to close the gun show loophole and lift the current ban on funding for embryonic stem research. Hillary Clinton set out her top three priorities as President by stating, “When I am President, my top three priorities will be providing quality, affordable health care to all Americans, ending the war in Iraq, and strengthening the middle class.

So here we are left with two Presidential Candidates that will leave voters with a “lesser of two evils” type decision to make on November 4, 2008. A decision that I will find very difficult to make considering the choices I’m left with.

There is the Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama who in 1996 four competitor petitions invalidated and emerged as the only candidate in an Illinios race. Shortly after his 2005 election to the U.S. Senate, Obama he delivered a well-received address arguing “faith should have a greater role in public discourse." Didn’t this country’s Founding Fathers build something into The Constitution addressing faith and religion in government, based on their experiences in England? So why is Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate, advocating a conservative approach to social programs?

Thomas Sowell, an African American, of The Hoover Institution stated in April 29, 2008, article, “There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. At the end of that same article Mr. Sowell seemed to specifically address this election’s first time voters by writing, “Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it. Addressing Rev. Wright’s controversial words Thomas Sowell also said, Spin number one is that Jeremiah Wright's words were "taken out of context." Like most people who use this escape hatch, those who say this do not explain what the words mean when taken in context. In just what context does "God damn America" mean something different?

Spin number two is that Barack Obama says he didn't hear the particular things that Jeremiah Wright said that are now causing so much comment. It wasn't just an isolated remark. Nor were the enthusiastic responses of the churchgoers something which suggests that this anti-American attitude was news to them or something that they didn't agree with. If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church. In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break! You can't be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views. Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that. We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image.”

The Republican Party candidate is John McCain senior Senator from Arizona who served as a pilot in the U.S. Navy in the Vietnam War and was a prisoner of war from 1967 to 1973. He was involved in the “Keating Five scandal” and was one of only six Republican senators to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment after a Massachusetts court affirmed gay unions, he took the position that states could decide their own marriage laws without federal help. John McCain a conservative before he was a liberal before he became a conservative again. In the early 1990s, McCain caught the reform bug and became the Senate's foremost advocate of campaign finance reform, as well as an outspoken opponent of corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending. The one thing that pretty much clinched my opposition of John McCain was the infamous hug given to George Bush negatively commented on John McCain’s military record.

One issue few in this Presidential race seem to focus on is the fact that McCain receives a tax free disability pension that is related to his military service and raises some obvious questions about John McCain’s fitness. It’s reported that John McCain hikes in the Grand Canyon which begs the question, “If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked. Some of John McCain’s war related injuries are reported to be a shattered knee and both arms being broken when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967. In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders. Paul Galanti, another former POW in the group claimed, “McCain’s injuries were serious enough to qualify him for disability, it would not affect his performance as president.” Galanti went on to say, “I don’t know of any physical requirements to be commander in chief”, and “He would have a nice car to drive around in and a nice airplane to fly in.”

Wow, what choices we have before us this November. There is the Democratic Party candidate who flip-flops on issues and throws people under the bus as soon as they no longer serve his purposes. Then we have a Republican Party candidate whose military record leaves questions concerning his physical and psychological health. Unfortunately, there is not a “qualifications list” that the American voter can use as a basis for determining the best person to be the next President of the United States, but there certainly should be. Maybe it would help prevent the situation people like myself find ourselves in where a “toss of the coin” might determine our vote.