The Clintons have been hit hard from all sides, yet still remain Popular.

The Clintons have been hit hard from all sides, yet still remain Popular.

The Clintons appear to have a longer list of people criticizing them than has ever been witnessed in prior democratic races. These "progressives" are noxious and the media will take any sound bite that is exhaled by these blowhards and try to make it sound like breaking news when all it is is breaking wind. Huffington Post, KOS, Move On, plus an assorted list of television news "pundits" such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Andrea Mitchell to name just a few, use comments made by Emil Jones, Senator Clyburn, Michael Moore, The Kennedy's, Maria Shriver, Oprah Winfrey, as if their words are more than the biased opinion that it is.

I got involved in DEFENDING Hillary Clinton after I saw the lack of any investigative journalism over how the caucus state voting was being given way too much importance in trying to create consensus, false as it was, that Hillary could no longer win the nomination. If Hillary Clinton can get 50% of the popular vote with all of those factions working against her on a daily basis, plus Barrack Obama outspending her 3-1 while he still loses key states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, it becomes obvious to me that Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate.

If each of the groups mentioned above have influenced the race by an overall average of 1 percent each, that ends up equaling a 20% overall shift in vote. If these groups had not been so one sided in all of their efforts, Hillary could have had as much as 55% to 60% of the popular vote to Barrack Obama's 40-45% of the popular vote. It's taking too much money and effort to prop Barrack Obama towards the democratic nomination, by know that should becoming clear to the delegates and the super delegates.

The Evil of 30% Interest Rates.

The Evil of 30% Interest Rates.

lol, do I really have to spell out the evil of 30% interest rates? Apparently yes. They'll cut to the Chase, Watch ova ya, Bankrupt Our Assets, Master our Domain, and basically reduce our Capital to next to nothing. Credit card companies are not completely evil, however 30% interest rates, are.

When will the banking industry admit that perpetually in debt consumers need to be given a break if they have been dutifully paying exorbitant credit-card interest rates for years on end. If a bank can effectively make money charging the equivalent of 40% to 50% compounded annual interest on unending credit card debt, why would they have any desire to invest in a small business venture? Allowing banks to charge such high interest rates is causing the banks to not want to do anything else but keep people in debt at high interest rates. Banks have become addicted to high credit card interest rates and they are bringing down the worlds economy in the process. If not the worlds economy, most definitely they are bringing down the economy of the United States.

Not only do banks overcharge on credit card interest rates at an obscene level, but the profits are then used to set up industry in other countries that in turn reduce job opportunities in our own country! As you get more and more in debt, your chance of getting out of debt decrease because the excessive interest you are paying goes to fund job opportunities IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. Eventually the overseas investments trickle back in the form of low cost products that then help you "save" a minimal amount of money. Now you know why Walmart is so popular.

Banks collected 17 billion dollars in "fees and penalties" in 2007. The banking system of overcharging on credit card interest rates and then reinvesting that money in other countries is putting americans out on the streets. If you had to choose between a gas tax "holiday", or cessation of all interest charges on an existing credit card once a person has over time paid back 50% in interest versus what they originally borrowed, we can quickly see how inconsequential a gas tax holiday really is. lol, but at present time we can't even expect the gas tax holiday either.

I started two websites that explore the evil of high credit card interest rates and offer solutions that don't cripple the banks ability to make money while offering a chance for consumers to reduce their own debt.

Credit-Card-Cap.com

Credit-Protector.com

Pastor Wright is no Rodney King.

Pastor Wright is no Rodney King.

The first time I experienced Pastor Wright's televised NCAA speech he came off larger than life in an obnoxious caricature of himself. I'm on my third time watching now and I find it very good in many ways. The real irony is Pastor Wright would probably make a better presidential candidate than Barrack Obama, so why would I want Barrack?

The audience reaction to what Pastor Wright was saying was deafening at times, however the audio mix of the speech was slanted to only hear Pastor Wright. This is huge because the audience reaction inadvertently betrayed the Pastor's message at times.

Wright's basic theme was how blacks have been ostracized and judged poorly for being different. Wright brought up several examples of speech and song to make his points that different is not wrong, it is just, different. Wright appeared to mimic John F. Kennedy's and Eisenhower's dialect as an example of how whites have different accents than blacks, but are accepted.

But then the audience made a huge faux pas that few who watched the event on televsion seemed to notice, perhaps because the audience soundtrack was muted. Pastor White brought up examples of music and how Europeans looked down on African music. The problem with Pastor Whites theme was that as he was mimicking white methodologies, his audience was busting a gut, and then some. The audience was listening, laughing, and proving that blacks and whites both behave in nearly identical ways when exposed to those who are different from themselves.

Pastor White also did not take into account that WHITES ALSO MAKE FUN OF OTHER WHITE DIALECTS as well. It may be more accurate to say that whites are an equal opportunity annoyer, but why is it so wrong to say the same thing about blacks?

I guess what I'm asking is, can't we all just annoy the heck out of each other, from time to time, and still get along?

Calling out all the Progressive-Aggressive Radical Sites...Huffington Post, Moveon, Air America, Kos, and a few others

Calling out all the Progressive-Aggressive Radical Sites...Huffington Post, Moveon, Air America, Kos, and a few others

Huffington Post, Moveon, Air America, Kos, MSNBC and a few others, why do you all love to hate Hillary Clinton so much? Do you really think that if you showed a supportive side to her she would ignore you during her term in office?

I believe the liberal and progressive antipathy towards Hillary is completely about the Iraq War. I don't really support the war in Iraq, however, my frustration about the war has to do with George Bush not pushing for petroleum reduction as a quid pro quo agreement for going to war. You can go to war, George, as long as you also immediately implement a policy that weans us off of foreign oil. Instead, we have helped accelerate the use of even more oil by having so many troops in Iraq that consume A LOT of oil, while doing very little at home to reduce oil consumption and dependence.

I do not mean to minimize the tragedy of soldier deaths by making this about oil, except that the Iraq oil is about oil. Everyday we allow the elite of the world to waste petroleum just makes the inevitable task of reducing petroleum consumption even more difficult. Eventually these shortsighted policies will lead to future wars over oil involving even larger groups of soldiers. George Bush started a war over us maintaining our lifestyle as is, and that is my biggest complaint about the War in Iraq.

I believe that the oil elite subscribe to the philosophy of "Let the marketplace decide". Conserving oil just doesn't matter to them because driving the price of oil up actually gives them massive oil profits and also enables the alternative energy market a better chance of competing and thriving, they rationalize. The problem with this rationalization is that excessive profits from the high price of petroleum are being used to create new products, that rely on even MORE petroleum consumption!

The elite rich can simply use their huge oil profits to continue to live lavishly and wastefully if they choose while the rest of us get subjugated to the remaining oil that trickles down rather than using the fruits of viable alternative energy options, that continue to remain on the back burner.

(to be continued).

Coming Soon, Democratic Officials may have already made Election Tampering Statements

Coming Soon, Democratic Officials may have already made Election Tampering Statements

A case can be made that once Barrack Obama had built up a small lead in the delegate counts, a lead that was primarily based on his caucus wins, the democratic party began working both behind the scenes and via public statements to support Barrack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

The lack of impartiality in the democratic race so early on is not a good thing. Lately, it appears that some comments have been made to try and level the playing field, but I am still concerned that behind the scenes the tilt towards Obama continues irrespective of the millions of votes that remain to be counted. There is some form of election tampering going on via the media. I just don't know if it can be considered illegal or not.

The Mirage behind Barack Obama's Caucus Delegate "Victories".

The Mirage behind Barack Obama's Caucus Delegate "Victories".

The democratic caucus races held in 14 states plus 2 overseas resulted in approximately 333 caucus delegates going to Barrack Obama. Hillary Clinton received 142 caucus delegates, a net gain for Barrack Obama of 191 delegates. No exact caucus popular vote totals exist because 4 caucus states don't release official vote totals, however it appears that approximately 1 million democrats (perhaps slightly more) voted in all of the caucus contests.

In California, approximately 4.2 million voters voted. When all 16 caucus vote totals are added together along with the state of California's vote totals, Hillary Clinton had more total votes than Barrack Obama. I mention this because even though Hillary Clinton had more total votes when California and all the caucus votes are added together, Barrack Obama still received 499 delegates while Hillary Clinton received only 363 delegates. Hillary Clinton received 136 less delegates even though Hillary led in total votes cast from all the caucuses and California vote totals combined.

More startling facts about caucuses. Barrack Obama's 11 highest winning percentages are in caucus states! 13 of Obama's 16 highest winning percentages are in caucus states! It's important to let that statistic sink in. The mathematical odds that Barrack Obama's 11 highest winning percentage margins would ALL be in caucus states would practically be infinitesimal IF caucus state voting was as fair as primary voting.

More proof is available that caucus states have unfairly skewed delegates to Obama's side. In Washington state, Barrack Obama won the caucus vote by a stunning 68% to 31% margin. 10 days later, Washington state held a non-binding primary. The much higher voter turnout resulted in a virtual tie between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. From 68%/31% to 51%/46%, yet Barrack Obama received 53 delegates, Hillary Clinton only 25 delegates.

The evidence is overwhelming that Barrack Obama's success is largely pinioned on his exaggerated wins in the caucus states that require approximately 88% less votes per selected delegate. That's right, caucus states require approximately 88% less voters to select each delegate. Since a disportionately small amount of caucus voters get to select delegates, shouldn't these caucus delegates at the very least not be allowed to sway the super-delegates nor be used as some type of mandate that the super delegates must follow? It is incumbent upon Dean and Pelosi to make it known that the superdelegates CAN vote however they want without retribution.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton is the more popular democratic candidate when voters vote "primary style", in a voting booth and having all day to vote, which is exactly the way voters will vote this upcoming November in the Presidential election.

Obama gets a head start in Indiana, I call it another Elitist Move.

Obama gets a head start in Indiana, I call it another Elitist Move.

Barrack Obama was already in Indiana getting a head start over Hillary Clinton in their upcoming Indiana Primary even before the voting had closed in Pennsylvania. Of course Hillary had to stay in Pennsylvania and thank Pennsylvanians for her win, that was the right thing to do. In the past, Hillary has also left a state early if she lost. But there is a difference this time. Barrack spent an obscene amount of money in Pennsylvania and then hinted that they may have caught Hillary in the polls just a day or two before voters went to the polls. How can Barrack Obama declare victory in a state that he lost by 10 points yet not stay around for the finish to thank those who supported him? Just up and leaving the state of Pennsylvania the way that Obama did was not the politically correct thing to do. In my opinion, you don't blanket the state with a huge amount of television commercials and then just disappear the night of the actual vote. It was wrong, it had a twinge of elitism to it.

You don't spend double or triple what your opponent spends and then head out before the votes are tallied while still declaring victory. To make matters worse, Obama lost in Pennsylvania even and then spent more than twice as much time talking on television during his concession speech than Hillary Clinton spent speaking as the winner. Obama seems to double up on everything. Obama spends double the money as compared to Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and loses. Then Barrack Obama spends double the amount of time talking after a primary defeat compared to his victorious opponent. The only change I am seeing in Barrack Obama is one of largess.

To top it off, Obama's speech wasn't even a concession speech. To those who insist that the Clinton side fights dirty, what Obama did was leave the finish line known as Pennsylvania before crossing it, and I consider that to be another act of disrespect and elitism.

Jocelyn Elders, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton.

Jocelyn Elders, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton.

There are no Commercials on this blog other than the free video below which is actually fun to watch and is film that I shot 20 years ago.

Maybe Jocelyn Elders was right after all. In 1994 at a World Aids day Event held in New York, Jocelyn Elders concurred with a comment that masturbation might be a way to help stop the spread of aids in Africa. She was fired soon after as Surgeon General of the United States. Not only would Masturbation probably have helped reduce the spread of aids, a study has just been released that appears to show a relationship between masturbation and reduced prostate cancer in men under 50 years of age.

Reducing Prostate Cancer???

I just bring this up to point out how the Clintons seem to be damned if they do, and damned if the don't. Hillary Clinton was damned for trying to create health care coverage for all americans during the first six months of Bill Clinton's first term in office. Bill Clinton will probably be damned now for agreeing with the firing of Jocelyn Elders back in 1994. When the Clintons try to appease those who dislike them, they are labeled as not being loyal to their own supporters. When the Clintons back their own supporters, they are labeled as arrogant or high brow.

Does anyone recall that it was just a scant few months ago in which comments were being made that the democratic race was too "peaceful"? I do. The race didn't really heat up until Barrack Obama and his camp tried to make the case that because Hillary Clinton could not pick up enough regular delegates before the convention, she should quit. This was said prior to the Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont primaries in which Hillary won 3 out of the 4 states.

Even after Hillary won 3 out of 4 states, the Obama camp still felt Hillary should quit for the good of the democratic party. The latest spin is that if Hillary doesn't win Pennsylvania by at least 10 points, Hillary should get out. It seems to me the Obama camp's master plan all along has been to sneak in with a bunch of caucus state wins back in January, and then knowing that Hillary could eventually overtake them in the popular vote based on the states that were left, demand she quit the race. Once again, the Clintons get damned for staying in a race that they really were at least the cofavorites in.

I don't believe that Hillary punched first, Michael Moore. I do believe she punched back. I find it astonishing that an Oscar winning documentarian is not be able to follow the real path of this democratic race. It makes me wonder if Michael Moore can make a real documentary, or is he really just creating the fantasy that he sees in his head and using the documentary format to make a movie out of it. Of all people, Michael Moore should be completely outraged that the Obama camp insisted on Hillary dropping out of a race in which the popular vote would have been practically even if Florida and Michigan had been counted. When the Obama camp first insisted Hillary give up, more than a quarter of all americans had yet to vote, and I find that most offensive of all, so should you, Michael Moore.

Barack Obama has 5% more pledged delegates than the corresponding popular vote, made possible by the caucus undervoting in which 88% less voters determine each delegate that is selected. Is this the kind of "majority consensus" that forces superdelegates to cowtow to the Obama camp. With each passing day I see more and more complicity over the misrepresentation of the american voter.

Who Will Save us from the Banks?

Who Will Save us from the Banks?

Recently, the United States Banking cartel declared war on hundreds of thousands of american homeowners, customers, by denying these homeowners access to most of the equity they have built up in their own homes. In the past, a homeowner with a fully paid off 300,000 dollar home could qualify for a substantial Home Equity Line Of Credit (also known as HELOC). Generally, banks may set the HELOC cap at 25% to 50% of the Equity that has been built up in the home. In theory, if a homeowner broke the law and took their entire Home Equity Line Of Credit as cash and disappeared, the banks could still sell the home and recoup the entire HELOC. HELOC's make a nice rainy day nest egg for many people. I view a HELOC as the rubber band that holds our economy together since it literally allows a home owner to fairly access their own assets when they have cash flow problems.

On April 14th, 2008, Banks announced a bold move to reduce most if not all HELOC's down to 10%. This HELOC reduction may decimate the american economy, and it may do it quickly and effectively. Banks have basically stated that home equity ownership is "worth" 10 cents on the dollar. Just as the banks have mishandled the sub prime mortgage crisis and consumer credit card debt, the reduction of HELOC to 10% may actually lead to a bank induced depression. Simple math could have been used to protect banks from customers drawing too much money out too quickly, but instead the banks have chosen knee jerk "solutions" that bring the hammer down hard on many hundreds of thousands of american home owners. The banks hammerhead approach might lead to several hundred thousand premature foreclosures and theft of homeowner equity as desperate homeowners attempt a quick sale of their home at a severely depressed price.

Originally, banks would politely badger their customers into taking a Home Equity Line of Credit. For those customers who originally accepted a 25% to 50% HELOC and have already borrowed over 10%, their nest egg HELOC has been instantly swiped from them. What the banks have done is bait and switch their own customers. Bait and Switch is actually considered illegal in many instances.

Hundreds of thousands of american homeowners are relying on their HELOC to carry them through hard financial times. HELOC's are used by many families to buy time. Buying time allows struggling homeowners to survive a temporary layoff from a job, train for a new career, to back to school, investigate self employment possibilities, get through a medical emergency, or plan a move to a less expensive home. Reducing HELOC to only 10% apparently is going to immediately doom those who have already borrowed more than 10% of their HELOC, and it will also doom those who based their future on the belief that they had their 25% or greater HELOC equity to fall back on for the next few months to perhaps a year or two or three.

By downgrading HELOC to only 10% of the portion of what a homeowner owns in a home, a homeowner who is already over 10% must now IMMEDIATELY STOP any additional withdrawals, yet continue to pay all of their monthly bills with some new form of magical money. The banks may even demand the borrower immediately pay back money until the borrower is back under 10% of their HELOC OR BE FINED first, and then FORECLOSED upon! Banks will now be able to repossess a home owners home even though a home owner might have 70, 80, or 90 percent equity in their own home! Or the Homeowner can try a quick sale, which in turn might result in a huge reduction in the sale price, not to mention a complete and unexpected uprooting of a persons life just because...the BANKS ARE PANICKING!

How can banks justify reducing HELOC to just 10% of the amount of equity one has built up in a home? How can banks further justify suddenly reducing HELOC's to 10% of the value of a fully paid for home? The answer may be that an economic dividing wall has just been instantly created. This dividing wall is much more dangerous than rampant illegal immigration or the War on Terror. The elite of our society have just proclaimed that unless you own a home AND have either substantial savings or an incredibly well paying job, you WILL BE FORCED TO IMMEDIATELY FIND WORK anywhere you can find a job if you previously fell for the HELOC trap that was started several years ago. Many home owners will no longer be able to take a more practical approach to their life issues and call a HELOC "time out" to help figure out what job and career path is best suited for their future.

Keep in mind that HELOC's are probably being used to keep people current with their bills. Why would the banks want to stop ANYBODY from staying current on their bills, especially when many of these bills GO BACK TO THE BANKS TO MAKE CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS and other monthly payments! Banks are saying that any debt you have is more important than any equity you have built up, even if you have a lot more equity than debt! Even if a person reached their HELOC cap of 25-50% and had to sell their home, the banks would not lose a penny as they would be paid back upon the sale of the home. Instead, the banks have put hundreds of thousands of americans at risk of foreclosure by reducing their HELOC to only 10%.

The banks could easily protect themselves AND the homeowner by creating a HELOC glide path for struggling homeowners. Banks could limit the monthly amount that can be withdrawn against a HELOC. Limit the monthy withdrawal to 1% of the total equity in a home. Offer a homeowner a HELOC cap of 10-15% cap on big one-time purchases, or a 25%-50% overall HELOC cap for those that just desire smaller, monthly withdrawals. By limiting the amount that can be taken out per month the bank has completely protected themselves while still allowing the homeowner access to a more realistic amount of their HELOC and just as importantly, buying the homeowner time. The HOLEC that the banks are so afraid of allowing their customers access to is in many instances going right back to the banks to pay off debts!

See how simple math can solve a complex problem? By simply limiting the monthly amount that can be taken out by a homeowner, the banks protect themselves while allowing homeowners fair access to a reasonable amount of their HELOC.

While I can commend the banking system for wanting to prevent certain types of HELOC abuse, saner solutions are available that don't throw out the honest homeowner with the criminals. But who will stand up to the banks and make them see the error of their ways? Home equity was one of the few things people could call their own, now that has been taken away as well in what can only be called a not too well thought out, or perhaps purposely sinister bait and switch maneuver by the banks.

Don't let your vote be Bought by the Highest Bidder.

Don't let your vote be Bought by the Highest Bidder.

Obama supporters on Huffington Post gleefully write that Obama is outspending Hillary Clinton by margins of 4-1 or greater in Pennsylvania. How can a candidate that is running as a Washington outsider outspend a Washington insider by such a wide margin, still lose in several important states, but still be considered the "favorite" to win the democratic nomination?

Why would any true democrat be gleeful at having a nominee with the biggest pockets barely eeke out a lead over another popular candidate who is spending significantly less money? It sounds like forces outside of the mainstream democrat want Barrack Obama to defeat Hillary Clinton, even if these outside forces have no intention of voting for Barrack this fall.

That would help explain how Barrack Obama can operate a money guzzling Hummer campaign in a hybrid campaign. How can a real democrat find it a good thing that the candidate that guzzles the most money can barely create a tiny lead in the popular vote while losing all of the big states AND a majority of the swing states?

Barrack Obama outspent HIllary Clinton by 4-1 in Ohio, and lost. Apparently Barrack Obama will outspend Hillary Clinton by a margin of 4-1 in Pennsylvania as well. If Hillary Clinton can win the overall popular vote of these two states while Barrack Obama outspends Hillary Clinton by 400%, what type of message is that sending?

Is it reasonable to assume that if Hillary Clinton were outspending Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in Ohio and Pennsylvania that Hillary would have won both states by 20% or more? Just who is the more popular candidate? I thought "change" meant not buying the popular vote by spending the most money. When Barrack Obama speaks of change, is he actually speaking of the change in your pocket?

My theory is that Barrack Obama's supporters are comprised of 15% of all Republicans (who may or may not vote for him in the fall,) 70% of all independents, and 40% of all democrats. I futher theorize that Hillary Clinton is probably supported by 60% of all democrats, 20% of all independents, and 10% of all republicans (who probably won't vote for her in the fall). Please note that these two sets of numbers do not equal 100% each because each group of voters varies in size, however the democrat numbers do equal 100%, and that is the key.

Hillary Clinton is most likely favored by more real democrats than Barrack Obama is. Shouldn't the candidate that is more popular within their own political party get the nomination?

If more real democrats support Hillary Clinton than Barrack Obama as I am theorizing, then there are more democrats who could become demoralized and disenfranchised if their first choice, Hillary Clinton, is defeated by a "crossover hodge podge of support" style of candidate who has had a huge spending advantage, yet still has lost in several key states. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton. HIllary Clinton has not outspent Barrack Obama by a 4-1 margin in any state and then lost.

Which gets me to my final point, Do you want to your vote to be bought by the highest bidder?

Budgetgate-2

Budgetgate-2

Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by less than two percentage points in total votes (when Michigan and Florida are counted the vote totals are almost a tie).

Even the though the popular vote is very close, Hillary Clinton trails Barrack Obama by 7% in total delegates. Yet the media doesn't report this as a delegate distortion, instead they make it seem like it is Hillary that is trying to take advantage of a losing situation and win by getting the super delegate vote.

The caucus states and their delegates were selected using 88% LESS votes per each delegate that was selected as compared to the states that held actual primaries. The Obama camp puffed up their caucus wins in an effort to manipulate the media into getting Hillary to drop out or make it look like Hillary was destroying the democratic party by staying in. The Obama camp has also used the caucus states votes to convince superdelegates that that they have an unquestionable mandate and that the super delegates should fall in line.

Caucus states don't allow voters all day to vote, nor do caucus states allow for voting to be done in the privacy of a voting booth. The media has focused way too much attention trying to prematurely end the democratic voting process and have overemphasized the importance of minimal vote totals in caucus states to try and end a very close race.

Is it possible that the news stations want Hillary to quit because the extended race is causing the news stations to go way over budget covering two different races that were supposed to have already combined into one? Budget Gate, as I call it, may exist, but should we expect the media to turn themselves in?

KCBS in Los Angeles has already announced a payroll cut and a cut in news jobs. Is it possible that the cable news stations and their on air talent and the writers that seem to be hostile towards Hillary want her out and the sooner the better, or perhaps they risk losing some of their own jobs?

Budgetgate, or how the Media is Keeping their Job by making sure Hillary Clinton Drops out of the Race.

Budgetgate, or how the Media is Keeping their Job by making sure Hillary Clinton Drops out of the Race.

Is Budgetgate real? Did the media relentlessly gang up on Hillary Clinton in an effort to get her to resign from the race to save their own jobs?

Is it possible that the democratic race has gone on much longer than anyone anticipated and in combination with covering John McCain this has caused some news stations to go over their payroll budgets? Is it possible that the incessant "Hillary is dividing the party", "Hillary should quit", and "Hillary cannot get the necessary delegates before the convention" banter (Obama can't get the necessary delegates either) that has gone on for the past few weeks had a sinister ulterior motive?

If Hillary is out of the race, does it not become easier to cover the remaining two candidates from a logistical and budgetary perspective? ABC just announced a series of payroll cuts to trim their news budget. Could other news channels be far behind?

If there is even a smidgen of validity to my hypothesis, will the very people committing the act of manipulating the news so they can save their own job, report it? Doubtful.