Media REFUSES TO UPDATE NORTH CAROLINA MIS-Vote!

Apparently there were votes that were counted twice in North Carolina that may have incorrectly swelled the final margin of victory by anywhere from 1-4% from what it actually was. However, NOBODY in the media will update their election totals from that night nor offer a retraction to their erroneous vote totals that were used to try and create the lie that Hillary had failed hard in North Carolina.

Apparently North Carolina is finalizing their results on May 22,23. Meanwhile Barack Obama trys to force Hillary to quit so that he can stop campaigning and then downplay the caucus cheating his side engaged in as meaningless since he would have won anyway. If in fact Hillary lost by 11% instead of 14%, it will also mean that the walk up vote from the actual election day will be even closer than that margin because Barack had a 100,000 mail in lead. In other words, it is possible that Hillary only lost the walk up vote by a 6-8% margin.

Hillary Clinton not only was trailing in the polls by 22-25% just two weeks before the democratic primary in North Carolina, but Hillary had actually closed the deficit to as little as 11%. How can that be seen as a huge Barack Obama victory when the same media attempted to downplay the Pennsylvania victory by saying that Barack Obama came back from a 22-25% deficit, and had closed it down to 10%!

I implore any foreign media with an objective eye to start reporting the truth and quit taking feeds from the United States news establishment and instead start reporting what is really going on, a coup of the democratic party by progressive/aggressives posing as democrats.

Hillary Rocks in Century City!

Hillary Clinton vowed to fight on in Century City last night in front of an enthusiastic and eager crowd that paid 150 to 1,500 dollars each for the chance to be with their hero and future president, Hillary Clinton. It is clear from the capacity filled venue that those attending are "not your Obama's angry internet trolls" but nice people that are actually perplexed at how the media keeps portraying Obama as the winner and that Hillary MUST quit before the convention.

Never before in the history of democratic nomination races has a candidate been menaced into quitting like Hillary Clinton has by the media, and the media only.

The reasons the progressive/aggressives want Hillary to quit are obvious. Hillary Clinton will garner more popular votes and more delegates than Barack Obama from February 19th until the end of the democratic races in June. Howard Dean has already stated that that whomever has the stronger momentum over the final 10 campaigns could have an edge in convincing delegates and superdelegates to vote for them.

The Obamamites know Hillary will out gain Obama in the both the popular vote and the delegate count from Feb. 19 and on and are freaking out amidst the exterior calm they portend to portray. Their latest attempt to defuse their false lead was to announce John Edwards at a rally in an effort to pretend that Hillary Clinton did not win West Virginia by 41 percent.

Additionally, the Obama camp knows it is only a matter of time before their caucus cheating controversy is exposed. It can be mathematically proved that not only was Barack Obama's delegate lead built on cheating in the caucus states, but Barack's refusal to acknowledge Michigan and Florida will just show him for the mathematical manipulator that he has been all along.

If you are news media from another country, please use news material found on this blog to begin your own investigation into the caucus cheating that Barack Obama orchestrated. Hillary Clinton has a larger share of the democratic party than Barack Obama, but the media and US internet websites continue to lie about this in an effort to Boost the weaker candidate, Barack Obama.

Coming Soon, Hillary and the Seventeen Dwarves

Same Sex Marriage Approved By California Supreme Court.

Same Sex Marriage Approved By California Supreme Court.

Congratulations guys for coming out of the closet (not that there's anything wrong with that). However, it's too little too late.

In case anyone feels I am mocking the California Supreme Court's ruling today over same sex marriage, I am not.

I am actually mocking the attempt by the Barack Obama camp to try and overshadow Hillary Clinton's 41 point margin of victory in West Virginia, and the Nebraska primary vote, by introducing John Edwards the day after Hillary's huge victories.

The Edwards announcement was not a momentum changer, it was just touted as one by the media as an excuse to stop talking about West Virginia. The media never even got around to mentioning that in Nebraska Hillary Clinton only lost by two points in the Nebraska primary, a stark difference to the 35% point loss Hillary suffered at the hands of a cheating Barack Obama in the Nebraska caucus vote.

Let us not also forget the Washington State primary, which showed a 30 point margin of victory REDUCTION from their previous caucus vote. Barack Obama's caucus state wins are ALL TAINTED, and the mathematical proof is becoming more and more self evident with each passing day.

The More "They" Change, the More "They" Stay the Same.

The More "They" Change, the More "They" Stay the Same.

With every twist and turn of the democratic race, it becomes clear to me that, "The More "they" Change, the More "they" Stay the Same". Andrews, Lewis, McGovern, Richardson, Kerry, Reich, Kennedy, Oprah, etc, had no bearing on the West Virginia Results. lol, maybe they did. Maybe it would have been a 50% margin without their involvement.

Now enters Edwards. Cue the pomp and circumstance please.

Hillary has GAINED popularity over the final stretch of the democratic race, having actually received more popular votes after February 19th than Barack Obama and his merry band of misfits. The Huffington Post, NY Times, MSNBC and many many others have stomped on Hillary Clinton and still Hillary Clinton gains in popular vote over Barack Obama. It would be for Barack Obama to just give up and accept that Hillary is the more solid to the core democratic candidate, and the democratic presidential nominee.

Overheard on ABC nightline, Barack Obama's coalition is made up of eggheads and african americans. Truer words were never spoken. As word and statistical proof spreads that Barack Obama's camp cheated in the caucus state races and will only seat Michigan and Florida if their delegates don't matter, it's time to end this charade of charlatans cascading to Barack Obama's side as if they just won first place on Survivor. All the charaders are doing is making Barack's boat list to one side before it quickly sinks into the Ariannas Trenches.

The more they change, the more they stay the same.

The Second Nail in the Caucus Coffin against Obama, NEBRASKA's Primary results show a Virtual Tie.

The Second Nail in the Caucus Coffin, NEBRASKA's Primary results show a Virtual Tie.

First it was Washington State revealing a swing from 68%-31% in favor of Obama in the Caucus vote to 50% to 47% in the non-binding primary. Now Nebraska reveals a 68%-32% Barack Obama lead SHRINKING to a 49%-47% margin in their primary vote.

Isn't it pretty obvious that Barack Obama CHEATED in the caucus state votes? Isn't it pretty obvious that without Barack Obama taking his defeats like a man in both Florida and Michigan, and then cheating in the caucus state votes, he would NOT be ahead of Hillary Clinton right now?

Time to look yourself in the mirror and realize the lies that have been made on your behalf, Barack Obama, and do the right thing.

Proof of HUFFINGTON POST HARASSMENT against Hillary Clinton.

Proof of HUFFINGTON POST HARASSMENT against Hillary Clinton.

Just below is a graphic of the Prediction I made on www.HillaryClintonforum.net the day of the West Virginia Primary. I predicted that The Huffington Post would view the West Virginia democratic election results in racist terms no matter what the result.

Please let this sink in for a moment. One day BEFORE Huffington Post ran their headline (shown at the bottom of this editorial), I was able to predict what their headline would be! The Huffington Post is a sham. Predictable and hostile venom being spewed towards Hillary Clinton on an HOURLY basis, just because they can.

THE DAY AFTER I HAD MADE MY PREDICTION about what the Huffington Post Headline would be, you can see for yourself that I was 100% correct.

As I predicted a day before it happened, If Hillary wins by a big amount, The Huffington Post will state that the racists came out in droves to lead Hillary to victory, and if the victory falls short, the Huffington Post will run a headline that states Hillary Clinton's racist base is eroding. JUST ONE DAY AFTER HILLARY CLINTON WON BY 41 POINTS IN WEST VIRGINIA OVER BARACK OBAMA they ran the above headline. I wouldn't expect this type of "news reporting" in the most repressive regime on the planet, but in the United States, we simply call it free speech. Pathetic.

The Huffington Post is a biased electronic rag of a website that has a pre set agenda to get Barack Obama the nomination at any cost! They are not a legitimate news organization, yet MSNBC constantly quotes them. The fix is in, and it is AGAINST Hillary Clinton and has been going on for several months. Please pass this on to everybody you know, enough is enough.

In what is probably an additional twist to this story, the Huffington Post has LIED. The honest, hardworking Hillary Clinton supporters are NOT eroding, not after a 41% victory over Barack Obama in West Virginia. The Huffington Post not only calls Clinton's voting base racist, but then tries to claim the racist voting base is shrinking as well. These are the actions of an ill tempered juvenile, not what I would expect from an internet news website that MSNBC quotes on a sometimes hourly basis.

The Final Insult was the Huffington Post FAILING TO MENTION that in Nebraska, Barack Obama only won by TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS after winning a Nebraska caucus BY 36% earlier this year! Further proof that Barack Obama cheated in the caucus state votes and has stolen as many as 150 delegates even without counting Florida. In Washington State, the EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED! Obama won the caucus by a 68-31% margin, then won a non-binding primary by a 50-47 percent margin!

Any superdelegate or delegate that has been influenced by the Huffington Post has been had, please reconsider your vote. This example I am providing is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Goal Posts Keep Getting Moved by the Barack Obama Camp.

Those Goal Posts Keep Getting Moved Forward by the Barack Obama Camp.

If you listen to the progressive/aggressive media and internet news coverage, the claim is being made that Hillary keeps moving the goal posts back. The reality that is not discussed by the pundits is that it has been Barack Obama that continually moves the goal posts back and forth based on how the math affects his delegate count.

When Barack Obama was still gaining momentum and planning a secret coup in the caucus states, Obama moved the goal posts way far back by not allowing Florida's votes to count AND by taking his name off of the Michigan ballot. Neither of these moves had anything to do with following the will of the democratic party and everything to do with mathematical strategy. Why allow two states with large delegate totals to count when neither state would help Barack as much as they would would help Hillary Clinton in the delegate race?

After moving the goal posts back and not allowing Florida and Michigan to count, Barack Obama achieved a miraculous reception by winning a dozen caucus state votes in February. What made the wins "miraculous" was they outdistanced Barack Obama's primary wins by 10%, a 20% overall swing. In fact, Barack Obama's 11th largest winning percentage wins are ALL in caucus states, none in primary states. The odds of this being a statistical coincidence are in the millions. As soon as these miraculous caucus wins had been achieved, suddenly, Barack Obama moved the goalposts WAY FORWARD by saying there was no way that Hillary could catch her. Goal posts out, then goal posts in, courtesy of Barack Obama.

There's something about stealing an election in the caucus states and then proclaiming to the other candidate that they get out, that bugs me. First the goal posts were moved way way farther away when Barack saw an opportunity to nullify both Florida and Michigan, and then Barack moved the goalposts way in just a scant 4 weeks later after stealing close to 142 delegate votes from the caucus states and his top three primary wins.

This delegate advantage has then been used on a daily basis by the media, the internet progressive/aggressive internet news sites such as Huffington Post and others, and the Barack Obama camp to destroy Hillary Clinton in the popularity poll and used to intimidate other delegates into going for Barack Obama.

George Bush Says "I Gave Up Golf For The Troops"

George Bush Says "I Gave Up Golf For The Troops"

George Bush Says "I Gave Up Golf For The Troops". I am shocked by this statement by George Bush, I probably am in awe of it as well. However, George Bush's statement is "rife" with the further ironies it brings up. Dick "Duck" Cheney went around his ranch shooting shotgun pellets at defenseless birds. What does that say about Dick Cheney and his lack of respect for the troops since the troops are not facing a defenseless opposition.

The Hijacking of the Democratic Party.

The Hijacking of the Democratic Party.

The Hijacking of the Democratic Party by Progressive/Aggressives probably has it's roots in Howard Dean's tumultuous and instant crashing and burning during the 2004 democratic race, and the appointment of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and her failure to get american troops home as promised. Both Pelosi and Dean failed in their first attempt at acquiring power in too fast of a fashion so now they want to be known for something they successfully DID, not something they tried to do but failed at.

Dean was unceremoniously dumped in the 2004 democratic race after the "microphone gate" incident. "Microphone gate" consisted of somebody nefariously, or accidentally, muting out all the background sounds at a Dean afterprimary rally, except for the microphone Dean was yelling into. It instantly made Dean unfairly look like he was having a mental breakdown and pretty much ruined any momentum he had left. As I recall, Keith Olbermann gleefully played the clip of "microphone gate" over and over on his show, giggling and cackling anew with each and every replay.

Nancy Pelosi is trying to earn her own credo, a credo that originally was to be earned by getting our troops out of Iraq. That has not happened yet so something else, something big, needs to happen for her to justify her own position as speaker of the house.

The Clintons have their own people who they want to see do well, people who have been loyal to the Clintons over the past 20 years. An additional problem may be a perception that the Clintons will do it "their way" and exclude people like Dean, Pelosi, and Obama should Hillary become president.

It has taken a progressive/aggressive coup to try and topple the Clintons, and I believe this coup has to be called a failure for several reasons. The Progressive/Aggressive coup of the democratic party has been rushed along at too fast of a pace. In an effort to deny Hillary Clinton a possible popular vote victory, the progressive/aggressives have now resorted to calling whites who vote for Hillary Clinton "n West Virginia as "racists". Are these real democrats saying these things? Not real democrats, they are progressive/aggressives, perhaps launched by Arianna Huffington in her several year long quest to try and mold a third party.

Barack Obama has had to link the Bill Clinton presidency to the George Bush regime. Two more polar opposite presidencies could not be found. It is an insult to the extreme most definitely for the Clinton administration. lol, perhaps for the Bush administration as well.

Additionally, it has taken the sullying of the Clinton by Obamamite aggressives to give Barack Obama his "edge". Wait a minute, Barack Obama actually has no edge. If not for undervote caucus votes resulting in bloated delegate counts going to Barack Obama along with a couple of states giving Barack Obama way too many delegates compared to the overall popular vote in those specific states, there would be a swing of at least 142 delegates right now, perhaps even a few more. This without even counting Florida and Michigan. Yes, Hillary would actually be leading right now in the delegate race if Florida were counted.

Another tried and true Obama tactic, never allow your opponents traction, even if the will of the people demands it as is the case with Florida. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi once again find themselves in the unenviable task of attempting a change faster than it reasonably should occur, and they have had to throw the Clintons and at least half of the democratic popular vote, to do it.

Why Hillary MUST NOT be forced to quit by the Democratic Party.

Why Hillary MUST NOT be forced to quit by the Democratic Party.

Even though I believe the caucus state results have been unfairly and unwisely tainted against Hillary Clinton for the past couple of months, I believe there is a very logical path to take until the convention. Let the convention be where the democratic nominee is decided. The advantage to this approach is if in fact the republicans can do a swift boat style of damage to Barack and they begin their attack early enough, Barack may agree that for the good of the party he should step down and let Hillary be the candidate.

Or is this just a one way street? Only Hillary should give up, and give up now, and under no circumstances should Barack give up? That does seem the way the Obmamamites want it, and I find it very suspicious.

It's All About Math for Obama, and it Always has been.

Its All about the Math for Obama and it Always has been

The real reason Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot had less to do with following democratic rules and procedures and more to do with math. Back in January it made sense to not support any action that would accelerate the number of delegates that Hillary could get. Knowing that February would have a lot of caucus delegates up for grabs, it made no sense to allow Hillary Clinton to gain a sizeable delegate advantage before the February caucuses.

There was no nobility in Obama's decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. Even if the state had ended up in a tie, at the time that Obama decided to take his name off the ballot, a tie still favored Hillary because Hillary was leading early on. Further proof of this mathematical chicanery can be found in Barack Obama's most recent "peace offering". Once the Florida and Michigan delegates can no longer change the outcome of the race, then they can be seated.

The mathematical pathology of the Barack Obama campaign is chilling to say the least.

My Challenge to College Math Professors results in a Failing Grade.

My Challenge to College Math Professors.

If you are a professor of Math at a college, I have a math problem for you to solve. What are the odds that the top 10 and top 11 highest winning percentages for Barack Obama would all come from caucus states? What are the odds that the top 11 caucus wins and zero primary wins are just a coincidence, and how much do the odds reduce if Barack Obama happened to have better organization in all of those caucus states than Hillary Clinton?

The critical data to work with is the following. Through May 10th of 2008 there were 32 primaries and approximately 17 caucuses. What are the odds that Barack Obama's top 11 highest percentages were all from caucus states? I believe the odds of the 11 highest winning percentages all being from caucus states to be in the millions, and possibly even the billions. I believe that at a miniumum 3 primaries should be mixed in among Barack Obama's top 10 or 11 winning percentages for the results to be considered mathematically legitimate.

If you read the comments section you will find additional information that may help you with your calculations. Otherwise you can keep it simple and just go with the data provided above.

I would like a college professor to give me their calcuation results, or they can make it a class project and have their students do it.

Thank you in advance. It's been a over a week since I made my challenge and after an initial attempt seemed to stall, nobody else seems able to provide a mathematical probability.

Hillary PLEASE don't quit, don't let the Media Aggressives Win.

Hillary PLEASE don't quit, don't let the Media Aggressives Win.

There are few progressives in this country. Most Progressives are actually "Aggressives" in saliva stained clothing. While these Progressive/Aggressives try and drive Hillary Clinton from the race as soon as possible, Hillary Clinton is right for staying in the race.

I believe the strongest case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is the misapportioned caucus state delegate votes. The caucus state delegate votes that should have gone to Hillary Clinton that went to Barack Obama instead resulted in a loss of TWO delegate votes per every delegate misvote. So if we verify that Obama got 80-100 extra delegates from the caucus state votes that should have gone to Hillary Clinton, (which is very EASY to do), that actually is a 160-200 gain for Hillary Clinton in the actual delegate race.

As I examine the delegate voting tallies for the following caucus states and a couple of primary states, please note that in each and every scenario Barack Obama RETAINS HIS LEAD in the delegate count and that his lead remains SIGNIFICANT. In most instances the delegate reduction still leaves Barack with around 60% of the delegates. This is very important to understand as I am trying to show that the bloated delegate numbers that Barack Obama currently is receiving from most caucus states and some primary states doesn't accurately represent the true popularity of each candidate in the states mentioned below.

Should Barack Obama really get 8 delegates from the Virgin Islands to Hillary's 0? Wouldn't a 5-3 vote be more reasonable? A 6 delegate shift.

Should Barack Obama really get 53 delegates from Washington to 25 for Hillary when the non binding primary vote held 10 days later showed the two were a LOT closer than the caucus vote? Instead of 53-25, how about 42-36? A 22 delegate shift.

Do the democratic citizens of Nebraska really support Barack Obama 22 - 8 in delegates? Is that really representational of the democrats in the state of Nebraska? How about 17-13? A 10 delegate shift.

Should Illinois really give Barack 132 delegates to Hillary's 49 when the most logical mid point is 121 to 60? Maybe even less since Barack got a huge concentration in a few areas of the state. A 22 delegate shift none the less.

Should South Carolina really give 28 delegates to Barack and only 12 to Hillary when the South Carolina popular vote only went to Barack by a 55%-45% margin? How about 23-17? A 10 delegate shift. Lol, Pennslyvania went to Hillary with that same 10 percent margin of victory yet Hillary picked up less of a delegate margin gain than South Carolina, even though South Carolina is a LOT smaller than Pennsylvania in total delegates.

Why should Texas and Nevada give more delegates to Barack when Hillary won the popular vote in both? A minimum 24 delegate shift.

Does Idaho really favor Barack by a 18-3 delegate count? Is that really representative of the democrats in that state? How about a more reasonable 13-8 victory for Barack? A 10 delegate shift.

Is Kansas really in favor of Barack by a 26 to 10 delegate count? Really? How about 21-15 instead? Another shift of 10 delegates.

Is Minnesota really in favor of Barack by a 58 to 27 delegate count? Really? Is Obama as well loved in Minnesota as he is in Illinois? How about 49-36 instead, a shift of 18 delegates.

North Carolina with its staunch plus 90% black vote for Barrack Obama, still only managed a 14% margin of victory. How can larger victories of delegates come from the caucus states than what was given out in North Carolina?

I just found 142 delegates, 71 less for Barack, 71 more for Hillary, by merely making the delegate allocations reasonable and fair. I'm not sure I hit all the states that have out of whack delegate voting totals either. North Carolina received 28 bonus delegates for NOT moving the date of their election. Is that fair? Were Michigan and Florida offered bonus delegates to not move their vote date into January of 2008?

Would the media aggressives and the television pundits really be crowing that the race was over if Barack had 71 less delegates and Hillary had 71 more delegates right now? Add in Florida and you see that Hillary would actually be winning right now. Florida is to Hillary what Illinois is to Barack Obama. How the Barack camp can look anyone in the eye and deny Florida to Hillary just proves that they cannot be fully trusted. As for the media progressive/aggressives, they need to be popped like the pimple that they are.

The above calculations do not count either Florida or Michigan. Florida and Michigan is not the central issue at the moment. It is the miscount in the caucus states and Obama's abuse of the miscount to then discredit Hillary Clinton back in late February that concerns me. The Obama camp used the miscounts in the caucus races to sway delegates and super delegates, that is the second issue that should be on the table right now.

The reason the Progressive/Aggressives want Hillary to resign is so her delegates jump ship and obfuscate the overall delegate count. If Hillary Clinton delegates jump ship they bury the statistical truth that the Obama camp stole the election in the caucus states with inaccurate and inflated caucus delegate vote counts.

The Numbers don't Lie, but the Caucus Numbers did Lie.

The Numbers don't Lie, but the Caucus Numbers did Lie.

If you followed the number tallies in both elections tonight, did you notice how both candidates started with big leads, but by the time all the votes were counted the final vote was a lot closer? It is basically a statistical inevitability that as more and more votes are counted, the totals naturally come closer together. Early on, Hillary was winning 58% to 42% in Indiana, then barely hung on for a 51%-49% victory margin. Obama was winning early, 70% to 30% in North Carolina, but that lead was cut in half and then some with a final victory margin of 56%-42%. In both cases, the early margins were SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED.

The above scenario is an exact analogy when comparing the caucus state votes and the primary state votes. The caucus state votes involve much smaller voter samples, so a larger margin of victory can be had. The problem with this is this larger margin of victory IS NOT indicative of the will of the actual population of the entire state.

Barack Obama won approximately 164 more delegate votes in the caucuses than Hillary Clinton, but you have to multiply that by two to get the net effect. So Barack actually benefited by 328 delegate votes via the caucuses. If Barack had actually won all the caucus states by a true representation of his popularity, Barack would have picked up significantly less delegates from all the caucus states than the 164 delegate margin that he did actually get.

I haven't done the specific calculations yet but whatever less delegate numbers Obama should have gotten then needs to be multiplied by two because Hillary picks one up for every one that Obama loses. Ethically speaking, Obama should have picked up approximately 80 delegates instead of 164 from all the caucus states. The 84 delegates Hillary did not get actually equals 84 X 2 or a 168 delegate loss for Hillary. Since Obama's 11 largest winning percentages were ALL in caucus states, it is clear that Obama received more than his fair share from the caucus process.

Add in Florida and Hillary would actually be leading in the delegate count right now, even with tonights loss in North Carolina! I believe EVERYBODY in the media has glossed over the caucus voting inaccuracies because they are basically lazy.

I don't mean to torture everybody with this truth about the caucuses, but there is a way to calculate the actual number of delegates that Obama SHOULD have picked up from the caucus votes versus the extra delegate votes that Obama actually picked up. Simply calculate the winning percentage that Obama achieved in the primary states and apply that winning percentage to the caucus states. On top of that, a couple more percentage points could perhaps be added just to try to bend over backwards being fair about this issue. When the caucus state delegate recalcuation is done, the delegate race is either a virtual tie, or Hillary is ahead, this is without counting Florida and Michigan. You know Florida, the state with all the retirees that would tend to vote for Hillary. Florida is to Hillary as Illinois was to Obama.

Remember, even a North Carolina win of 56% to 42% does not come close to in winning percentage to 14 of Obama's caucus wins! Obama's 11th largest wins were ALL in undervote caucus states.. As you can see, each caucus state undervote total never truly showed the true will of the people because the caucus vote total is just too small of a sample size. Just as you witnessed large decreases in the margin of victory from the Indiana and the North Carolina votes last night as the vote count progressed, the same reality was never applied to the caucus states because the vote totals are just too low, and the locations and times of the caucus events and the public nature of these votes unfairly favor Obama's voters. Primaries tend to be much much fairer because there are way more locations and a person has a 12 hour window of opporunity to vote in AND they get the privacy of a voting booth to fill out their ballot.

When you also factor in all the momentum and extra delegates that Obama picked up from the caucus state votes and all the resulting negative press that Hillary Clinton received for not getting out of a race she was actually winning, it's amazing that Hillary has done as well as she has.

Did Obama really make fun of the Temporary Gas Tax Repeal???

Did Obama really make fun of the Temporary Gas Tax Repeal???

Barack Obama has attempted to ridicule the temporary gas tax repeal even as he outspends Hillary Clinton in Indiana and North Carolina by 3-1. Does anybody see the hypocrisy in outspending Hillary Clinton by 3-1 in the state of Indiana and North Carolina while ridiculing Hillary Clinton for trying to save citizens of these two states a morsel of their own money?

I just don't think Mr. Obama understands just how elitist he can be at times. "You can't have your miniscule temporary gas tax repeal, but I get to outspend my opponent 3-1."

Is it wise for Barack Obama to ridicule Hillary Clinton and the citizens of Indiana and North Carolina for favoring the saving of a small amount of gas tax money for a temporary period of time even as Big Bucks Obama outspends Hillary Clinton 3-1 in both Indiana and North Carolina? I personally find it unnacceptable that for Obama to outspend Hillary Clinton by 3-1 in Indiana and North Carolina to influence voters, yet look down on a temporary gas tax repeal that lets these same voters keep a portion of their own gas tax money.

I believe it is possible that when the government gets a taste of it's own ineffectual medicine, they may actually do something about it. Repealing the gas tax for a short time reminds the government that they have failed on several fronts when it comes to our addiction to oil. It's called backlash, and the economists forgot to add it into their equations when trying to judge Hillary Clinton's proposal.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

One Person, One Vote Concept Destroyed by the Caucus State Votes.

Obama gained a questionable advantage in the democratic electoral process when his caucus state wins far exceeded the realistic margin of victory he would have gained if there had been an actual state primary vote instead of a caucus vote. The caucus state results have netted Barrack Obama an out of whack delegate gain of 169 delegates when compared to the number of people that actually voted. The caucus state wins for Barrack Obama were so out of the realistic margin of victory that if Hillary Clinton were awarded 4 MORE State of California primary victories by the same margin she won the first California Primary, Hillary Clinton would still net less delegates than Barrack Obama did from the caucus state votes.

Lets break down that last statistic to truly understand its meaning. Hillary Clinton won in a convincing manner in California yet 4 Californias and the 16 million and 785,548 votes they represent, including a winning margin for Hillary Clinton of 1 million and 665,340 votes, WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to overtake Barrack Obama's inflated margin of victory in all the caucus states that involved a vote of only 1.1 million total voters and only 400,000 more votes for Obama. It appears it would take 9 Californias and 33 million votes with a 3.3 million vote advantage for Hillary Clinton to undo the advantage the caucus states inaccurately contributed to the 2008 democratic presidential race.

Do you see why the moment that Barrack Obama had overwhelmingly won undervote caucus states that his camp began bellowing that Hillary could not catch them no matter what! If the Caucus state margins of victory that Barrack Obama won by had actually represented the accurate winning percentage of that states voters, then there is no controversy. Yet look what happened in the State of Washington. Obama won the caucus vote by a 68-31% vote, but then in the non-binding primary vote held 10 days later, Barrack Obama barely won 50% to 49.6%. The danger of caucus vote states is that the much smaller voting sample WILL NOT actually represent the true will of that states populace. Does Barack Obama's "change" involve not accurately representing the true popular vote of each state in the country?

By setting up a caucus system in which one vote actually represents the will of 10 voters, the one person, one vote system has been throw off the rails and Barrack Obama has used this bias to create even more momentum and tumult among the democratic party. It was not until Barrack Obama suggested that Hillary was staying in the race and hurting the democratic party that Hillary's overall popularity dipped in the polls.

Just prior to the Pennsylvania primary, Barrack Obama had 57% of all delegates, but only 51% of the popular vote, further proof how the caucus states have influenced the 2008 Presidential election far beyond the number of people who actually voted.

The Hillary Effect.

The Hillary Effect

Hillary Clinton has a few things going for her that might make her a great president. For starters, Hillary has influenced at least one past presidential race. It was Hillary holding up a sign for Bill Clinton to read during a 1992 debate that said "It's the Economy, Stupid" that helped Bill Clinton gain traction in his first presidential campaign and subsequent presidency. The following eight years of being wife of a president also makes Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified since no other presidential candidate has ever had that viewpoint of the presidency.

Moving forward to the 2008 presidential campaign and situations have arisen that showcase why Hillary Clinton might make a great president. For starters, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was originally funded in 2007 with serious, maximum donor amounts of $2,300. In 2008 Hillary's donations have now morphed into hundreds of thousands of smaller donations of anywhere from 10 dollars to a hundred dollars. Yes, Hillary Clinton's campaign lives on and is thriving at the hand of the true blue collar american citizen.

How many candidates from past elections started with one kind of very specific type of a funding constituency but then had to rely on another, completely different constituency to actually help propel them to victory. The wealthy, having reached their $2,300 donation cap, stood helplessly by as small donations poured in to reinvigorate Hillary Clinton's campaing. It is quite possible that this has never happened before and it speaks to a greater truth, Hillary has a huge coalition of support that has managed to survive the abandonment by black voters who had supported Bill Clinton in huge numbers in the 90's.

Although Hillary Clinton has literally had to rely on many different demographic categories to boost her recent campaign success, Hillary has not had to sell out her values even when appearing on conservative channel Fox Television opposite Bill O'Reilly! Never before has a democratic candidate been so mercilessly attacked by democratic "progressives" such as Huffington Post, Move On, Kos, Oprah Winfrey, Air America, the Kennedys, Emil Jones, James E. Clyburn, David Geffen, MIchael Moore, Bill Richardson, Larry David, Bill Mahrer, David Letterman, MSNBC television "pundits" including Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, plus various articles in several magazines that either lampooned Hillary Clinton and her "sinking ship campaign" OR vilified Hillary Clinton by accusing her of staying in the race for selfish reasons, even though Hillary Clinton STILL retained almost 50% of the popular vote.

For the first time ever in the democratic primary, a democratic candidate has received more public hostility from internal democratic and progressive pundet forces than from the opposing Republican party! If Hillary Clinton defeats John McCain this fall, Republicans may still feel an awkward kinship towards Hillary Clinton because they personally witnessed her barbaric treatment at the hands of the lunatic angry fringe part of her own democratic party that refused to be civil or respectful towards Hillary Clinton.

In the past the democratic progressive lunatic fringe was unleashed against the Republicans while the democratic leader could just stand by and benefit even though they did not actually initiate the attack. The democratic progressive lunatic fringe usually makes most Republicans do a slow burn and helps to create more hate for democratic values. But how can Republicans do a slow burn over Hillary Clinton when the democratic progressive lunatic fringe has spent a good deal of their time attacking, Hillary Clinton!

Rush Limbaugh ridiculed Hillary Clinton a week or two before the Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries after Hillary said "She would work hard" to find solutions. But if Hillary Clinton combines "working hard", with intelligence, kinship and spreading success around she may be able to successfully guide several normally clashing factions. Hillary Clinton just may surprise many as those normally opposed to her may find her more acceptable after the hostility many in her own party have put her through. While the democratic progressive lunatic fringe insanely screams that Hillary is ruining the democratic party, HIllary Clinton has built a coalition that extends well beyond the rich, democratic progressive lunatic fringe.

Hillary Clinton has trumped Barrack Obama's attempt to build a coalition by actually building a real coalition that is comprised of true diversity, and that is change we can all learn to thrive from.

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.