Iowa Considers Raincoat Law for Politicians.

(Cat raincoat photo from) Cats.Picturesarehere.com

Iowa is considering a new law that would require all politicians appearing in their state to do so in a yellow raincoat with matching yellow hoodie. "We don't want to be known as the state of perpetual presidential politicking", noted one local official who requested anonymity.

The proposed Iowa yellow raincoat law would require any politician with presidential aspirations to wear the yellow raincoat, (with matching yellow hoodie), the entire time they are in Iowa if their appearance is earlier than 18 months before the next presidential election.

"The law serves a dual purpose," another local official who also requested anonymity, explained,"Iowan's are starting to get a bit embarrassed, and annoyed, by the constant flow of presidential wannabees who come into our state four years before the next election looking for a handout, er support for their presidential run. The Raincoat law identifies a political candidate to Iowans AND it protects the candidate from the elements, you know, thrown tomatoes, lemons, oranges"...

What the anonymous local Iowa officials declined to mention is the yellow raincoat law's best feature, any politician wearing the yellow raincoat (and matching hoodie), who claims to just be passing through the state, won't win very many votes.

Photo and caption from LA TIMES Political Blogger

Barack Obama's Team Takes my Advice about their YouTube White House Videos. You're Welcome.

....................................Before....................................

...................................After....................................... Directly above are two still video images, in my opinion the second video still is a definite improvement over the one above it (the one at the very top of this article). Many of the flaws I pointed out in a prior article have been corrected to my specifications (hehehe). I might have been the only one on the internet to critique and point out the flaws in Barack Obama's prior youtube videos. I would hope the news media, if they go with this story, credit both HILLARY-WINS.com and http://www.DailyPUMA.com blogs.

Notice the head space has been reduced and the brightness of the flag has been toned down. The wall color too closely matched Barack's own skin color in the prior video and now has been corrected. The background has been changed to blue, with a white center to outline Mr. Obama's head better. The distance to the background and the plant appears to have been increased. The red flat stripes are not as fiery red as before.

The chair is still iffy to me. If the highback of the chair did not grow out of the back of his head, it might make his ears look too big, so they probably can't go any lower with the high back. Anyways, big ears are probably a good thing as it may mean he listens to others moreso than the current president, who seemed to be too busy trying to flag God down for one on ones and appeared to ignore many other capable people's opinons.

Overall this is a huge improvement over the previous youtube videos. You can read my prior article at this link, or, it also reprinted below. Friendly Advice for Barack Obama's YouTube Videos...SIT ON A BOOK!

(Prior article reprinted below)

I don't understand how a president that staged an alleged 200,000 people gathering in Germany can't get his YouTube White House speeches to look, um, normal. The chair back is at precisely the wrong height. The result is I feel like I am looking at a gawky 10th grader.

Sit on a thick Yellow Pages book, Barack. This will instantly do two things, it will lower the chair back in relation to your neck and head to the proper height, and it will also slightly raise you in the frame to the right height. Plus, you get to keep the high back chair for when you want to take a snooze and don't want your neck flopping backwards. Add more space to the back wall from yourself as well.

I only made one change in the framing up above, yet doesn't Barack Obama already look more presidential than before? Keep in mind that in some of the original video, Barack Obama is actually looking up in the frame, I ignored those frames and chose one that benefits him by having his eye line look straight into the camera rather than up.

The american flag should not be at your side, bigger and brighter than you. The flag should be behind you, and not so bright. I'd put the flag where the plant is, and the plant where the flag is.

I'll be watching to see how long it takes for someone to point out these somewhat obviously flawed video design choices and for you to "change" them. Perhaps there is a master plan to start Barack Obama looking like a tenth grader early on, but then over time the framing changes will reveal a more strident, confident, Barack "Zeus" Obama ???

I have a suggestion. Why can't Barack Obama start with his back to us, and spin around like Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series. To help stimulate the american economy, how about Barack Obama use a different made in america chair each week, and kindly announce where the chair came from. Maybe a pizza gets delivered in the middle of the presentation, name clearly visible on the pizza box.

Just trying to help out.

------------------------------------------------

Edit note, I FORGOT to add one more thing that I originally noticed, but they have now taken care of it. Barack's skin color is far to close to the background wall color, and now the background color has been fixed as well.

Where is my HILLARY CLINTON COMMEMORATIVE COIN, just like the one MSNBC keeps hawking for Barack Obama.

Why is there no commercial for a Hillary Coin? I would buy it. Perhaps the coin could say, 18 million voices silenced by Caucus Cheating, Ageism, and Sexism. Commemoratively speaking, if this type of a coin is not made and sold, then all there will be is a Barack Obama coin out there, and revisionist history takes a step up on what really happened.

Friendly Advice for Barack Obama's YouTube Videos...SIT ON A BOOK!

I don't understand how a president that staged an alleged 200,000 people gathering in Germany can't get his YouTube White House speeches to look, um, normal. The chair back is at precisely the wrong height. The result is I feel like I am looking at a gawky 10th grader.

Sit on a thick Yellow Pages book, Barack. This will instantly do two things, it will lower the chair back in relation to your neck and head to the proper height, and it will also slightly raise you in the frame to the right height. Plus, you get to keep the high back chair for when you want to take a snooze and don't want your neck flopping backwards. Add more space to the back wall from yourself as well.

I only made one change in the framing up above, yet doesn't Barack Obama already look more presidential than before? Keep in mind that in some of the original video, Barack Obama is actually looking up in the frame, I ignored those frames and chose one that benefits him by having his eye line look straight into the camera rather than up.

The american flag should not be at your side, bigger and brighter than you. The flag should be behind you, and not so bright. I'd put the flag where the plant is, and the plant where the flag is.

I'll be watching to see how long it takes for someone to point out these somewhat obviously flawed video design choices and for you to "change" them. Perhaps there is a master plan to start Barack Obama looking like a tenth grader early on, but then over time the framing changes will reveal a more strident, confident, Barack "Zeus" Obama ???

I have a suggestion. Why can't Barack Obama start with his back to us, and spin around like Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series. To help stimulate the american economy, how about Barack Obama use a different made in america chair each week, and kindly announce where the chair came from. Maybe a pizza gets delivered in the middle of the presentation, name clearly visible on the pizza box.

Just trying to help out.

---------------------

Edit note, I FORGOT to add one more thing that I originally noticed, but they have now taken care of it. Barack's skin color is far to close to the background wall color, and now the background color has been fixed as well.

Why is Sarah Palin's Wardrobe STILL a BIGGER ISSUE than Barack Obama accepting over 200 million dollars in Undocumented Campaign Contributions?

I just don't understand the Sarah Palin Wardrobe Controversy. Well, maybe I do, and the reason is reminding me why the PUMA movement cannot end even if Hillary Clinton ends up in the Barack Obama cabinet. Under no circumstance can I ever believe that what was spent on Sarah Palin's Wardrobe matters anywhere near as much as the amount of money Barack Obama's camp laundered during this entire campaign process.

Over time, the mainstream media will keep banging the drum over Sarah Palin's wardrobe, while simultaneously virtually no attention will be spent on Barack Obama's camp collecting and spending over 200 million dollar's in undocumented funds. Just today, Rachel Maddow had the gall to giddily proclaim that John McCain's McCain Feingold act was being stomped upon by the Republican party.

Well, what do you expect Maddow. Barack Obama's camp spat on the very concept of campaign finance fairness and you choose to ridicule the good guys. Guess what Maddow, your people aren't always above reproach.

Was MSNBC's Africa Launch, Jan 20, 2008 another reason for MSNBC to back Barack Obama?

An additional motivating factor for MSNBC to back Barack Obama over HIllary Clinton, the MSNBC launch in Africa of Free Satellite TV back in January of this this year. Here is a link to the story, the timing of the MSNBC launch was very fascinating. MSNBC Free TV to Africa Launched Jan 20, 2008.

Rationalizing MSNBC's anti female politician stance...

Is MSNBC's year long assault against female presidential and vice presidential candidates some sort of a rite of passage, a hazing of sorts? Is it possible that MSNBC has raised the bar for female presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates since there has only been one prior female vice presidential candidate, who ironically enough was hazed earlier this year as well. (Geraldine Ferraro).

One could argue that Barack Obama, as an african american presidential candidate, should have been "hazed" just as much if this is the rationalization that MSNBC is using against female politicians. If this article has done anything, it's reminded me that ALL THREE FEMALE VICE PRESIDENT and PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES in this country's entire history were all hazed this year, by MSNBC.

Wow.

Keith Olbermann perfects the Opratorial, and "Spews" will never be the same.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's The Three Tenners (also featuring sidekicks Matthews and Maddow) has officially perfected the Opratorial. The Opratorial is the fusing of a viewpoint on a issue, with loud, bellicose, red faced, salvia spewing, calm discourse.

What can make an Olbermann Opratorial so shrillbinding is Olberman's ability, (or inability) to sporn an impacted range of "you've got to be kidding me" wrapped within a verbal onslaught of, "you've got to be kidding me", served on a platter of, "you've got to be kidding me".

Just when you thought Olbermann's whining, whimpering, whacked a mole verbosity has reached a crescendo and could not possibly be topped, Keitho the Klown calmly takes a quick deep breath, and continues; a little redder in the face perhaps, an oxygen mask just out of view, ready to drop down and provide aid upon the completion of his opratory. (I've often wondered why MSNBC doesn't provide it's poor poor viewers with their own oxygen masks as well).

No Olbermann Opratorial would be complete without a reference to an arch rival, and Olbermann keeps his arch rival, Billo the Clown, within spewing distance, a key to any successful Opratorial that can't stand on its own merit. It has been rumored that Keith Olbermann warms up for his Opratorials by stepping on lawn rakes that pop up and hit him unmercilessly in the face.

Olbermann's ability to pass the rake in the face sensation on to his viewers is becoming legendary.

Jesse Jackson, Please Free the White People.

The night Barack Obama finished stealing, er winning the 2008 election, (he did both) video was broadcast from all over the country of people joyously crying over Barack Obama's win.

They were crying in a way that kind of disturbed me. It was as if I, as a non-African American, had kept AA's oppressed all these years. Only now that a black president had been elected, would their lives be fulfilled. Only now could all people of all races believe that they too could live the american dream, their white oppressors had finally been vanquished by the election of a black president!

These tears actually disgusted me, and only Jesse Jackson can allay my disgust. You see, Jesse Jackson, at one time, a long long time ago, was an African American democratic presidential candidate. White Iowa Farmers voted for Jesse Jackson during Jesse's quest to become the first black democratic presidential candidate over 30 years ago.

But then a funny thing happened during Jesse Jackson's very long political career. Jesse Jackson, it appears, never passed the African American presidential torch on to the next African American candidate. If I am wrong, please name the name of the African American that Jesse Jackson groomed to become the next AA democratic or republican candidate. (I'll anxiously await the response in the comments section).

My question is, how can white America be "blamed" for it taking this "long" for an AA president when the most prominent African American presidential candidate refused to pass the torch on?

If you watched the news and saw people of all colors crying over the election win of Barack Obama, as if you were somehow responsible that it took this long, you have my blessing to feel disgusted, you should feel disgusted.

Perhaps if these same people had been crying on election night because they knew Barack Obama cheated in the caucus contests, had unparalleled media bias behind him, and collected over 200 million dollars in unmarked bills for his his presidential run, then I could have cried along with them. I too could then share in the pain that the first African American presidential candidate ever to win, would do so under a dark dark cloud of ethical controversy willfully covered up by the mainstream media.

Jessie Jackson, I am asking you, as a healer of people, to take the stigma off of white america by mentioning that maybe, just maybe, your grip on the torch of AA rights issues might have been just a little too snug to pass on.

DailyPUMA is now ONLINE!

DailyPUMA fills an important internet niche in PUMA LAND and those who desire a different interpretation from the day to day news than what the mainstream media offers.

NewsMax Reports about the Polling Inaccuracies that favored the Democrats, 10 DAYS after I WARNED about it on this HILLARY-WINS Blog.

Just as I predicted 10 days ago, MSNBC is Manipulating Numbers to try and Deflate John McCain Voters, here is the Statistical Proof. and NEWSMAX confirmed today, 10 days later, NewsMax Report on Polling Inflation, the polling institutions were inaccurate in their polling of this years presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.

I have never implied that John McCain was going to win the popular vote, but I knew there was a chance he could win the electoral college vote. I had predicted 10 days ago that polling states such as New York, Pennsylvania and California, would overinflate Barack Obama's overall lead in the rest of the states, and in the process demoralize Republican voters, Hillary Clinton supporters, and undecided independents.

This trend against John McCain re-accelerated (after the stock market crash) with the 'BIG TEN" polling a couple of weeks back that predicted incredibly large leads for Barack Obama. A law needs to be passed in regards to polls that are taken. I want to KNOW THE AVERAGE AGE of the pollsters who are actually conducting the interviews.

I bet if we could go back and review the age of the pollsters, we would find a skew that is age related. I'm pretty sure the Big Ten polling used college aged pollsters, who no doubt connected with other college aged kids in their polling.

The end result was all of these polls gave Barack Obama almost a 3 percentage point boost, and that no doubt made a pscyhological difference to millions of voters as to whether or not they would vote.

Once again, you heard it here 10 days ago, NewsMax confirmed it today.

It was the White People in Barack Obama's backround that were the Worst of All, Did the Media focus only on the Non Whites on Purpose?

I've never been comfortable with all the bashing of Barack Obama's non-white alliances. I guess it took me this long to figure out why. There are many white alliances in Barack Obama's background that have questionable character. George Soros would have to be number one on the list. Arianna Huffington would be number two. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews tied for third, David Axelrod number four, perhaps Bill Ayers would be fifth, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid tied for sixth, the rest of the MSNBC gang at 7th.

It probably looked racist to Barack Obama supporters for the opposition to be more pre-occupied with the non-whites in Barack Obama's background. Perhaps white people should have just focused on the whites in Barack's background that were behaving in what can easily be seen as questionable behavior.

The sad part is Barack Obama has conocoted a rainbow coalition of people of all colors that have checkered pasts. I think the reason many of the opposition complaints didn't stick was because white detractors of Barack Obama pointed to the non-white people in Barack's past, while letting Barack Obama's shady supporters who were white, off the hook.

Besides the white people mentioned above who I think have behaved in an ethically challenged manner, I should also add all the political losers who were white, that got on the Barack Obama bandwagon to crush the Clintons. These white political losers include Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, ALL of whom have RUN FOR PRESIDENT or the Democratic Presidential nomination, and LOST!

It is an obvious slap in the face to the Clintons and lifelong democratic voters for all of these democratic presidential losers to just throw the Clintons to the curb and support a one term inexperienced senator when Bill Clinton has been the only two term democratic president in the last 50 years.

Think about it, Democratic presidential losers from the past 20 years, all gang up on the ONE AND ONLY democratic presidential winner's family. It's kind of creepy, and speaks to a coup of the democratic party, funded by George Soros.

In a past article I have written fondly of Pastor Wright, I think he is much smarter than Barack Obama. Ironically, above and beyond the issue of the people in Barack Obama's background, there was the issue of very unethical occurrences in this years 15 caucus contests, and the Barack Obama camp accepting over 200 million dollars in undocumented donations, this after rejecting matching funds that prior presidential candidates had all agreed to abide by.

So the question I have is, why didn't whites opposed to Barack Obama's supporters go after Barack Obama's white supporters? lol, there were PLENTY of white backers of Barack Obama that acted highly unethically in this election cycle. I can only begin to guess at the back room deals made and money possibly offered to get several prominent white people to back Barack Obama at the expense of the much better known and respected Clinton family.

I wish I had connected these dots earlier. In a way I did, as I have always tried to focus on caucus cheating issues, the concept of fair reflection denied earlier this year, Obvious media bias led by MSNBC, and sexism. I feel I never was able to reach those that didn't like Barack Obama for his non-white affiliations to find a better reason even when those better reasons existed.

If you are white, and you don't like Barack Obama's rainbow coalition of provocative supporters with questionable backgrounds, you made a mistake by going after the non-white Barack Obama supporters. If you were white, you should have focused on the provocative people backing Barack Obama, who were also white, there were plenty to go around.

Sarah Palin Exonerated in Trooper Gate case! Just like this blog told you two weeks ago!

LA TIMES link

I called this three weeks ago.

Trooper Gate Blog Article

And the spokesperson for Palin basically gave the same reasons I gave back then, Palin is allowed to keep the best people in the best place, that is what she does as governor.

Barack Obama receives 200 million dollars in Unmarked Bills, is that the way to run a campaign?

If Barack Obama wins the presidential election, shouldn't he be impeached for the illegal use of undocumented presidential funds in the act of winning the presidential election? Not if Congress is all democratic, then he probably won't have to worry.

Between the way Barack Obama has treated his extended family, and his inability to compete in a fair arena, I don't think Barack Obama is ready to lead. Has Barack Obama ever won anything without ever getting twice the funding or removing his competitor's name from the ballot? Has he?

Hillary Clinton Supporters find Support with John McCain Supporters.

It can be a fantastic feeling to connect with others who think as you do, especially when they did it before they ever met you. I VOTED FOR DEMOCRACY TODAY used the YouTube Video, I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter and I approved this message in their blog article today.

That is way cool!

Please spread the word, and spread this youtube video to any Hillary Clinton Voters who are still on the fence.

I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter, and I APPROVED this Message.

MSNBC is Manipulating Numbers to try and Deflate John McCain Voters, here is the Statistical Proof.

From what I have read, Barack Obama is absolutely positively going to win California, New York, and Illinois. These three states comprise 22.5 % of all voters. Assuming a current lead for Barack Obama of 8 percentage points, the bigger the current polling margin of victory for Barack Obama in California, New York, and Illinois, the better for John McCain in the remaining 47 states!

Yes, up is down, and down is up.

Lets say that Barack Obama has an overall 8 percentage point lead in national polling of all the states. Lets also say that Barack Obama is leading in California, New York and Illinois by 20%. That means that in the remaining 47 states Barack Obama is only leading by 2.5% of the vote.

But what If the lead in California, New York, and Illinois is even bigger but Barack Obama's overall lead is still 8 percentage points? What if the lead in these three states is actually 33%, then in the remaining 47 states, the two candidates are basically tied in the popular vote!

While it is possible that Barack Obama could win in a landslide, it is also possible that John McCain could win several key states by a very small amount each, and in the process actually win the nomination even while losing the popular vote by several million votes.

What MSNBC is desperately trying to do is demoralize the John McCain base so they don't even bother showing up to vote.

The race is close enough for John McCain to still win, it's just the liberal media trying to get you to give up and not vote that might make Barack Obama a landslide winner instead of a very, very close, loser who wins the popular vote by a few million while losing the electoral college vote to John McCain.

How the MSNBC led media continues to manipulate math to make it seem like Barack Obama is too far ahead of John McCain.

MSNBC keeps citing national polls that show Barack Obama up by 12 or 13 percentage points. There is a definite misleading nature to this type of polling. Barack Obama may be hugely ahead in a few big states, like Illinois, New York and California, but that is not necessary the best of news for Barack Obama.

If Barack Obama has a huge lead in Illinois, New York and California, that may just be inflating the national polling numbers while meaning nothing in all of the closer races in the remaining states. Sure I'd rather be the candidate that that leads in New York, California and Illinois, and is neck and neck in the total vote of the other 47 races, but this is an electoral race, and a bigger lead in California, Illnois, and New York does not net Barack Obama any additional electoral college votes versus barely winning in those same three states.

It would appear that the way for John McCain to win is to barely win in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Barack Obama could poll 10 points higher among the six large states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New York and Illinois, but still end up splitting those six states.

If you want to get a truer sense of the overall race, the top five vote getting states of each candidate should be thrown out entirely, then poll the remaining 40 states to get a better sense of each candidates overall popularity. However, even then, if John McCain keeps eeking out 50-49% victories while Barack Obama has a couple of 66-33% victories, John McCain will actually do MUCH MUCH better in an electoral college race than in the national polls that simply poll for overall popularity.

However, the problem is the media itself is trying to use huge leads for Barack Obama in three large states to imply that the presidential race is already over. I actually wouldn't feel sorry about now if the MSNBC news headquarters blew a few fuses so we wouldn't have to hear their pro Barack Obama rant spewed fortg as fact, and in the process actually continue to unfairly manipulate the race.

Sarah Palin's Wardrobe IS NOT an issue, just retribution after Michelle Obama's 400 dollar lunch snack was publicized.

The Sarah Palin wardrobe "controversy" is easily debunkable. What did Hillary Clinton spend on her wardrobe. If the answer is, "a lot", then Sarah Palin is entitled to the same. If the answer to what Hillary Clinton's wardrobe cost is "modest and reasonable", then the response is, "well, it didn't help Hillary Clinton win, did it?

Additionally, the MSNBC led media has been ridiculing Sarah Palin on several fronts, the one area they could not ridicule Sarah Palin on was her clothing, until now. If Sarah Palin had worn anything too frumpy or too blue collar, the media would have just weaved Palin's clothing choices into their ongoing evisceration of Sarah Plain.

Well guess what, the MSNBC led media was going to eventually ridicule Sarah Palin's clothing no matter what she wore. To my eyes, MSNBC is incorporating a "damned no matter what they do" attack against McCain and Palin. The other thing to realize is this is a retaliation to Michelle Obama and her 400 dollar lunch of lobster and shrimp.

Show us John McCain, Find the mutilator of your own volunteer, if you can't find one stupid Mutilator in Pittsburgh, how can you find Osama Bin Laden?

I'm serious, John McCain, find the mutilator of your own campaign volunteer. If you can't find one mutilator in the city of Pittsburgh, you have no legitimacy, or authority, to lead the search for Osama Bin Laden. Time for the Straight Talk Express to get untracked.



Let's be clear here. The McCain volunteer victim was victimized twice. First they were robbed of 60 dollars at an ATM. The robbery finished, and the victim left, and went to their car. When the thief saw that there was a McCain Palin sticker on the car, the thief came BACK to the victim and carved a B on their face.

This IS AN ACT OF TERRORISM. Both Barack Obama's and John McCain's camp need to be involved on some level and have it solved before they continue campaigning.

At the very least, I would like to see both campaigns actually divert FINANCIAL resources to find the mutilator within 24 hours.

Here is a link to a dissenting viewpoint, looks like a Pro-Obama site but I find their take on it quite the opposite from what was first reported. Dissenting Viewpoint

Who has the worst thugs on their side, Barack Obama or John McCain?

This story probably tips the scale to Barack Obama's side. Not a very bright person who did this.

McCain Volunteer Attacked and Multilated in Pittsburgh

The Audacity of Pretentiousness, how the Media Worships Barack Obama and the Atrocious Ways he uses the Women who Raised him, for Political Gain.

The media is painting Barack Obama as a saint even as he continues to screw up big time. First Barack Obama did not accept John McCain's proposed suspension of McCain's campaign for a couple of days to deal with the economic bailout proposal. Instead, Barack Obama actually painted John McCain as being afraid to debate him, and that that was the real reason for McCain wanting to suspend his own campaign.

Barack Obama refused to accept John McCain's campaign suspension, and this just shows how inexperienced and inadequate Barack Obama is at negotiating. Barack Obama negotiated with only the present in mind, not even an inkling of what may lay ahead in as short of a time span as two weeks!

Fast Forward two weeks and now Barack Obama is suspending his own campaign to go to Hawaii for a few days, to be with his ill grandmother! This is a big time diplomatic gaffe that the media will refuse to address. You don't ridicule the opposition for wanting a campaign suspension to deal with the economic bail out plan, then take a campaign suspension yourself two weeks later. This just proves that Barack Obama does not know how to negotiate.

To make matters even worse, you don't schedule family illnesses to fit into your own comfort zone, as Barack Obama has done in the past, and now has done again!

Barack Obama, if he was the gentleman and diplomat he is purported to being, would have agreed to the proposed "McCain suspension time out" and taken that same suspension time to go Hawaii to be with his ailing grandmother. Instead Barack Obama timed his visit to his grandmother to when it best suited his own needs. This is a sociopathic pattern of behavior that Barack Obama has practiced before.

In 1995, Barack Obama actually flew over Hawaii, and his dying mother, to go to Bali to finish writing a book about his sperm donor father, even as his mother was in her final months of life battling the insurance companies over health care coverage, and apparently battling them on her own.

During the second debate Barack Obama told the story about his mother dying in a hospital bed alone as she battled the insurance companies over her insurance coverage. Barack never mentions his own role in helping or not helping his mother out during that critical time in her life. So Barack Obama had time to finish writing a book about his sperm donor father, but not enough time to be by his mother's bedside. Barack Obama HAS PROFITED from this story about his mother, respinning it as both a television commercial first during the primaries, and then retelling it during the second debate. Rachel Maddow called it "the moment" from that second debate.

Barack Obama could have written the book about his already passed father at any time, but he only had those precious final months to be with his mother. Yet Barack Obama chose finishing the book about his sperm donor father OVER being with his mother. Between writing his book and and making the political rounds in Chicago, it was as if Barack Obama could not have kept further distance from his dying mother even if he had tried.

Now Barack Obama is CHOOSING WHEN to be with his Grandmother, not when his Grandmother might have needed Barack Obama most. In Barack Obama's world, it's about when others can help him that matters most to him, when it should be the other way around.

Coming Soon, the failed Diplomacy of Barack Obama.

Coming soon, after I take care of my ailing dad. The Audacity of Pretentiousness, how the Media Worships Barack Obama and the Atrocious Ways he uses the Women who Raised him, for Political Gain.

Media falling in line with Barack Obama, could Barack having 3 times more millions to spend have something to do with it?

Barack Obama has over 600 million dollars to spend, that is the kind of money that can smooth over budget problems for a whole lot of media that is tight on money. When John McCain stated he wanted to focus on the bailout mess and cancel the debate, the media backed Barack Obama and accused John McCain afraid to debate Barack Obama.

Then the spin was John McCain was weak on the bailout issue. Now it is just a stream of nonsense coming out of the media because Barack Obama can outspend John McCain 3-1 in all kinds of media buys. Will anybody question Barack Obama on the timing of his trip to see his Grandmother? Why not go to see her when John McCain wanted to suspend his campaingn and deal with the bailout? Why not both candidates at that time, suspend their campaigns for a couple of days and deal with these issues?

Why was it ok for Barack Obama and the mainstream media to ridicule John McCain for wanting to suspend his campaign to go back to Washington, and profit from it in the polls, but ignore his ailing grandmother at that time? Surely the gentlemanly thing, the diplomatic thing to do, would have been to go to Hawaii at the same time that John McCain wanted to go to Washington.

Barack Obama continues to use family illnesses, of both his mother and grandmother, for profit and gain, and the media lets him get away with it. To top it off, the media goes on for days about John McCain dying even as Hillary Clinton was villified for bringing the same possibility regarding Barack Obama just a scant few months ago.

Don't YELL SOCIALIST in a crowded restaurant, it's now illegal if Barack Obama happens to be there.

LA Times Blog Article

Evidently, if Barack Obama comes into a public restaurant for a photo op, and you yell "Socialist, Socialist", you are out of line. Not every place a candidate goes to should be an automatic photo op, unless apparently it is Barack Obama.

But when Lennox Bramble told Diane Fanning, to "be civil, be courteous" after Ms. Fanning yelled that Barack Obama was a Socialist, Mr. Bramble was basically saying "shut up" to Ms. Fanning, and at that point he crossed the line of sexism.

What is so awful about a man telling a woman to be "civil, be courteous"? It's awful because Diane Fanning was making a point, a political point, and that point was belittled by a man. Haven't we had enough sexism in this election year, especially when the man telling the women what is what, is wrong? I admire Ms. Fanning for being able to assess a situation she had no idea she was going to be in, and let her voice be heard.

Bless Diane Fanning for being brave enough to say how she felt. This may be hard for the Obamabots to comprehend, but everywhere that Barack Obama glides above is not necessarily going to be "healed" by his out stretched wingspan, even as the media falsely reports it as another Barack Obama conversion story.

Oprah Winfrey first helps remove Hillary Clinton from the democratic race, then tries to lead the way forward for all women on her television show.

I consider Oprah Winfrey to be a thug. First Oprah helped disable Hillary Clinton's campaign by exerting all of her influence to help Barack Obama win the democratic nomination. After that mission was accomplished, Oprah has now taken the mantle of progressing women's rights!

This past week Oprah had a show featuring women leaders such as Billie Jean King, Maria Shriver, Gloria Steinem, the Williams sisters, Serena and Venus. The purpose of this particular show was to inspire a new generation of young females to greatness.

Where was Hillary Clinton, Oprah?

I guess having the number one female achiever on your show after you directly assisted in taking her out of the democratic presidential race by you only supporting Barack Obama, wouldn't look too good, would it?

I just find Oprah Winfrey to be a thug who just wants it all to go her way. Oprah's recent show about women leaders could not feature Hillary Clinton, which just shows the political blood that is on Oprah Winfrey's hands. Try and wash it off Oprah by doing the show without Hillary Clinton, I'm here to say, you are busted.

Oprah Winfrey's thuggish act of narcissism reveals her desire to be remembered long after her show goes off the air.

Barack Obama DonorGate Fundraising Mystery, Is Barack Obama electronically set up to get monthly donations from non-existent donors?

Open Secrets.org is a website that tracks political donor funding. One page that I found interesting is this one. Barack Obama Monthly Donation Charts. Anyone can track day by day donations for both Barack Obama and John McCain.

The first thing I noticed when I randomly checked a couple of months was that Barack Obama always had his best donation day on the final day of the month, each and every month. I decided to check out a theory of mine, and I was intrigued when it proved true.

My theory has to do with the sham donations that Barack Obama gets. Nobody knows how many dollars Barack Obama has illegally received, but it has been shown that there are sham names and addresses that actually do give donations to Barack Obama's campaign on a repeating basis.

My hunch is that some entity has set up monthly autopay donations to Barack Obama that kick in on the final day of each calendar month.

I will acknowledge that the Barack Obama team tries to prod its contributors at the end of each month for additional donations, but for some reason, in the month of February, there was no donation "surge" for Barack Obama. February is a curious month to have gotten no end of the month surge as Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton. There was a surge around February 6th, & 7th, and perhaps that minimized the surge later that month. But I doubt that because I would surmise that surge on the 6th and 7th of February was because Barack Obama did well on February 5th, also known as the first Super Tuesday of the election. Now you know the real significance of not counting Michigan in the win column, it helped result in a bigger funding boost for Barack Obama because Michigan's numbers were not counted at that time.

My theory is that there is a network of autopay donations going to Barack Obama that were/are set up for either the 30th or 31st of each month. This results in a huge push going into the next month. However, because February only has 28 days, something went wrong. Maybe Barack Obama's camp messed up in February because February has only 28 days. Or maybe those involved messed up February because Barack Obama moved his headquarters and branched out because of all the caucus contests in February. However, if all it takes is sending out an email to create an end of the month surge in donations, how come the end of February shows no such surge for Barack Obama?

The Open Secrets.org data shows that for every month in 2008, from January through the end of July, Barack Obama's best donation day was always the final day of the month, EXCEPT FOR FEBRUARY. And we're not talking by a little bit, we're talking a MASSIVE increase in political donations on the very last day of every month except for February.

Assuming that the Barack Obama fundraising machine sends out emails at the end of each month asking for another donation, why would the end of February not surge for Barack Obama the way each other month surged?

To those who are trying to track all of the fraudulent donations made to the Barack Obama campaign, I am suggesting to focus on donations that are made on the last day of each month. It sure may be easier trying to look for made up names and addresses if one can focus to one day out of the month instead of every day of the month.

And in case you may be wondering how not counting Michigan affected the race. If Michigan had been in play, Hillary Clinton would not only have won Super Tuesday, but Barack Obama could not have put so many "ground troops" in all the caucus states, some of those people would have had to have been put in Michigan, and the net result would have been that Hillary Clinton would have more decisively won on February 5th and slowed down Barack Obama's influx of money that arrived on the 6th, 7th, and 8th of February, not to mention all the media hoopla Barack Obama got from MSNBC.

How Oprah Winfrey and George Soros have influence peddled this year while conservatives such as Dr. Laura stay on the sidelines.

What I have found most offensive about this years presidential race has been the interfering by rich or powerful celebrities during the democratic nominating process. George Soros and Oprah Winfrey have added their influence to this year's democratic race and in the process may have harmed the sovereignty of future presidential races.

I believe up until this year there has been an unstated "gentleman's agreement" that the real influential power would hold back some of their power until after our two main political parties had their millions of voters vote for their favorite candidate. An example of this type of situation would be John McCain only having 1% of the vote less than one year ago, yet coming back to win the Republican nomination.

However, on the democratic side, the democrats seemed to have ripped up the playbook and did everything in their power to help Barack Obama win at all costs. This Barack must win strategy has created a new problem. Why should either political side wait for 30 million voters to help decide who is the nominee when overzealous help early on by the rich and powerful can pretty much lock up the nomination before the voters get to vote?

I believe the evidence in the 2008 presidential race shows that the conservative side basically allowed the existing candidates to legitimately battle each other, and once John McCain was elected, they rallied around him. On the democratic side, interveners like Oprah Winfrey and George Soros, rather than wait until 35 million democrats decided who would be the nominee, decided to manipulate who would actually get the democratic nomination before 35 million democratic voters voted.

This is actually a serious issue.

If Oprah Winfrey and George Soros are successful in their quest to dictate who is the democratic nominee prior to 35 million democrats voting, it will only get worse in future elections. Although I don't know how much Dr. Laura could have influenced this year's election, it is sad to see democrats such as George Soros and Oprah Winfrey lowering the bar to the point where it will no doubt contaminate the electoral process from now on, meanwhile Dr. Laura remains rather quiet and does not use her show or celebrity to manipulate voters the way Oprah Winfrey has shamelessly been doing for over a year now.

I wish for Barack Obama to lose so that the rich and powerful don't believe they are above all others when it comes to influence peddling who will be each political parties nominee.

TrooperGate, Mike Wooten, Sarah Palin and Commissioner Walt Monegan, why can't the media tell the full story?

Mike Wooten, the 36 year old trooper who has admitted to bad judgement in the past, seems to fly under the radar whenever troopergate is mentioned these days. Mike Wooten has already been married and divorced four times by the age of 36 while also fathering 3 children. Mr. Wooten apparently drinks excessively and in a moment of admittedly bad judgement, tasered his 10 year old son (at the mildest setting) because his son wanted to know what it felt like to be tasered.

Isn't it ironic that politicians get labeled as being fence sitting, indecisive, spineless "which way is the wind blowing" enablers, who, when they try and be assertive, can easily be charged with abuse of power?

Do state troopers get paid well enough to afford Mr. Wooten to continue his current lifestyle that includes 4 divorces, drinking issues, and possibly other issues that are still unknown to the public? If the job of State Trooper pays well enough to allow for unethical behavior by Mr. Wooten to continue, that is reason enough to terminate Mr. Wooten as we don't need this type of behavior linked to the operation of any vehicle.

Does it make sense to allow Mr. Wooten to keep a job that relies on driving, if he drinks excessively? If drinking prior to work excessively impairs Mr. Wooten's judgement skills, should he still be a state trooper?

By choosing not to terminate Mr. Wooten, the since fired Commissoner Walt Monegan made a decision that not being intimidated by a politician meant more to him than the reality of the situation; that Mr. Wooten actually posed future financial threat to the state of Alaska because of his past behavior. Mr. Wooten's case history is a rich lawsuit waiting to happen should he ever be found guilty of behavior that injures another while on duty.

Let us not forget that Sarah Palin was found to have not broken any laws in trying to get Mr. Wooten removed from his job.

I respect Mr. Monegan not wanting to be told what to do, and I also respect Sarah Palin for trying to remove a state trooper from a position that could easily have cost the state of Alaska millions of dollars the next time Mike Wooten made a repeat "mistake", such as being inebriated while on duty, all it takes is for this behavior to cause an injury and the state of Alaska could be opening its wallet up big time.

Mr. Wooten remains a walking time bomb of liability to the state of Alaska and it appears to be a fiscally responsible move to have wanted him terminated. I guess it's ok to take action AFTER a train wreck kills 25 people in Southern California because of text messaging, but it's wrong to try and PREVENT similar misguided situations like letting someone uphold the law while inebriated?

I'm starting to understand how states go over budget, they are responsible for the actions of their own employees but they have very little lee way in removing them from their jobs.

Did Barack Obama write his first book about his father while mother lay dying in a hospital, then use mom's story to win points in the second debate?

The Hillary Clinton Forum has produced it's own Barack Obama breaking story! HillaryClintonForum.net "Something is Bothering Me..." I admit I paused for a moment when Barack Obama stated during the second debate that his mother was fighting health insurance companies to cover specific treatments as she lay dying in the hospital.

I remember wondering what would allow Barack to know his mother was fighting the insurance companies from her hospital bed, without Barack Obama either being there, or being able to help in some other way, but then I moved on. Fortunately there are forums like HillaryClintonForum.net in which members question what appears to be the unquestionable. HillaryClintonForum.net "Something is Bothering Me..."

Apparently, Barack Obama had just finished his first book, about his sperm donor father, just a few months before his mother would pass on. What I can't understand is, couldn't Barack Obama, who was working at a law firm, get the law firm to represent her by proxy? I just want to understand what is the truth. Right now it appears that Barack Obama was tributing and profiting by writing a book about his sperm donor father while his mother lay dying in a hospital, as she battled the health insurance industry.

Then, to make matters worse, Barack Obama mentions his mother to gains empathy points during the second debate. Rachel Maddow grinningly called it "the moment" from the debate. This is just horrible stuff, not making it to see your own mom, while you write a book about your dad, then discuss your mom's plight in a national debate to gain points. Ugh.

Barack Obama has shown a pattern of complete ambivalence to the eldery this entire campaign, and now we see it goes back well before this year. I do not want someone as president who will throw the elderly under the bus. I certainly don't want a person for president who tributed his sperm donor father even as his dying mother battled the insurance industry, apparently without the aid of Barack Obama.

------------------

Oct. 20th, 2008. Today Barack Obama announced to the media that he will spend time with his ailing grandmother. While this action will surely garner Barack Obama sympathy points, will anyone dare ask him what he was doing during his mothers final year of life?