CPT Predictions Ten Years Ago - The People's Agenda for Change - Part 2

Over ten years ago I wrote the following article pointing out what was wrong in America.  At the time Hillary was leading Obama in the polls for the 2008 Presidential election.  Little has changed since.  Part 2 follows this story.  What do you think?


On January 31, 2008 the following article was published in the Coltons Point Times.

“WE THE PEOPLE!”

Part 2 – What are the targets for change?
1. Money Mongers of the Financial Institutions
2. Mortgage Lenders – Vampires of the Golden Dream
3. Credit Card Industry Standards, Fees and Collection Methods
4. Health Care Industry Cost, Insurance and Unnecessary Treatment
5. Pharmaceutical Industry Proliferation of Prescription Drugs
6. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Drug Approval Process
7. Agriculture – Food Testing, Ingredients and Source
8. Campaign Reform – Empty Promises and Empty Wallets
9. Immigration Reform – The Slumbering Social Issue of the Day
10. Government Permits and Inspections – Protection or Payoffs

So there you have it, a concise list of the ten institutional bureaucracies that must be addressed by our candidates for president if those candidates truly want to be the flag bearers for change. Now a more detailed description of the targets follows but I want you to know what you are in for up front.

When you hear why they are on the list just ask yourself what my favorite candidate for president has had to say about these issues that wreak havoc on the public every day. For you see these thorny targets also represent some of the largest financial contributors to our candidates for change and the political parties of America.

So maybe when questioning the presidential candidates we should ask a series of qualifying questions. Do you want change? Do you take money from these special interest groups? Can you stand up to them and their financial power? How are you going to persuade the other members of congress to support you?

In politics promises are cheap, promises most often are forgotten after the election and careers can be cut short when promises threaten the golden goose that feeds off the unsuspecting public. What does that mean? It means we the people are the cash cow and the special interest groups are the beneficiary of decades of conflicts of interest, bribes and payoffs, greed and immorality and the hijacking of our political system.

Truth is it is hard to believe any candidate means what they say about change. They are all players to some degree or another of our political system or they would not be candidates. They are all dependent on millions and millions of dollars in contributions in order to play in the game. They all hire the same old staff members that have mastered the game of inside politics. And if they do mean what they say, well the odds of being able to deliver are about as good as us bringing peace to the Middle East.

Still, as an eternal optimist when it comes to public service I can only hope there are people out there who have not been compromised, who are sincere, who can withstand the temptations of the golden goose, and who will lead us in the direction of real change before it is too late. Now let us turn our attention to the targets for change in America and see if you don’t agree.

1. Money Mongers of the Financial Institutions

Who are these people and what threat do they represent? Well, the intricate web of interlocking ownership, access to media, control of pricing in stocks, currency, commodities and bonds, and insulation from scrutiny probably make this the single most powerful force on Earth, capable of controlling governments and destroying opposition without ever getting their own hands dirty. You see they are invisible to the general public.

While flying the banner of capitalism they are the masters of deceit as the last thing they want is open competition, public scrutiny, social justice or power to the people. Their’s is a world of opportunity, the opportunity to take what other people have regardless of the consequences in order to consolidate power, maximize control, accumulate wealth and squeeze every last bloody cent of profit from everyone else.

Does it sound extreme, only because it is extreme? Sound like a sinister plot to gain control of the world? They don’t need to gain what they have already got. Their mission is not to lose it. While we wave our flag of democracy and freedom and every generation or so Americans rise up and take on new challenges, they have been quietly working behind the scenes for centuries, yes centuries, to achieve their goals.

Enough pontificating. Financial institutions control the world simply put and they do not serve the world in the process, as serving is not a good return on investment. They set up mutual funds to consolidate investment power and get government to create more sources of funds and turn them over to the financiers to manage such as pension funds, 401K funds, IRAs and many others.

They create financial “experts” to tell us what is happening to our investment markets and how to invest what money we do control completely ignoring the conflicts of interest when the greatest beneficiaries of the advice are the market makers, the very financial institutions whose experts are giving supposedly objective market advice.

What does that mean? The media takes the advice of industry experts and tells us the price of oil is going up because of the potential for a hurricane in the gulf that may or may not disrupt supply lines and drilling operations. A suicide bombing in Iraq shows that the crude oil supply from that country is not stable so a shortage of future oil may result if a bombing of the oil pipelines is successful. Cold weather in American means there will be a shortage of heating oil no matter that there are sufficient inventories already in the country. So the price of oil goes up, and up and up.

Who benefits? The owners of the crude oil, the companies that pay them for the crude, the banks that finance the companies, the stockholders that own shares of the companies, the IRAs, 401Ks, pension funds and mutual funds that pump money into the companies, the companies selling and buying their stocks, or the companies setting market prices? Guess what, all of them could be part of the financial institutions benefiting from the market manipulations caused by the speculative reports on the industry by the media.

Where I come from that is a gross conflict of interest. Financial institutions can make money buying and selling stock with other people’s money, mutual funds, and retirement funds whether the stock goes up or down in value. They still get their commission. If they own stock in the companies, in the commodities market or in the banks financing the markets they also benefit.

So why does the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission let them do this? The FTC and SEC are supposed to be our government watchdogs protecting the public from unscrupulous financial manipulators.

For two years the same financial sector was behind the unethical, immoral and often-illegal manipulation of the sub-prime mortgage markets as well which nearly sent the USA into recession and certainly left millions of homeowners in foreclosure. Where were the federal regulators?

How these people got away with it was tragic yet amazing to watch, and the fact they were rewarded for their disastrous actions is astounding since the same institutions were able to write off billions of dollars in losses on their own taxes, thus benefiting from the fees, the commissions, the collections and the tax write offs leaving the consumer high, dry and broke.

So candidates, what are you going to do to stop this? What are your plans to reform and better regulate the financial institutions? How can you stop the media from glamorizing industry experts whose employers directly benefit from their words of wisdom? How can you break up the inter-locking ownership inherent in the world? How can you protect he retirement nest eggs of the public that are being sucked dry by the money managers?

2. Mortgage Lenders – Vampires of the Golden Dream

Even though mortgage lenders can be owned, controlled or manipulated by the financial sector and banking institutions they are often set up independently until they finish preying on an unsuspecting public, having got caught using questionable practices (sub-prime loans for example), using heavy handed tactics, misleading consumers and initiating mortgage foreclosures.

When this happens the lenders now approaching bankruptcy get bought out by the financial and banking sectors that are seeking to acquire real estate property at far below the loan value. So losses are written off, property is acquired far below the loan value, new mortgages are written to resell or refinance the property, a few million people lose their homes due to foreclosures, and the financial institutions now have a new division with secure assets and credit worthy clients.

Of course we then lose sight of the fact illegal mortgages and unethical selling practices caused the bail out cycle to take place. Or that mortgage lenders, sales people, lawyers and credit rating firms were all players in this billion-dollar scam. That closing fees, collection fees and late fees have made someone millions of dollars at the expense of the hapless homeowners.

Then there is the question of the post mortgage market. I mean how many people know who really holds their mortgage as it can be sold over and over to spread the risk, enable firms to dissolve to avoid liability, or a variety of other reasons. You can get a mortgage from a bank only to discover the mortgage was sold to a bankrupt lender.

Finally even the government backed mortgage programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (what great names for federal backed mortgage players), not to mention the long list of programs such as VA, Indian, Rural, Low Income and other federal mortgage and housing programs must be ever more vigilant to root out corruption, contract fixing, slipshod construction and repair work, inefficient heating and utilities and other problems that beset our federal and state housing efforts.

So again we ask what are the presidential candidates saying about how they will change these institutional bureaucracies to serve the people? What is the new agenda to protect people and tax funds from these vampires? How will they be regulated, prosecuted and punished for any violations of the public trust?



3. Credit Card Industry Standards, Fees and Collection Methods
Now this is an area of regulatory meltdown and benign neglect involving federal and state agencies ranging from the FTC to Congress, from the SEC to Justice Department. There is a body of law at both the state and federal levels that regulates these practices but no one seems to pay attention.

The issuance of credit cards through the mail and Internet and the proliferation of offers from credit card companies are astounding. The never-ending changes in interest rates charged, the justification for such changes, the explanation of such practices and the downright deception in consumer information is appalling and predatory.

It is a wonder the nation is not drowning in credit card interest and collection activity with the elderly and youth being most likely to succumb to the offers that are too good to pass up. Fees change constantly for ATM charges, handling, processing, vendor, fraud, security, and any other excuse to stick it to the consumer.

Credit rating companies feed information to credit card companies and collection companies making the whole business of debt collection a financial windfall to lawyers, collection agencies, process servers and even the courts. Lies regarding the rights of the cardholder are overwhelming to most people, threatening to them and their credit, and fraught with heavy-handed tactics.

Simply stated there is no protection for people from getting the cards, understanding the changing fees, and especially getting caught in the late payment and collection process. Debts are written off yet collection efforts go full steam. When debts should be forgiven efforts are still made to scare the consumers into making payments. The credit collection industry is about as close as we come to the Gestapo in this country and the politicians are silent.

There is minimum at best consumer protection and maximum effort to throw the consumer to the dogs. State and federal laws can regulate the methods for offering cards, the message explaining the “wonderful” opportunity, the interest, and the fees, even the ways and means of collection.

If we allow a credit card company to write off the bad debt, then why is the collection industry pursuing the poor consumer with no money? Why are the bad debts written off years before the debt is forgiven to the consumer? If the credit card company realizes a tax deduction for bad debt, why are collectors threatening the consumer long after?

If credit card companies contract out for collection to private businesses, are those private businesses subject to government regulation meant for the credit card companies? If the USA is drowning in debt it is because the card companies and all those companies making money off the card companies are driven by greed.

There are many opportunities for the candidates to help the consumers in this area and it does not even require spending much money, just developing and enforcing meaningful legislation and regulations to truly control the sharks. So once again we ask where are the proposals for change from the candidates?


4. Health Care Industry Cost, Insurance and Unnecessary Treatment
Just look at the facts and there is no doubt this system is broken. In 2006 we spent $2.1 trillion on health care, over $7,026 for every person in the USA, and it took over 16% of our Gross Domestic Product. That is 4.3 times more money than we spent on defense. The cost of health care increases at more than double the inflation rate annually.

At 16% of GDP we have the highest health care costs of any developed nation with the next highest being Switzerland 10.9%, Germany 10.7%, Canada 9.7% and France 9.5%. Americans spent one third more on health care than any of these nations, and while 50 million Americans do not have health insurance all of the citizens in the other nations mentioned receive health care. At our current pace we will be spending $4 trillion on health care in just 7 years, by 2015.

With the war in Iraq one might expect the cost of health care for veterans to be substantial as treatment in the war zone is far improved from earlier wars and for every death of a soldier there are 9 wounded soldiers that return home. Yet the cost of veteran’s health care drops to $5,000 per person, $2,000 less per year than civilians.

What is causing these statistical aberrations? Are we much sicker than citizens of the other nations? Is there a greater medical risk to civilians in America than our soldiers in Iraq? Why are 50 million Americans uninsured when all of the citizens of other nations receive health care?

According to the latest statistics employer paid health insurance premiums in the USA were $11,500 for families and about $4,200 for individuals. That means annual health insurance premiums account for a substantial portion of health care costs. Something is very wrong with the system.

Doctors take payoffs from drug companies to promote treatments. Doctor’s own clinics that need to keep billing patients to make money. Hospitals need patients to pay the bills and keep the beds full. In the end, some estimates say 25% of all health care treatment is unnecessary and serves to generate money for clinics, doctors and hospitals and not cures for the patients.

Alternative medicines are blocked throughout the nation as they represent a major loss of revenue for traditional medicine. Most of the use of alternative and holistic treatment is not covered by insurance because it would mean a huge loss in revenue to traditional medicine. CAT scans, MRIs and many other very expensive tests are done without justification in order to generate billings.

Deaths from malpractice and the wrong drugs or drug overdoses can be as high as natural deaths in some medical facilities. Yet the medical money machine goes on and on at higher and higher costs with little effort to bring about meaningful reform.

So what is the average educational debt for new doctors coming into the market? According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2006 (including pre-med borrowing) is $130,571. The average debt of graduating medical students increased in 2006 by 8.5 percent over the previous year. 72 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000. 86.6 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans. 40.2 percent of 2006 graduates have non-educational debt, averaging $16,689. Source: AAMC 2006 Graduation Questionnaires.

So how much do they make when they graduate? Cardiologists were the most sought-after specialists last year, fetching salaries ranging from $234,000 to $525,000 and averaging $320,000 a year, according to surveys. Close behind cardiologists are radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. Other prime areas where salaries are among the highest in medicine include ophthalmology, anesthesiology, and dermatology. Salaries for some of these specialties range from about $250,000 to more than $600,000, never mind the lucrative signing bonuses, income guarantees, and vacation packages that can be counted in months, not weeks.

But you don't need an M.D. after your name for the offers to come in. Pharmacists, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, audiologists, nurse practitioners, and other advanced-practice nurses are all in demand, with a master's degree as a certified registered nurse anesthetist generating salary offers ranging from about $100,000 to $160,000.

How are the candidates going to address the many changes needed in health care costs, stop the unnecessary treatments, and allow for the alternative methods to be embraced? Is there a better way to manage student loans and loan repayment? What insurance reforms are needed to make the USA competitive with other developed nations in terms of health care costs? How can we stop malpractice and false billing against insurance companies?

5. Pharmaceutical Industry Proliferation of Prescription Drugs
This can be short and sweet. In 2002 we spent $162 billion on prescription drugs and in 2006 we spent $217 billion on prescription drugs. One out of every five Americans takes 5 or more prescriptions per day. All Americans average 2.9 prescriptions per day. Our senior citizens, who are increasing very rapidly with the aging of the Baby Boomers, averaged $559 for prescriptions in 1992, $1,205 for prescriptions in 2000, and $1,912 in 2005 with spending expected to reach $2,805 in 2010.

Every day it seems the health authorities announce yet another prescription drug that does not work, or whose long-term effects are determined to be more dangerous than expected. Yet every day it seems there are new prescriptions for new diseases. We live longer but spend far more. Kids are over-prescribed with Ritalin and other drugs. They are addicted to drugs they don’t even take raiding medicine cabinets for the new drug culture.

What will the candidates do to stop this nonsense? How will they reign in the drug companies to stop making false advertising claims? Will they call for truth in advertising, documentation for claims, clinical trials when needed, and a stop to the practice of over-prescribing drugs across the board?

6. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Drug Approval Process
If drug prices in America have been rising almost five times as fast as inflation then the FDA must assume some of the responsibility as they are the regulatory agency charged with overseeing the over-the-counter and prescription drugs so abundant in our society.

The FDA new drug approval process with layers of clinical animal and human trials is the most costly, most lengthy and often most bizarre in terms of protocols and criteria for approval in the world. It is a process designed for the benefit of wealthy pharmaceutical companies, not for the small and independent research companies and laboratories.

Drug companies say it takes up to $500 million to bring a new drug through the FDA approval process. Small companies can do the same thing for about $10-25 million. Most small companies have to raise the money as they go through the process and will give up a major ownership position in their own company to afford the FDA process.

Major pharmaceutical firms have managed to negotiate with FDA for new drug approval even if the drug extends the life expectancy of the patient by just 30 days. Yet when these products are sold to the public no one seems to mention they might only be good for 30 days at a cost of thousands of dollars. Human clinical trials take place to see if there are any adverse reactions to the drugs. When you hear all the disclaimers in the ads for the approved drugs you wonder how they could ever get approval.

Things have gotten so ridiculous in the approval process that television ads for the drug Celebrex contain so many warnings of side effects and drug interactions that the ad actually states “the FDA says the benefits may outweigh the risks” when taking it. Are they crazy? It might be safe to take it?

Human trials approved by FDA require a protocol where half of the patients are given a placebo rather than the drug so results taking the drug can be measured against a control group not taking the drug. Not a bad practice unless the drug is experimental and the disease is going to kill the patient.

For example, stage 3 cancer patients have weeks or months to live. At stage 3 any normal and extremely expensive treatment like chemo, radiation or surgery has already failed. When they are offered a chance to participate in an experiment that might save their life and the option is certain death you might think they would jump at the chance, but that is not the case.

Why would they sign up when only half the people will even receive the treatment, with the other half getting meaningless placebos? If they are in the half that gets the candy and not the drug they die. If they get the drug there is a chance they might live. When you are facing death there should not be a 50-50 chance you won’t get the treatment.

Other problems with the industry include their price gouging, opposition to generic drugs selling for much less, opposition to foreign drugs also selling for much less, payments to doctors for prescribing their drugs, and unsubstantiated claims regarding over-the-counter drugs like cough syrup which has been proven to do no good.

Where do the candidates stand on the issues raised about the FDA and drug regulatory and approval process? How will they change the system to make it more responsive to patients, less costly for companies, and more beneficial for the public? How will false claims be dealt with and stopped?


7. Agriculture – Food Testing, Ingredients and Source
You go to the grocery store, check the fresh meat, see something that looks nice and red and fresh and buy it. Or maybe you buy the chicken to fry up for dinner. Then again you might buy pet food for your favorite dog or cat. Now did anyone tell you fresh meat like beef should not be red? Did they tell you color dyes and carbon monoxide are used to give the cuts of meat that color and they are injected in the butcher shop?

Did they tell you the chicken was raised in a hen house and pumped with hormones, steroids and God knows what else to fatten it up for the slaughter? Did they tell you about everything you just bought included rendered animal parts?

Did they mention rendering plants use raw product including thousands of dead dogs and cats; heads and hooves from cattle, sheep, pigs and horses; whole skunks; rats and raccoons? Did they mention the millions of maggots swarming over the carcasses? Did they tell you the carcasses would be ground up and cooked to create batches of yellow grease, meal and bone meal, and that the meat and bone meal would be used as a source of protein and other nutrients in poultry, swine and pet foods?

That the animal fat is used as an “energy source” and millions of tons will be trucked to poultry ranches, cattle feed-lots, dairy and hog farms, fish-feed plants and pet-food manufacturers where it is mixed with other ingredients to feed the billions of animals that meat-eating humans, in turn, will eat.

When you look at the ingredient label and it says the meat included protein it sounds good but is that protein from the rendered carcasses and what are the health consequences of eating a standard diet of rendered byproduct? The deadly Mad Cow disease was caused by feeding rendered products to cattle.

In food labeling what do the terms “natural” and “organic” really mean? Does that mean they were not genetically engineered? Are they free of the carbon monoxide used to make it appear fresh? Unless you grow all your food in your own garden and prepare all your meals from scratch, it's almost impossible to eat food without preservatives added.

The bottom line is we have a lot of explaining to do about food, what is in it, where it comes from, and what it will do to us over the years. So just where do the candidates stand on this critical consumer health and survival issue? What are their proposals to fix things?

8. Campaign Reform – Empty Promises and Empty Wallets

For the first time in our history the presidential campaign alone in 2008 is expected to cost over one billion dollars. Now that is a whole lot of money being spent to win a job that pays $400,000 a year and only lasts four years. One billion dollars spent to make $1,600,000. If that is the result of capitalism then we might have a problem.

Campaign reform has been talked about more and acted upon less than any other issue facing congress and the president. Political advertising costs are criminal. Some campaigns spend more money raising money than they do getting elected. Special interest groups give to candidates, give more to national political parties, more to state political parties and then spend money themselves to influence elections.

If $1 billion is spent in the race for the White House and there are 121 million votes cast like in 2004 then each vote will cost about $9 for president. When you add to that the cost for federal congressmen and senators, governors, state legislators and local races it is a pretty expensive freedom we exercise.

It can be changed if the president and congress have the guts. Paid ads can be stopped, special interest funding can be stopped, and a logical schedule for primaries can be held. Candidates can receive free media time since all the airways are government regulated. Voter registration can be increased.

There are about 226 million people eligible to vote in the USA and about 142 million are registered to vote. In 2004 about 121 million did vote for president. That means about 53% of the eligible voters participated in the last presidential election, a pretty weak total for the citadel of democracy in the world. That needs to be fixed. Require automatic voter registration with social security cards or drivers licenses if need be but get people back involved in the process. We can’t make people vote but we can make sure they have the opportunity to vote.

There is a lot the candidates can do to introduce meaningful campaign reform and the lack of proposals offered is troubling at best.


9. Immigration Reform – The Slumbering Social Issue of the Day
So far the candidates have done a masterful job of avoiding the issue of Immigration reform although before the campaign heated up they had a variety of ideas to offer. Now it seems the ideas have been taken off the table in hopes no one noticed they flip flopped on an issue.

There are a few areas of agreement. For one everyone agrees we need to strengthen border security on both the Canadian and Mexican borders. We also acknowledge that there are millions of Mexican workers illegally in the USA gainfully employed at jobs typically not wanted by Americans. What to do about them is a huge problem.

Since there is widespread opposition to any kind of amnesty program allowing them to remain without consequence perhaps a better alternative would be to allow those illegal immigrants and their families to remain with a permanent work visa if they are gainfully employed and have paid taxes in the United States.

They are here and they pay our income and sales taxes. They have cars and drivers licenses. They are making a substantial contribution to Social Security even though they cannot draw benefits. What amnesty are we giving them? If we throw them out don’t we owe them back their income, sales and social security payments? I say they have paid enough already for a permanent visa and they should be welcomed if they complete our citizenship requirements.

If the illegal immigrants that are gainfully employed and contributing to our tax and social security system are granted permanent work visas, overnight we will reduce the border security issues saving substantial money and improving relations between our two countries. This will free up resources to pursue the criminal elements from foreign countries that come illegally for far more sinister reasons.

Not only do millions of illegal immigrants pay taxes and provide services we would not otherwise have but they are also victims to hordes of unscrupulous people involved in car sales and repair, medical treatment, legal assistance, and many other areas because they have no way to protect themselves. They cannot go to law enforcement agencies for help, as they would be prosecuted. The simple act of granting well-earned permanent work visas would stop predators from taking advantage of their status.

So the candidates owe us their positions on the immigration reform issue and don’t just tell us they support the Great Wall of Mexico now being constructed. We all know how even the greatest and most feared of walls cannot stop people from seeking social justice and freedom, remember the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall? Give us substance.

10. Government Permits and Inspections – Protection or Payoffs
Whenever corruption is uncovered at the state or local government level the odds are it is tied to the permits and inspection activities of the locality. Permits are required for new and renovation construction, whether it is housing, commercial, industrial or public. A complex combination of federal, state and local statutes dictate the construction standards to be followed.

Federal standards are set but states, counties or localities can add to the standards and the result can be a tremendous burden to the public. Inspections are required for the issuance of building permits and therein lays the gateway to potential corruption. Since inspections cover all aspects of construction from foundations to floors and walls, electrical to plumbing, there are many ways the process can be compromised.

Beyond that unique local codes can further complicate the process such as areas without public water or sewer lines, environmentally sensitive areas, watersheds, aquifers, wetlands, water front and on and on. In some cases the intent of building codes may be good but the result may be counterproductive. For example, we have water shortages but block the recycling of gray water. We require septic mound systems when we have no long term testing to show it even works.

Energy conservation and recycling efforts can be discouraged because of code problems and interpretations and the most cost effective and environmentally friendly materials may be prohibited by outdated building codes. Housing is a critical element of our nation’s economy and anything that restricts our ability to renovate, rebuild, or undertake new construction, to use new energy and environmental materials and techniques, or that offers opportunities for corruption is in need of reform.

The federal government is the only legislative authority that can override the archaic codes or practices of state and local government, that can encourage the use of new materials and techniques to help our energy, environmental and water needs, and can work with state attorney generals to assure the process is not corrupt.

Because this process can impact on anyone living in our nation it would behoove the candidates to address this issue and offer recommendations on how to protect our citizens, encourage the economic activity resulting from housing construction, and make certain the codes are enforced in a lawful and just manner.


Summary
There you have it, ten areas in need of reform to help the people of America, the People’s Agenda for Change. We The People, yes the same We The People first mentioned as the first words of our Constitution, expect leaders to lead and to better understand what type of leadership we can expect from the candidates and we need to know what they intend to do about these issues. Sound bites or silence do you no justice and are a disservice to us.

These issues affect every American and will dramatically effect our future generations. History can be made this election but it will have to be earned by a meaningful discussion of how candidates intend to serve. It is time to silence the swords and get on with the substance. We have waited patiently; now give us the reasons to support you.

Campaign 2008 - May the Last Person Standing Win

As the campaign winds down and America is finally close to being free of political advertising I hope you have enjoyed the efforts of the Coltons Point Times to keep you up to date with the many aspects of the campaign that are not in the papers. After being involved in 32 campaigns over the years at various local, state and national levels I can say this one stands alone.

For those addicted to poll watching just remember that the media is famous for blowing it with the polls from the 2000 Gore win to the 2004 Kerry win along with disastrous exit polls both years, so don't take them too seriously. If Obama wins there will be support for the notion that major campaigns can be bought regardless of the merits of the campaign and I hope Congress will adopt campaign reform finally that eliminates once and for all the chance that America is for sale.

I was saddened to see that fear and hatred became much more dominant than previous campaigns and that is unfortunate for our future. Both sides were generous in their efforts to smear, unfairly characterize and trash their opponent and both took great liberties with the truth. Some can be blamed on over-zealous staff and some on idiotic supporters and a lot can be blamed on a media that seemed to have lost its sense of purpose and decided reporting the truth is no longer required of such an honorable profession.

If you followed my articles throughout the campaign you will note I was hard on both candidates at varying times and tried to remain somewhat balanced. I never took sides nor endorsed anyone but I did take exception when I felt the media did not give the candidates the respect they deserved for having the guts and commitment to sacrifice in running for office. Like them or not we all should appreciate what they did and give credit where credit is due.

As for the results, I said way back on March 5 that Obama would win and I spelled out the reasons. That was when he still trailed Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That was also before the oil price crisis, the home mortgage disaster, the economic collapse, and the fact Obama would raise three times as much money as McCain. By all rights Obama should be 15-20% ahead in the polls by now but he failed to break through the 50% barrier like he should have done. I expect his final result to be closer to 54-46% which represents a heroic effort by McCain and Palin.

I could be wrong, the McCain Palin ticket may do better in spite of the avalanche of Obama money that was thrown into the campaign. Still the sitting president and his lackadaisical approach to the economy, war and foreign relations made it almost impossible for any Republican to win. You might say McCain was bushwhacked along the way.

Of course the winner may very well be the loser in the end as I have written many articles detailing how I believe we are only in the beginning of the recession and there are forces at work to destroy our economy. It is entirely possible the new president will be like Jimmy Carter and be totally unable to steer the ship of state through the perilous times ahead.

Compounding the problem for Obama will be the demands from his various constituencies who will all claim credit for getting him elected and demand his time and attention to their needs first. His loyalties will be stretched thin between the unions and Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, between the Buffets and the uninsured Americans, between the Hollywood celebrities and the silent majority that will elect him.

Beyond that there is the far greater threat to his success which is the very result he worked to achieve, a solid Democratic control of the House and Senate, meaning a super majority that will deny the minority party any chance of influencing power. People will read an Obama victory as an overwhelming rejection of McCain when in truth it will mean a very slight win in terms of the American people.

Change we want, but returning the vast majority of Congressional incumbents to office will make it impossible for Obama to bring about much change when the very people who got us into this mess are still here. Bush may be gone, but he never had a veto proof majority in Congress which means the democrats, when they were a minority and majority power, still share the blame for everything that happened. By 2010 Obama will have to run against his own Congress to have any chance of bringing about all the changes he wants.

Regardless of who wins, all Americans owe their support to the new president and the efforts he will have to make to restore our world image, manage our battered economy and heal our many wounds from a government that lost sight of the very people it was meant to serve. That is the American way. We can disagree amongst ourselves but we must stand united in order to face the challenges that will try and prevent us from being the most powerful yet generous and compassionate people on earth.

For those of you who don't think Coltons Point gets much notice in the world you should know that we have about 370 residents of the Point but the readership of the Coltons Point Times has now passed 18,500. If only the new president would read the CPT he would have a much easier time solving our nation's problems.

Obama versus McCain or Goldman Sachs versus The Rothschilds

A Clash of the Titans for Control of the Presidency

News the media won't report!

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps your vote really doesn't matter because whatever happens in America is being orchestrated by more powerful sources? Few people understand the power and financial influence of two of the most powerful international financial houses in world history and it may very well be they are heavily involved in cutthroat competition for control of our next president. Yet the media has not even begun to question the relationship between these international bankers and our candidates for president.

Well they should before it is too late. Some would argue it may already be too late as the Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the two candidates have already joined forces to adopt the most comprehensive bail out of Wall Street and the banking community every seen in American history and followed it with similar action in every major nation throughout the world.

While Congress and the candidates talk about a $700 billion bailout that was necessary to save the economy, the Federal Reserve and Treasury were quietly adopting new programs and regulations to provide direct assistance to the financial markets bringing the total bailout to nearly $3 trillion. As if that is not enough, the Democratic leadership in Congress also intends to offer a future bribe to the taxpayer of another $300 billion stimulation program if Obama gets elected.

How in the world did the Democrats and Republicans, the liberals and conservatives and the media of this nation all agree to such a massive commitment to save the very institutions that cheated, committed fraud, bent regulations and out-smarted the best minds in government and finance? How did people with opposing philosophies who were bitter political rivals bury the hatchet in the midst of one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in history, just a few weeks before the dramatic climax?

Well perhaps the quiet involvement of Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds may explain as these global powerhouses have been getting their way with governments since long before most modern governments even existed.

In 1750, 26 years before the American Declaration of Independence the Rothschild family began their journey to become the most powerful financial family in world history and though to this day the vast majority of their holdings are privately held, estimates of their family holdings are as much as $167 trillion dollars. Strategic actions over the 258 year continuous evolvement of the Rothschilds has led to control of much of the world supply of gold, oil, diamonds and many other assets.

As for Goldman Sachs, they were founded in 1869, shortly after the end of the US Civil War and at the dawning of the industrial revolution in America joining yet another family firm still around today, J.P. Morgan whose work to save the Union during the Civil War earned it many privileges during the explosion of growth in America including the opportunity to finance the Rockefeller Standard Oil empire with Rothschild money.

In time the three factions would appear to undertake the most intense competition between them for control of the global financial system ever seen but in the end, though all three groups remain the sole survivors today in terms of American influence, it became known that Morgan was serving as a front for the Rothschilds in order for the Rothschilds to maintain a low profile in America. But low profile or not they dominated what happened and how it happened.

As for the involvement in this election cycle, Goldman Sachs and the Rothschilds have again taken on each other with the Rothschilds jumping onto the McCain bandwagon late in the campaign while Goldman Sachs has been imbedded in the Obama campaign since the beginning. While the Rothschilds have seemingly played a much smaller role in McCain's efforts much remains to be disclosed of the Goldman role with Obama.

This much can be reported. Back when Obama was a freshman candidate for Senator he was selected to be keynote speaker for the Democratic national convention in 2004. A nobody from Chicago was plucked from midair and cast into the most important slot in the convention. How he would up there remains to be revealed.

Just a little over one year after being elected as a junior senator, in 2006 Obama was the featured guest before a private gathering of the Goldman Sachs executives in Chicago, an honor unheard of for someone that politically insignificant, speaking before the most powerful financial firm on Wall Street and one of the most powerful in the world. This was quietly reported in Bloomberg News.

It was the launch of his presidential campaign and Goldman executives soon gave over $800,000 to jump start the Obama presidential bid along with collecting millions of dollars from their fellow Wall Street firms and clients. Oh yes, Robert Rubin became the Obama economic expert, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Billionaire Warren Buffet became his most trusted economic advisor, a man who was to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in the height of the economic meltdown. Yet Buffet was also a personal guest of Lord Rothschild at a private conference at his English estate.

The story only gets better. On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing. The exclusive private dinner was for Goldman Sachs traders and featured a discussion on issues by Obama moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw. Once again the circumstances are strange as a year later Brokaw would be moderating the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain and the economy and Wall Street were the main points of discussion. Of course the debate commission and McCain were unaware that Obama and Brokaw had already held a practice session the year earlier.

Then comes the financial meltdown which can be traced back to a couple of major events. The first major change to the regulatory framework that opened the door to Enron and the sub-prime crisis occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that even though it was an investment bank it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders in the commodity markets because it was in the business of buying commodities as a middleman. It was granted by the CFTC.

A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, that formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the "Enron loophole," saying Enron played a role in crafting it. In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.

Investment banks like Goldman's had been frustrated with the established exchange because they really were never able to get control of it according to Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former staff member at the CFTC. The new law allowed them to create a private trading platform. The most successful of the private platforms was InterContinental Exchange, or ICE, founded by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a few other big brokerages in 2000. ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas without being subject to regulation. This opened the floodgates to oil price speculation.



Suddenly comes the current economic chaos and the president calls a meeting of Congressional leaders, Treasury, Federal Reserve staff and the presidential candidates. Obama, who was staying away from Washington during the crisis got the call and at the meeting he spoke about economic issues that reportedly had been prepared by the Republicans and was being reviewed by Treasury yet wound up in the Obama campaign. Of course the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulsen was a former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs as is the new head of the $700 billion Treasury bailout program.

Do we really know anything about the long term relationship between Obama and Goldman Sachs other than their massive fund raising for him? Since he has been secretly guided and financed by Goldman people from the very beginning of his presidential campaign were they influential in his economic platform? Obama never questioned the role of Goldman in the sub-prime fiasco nor in manipulating the oil futures prices. When Goldman specialists tried to drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel this year Obama never said a word.

Long before this time the Goldman Sachs Foundation had quietly channeled funds to Colin Powell's new group, America's Promise and Powell himself was collecting honorariums from $50,000 to $100,000 for speaking to various groups including Goldman sponsored events. At some point between the time he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then left government, only to come back as Bush Secretary of State, Powell acquired between $1 million and $5 million of stock in giant defense contractor General Dynamics, a firm in which the Roshschilds have extensive ownership. Powell eventually would be converted from a McCain financial contributor and friend to endorser of Obama in less than a year.

As for the Rothschilds and McCain, it was not until this year that they held a fund raiser for him in London hosted by Lord Jacob Rothschild and his son, Nathaniel Rothschild in the posh London Spencer House on March 28, 2008. As I said at the beginning, the Rothschilds are the oldest, biggest and most powerful of all financial houses and have long chosen to remain in the background while other firms fronted their interests.

Although they compete with firms like Goldman they also cooperate often on international mergers and acquisitions, have been partners in the oil futures exchange, and recently both sought to expand their influence in Asia with the Rothschilds selling a 20% interest in one of their companies to the Bank of China. The Shanghai and Hong Kong-listed commercial bank will pay $341 million for the stake in the French arm of the La Compagnie Financière. It is the first strategic investment by a leading Chinese bank in the eurozone.

In spite of being foreign based the Rothschilds have been one of the chief beneficiaries of the economic crisis in America as J.P. Morgan and Barclays, firms with significant equity held by the Rothschilds, were able to gobble up Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual in sweetheart deals for a fraction of their asset values in the midst of the crisis.

So what control do we really have over the election, over the president and over the Congress? We know control has been lost of the economy, of world trade and of international finance. Most government institutions seem to be operating at the whim and call of the financial giants. Can we expect more after this election? Is America for sale to the highest bidder and is Obama's $500 million campaign the highest bid? All this bodes ill for the liberal, left wing groups and unions rallying around Obama as they may very well be discarded when they have served the purpose of winning the elections.

Obama's Got the Wailin' Palin Blues

Hey Wall Street - Enough is Enough! Or Did You Already Bet on Obama?

In yet another slap in the face to the American consumer the greed mongers on Wall Street have gotten everything they wanted from the President, the Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the international central banks, even the two candidates for president Obama and McCain and still they refuse to release the trillions of US dollars they are hoarding while continuing to hold the economy hostage.

Over two trillion dollars in American pension savings have gone up in smoke this year as the forces behind the government have manipulated and raped every treasure trove they could find to protect their precious credit, line their pockets, and demonstrate to the government just who is in charge of the US economy. Such behavior almost borders on criminal if there were any laws that existed to prosecute the predators of lower Manhattan. But thanks to the millions of dollars in special interest contributions poured into the campaigns and pockets of our elected officials no such laws exist.

Is it just circumstance that only two investment houses survived the economic meltdown this year and gobbled up all their competitors, two firms now sitting on billions if not trillions of our funds? Is it circumstance these firms have the power to call accounts in other companies, in other words demand early payment, when there is no money to be had thus driving those competitors out of business?

Is it circumstance that the survivors, Goldman Sachs and J P Morgan owned and controlled the London energy futures market used to drive up the price of oil and devastate our economy and that of the world? Well is it circumstance that these companies have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of our elected officials and both were the primary beneficiaries of stunning government actions to rescue the economy?

As of August 31 according to the Center for Responsive Government Barack Obama had raised about $460 million compared to about $230 million for McCain. Obama is the first federal candidate in our history to refuse public financing even though he pledged to take the public financing which would have greatly reduced his spending in the campaign.

Goldman Sachs temple in Wall Street.

So what financial interest did Goldman Sachs have in Barack Obama? Since the beginning of his campaign the boys at Goldmans have been the biggest contributors to Obama and helped bring in millions from the Wall Street establishment. Goldman executives alone have given Obama $739,521 and have helped raise the following from Wall Street firms for Obama. CitiGroup - $492,548, J P Morgan - $475,112, UBS - $419,550, Lehman Brothers - $391,774, Morgan Stanley - $341,380 and various amounts from Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch.

What could be Obama's fascination with Goldman Sachs? Well it goes back as Bloomberg News reported Obama was the featured speaker at the Goldman's annual partners meeting in 2006 in Chicago. This was a junior member of the US Senate who had not even been in office two years yet he was speaking to the top executives of one of the most powerful investment houses in the world. There is something very strange about the circumstance.

The story only gets better. On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing. The exclusive private dinner was for Goldman Sachs traders and featured a discussion on issues moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw. Once again the circumstances are strange as a year later Brokaw would be moderating the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain and the economy and Wall Street were the main points of discussion. Of course the debate commission and McCain were unaware that Obama and Brokaw had already held a practice session the year earlier when Obama was facing a withering attack from Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in the democratic primary.

Now that is three most unusual encounters between Obama and Goldman Sachs. Then comes the economic chaos and the president calls a meeting of Congressional leaders, Treasury and Federal Reserve staff and the presidential candidates. Obama, who was staying away from Washington during the crisis got the call and at the meeting was the only person to talk about a Republican alternative proposal for the crisis, a proposal that had not even been made public at the time.

Former Goldman CEO and now Treasury Secretary Paulsen.



It was later learned that a Treasury staff member reviewing the confidential proposal from Republicans was able to smuggle the information to Goldman Sachs employees who emailed it to Obama staff and it was given to him before the White House meeting, thus enabling him to pre-empt McCain from offering the new Republican proposal. Of course the Secretary of the Treasury was a former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Do we really know anything about the relationship between Obama and Goldman Sachs other than their massive fund raising for him? Since he has been secretly guided and financed by Goldman people from the very beginning of his presidential campaign were they influential in his economic platform. While he now admits things have changed and many of his proposals might be delayed or dropped, he still proposed a tax on the rich which would seem to be opposed to the Goldman executives.

Yet it was convenient that Goldman faced billions in losses from the sub-prime mortgage mess and they helped trigger the economic collapse with the manipulation of oil futures driving the world into a credit crisis, a crisis that helped them make billions of dollars through spiraling oil prices. Most convenient of all, the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan was approved just before a new president was elected so the new president would not be blamed for anything that went wrong.

Obama never questioned the role of Goldman in the sub-prime fiasco nor in manipulating the oil futures prices. When Goldman specialists tried to drive the price of oil up to $200 a barrel Obama never said a word. His meetings with them over the years were in secret and his actions were a wall of silence as the boys from Wall Street destroyed the economic system forcing a historic bailout by Congress that gave Wall Street nearly unlimited access to the US Treasury. Now did all of these incidents slip his mind as well as if his secret meetings with Goldman had nothing to do with the economy. I hope he can explain to the public just what has been going on and what, if anything he promised them in return.

Polling the Polls - Too Close to Call

As we have been warning for the past year, the polls in the presidential race are wrong and the latest round of poll releases demonstrates just how wrong they are. Five major tracking polls have been released in the past 24 hours and the difference is night and day. Each day of the campaign has seen major shifts but the most important factor is that Real Politics shows that McCain-Palin has been slowly and surely closing the gap.

Right now Gallup shows Obama ahead by 11 counting all registered voters and leaners, the Rasmussen poll of likely and leaning voters shows Obama ahead by 6, the Reuters/Zogby poll of likely voters shows Obama ahead by 2, while the Battleground poll shows Obama ahead by 4 and the Hotline poll shows Obama ahead by 1. Realclearpolitics.com, which compiles and averages all polls, show the Obama lead has shrunk to just 3, well within the margin of error.

By now there should be about 10% undecided and the Zogby poll shows 8% while Gallup shows 7%. With about 4 weeks left anyone can win the election so hold on to your hats. There is only one poll that really counts, election day!

Campaign 2008 - Defining Issues - Abortion

Few social and moral issues in America draw such emotional response from the opposing sides of an issue like abortion and most of the time it is kept far from the public spotlight but this year may be different, it may be drug out of the closet into the consciousness of the public. With Obama and Biden solidly pro-abortion and McCain and Palin solidly pro-life there is a clear distinction between candidates.

There is nothing unusual about the fact the Democratic candidates are pro-abortion and the Republican candidates are pro-life, that happens most elections. What is different is the Palin effect and the fact she refused to have an abortion of a child even though she knew it had down syndrome before birth. Then there is her teenage daughter who got pregnant and also refused to have an abortion. In response the feminist leftists condemned Palin, the pro-abortionists have gone on television condemning her and the pro-abortion media has denounced her choice.

For better or worse they have collectively made abortion a matter of public debate with hysterical claims that Sarah Palin would single handedly reverse the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Roe versus Wade, that legalized abortion in America. Such a claim is false because a vice president cannot reverse the Supreme Court and Sarah Palin has never said such a thing but telling the truth does not seem to be a concern of the political pundits. Her magnetic attraction to the public and ability to draw thousands to see her give her a platform never before seen on this side of the issue.

As for Roe versus Wade, it was a ruling by the Supreme Court that centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable'". The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. In 1973 viability usually occurred at about seven months (28 weeks) but might occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. Medical breakthroughs since the ruling and prenatal advances have demonstrated that the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother's womb may come at a much earlier time.

So what is the real story with abortion in America? It has been 35 years since the Supreme Court ruling. The pro-abortion movement changed their name to pro-choice to improve their image and the anti-abortion movement changed their name to pro-life for the same reason, both changes within a couple of years of Roe versus Wade.

As for the record in America since passage of Roe versus Wade, as of 2008 there have now been 50 million legal abortions in the US, a total that somehow gets left out of all discussions of abortion. For comparison purposes, the total people killed in all wars fought by the United States from the War of Independence through Iraq is 1,315,237. In other words there have been 38 times as many abortions in 35 years as death from wars in 232 years. The total abortions in the US is nearly equal to the entire population of England or France.

Worldwide there have now been over 1 billion abortions in the years between 1920 and 2008 according to estimates of the United Nations Population Fund. That means total abortions now equal about 16% of the population of the world. Every year there are about 50 million abortions worldwide.

Beyond the basic belief that the government has no right to legislate morality, a favored argument of the pro-choice movement to justify the abortion option, they also offer three conditions of pregnancy that dominate their defense of unrestricted abortions. First they say it is justified in the case of rape or incest. Total abortions performed annually according to multiple studies and reports reflect less than 1% for rape or incest.

A second justification is in the event of the threat of death to the mother for completing the term. The same studies have shown this is the reason for slightly less than 2% of the abortions. Finally they claim the health of the fetus, when shown to be suffering from life threatening or severe physical impediments is another justification but again this only represents less than 2% of abortions. In other words, the three primary justifications total just under 5% of total annual abortions. Of the 50 million abortions about 2.5 million fall in the three most emotional, most often mentioned and most overrated reasons for abortions. That means 47.5 million abortions that have been performed don't fall into those classifications.

What does this mean to the election? Catholics and other Christian congregations are the strongest group opposed to abortion and we have written earlier how the 47 million Catholics of voting age represent a total demographic block equal to over 25% of all eligible voters. The concentration of Catholics and Christian sharing similar views in swing states make the group even more substantial. With Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, both Catholics advocating abortions, then going on NBC Meet the Press and attempting to distort the teachings of the Catholic Church, the issue has become very hot.

Finally, there is the very dark side of the history of the pro-abortion movement which is not generally known to many dating back to the work of Margaret Sanger early in the 20th century to legalize first birth control and then abortions. She is generally recognized as the founder of pro-abortion and Planned Parenthood and her work in eugenics is a very hidden and dark side of the movement.

Back at the turn of the century some eugenics advocates such as Margaret Sanger used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. It evolved into a practice intended to cleanse the human population of inferior classes and cultures. Sanger's newsletters and organizations were advocates of this social philosophy and her associates worked with people including Ernst Rudin who became architects of the Nazi Aryan Purification programs under Adolph Hitler.

Although eugenics has been condemned by pro-abortion groups in recent history abortions have resulted in significant "defective" children being aborted and overall 58% of abortions involve Whites while 34% involve Blacks. Such a controversial justification for abortion is relatively unknown to members of the current pro-choice movement.


Depending on the reaction of the Catholic Church to the Pelosi and Biden fiascos, the efforts of the many Christian coalitions opposed to abortion and the growing awareness of the history and stunning numbers of abortions now being performed, there is a potential for this issue to impact on the presidential race. Sarah Palin could also ignite the debate with her fierce opposition to the movement and leftist media attacks against her. In the end, any or all of these factors could help fire up the issue and make it impossible to factor it into the polls.

Palin Must See TV - The Great Debate

If Obama was truly media savvy he would be debating Sarah Palin as she continues to be the star of the presidential campaign. Over 72 million Americans tuned in to watch her debate, a bunch cheering for her to beat the leftist media at their own game and a bunch waiting for her to self destruct. Once again, when her message cannot be diluted by the edit happy media like Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and the increasingly bitter David Letterman, Palin connects to the heart and soul of America.

Palin power pulled 20 million more viewers than the darling of the liberal media Barack Obama. For probably the first time in history a vice presidential candidate buried the presidential candidate audience in an avalanche of television followers and proved to the world that her experience and media savvy are far more powerful than Barack's inexperience and media manipulation when it comes to the typical American viewer.

Now the liberal leftist pundits say a candidate for vice president can never win an election for president but these are the same pundits who failed to warn us about the stock market crash, the credit crisis, the budget deficit and even the Yankees and Cubs being knocked out of the World Series. Their credibility to the general public is well below that of President Bush and threatens the Congress for having the lowest credibility of any profession in America. No one believes the media. No one believes the politicians.

I believe the vice presidential candidate can win the election when both candidates for president have the same standing in polls on issues like being prepared, qualified, trusted to be president, etc. and for now McCain and Obama are little different. What these same media pundits fail to say is that for the first time in our history women, not the bra burning feminists of 5th Avenue and Hollywood and Vine but the Main Street grandmothers, mothers and daughters who have watched in dismay as the media, politicians and Wall Street have sunk into the cesspool of corruption, back room deals and greed, these women can make things different.

These women you never read about in People Magazine or Crime Reporter have waited a long time for the men to get it right, the men of the left and the men of the right, and things are not getting any better no matter which way you turn. No, the seeds were planted long ago for a populist revolt in America and not just in Iraq but in Viet Nam. The people who run our government have been around for a very long time. But this time the silent women's majority has a choice to send a message so loud and clear it will knock the socks off the feet and the dirty cash out of the pockets of the entire male dominated establishment in the media, in Washington and on Wall Street.

Love her or hate her Palin is the only one of the big four candidates not contaminated by Wall Street, not contaminated by Washington insiders and not contaminated by a pandering media. She is the only candidate who is not a member of the most sacred men's club in Washington, in America,the US Senate. The people are truly fed up with the establishment, the existing order of things and the people who have brought us the mess we are in, and only one candidate is not part of that tainted establishment, Sarah Palin.

That is why she draws far bigger audiences, interest and even media attention than the big three. And if the silent majority of women decide for the first time in history that enough is enough, then the cocky candidates and cranky media will be in for the surprise of their collective lives when the Moose hunting momma kicks the butts of the mainstream media, the elite establishment and the executives of Wall Street come November 4.

Obama and McCain back on Track - The Election is on Again

For the first time since the political conventions in August today the two candidates for president acted presidential and maybe there is hope that the people will finally get the choice they need, a choice between two visions for the future of America.

I suspect the candidates finally got control of the campaigns back from the staff as there is no way these two people were performing to the best of their abilities the past few weeks. I have said repeatedly that we need to hear ideas, a vision and a future of hope for America and the campaigns were bogged down in blame, accusation and hostility that served no good purpose.

Today that seemed to change. Both gave speeches directed to the future, not pointing fingers to the past. It was refreshing to hear so many good ideas being offered and if the candidates were honest then they demonstrated that either one is not beholden to the forces in Washington, DC or Wall Street and were in a position to really go after the people standing in the way of change.

There are many people who represent the old way and will resist any reforms that take away their power and control over the nation and only a president free of dependence on them can offer such hope to the public. Our president is elected to serve all the people, not just the liberals or conservatives, and both candidates could do that.

If the biased media would just shut up and report the news rather than work so hard to manufacture the news, if they would stop the efforts to discredit candidates and recognize that the people running for office have given up a lot to run and will give up a lot more to serve, then we will all be better served.

There are a lot of similarities in the agendas of the candidates but a lot of difference in how they will go about changing things. That is the decision the voters must make. Because of the economy and Bush John McCain has an uphill battle to win but he is not a Bush clone and the people know it.

Barach Obama has to resist being labeled as the liberal candidate in order to reach across party and philosophical lines and his worst enemy are the leftist media supporting him but he too can effectively distance himself from the enemy.

It is time for a populist president and both can be standard bearers for the populist movement. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and Wall Street and Congress have all demonstrated that their narrow agenda is not what America needs at this moment in time. What we need is to hear more of the candidates vision and implementation strategy these last 30 days. If they keep from attacks and focus on the future America will be well served.

What we need is a president with "No strings attached." If the candidates will stay focused America will get such a leader and a new wave of hope and promise will flow over the land.

The Great Debate - Obama and McCain - Enough is Enough

Buried in the middle of an economic meltdown was the first great debate in which every Democratic and Republican pundit and news media person said it would be the debate of the century drawing 80-100 million viewers according to the gospel of MSNBC. It wasn't. Fact is in terms of people watching it didn't even make the top 10 as just 52.4 million people tuned in. It finished 28.2 million people behind the Reagan-Carter debate of 1980. If you adjust the 1980 debate for today's population over 109 million people would have been watching, more than double our present day warriors.

So here are the facts. In terms of convention speeches McCain, Obama and Palin each drew about 40 million viewers. The debate drew 52.4 million. There will be about 121.5 million people actually voting this election so 43% of the likely voters watched, while 57% did not watch. That is not a particularly good sign that the campaigns have energized the voters.

During these last few weeks of the campaign we are going to be hit with an avalanche of campaign ads, emails, television bytes and other forms of slander, distortion and nasty stuff. We have already faced 18 months of the same stuff. Obama will outspend McCain 2-1 nationally and 4-1 in the swing states. If you had access to an honest poll you would see Obama has a slight lead but nearly 16% of the voters are undecided so no matter what the experts say, the race is still up in the air.

By now we expected Obama to have a solid double digit lead but he doesn't in spite of the huge spending advantage. Neither candidate demonstrated much leadership in our economic crisis so don't count on any surge from that. Palin has been mauled by the leftist media, ridiculed by the Hollywood elite and outright slandered by Democratic special interest groups but she is still here.


This weeks vice presidential debate will have to be her coming out party or the election will probably be over but to those hate mongering liberals don't be surprised if she doesn't knock that smug smile off your faces. The McCain campaign staff has done a terrible job of over managing her and it has cost them. If they learned their lesson and they cut her loose things might be a lot different.

Both candidates, their many surrogates and in particular the elitist media need to stop with the criticism, charges and political nonsense and get on with telling us how they will govern. Who cares if Sarah Palin doesn't know the name of regulation reforms offered by McCain over the years, we need to know that she understands our needs and interests and they sure aren't old regulatory bills from the past. All the candidates need to focus on their vision of the future.

With the election leaning toward Obama but still up in the air there are four factors that could swing the final tally either way, the Catholic vote, the pro and anti abortion vote, the women's vote as opposed to the feminist vote and the racial issue. Each of these will be examined in detail during the next few days.

Palin Stops Obama's Bridge to Nowhere

Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann - Liberal Dobermans Protecting the Left

The NBC team of Dobermans self-appointed to protect the liberal left, Matthews and Olbermann from MSNBC, continue as stalking horses for the Obama campaign even after their network banned them from future campaign coverage because of their radical views.

Today, incensed by the Sarah Palin ability to power McCain into the lead, they have resorted to lies, innuendo and distortions on their cable programs to rally the socialists to the cause. Unable to find any facts to support their character assassination of Sarah Palin, they are trying to raise issues intended to upset the voters.

Under the guise of "character" they claim Palin lied regarding her views on the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, as if a non-existence bridge is the final determinant in a persons career in public service.

According to the leftist propagandists Palin supported the pork barrel bridge project before she became governor and then opposed it after she became governor. Curiously Obama used the exact words the very same day to attack Palin.

Of course Palin never did support the $400 million bridge project to a very small island but did support a "link" to the island. The pork barrel advocates translated a link into a $400 million boondoggle when all Sarah Palin wanted was a ferry service to link the island to the mainland. Once she was made aware what they did she fought the wasteful project.

Two gross distortions from the liberal left including Obama. Palin never supported a $400 million bridge and the governor of any state does not create pork barrel projects. Only the US Congress, the House and the Senate, can create such projects.

So just who created the $400 million boondoggle? A senator from Alaska and it was approved by the US Senate. And who actually voted for the project, Senator Barack Obama, not Governor Sarah Palin. It was part of nearly $1 billion in pork barrel projects approved by the free spending liberal Barack Obama in Congress. Did I mention Congress is controlled by the Democrats?

The only question left in this campaign is who will win the hearts and minds of the American voters? Will it be the mud slingers from NBC and the leftist elite or the gun slinger from the Alaska backwoods?

Something About Sarah - Our Radical Elitist Liberal Socialist Media Don't Understand

So is America really inundated with a radical, elitist, liberal, socialist media? Do these seemingly ruthless people use the right to free speech to advocate socialist causes? Do they want us to think they are providing a fair and balanced view of the world and politics? Are they using yellow journalism, smear tactics and biased reporting to cover media sensation Sarah Palin? Of course.

Unfortunately for the strategy planners in our elitist media they are completely out of touch with mainstream America so they have thus far managed to make fools of themselves with their double standards, senseless whining and wholesale massacre of decency and honesty in reporting. And while they are sipping their lattes and raging about how McCain is hiding Sarah Palin from them, little Sarah is kicking their butts from here to Moscow in the polls.

All the while these self-appointed egomaniacs who were so smug in shoving Barack Obama down the throats of American voters are choking to death at the sight of a moose hunting mama from Alaska who has survived the firestorm from the media and quietly driven McCain to a ten point lead in the polls.

There is something about Sarah all right and it scares the media stars to death. Little Sarah has managed to connect directly with the American public thus stopping the media from being the only source of information for the people. They have never witnessed a media sensation that does not need them to interpret, package and manipulate their story.

Her agenda violates their code. She opposes corruption, extravagance and waste which is contrary to their lifestyle. She thinks it is okay to have a happy family life, be a mother and love her husband which certainly violates every code of conduct for the Hollywood and east coast elitists. She opposes abortion but doesn't make a big deal of it.

She is optimistic which means she doesn't need a briefcase full of prescription drugs to make it through the day. She is popular even though she doesn't have a manicurist, pedicurist, hair stylist, personal trainer and analyst. She buys her clothes in retail stores. She drives herself to work. She laughs and smiles too much.

She raised the money to pay for her own college through beauty pageant scholarships. She joined the PTA to improve education. She ran for mayor and governor to fix problems in politics. And if all that isn't enough she is a successful small town politician, small town businesswoman, small town mother and life long member of the National Rifle Association.

You would think someone with all those attributes would appeal to the women's lib groups, the equal rights and freedom of choice groups. But no, they really didn't mean liberation for all women, choices for all women or equality for all women, just those women who passed their litmus test and embraced their socialist agenda.

Sarah Palin has held a mirror into the face of the supposed leadership of our media, women's issues and pretenders claiming to be defenders of our freedom and rights. The hysterical reaction of these people to Sarah is nothing more than the horrifying reaction when peering into the looking glass and seeing the hypocrites these people have become.

Oh yes my friends, there is something about Sarah. A light in the darkness, a ray of hope in a storm, a candle in the night and a source of comfort for those in need. Sarah represents the strength of who we are and could be and not the image of who we aren't and don't want to be. If I were the elitist media I'd be running for cover before Sarah starts firing back.

Sarah Palin New Media Star

Well the elite media may hate her but America has come to her defense as Plain Sarah Palin stunned the elitists by capturing over 37 million viewers on television last night at her coming out party according to the latest Nielsen overnight ratings.

Obama's cornation at the Democratic convention broke all the old records for viewers as Joe Biden drew 24 million viewers, Hillary Clinton drew almost 26 million viewers and Barack's rock concert at the 80,000 seat stadium drew 38 million viewers.

So how in the world did the hockey mom from moose country who emerged from the Alaska frontier just five days ago have just 1 million fewer viewers than the most promoted, visible and exposed (over $150 million has been spent on the Obama campaign) candidate in Democratic party history?

Guess what? The elite media put the Obama lovefest on ten national networks while the country girl was only put on six networks, yet another example of media manipulation and still she nearly toppled the reigning king of political media.

If you believed the media Obama should be running away with the election. Based on spending and exposure he really should be. But what is the truth behind the numbers?

Annie Oakly from moose country nearly equals his record for the largest political television audience in history on four less networks. A week ago no one even knew her.

Obama has captured about 18 million votes while spending hundreds of millions of dollars over 18 months while Sarah has spent a week in the public eye being mauled by the media.

Obama is the darling of the liberal media, yet just 21% of American voters are liberal, 45% are moderate and 34% are conservative.

While Obama captured 18 million primary votes, so did Hillary Clinton. There will be about 125 million votes cast for president this year which means 107 million have not voted for Obama this year.

Registered voters are split about 37% Democrat, 37% Republican and 26% Independent.

In spite of the best efforts of some media to discredit Sarah Palin the country girl managed to become a media star matching the star power of the mighty Obama in her first week of exposure to the American public.

Well now we have a real election. No matter who wins history will be made. For once the media elite will be on the ballot through surrogate Obama. And once again the American voters, Joe Six Pack and Soccer/Hockey Mom, will determine the future of the world.