FastFacts_2008

Congratulations to John McCain for such a great debate. Barack Obama was a great opponent and brought up many great issues, answers, and thoughts. But it is undeniable that the winner of the debate was presidential candidate John McCain. McCain continually brought up the naivety and inexperience of Obama and even the post debate commentators of many papers and news outlets told of their agreement. Obama held his own, in many ways, in Foreign Policy but this was ultimately McCain’s greatest strength and Obama could not show the experience that McCain was able to share. Obama brought up some problem within Bush’s policies and McCain showed how there were many differences between him and our current president. All together this was a great debate but as for the underlying topic of the whole debate, John McCain was found to be more comfortable and stronger on Foreign Policy.

It use to be "Tom, finish your dinner, people in India and China are starving," today it is "Tom, finish your homework, people in India and China are starving for your jobs." In a flat world they can have them. Globalization and the IT Revolution was just the sharpening act.

Our jobs are leaving our hands not just because of corrupt and greedy companies but because we won't fight for them. Those taking these jobs know two to three languages. They know every type of technology they need to succeed. Their life is based around learning technology and communications and yet students these days have their heads between two small speakers with their noses in front of gaming or cell phone screens. What are we doing to ourselves.

A book all U.S. students need to read is "The World is Flat."

Look at the video presentation on: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266/

Please think about it, help our students reach their true potential.

How you run a corporation is not about greed and corruption. There are great corporations without a hint of this; actually there are plenty, even a majority without greed and corruption.  But money is the largest driving force in business, which is why you go into business and even the oil industry. To say they are greedy is to say that a man or woman on a diet only thinks about himself or herself. Their main goal is to eat right, exercise, and lose weight. When they go running, they aren't trying to neglect their family, they aren't trying to show off to the whole world that they are better than everyone else; their main goal is to lose weight. Same as with Oil Companies, their main goal is to make money for their shareholders, which if you own any stock, mutual funds, a 401K, or an IRA, that most likely includes you. They are not trying to neglect or hurt the earth; there hasn't been a large spill in this country since Exxon Valdez, March 24, 1989, almost 20 years ago. The whole hike in oil prices was not because of oil companies per say, it’s because it is a commodity and in the commodities market. In this market, people put a value to each product, when they think it is under valued they buy more, when it is over valued they sell it and that is what is happening now. This is what drives it up but is it a bad thing, no. Yes it is bad for the consumer like you and me, and we do get very angry when we see the gas prices jump 14 cents a day but did they do anything illegal or unethical, no. They were doing everyday honest transactions.

Back to the original question, is it greed or corruption to not drill in a place that is economically unwise? No. It is a way of doing business. America was built off of economically wise companies doing what is best for the company and you if you are a shareholder, making money. If I knew I was going to gain weight by eating a chocolate cake when I was on a diet, of course I wouldn’t eat it. My main concern is to lose weight and that would make me gain it. Oil companies know when they will earn a profit and when they won’t. When it comes to businesses drilling in places they will lose money, its like eating that chocolate cake and gaining the weight back on. But when it comes to helping others, the communities, the environment, and even alternative energy they spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year to help in these causes. The oil industry is not all about greed, though we know there is a good deal. It is mostly about raising money for their company and that is why capitalism has helped America to grow and to become the Greatest Nation on Earth.

Right now our GREAT TASK is to make America independent of foreign oil. This is in order to buy time for the GREATEST CAUSE to create and build alternative energy and make the United States independent of fossil fuels.

I guarantee this will happen sooner through capitalism with the help of government, not being run by the government.

Socialism is not the way. We need less government messing up things that are going very well to even fairly well. Could you imagine the government taking over the inventing, designing, and manufacturing of Alternative Resources like they take care of Social Security, our educational system, Medicaid, Medicare, and the one you like to mention a great deal, the War in Iraq. If the government were to take over Oil, we would be in deep trouble like Venezuela. They have subsidized the oil distribution to their country to the hilt, and by doing so had to raise taxes to the hilt as well. Because of this, they have come close many times to bankrupting their own nation. What the government can do, is change their rules on their leases and give the companies benchmarks to reach in order to keep the land. 

So let's take that option off the table. Let’s not allow the government to do everything for us and ask ourselves, as a wise man once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. -Words from the inaugural address of President John F. Kennedy.

I actually agree with those who fight against drilling in ANWAR, up to a point. We need to keep as much oil in the ground as long as possible, but that has a stipulation on it, that's only if our oil fields supply enough oil for our country that we can be independent of other countries including those who terrorist friendly, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and those who are dictators to the world through their oil, such as Russia. When I have spoken of ANWAR I spoke the facts, that it would not be an environmentally adverse place to drill but that’s if it is not viable to drill anywhere else and we can't produce enough oil through those other fields for oil independence in the United States.

No one is saying that we need to drill everywhere, just where needed. There are two problems that oil companies find when they receive these leases on possible oil fields. 1) It is not economical to drill in most of these areas because they would not make a good enough return on investment than they would make in other fields because of the difficulty or quantity of oil under that lease. Most of the oil leases are under this category. 2) Is the fact that the oil companies have to wait for a permit to drill on these lands. The whole fight is not to drill everywhere, it is also asking to make the process shorter and allow these companies to drill on the land that they have. Did you know a company can wait up to 7 years before getting a drilling permit on one of these lands.The process is so long and the majority of the claims are denied for so many reasons. The companies do not release this land back in hopes that some day the government will lessen the regulations on oil and that the price of oil or new technology makes it more economical to drill. That is why they sit on the lease. Did you know that, Governor Palin though the Alaskan Department of Natural Resources, actually pulled multiple leases away from oil companies that were sitting on leases too long and allowed Alaska to give them to others who would drill on them?
As for Point Thomson, this is one of the leases that Gov. Palin worked on pulling because of the lack of performance. The reason was because of all of the initial costs that were needed to start drilling this piece of land. Exxon and the other companies in that area saw that it was not economically wise to drill because they would be losing money hand over fist with all of the infrastructure they needed to build such as hundreds of miles of roads, bridges, an airport, buildings, that is even before they started setting up their drills and offices. These are not normal infrastructural components; most have to be built on top of ice and permafrost. It is said that if they were smart and saw the price of oil skyrocket as it did, they would have started a few years before. This is why Point Thomson is not a good example, if you are going to take a lose to drill, then why drill.

Point taken, they need to be told that you can’t sit on a lease for more than a certain amount of time or it will be pulled and held until someone is ready to drill. What needs to happen is they need to give permits to spot drill to test the sites. Then after you have found it is a viable oil field, you produce a plan to drill, then you have a certain amount of time to do certain step to show positive activity. The difference between this and the plan the laws allows is that no lease is produced until the testing and planning is completed. That way no company can just sit on an oil field if they are not going to use it. If they are permitted to test it, then they have the first chance to summit a plan, giving this company a year or two. This plan would not provide leases to land until the plan is submitted. The only problem with this is, why would a company test a piece of land unless they were certain they would be allowed to drill there. With so much corruption in the government, the company could be denied a lease and another company be given it after the first found it would be viable.

In my last blog, someone made some assumptions about Sarah Palin that I think need clarification. They supposed that Sarah Palin and McCain were in the pockets of Big Oil. The best way to figure this out in an unbiased way is by sharing the history of these two candidates. Here is that history and a continuation from my last comment on my last blog.

1. Sarah Palin, in 2003, was asked by Alaskan Governor Frank Murkowski to become chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and sat on that board until she resigned in 2004. Does anyone know why she resigned? Her resignation was because many Alaskan politicians were working with 3 Big Oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and ConocoPhillips, to build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. Was that it, that doesn’t sound bad at all?  No, that was only the beginning. These politicians were negotiating to build this pipeline for just those three oil companies, and make it so they didn't have to share the natural gas with other companies or the profits. The deal also included a guaranteed tax cut for the oil companies, and promised that Alaska wouldn't change those rates for decades. Sarah Palin found out about this and asked the Governor to do something about this. Instead he and a few other politicians, "the good boy network," encircled the accused and the oil companies. This is also one reason Sarah Palin became Governor, she ran on the principle of reform and Governor Murkowski ran on this pipeline deal. He lost, she took office. So to say she is in the pockets of Big Oil is complete ignorance. Those three, some of the largest oil companies, hate her, and yet also “respect her”, as they have stated in public. She still wants to build a natural gas pipeline, but open it to any company and taxing the oil companies at an inflationary rate, to increase over time,” to help the people in Alaska and the US. It’s not a coincidence that the people in Alaska like her and give her an 83% approval rating.
2. What about her husband, doesn't he work for Big Oil? This is not completely true either, he works for the Steelworkers Union and so works for BP Oil. He used to work as an Operational Supervisor, but when his wife became chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission he asked to be demoted to production operator, staying out of any managerial position to help curve any possible conflict of interest. In addition, he also works as a commercial Salmon fisherman and with those two jobs brought in $92,790 last year. Not exactly a salary to boast. Did you know that Todd Palin is not even a Republican? From 1995 to 2002 he was registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. Then in 2002 he became an Independent, independent of any party. Clarification also, “Big Oil” has been drilling in Alaska’s North Slope for many years. Drilling in the most prime area, ANWR, is what they are working on at this time. Governor Palin thinks we should drill there, McCain does not. She believes we should because where they want to drill, is a very safe area for the environment, more than where they are drilling now. McCain says he only recently saw the need to drill more, but only offshore. FYI: Did you also know that one of these offshore oil rigs spills less oil on average than an average car on the road loses oil and gas each year.
3. Did you know that McCain actually tried to pass one of the stronger Environmental and Conservation Bills that has ever been seen in the Senate? McCain – Lieberman (senate bill Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act) was what brought every Conservative, his base, up in arms against him. They say “It is too strict and too costly.” He still supports his bill but he also has seen that domestic oil production needs to increase until Alternative Sources of Energy are in place and able to take over for the carbon emitting power plants. McCain’s plan at this time is to drill NOW, build alternative energy power plants (wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and tidal) NOW, and when they can take over for fossil fuels, shut the fossil fuel power plants down. FYI: Did you know that Germany, Great Britain, France, and other European countries are decreasing their subsidies for Wind Turbines because they are not efficient enough, operating at 20% capacity on average. They still have not shut down even one power plant though they have built hundreds of wind farms. This is the technology of the future but cannot replace fossil fuels yet. So we must all compromise, drilling now domestically gives us time to build and refine these alternative processes. A mixture of both drilling and building is the best policy. Alternative Energy still needs more money for research and that is also part of “The Plan.” So McCain’s plan does not add to the Addiction, it supports and supplies time for Alternative Research and Development and gives us independence from foreign dictators and terrorists. It makes more jobs, more independence, a better economy, and helps the American people all around. Also some say there is oil enough for 60 years, this is how much oil we have in the present oil fields we already know about, not just ones that we are pumping right now but researched and discovered. In addition, we have untapped oil fields, oil shale, natural gas, and other fossil fuels that have not been tapped.

So as stated above, Palin wants to drill because it is best for the country, she has also talked about Alternative Energy that needs to be tapped. McCain wants more emphasis to be on Alternative Energy and until we can get them in place we need to stop paying foreign dictators and terrorists by drilling domestically. There does not seem to be a conflict of interest but a good duo to bounce ideas off. One is more for drilling and still strong on Alternative Energy, the other is strong on Alternative Energy but is okay with drilling (except for ANWR) until Alternative Energy can be established. FYI: Democrat Candidates have been given more money from Saudi Arabia and Big Oil than Republican Candidates. “Of candidates still left in the race, Hillary Clinton ($267,150) edges out John McCain ($229,685) for first place. Barack Obama is third, having only raised $128,290. Ron Paul raised $84,438; Mike Huckabee, a paltry $51,600.” – Salon.com. And this is just Big Oil and not Saudi Arabia’s contributions. Sadly, the majority of our leaders/representatives have Big Oil or Middle East contributions.

If Fox News will allow me, I would like to perform an Independent Study to find out why people are voting for Senator John McCain. (The same study will be done with Senator Obama) I would like to know any legislation of his that impressed you, any speeches given that spoke to you, any experience that he has that makes you want to vote for him. Whatever impressed you about Senator McCain please explain it to the other side. This is the one time you have an open forum to explain your likes about Senator McCain, dislikes will not be accepted. To all those who have only negative things to say, they will be deleted from this blog, this is only for those who are impressed with McCain. Only positive pieces of information will be allowed on this blog. At the end, we will sum up the reasons why people are voting for him so everyone can see his good qualities. Please share your opinion and be truthful, others are reading.

If Fox News will allow me, I would like to perform an Independent Study to find out why people are voting for Senator Barack Obama. (The same study will be done with Senator McCain) I would like to know any legislation of his that impressed you, any speeches given that spoke to you, any experience that he has that makes you want to vote for him. If you are interested in voting for a Presidential Candidate that is of African descent, I would like to know that. Whatever impressed you about Senator Obama please explain it to the other side. This is the one time you have an open forum to explain your likes about Senator Obama, dislikes will not be accepted. To all those who have only negative things to say, they will be deleted from this blog, this is only for those who are impressed with Obama. Only positive pieces of information will be allowed on this blog. At the end, we will sum up the reasons why people are voting for him so everyone can see his good qualities. Please share your opinion and be truthful, others are reading.

Congratulations to Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans and Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana for such an early response. After three years of preparing for another Katrina, they are finally ready.  They have learned so much from the last hurricane that ripped through their Cajun paradise. Katrina ripped, ravished, and tore through New Orleans like a schoolboy with a magnifying glass picking on ants. The one lesson the mayor of New Orleans and past governor of Louisiana never did learn and still won’t accept is: who’s to blame for the chaos Katrina brought to Louisiana three years ago? 

Q: Who knews the people of New Orleans and Louisiana the best?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who lived in this area and knew the needs and demographics?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who knew the weather the best by living there and experiencing it?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who knews the road systems and traffic conditions?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who was given the responsibility to take care of the people of New Orleans & Louisiana?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco 

Q: Who should take responsibility for the safeguarding of the people, including the levies?
A: The Army Corp. of Engineers was delegated the responsibility to take care of the levies only. Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco  should have known what was happening in their city/state. They were given the responsibility through their election system but still the levies failed and still they pointed fingers. If you work for a company, are in control, and you still point fingers, you will be fired and so was Governor Blanco replaced that next election.

Q: Whose job description listed, “Guarding the safety of the people of Louisiana and New Orleans”?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who was in control of the Louisiana National Guard?
A: Governor Kathleen Blanco  

So why, if Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco were responsible for the safety of all Louisiana and New Orleans, are the Federal Government and George Bush directly blamed for all the screw ups during Katrina?

Gustav is a category 4, and everyone is frantic about it. The terror, concern, and preparation is a boon for a city that has such a fresh memory of the devastation that a hurricane can inflict. And when the preparation and evacuation in anticipation for Gustav is a success, the mayor and governor will be given more than a pat on the back. So if the Federal Government and George Bush were blamed for Katrina's chaos, then shouldn’t they also receive all the congratulations for the success of the safeguarding of New Orleans?

Congratulations to Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans and Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana for such an early response. After three years of preparing for another Katrina, they are finally ready.  They have learned so much from the last hurricane that ripped through their Cajun paradise. Katrina ripped, ravished, and tore through New Orleans like a schoolboy with a magnifying glass picking on ants. The one lesson the mayor of New Orleans and past governor of Louisiana never did learn and still won’t accept is: who’s to blame for the chaos Katrina brought to Louisiana three years ago? 

Q: Who knews the people of New Orleans and Louisiana the best?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who lived in this area and knew the needs and demographics?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who knew the weather the best by living there and experiencing it?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who knews the road systems and traffic conditions?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who was given the responsibility to take care of the people of New Orleans & Louisiana?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco 

Q: Who should take responsibility for the safeguarding of the people, including the levies?
A: The Army Corp. of Engineers was delegated the responsibility to take care of the levies only. Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco  should have known what was happening in their city/state. They were given the responsibility through their election system but still the levies failed and still they pointed fingers. If you work for a company, are in control, and you still point fingers, you will be fired and so was Governor Blanco replaced that next election.

Q: Whose job description listed, “Guarding the safety of the people of Louisiana and New Orleans”?
A: Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco

Q: Who was in control of the Louisiana National Guard?
A: Governor Kathleen Blanco  

So why, if Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco were responsible for the safety of all Louisiana and New Orleans, are the Federal Government and George Bush directly blamed for all the screw ups during Katrina?

Gustav is a category 4, and everyone is frantic about it. The terror, concern, and preparation is a boon for a city that has such a fresh memory of the devastation that a hurricane can inflict. And when the preparation and evacuation in anticipation for Gustav is a success, the mayor and governor will be given more than a pat on the back. So if the Federal Government and George Bush were blamed for Katrina's chaos, then shouldn’t they also receive all the congratulations for the success of the safeguarding of New Orleans?

"Before we begin, I want you to know that we will be talking about the Republican's soon enough; they are next week’s topic, during their convention."

 

The Democrats have a problem here. During most of these speeches, the leaders of the Democratic Party have been making large mistakes. There are four that I want to talk about today:

 

1) They have been rewriting history without blinking an eye.  There were things said last night as well as the last three nights that have not happened or the whole story was not told.  Bill Clinton alone stretcher of the truth so much last night that he made himself sound like the best President in history but remember how many problems and scandals in his Presidency there were. May history never forget the truth. Interestingly enough these problems and scandals don't even include the Monica trial, sexual abuse to other women, lying under oath, or even Watergate, as these are Republican talking points. If you have forgot everything that happened in those 8 years please look back into history to refresh your memory.

 

2) They are making promises for Barack Obama, their candidate, even when they go against his core beliefs as he has stated them. They made promises that the world will be looking for in the next 4 years but they did not come out of Barack Obama's mouth. They were speaking as if they were him.  Joe Biden was making promises for Barack Obama that Obama even said he would never do. He committed their Presidency to many things that divide the beliefs of Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Things they can’t even agree on. Almost as if Joe Biden was setting up Obama to keep these new promises before the General Election was even finished, forcing him into a corner. Question now is, should he be held to the promises that others have made even though they didn't come out of the Presidential Candidates mouth?

 

3) They said they were for unity, not just for the Democratic Party, but also for the whole United States. The problems with their speeches include: a) blaming Bush for everything that went wrong the last 8 years or things they disagree with, and that will upset those that like Bush and stand by him, which is a large percentage of people as the polls have shown (not majority though), b) saying things that are so one sided, that it is always the Republican's faults (both parties do this), c) they act very high and mighty though most independence dislike this aspect of politics and that is why they are independence and don't want to be part of either party.   

 

4) Last night was a night of contradictions, especially when it came to Bill Clinton and Joe Biden saying that Barack Obama was the man for the job and was ready for the Presidency. How do you get from saying that Barack has no experience and will need on-the-job training to saying that he is ready for the Presidency and is the best pick, and changing this belief in less than a month.  Did Obama get a large amount of experience over the last month that we don’t know about. Most likely it was because they were offered something they couldn't resist. Biden was made VP and Clinton's history and influence was saved when it came to the Democratic Party.

 

Politicians need to start telling the truth, stop making empty promises, bring true unity, stop widening the party gap, and last, politicians need to stop contradicting themselves and tell the whole truth. This is the only way to keep the United States "united" and working together to build our economy and country back to the strongest and most influential in the world.  

I was watching the BBC this morning while exercising and found it very interesting what they were talking about. “How many houses do you and Cindy own,” a question asked by a Politico journalist to John McCain. It was reported that McCain replied, "I think - I'll have my staff get back to you." What, is the old guy getting forgetful in his old age? Is there so many he cannot count? Does he need to go back to the first grade? What is wrong with the Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain?

 

Could it be that there is nothing wrong with him? Could this actually be a headline reporting the media’s bias against Republicans and their Presidential Candidate?

 

Let’s look into the possibility of a “Media Bias” over just this one question. If you search on Google “Houses McCain,” you will get over 20 articles spanning from LA Times, New York Times, CNN, BBC, Dallas News, Washington Post, and the list goes on and on. Every one of these articles report that he was forgetful, didn’t know how many he owned because he had too many to count, or couldn’t even count. Yet none of them told the whole story.

 

Did you ever hear the full answer of John McCain, here in its entirety, “I think — I’ll have my staff get to you, It’s condominiums where — I’ll have them get to you.” Interesting, it wasn't as cut an dry as some reporters would have you believe, instead, he wanted to explain but it was too long of an answer to take up what was to be a very short interview.

 

Were you ever told what these houses were about, why it would take a while to answer that question and why they had connections to so many houses? I don’t think so, barely anyone reported that, I had to dig to find more information. For your enjoyment “Here is the rest of the story.” John and Cindy McCain, in a sense, own eight homes. This is a list of all of the houses that are contributed to John and Cindy McCain:

 

1. Not owned by John McCain. A creekside ranch near Sedona, Ariz. This is part of Cindy’s family trust.

 

2. A three-bedroom condo in Arlington, Va., which is used when John McCain is doing business as a US Senator in Washington DC. 

 

3. Not a Residence of John McCain. A condo in La Jolla, Calif., is home to Cindy McCain’s elderly aunt. Their name is on the Title.

 

4. The phoenix condo that is the McCains’ primary residence, bought in 2006.

 

5. Not owned by John McCain. A second condo in the same building was purchased by a corporation run by Cindy McCain and is not owned by the McCains.

 

6. Not a Residence of John McCain. A three-bedroom loft condo, also in Phoenix, for their daughter Meghan. Their name is on the Title.

 

7 & 8. Not owned by John McCain. Two condos in Coronado, Calif., a suburb of San Diego. These condos were purchased by a corporation of Cindy McCain’s, and not owned by the McCains.

 

So out of eight houses, two of the houses he bought to help other people, including his wife’s elderly aunt and daughter, three that a business that Cindy runs owns, one that is owned by Cindy’s family trust, and two that they actually own full out, they live in the one in Arizona, their primary residence, and one in Washington, used as his residence while in Washington DC on government business. Most senators and governors own two plus houses, many own four, five, or even six, most being vacation homes. So is this a media bias that you were not told the full story. Maybe, maybe not. You decide.

What was I just talking about in my second to last blog entry, 2-3 days ago? We need a change in Washington.  People have agreed with me full-heartedly, but we continue to get old blood, old politics, and no change. We need the old blood out and the new blood in. We need non-power hungry, non-set in their way, and non-lobbyist influenced politicians, strike that, representatives to represent our voice.

If you haven't heard yet, Joe Biden was chosen as Barack Obama's VP. Can you believe this? Where is the change? Where is the uncorrupted blood? Why should we vote for a VP that didn't even believe in our Presidential Candidate? He was seen by millions of people, during a Democratic debate, to say that Barack Obama did not have the experience needed and the Presidency could not be hands-on training, also to say he supported John McCain and would join his ticket if asked.

Small bio on Biden: he has been a US Senator since 1972, that's 36 years. That's older than most of those people blogging on this site. It was said on the news "he is everything Obama is not," he has experience all together, he has a strong background in Foreign Policy being on the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he voted for the Iraq War, and he thought Barack Obama was inexperienced and John McCain was a good choice for President. Wouldn't it have been smarter to call Joe Biden to the Presidency with Barack Obama as VP if it wasn't that we were suppose to be getting a change.  This news is a little disturbing.

When are we going to get a break? When are we going to get what we were promised? When is our voice going to be heard?

“We need a Change in Washington. My name is Barack Obama and I approve this message.” -Barack Obama Ad.

If not everyone hear, Barack Obama has now chosen his VP, but guess what, he's not telling. If you didn't hear these headlines, you must have been either out of this world or had your head under a rock. Since his initial statement, the newsreels have been rolling. Correction, they have been rolling way before his statement was made. We are making assumptions and then you think the American people are supposed to waste their precious time wondering who it may be.

A month ago, McCain was rumored to have his VP choice and was suppose to deliver it.  A few news reporters made this assumption and all others acted as if they had heard the statement or even knew what they were talking about. The news likes making us wait with baited breath way before decisions are even made.

Last time I check, I didn't think there was enough time in the day before I even got excited for the VP choices. Now I have a question: Who really cares about these assumptions? Who cares if one of the candidates knows who they want to pick, until they make it public. All it is publicity and name recognition. Until they actually make their choice public, we are just wasting our time.

Don’t get me wrong. The VP choice is one of the most important choices made in an election, right next to the candidate deciding to enter the race, but why should we waste our times on assumptions. As was commented to me a long time ago and many times since: "to assume makes an Donkey out of you and me.” So until the candidates makes their decisions out loud, allow us to just go on with our lives not wasting time making a fool out of ourselves. Their announcements will come short enough and at that point we will be able to make some new and very important decisions.  

Think to yourself.  Is it time for us as American citizens to revolt?  Revolt against a congress that has its lowest rating ever in the history of polling and since the Congress was formed.  Their rating has been dropping since the first 100 days they were in office, when most of the changes were suppose to occur. 

It was suppose to be about change, that why we voted for them, but has it been change or more of the same thing? Those put into power after the last election said they would make a change and yet has there been much change? Not quite.  Was it much better a few years before? No. That was the reason for the initial change, but the same things happened under those they took over for. Taxes were raised; few bills were passed; power, greed, and money continued to corrupt; and lobbyists, earmarks, special interests, etc were strengthened. As I have written before, we need to replace those in leadership that do not have our best interests at heart. This is a call out to all citizens of the UNITED States, change those who are not representing.

We still need people with good experience, at least enough of them to lead and guide, but most of these Representatives and Senators who have been around for over 5 terms, continually only fight on party lines, or fight for their own interests, need to either resign quietly or we will take them by force, in the next election that is.

Election day is close at hand and "We the People" need to stand up against anyone that has been around too long, those who have not done enough, those who barely show up for even half of the meetings in Congress, and those that have lost our voice and replaced it with others.

I would like to hear from those who are reading this blog. Do you agree or disagree? What should we do about it? Are you willing to fight, even writing or calling up your congressman and telling them their time is short, if they do not start fighting for the voice of the people.  What do you think about this?

Last time I checked, the Constitution said "We the People of the United States," not "We the Senators, or Congressman." "We the People" were constituted to run this country and make the decisions through our representatives.  Wouldn’t this make them our servants? They were to be our voice. Now it seems like they are taking control and doing what they "think is right," even if it is not the voice of the people.   

For Example: Lets pick on the Republicans. Here in Utah, the majority of Utah wanted a man named Mitt Romney for President.  They had an overwhelming majority, no other state came close to this type of majority over one candidate. (Most likely because of the Mormon/Christian population here)  Yet the representative from Utah for the Republican Convention desires to stand and say, in the first vote, "We vote for John McCain," the opposite of what the voters decided on.  This would most likely be fine for the second vote but the first is always (according to rules) the people's choice and the Utah voters will probably accept John McCain anyways, but it is the voter’s choice.

For Example: Lets pick on the Democrats. Earmarks, Lobbyists, Special Interests, and Drilling for Oil. The majority of Democrats and all Americans do not agree with bribing our representatives in the form of earmarks, or giving any one group too much power (unless it is their own group), allowing special interest groups to send in their lobbyists to whine and dine our representatives, and most Americans want a comprehensive Energy plan that combines drilling for more oil (to create independence from dictator/terrorist based countries) and increasing funding for alternative resources. This paragraph goes for both Democrats as much as the Republicans, but democrat representatives have been found to be influenced/controlled by these topics more often. Let me also add, why are the Democratic Representatives on vacation during an Energy/Economic Crisis, that includes Congress as well as presidential candidate, but that is another topic for another day.

Why is it that our representatives, like to say one thing and do the other. Could it be that they are typical politicians? Could it be that they are lawyers and not just any lawyers but the same as are talked about in Bad Lawyer Jokes? Could it be that they are good until they reach D.C. and start feeling the "pressures" of their newfound power? But does this power that we give them mean that they are our superiors or like our Fore Fathers intended, are they our servants and should they be shown who is boss?

This election year, go out and vote, but don't just vote for anyone or just for the incumbent or just on party lines. Vote for the man or woman with the best qualifications and has not been corrupted by power. I know most people would rather have an educated voter that looks at both sides equally than a voter that comes from the party line or a voter that is uneducated.