More Gas Gouging

Is there any doubt that the current administration has been in cahoots with the oil companies to gouge as much money out of us as it could before leaving office? Gas prices per barrel are almost where they were when George Bush took office in 2001. But we are still paying a dollar more a gallon than when he took office. George Bush and Dick Cheney have destroyed the economy with their greed. He is now in the process of trying to cover up his mess before Barack Obama takes over. I'm sure he was looking forward to John McCain taking over and continuing this farce with our economy. Remember, McCain's wife's family made their fortune from beer, so I'm sure he felt comfortable with someone already rich taking over and keeping the rest of us poor. Now that we have someone who is like most Americans, honest and caring, Bush has to pull a Nixon and hide certain details of his corrupt administration's dealing with the oil companies.

With the constant dropping of oil prices, is there really any urgent need to start offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska's protected lands as Sarah Palin wants us to do? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Here in Georgia we suffered for a month through a fake gas shortage supposedly created by Hurricane Ike, while the area it hit was not affected at all. We were told there was a surplus of crude oil but the refineries were shut down and couldn't produce gasoline. We were also told that Georgia uses a special blend of pollution reducing gasoline that the rest of the country doesn't use, therefore we couldn't get the gasoline we needed. But I wrote in an earlier article how the gas prices fluctuated with the poll numbers for the election.

When McCain had started slipping in the polls, prices per barrel started going down. When Palin was announced as his VP choice and poll numbers started rising right after Hurricane Ike, gas prices hit record highs. But as the public got to know Sarah Palin and the poll numbers started going down, so did oil prices per barrel. Now that Obama has been elected, prices are swiftly returning to where they should be. George Bush has a lot of cleaning up to do before he leaves office, but it won't be enough. One thing I remember that Barack Obama said is if he took office he would review everything Bush had done and if he found any wrong doing, he would bring Bush up on charges. Don't forget, both Obamas are Harvard graduated lawyers, with Barack being a specialist in Constitutional law.

Keep in mind, Obama is against unnecessary drilling that can further endanger the environment. There is no shortage of oil in the world, it was reported last week there is a surplus. No need to make more oil people richer. I think this economy will turn around a lot quicker than most people think now that we have the corrupt administration out of office. The Republicans are mad because Obama has threatened to raise taxes on the rich, which most Republicans are. He has also said he will increase spending in certain areas by taking away wasted money in others. Once again, this man has outsmarted Hilary Clinton and John McCain when it came to financially running his campaign, coming through both with surplus money. Why should we expect anything different with him handling the country's economy?

A New Beginning

Now that the election is over and Barack Obama is the President-Elect, the world seems to think this is a new beginning for America. Barack represents hope for millions of people worldwide who believe he will bring respect and dignity back to the perception of how America should be when dealing with the rest of the world. Also Black Americans are proud of White America for doing the right thing by electing the man most qualified for the job. It will be good to have someone running the country who brings intelligence and dignity to the office of President again. The first thing Obama has done is to begin surrounding himself with others who think also. Let me give George Bush credit for one thing right now, and that was passing a law allowing for the transition to the presidency to begin immediately after the election instead of after he takes office in January. This has allowed Obama to recognize the flaws in the current administration and begin putting the right people in the right places.

The one major difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is their views on how the country should be run. The Republicans always want to keep America at war as a show of might, while the Democrats are always working to keep the American economy strong at home. In my lifetime, the Democrats have always inherited a war started by a Republican president. Yes, John F. Kennedy entered the Viet Nam war, but America's involvement was set up by Richard Nixon while he was Vice President under Dwight Eisenhower. He was so sure he was going to win that election that everything had been put in motion for the U.S. to take over the role that the French already knew was hopeless. It took him eight years to get into office and he still couldn't finish what he had started. The situation was so bad that Lyndon Johnson refused to run for re-election in 1968, something unheard of for a sitting president, because no president has lost a chance at re-election while the country was still at war. This is why it has taken George Bush so long to end a war against a country without an army, when his daddy put Saddam Hussein in check in little over a month. Remember that? His daddy lost his chance at re-election because the country was not at war and the economy was in shambles after four years. Little George would not have been re-elected either in 2004 if he had not extended this senseless war.

Which brings us back to Obama, who inherits the same type of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He already had a plan for what he wanted to do with the war, but after briefings with George Bush, and learning more of the misguided strategy they had, he has begun to make definite decisions on what he wants to do to end this atrocity. The Bush Administration has gotten rich off the blood of our children by perpetrating fear of Saddam Hussein when he was no longer a threat thanks to his dad. The mission at hand was to find Osama Bin Laden for the destruction he was accused of creating on September 11, 2001. The talk all this year against Iran has been exactly the same language we heard to justify going into Iraq. Although you may not like the religious views of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his views of Israel, the man does have a point when it comes to dealing with him and any other of our designated enemies. Talk to him, not at him. That is why he is looking forward to dealing with Obama as president. At least he knows he can engage in dialogue with him, unlike George Bush who called him, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong Il the leaders of an Axis of Evil when he first took office.

George Bush never used diplomacy when dealing with his enemies and we could not expect John McCain to either. Hell, he couldn't handle Barack Obama in the debates and fortunately for us, white America was able to see this also. It has also become quite interesting to hear how Sarah Palin is responding to claims from the McCain camp about her lack of knowledge by calling them jerks. It is so easy for this woman to call people out of their names who don't agree with her. Not a real sign of class or leadership, which was another thing that is appealing about Obama. Through all the name calling he endured during his primary and presidential campaigns, not once did he disrespect his opponents by calling them out of their names. So you can expect him to treat the other leaders of the world the same way, no matter how they are viewed by past leaders. Remember it was Nixon who broke down the barriers with China, and Reagan with Russia. Expect President-Elect Barack Obama to do the same with some of our current enemies.

Military Votes Not Counted

In this year of the most important election of our time, CNN has just reported that in the past election only 30% of overseas military votes were counted and they are expecting the same this year. This is the worst example of voter fraud in the world. How can George Bush and John McCain justify having our troops overseas fighting for freedom and democracy, and then have their votes not be counted due to circumstances beyond their control? They cite things like improper registration in their hometowns and delays in the mail taking them past deadlines to be counted. If I remember correctly, the first time Bush stole the election, military votes were thrown out because they came in late. It was just explained that once the votes are cast overseas, they have to be sent to the soldier or sailor's home state, then verified that they are registered properly. In my opinion, if you are serving in the military for this country, you are automatically registered, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The fact that these votes have to be separated and sent to a home state shows the major flaw of the election process. The United States likes to travel all over the world spreading democracy, teaching other countries about holding fair elections, and we have one of the most corrupt systems of voting there is when it comes to electing our leader. What the hell is the electoral college for? In every other election in this country, be it for political office or issues, the majority wins. But for President of The United States of America, we have a "special system" that allows the election to be manipulated state by state. It has been a long time since we had an election where the electoral college had any meaning, until the year 2000, when Al Gore had more votes than George Bush, but Bush was declared the president. Who can forget that election night when the news channels had declared Al Gore the president, and George Bush called them to say, he hasn't won my brother's state of Florida, I'm going to win that one. The rest is tainted history. Then we saw it repeated in 2004 when the head of the Republican Party in Ohio, Ken Blackwell, guaranteed George Bush he would win that state before the voting began. We have since learned this was due to voting machines that were manufactured by an Ohio company named Diebold, could be rigged to change votes and the outcome of the election. These machines were used in several states, and some of those states got rid if those machines and no longer use machines manufactured by Diebold. But guess what, states like Ohio and West Virginia still use them, and we already have had reports of machines changing votes in West Virginia!

In the HBO documentary, they showed how these machines can be fixed to produce any result they want, no matter how you vote. The results can be predetermined before the election takes place, even when you have a paper record showing how you voted. There are many ways to program a computer to produce the results you want, especially when every state or groups of states are using different machines. People think that voting machines can't work for this reason. But every year we hold The Kentucky Derby in May and The Breeders' Cup Championships in October. There are millions of dollars bet on these races WORLDWIDE without a single glitch in the system. Not a penny misplaced. And this system is used everyday at racetracks around the world. Let me relate an experience I had with this system.

One afternoon I placed a bet using a self-service machine, won a substantial amount of money, and instead of going to a teller to collect my winnings, I made another bet using the self-service machine again. Instead of collecting all of my winnings, I got the rest back in what is called a betting voucher. But the voucher did not drop into the slot smoothly, so I actually walked away without my winnings, only the tickets for the next race. That meant the next person that used that machine got a nice bonus when my voucher dropped down. I contacted the track officials and told them what had happened, not knowing if someone had used that machine or not. The official opened the machine and verified that the voucher was gone. He told me that they could run a trace and see if the ticket had been cashed already and if not, they could void that ticket and get my money back. He took the machine number and went upstairs to the computer room and verified the information I had given him as to the amount on the voucher. To my surprise, he came back about 15 minutes later with my money on a new voucher. I asked him how he was able to get my money back. He told me it's all about the bar codes. The machine I placed the bet on produced the voucher with enough information to give them the time, amount, and machine number where it was issued. When the person who found it took it to the teller to cash it, they were able to trace it to that teller. Fortunately for me, it had been such a short period that the teller remembered who cashed it, and that person hadn't left, so they were able to get my money back, despite that person's claim that they had won that money. Even if that person had went to a self-service machine himself, they would have had a record of the ticket being cashed, they just might not have been able to recover my money.

So what I am saying is, if they want the voting machine system to work, it will work. But that just goes to counting votes. Why is it we have a system in place that the candidate with the most votes can lose? I'm sick of hearing that Ohio determines who the president is. If that's the case, why is the rest of the country voting? If it were just whoever has the most votes wins, military personnel overseas would have their votes counted as a whole instead of being separated by state. They wouldn't have to be mailed back to the mainland from various points around the world, they could be counted at their duty station or even aboard ship. Imagine a soldier voting today and losing his life tomorrow not having his vote count because his vote was delayed by the mail, or he is no longer eligible because he gave his life for his country. Their votes should count above and beyond any other U.S. citizen, not last or not at all. After all, they are the ones whose lives depend on who is in charge.

Reaping What You Sow

Recently John McCain and Sarah Palin have been crying foul about the way the media has treated them, claiming they have been unfair. Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be the fact that they were denied access to Gov. Palin when she first accepted the nomination for Vice President at the Republican convention nearly two months ago? Could it be that she refused to grant interviews to the regular media, picking and choosing who she would talk to over the last month? Could it be that she attacked the media even before she granted her first interview while campaigning for John McCain? Or could it be that the McCain campaign tried to put stipulations on the media when Sarah Palin met with some of the world leaders in New York just prior to her debate, saying they could take pictures but couldn't ask questions? Whatever the reason, the one thing you don't want to do is get on the wrong side of the media.

By refusing to talk to the media, you pretty much put yourself at their mercy, as they control what information is digested to the American public. The main thing Barack Obama has done over the past two years is use the media to help the people learn who he is. Even when the publicity was unfavorable, such as the associations with Tony Resko, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers, Barack Obama stood up to the media and addressed the allegations. Even John McCain has addressed his associations with Charles Keating and G. Gordon Liddy, which basically the press has given him a free pass on. But Sarah Palin was an unknown when she was tabbed as McCain's running mate, and at the time had high favorability with the American public following her convention speech. Why then would John McCain and the Republican Party shield her from the media? She had just breathed new life into his campaign and had even pulled him ahead of Obama in some polls. This was the time to take advantage of her popularity, not scorn the media by hiding her. Then she went so far as to attack the media because they didn't know who she was.

As the media began to dig into her record in Alaska, things started popping up that looked a little shady. They wanted to question her about comments she had made in her convention speech that just didn't add up. But it seemed like every Republican in the party spoke in her defense while she just kept on smiling and refused to defend herself. Then came the interview with Katie Couric, a somewhat friendly, non-confrontational interview that showed just how unprepared Sarah Palin is to hold the position of Vice President. Recently she has begun to open up more to the media, still picking and choosing though, and even appearing with McCain by her side to deflect any questions he feels she cannot handle. She has recently been criticized by the party for trying to get her own message out, as if she was the one running for president. Hell can you blame her? She outdraws McCain in rallies by ten to one. The Republicans allegedly just gave her $150,000 of campaign funds to spend on her and her family's wardrobe. She denies the claim, but McCain says the clothing will be donated to charity.

So naturally Sarah Palin, as Governor of Alaska, has never faced the media scrutiny she is facing now. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has a lot to do with the fact that Americans know nothing about and have cared very little about what goes on in Alaska, until now. John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party have created this atmosphere of disdain from the media by disdaining them when they have needed to know who you are. The American people needed to know who you are. Most of the people that were on the bandwagon just because you were a woman, a maverick, a pit bull with lipstick, have jumped off because most of all, you are still a mystery. Even I was impressed with your personality and charisma at the Republican convention and considered you a serious threat to the Obama campaign. So it's too late in the race to blame the media for your treatment, they were there for you, you were not there for them.

McCain Tested Under Fire

At a recent engagement, Joe Biden made a statement that Barack Obama would be tested in his first six months with a crisis, much the way previous presidents had been when they first took office. John McCain immediately responded saying he had already been tested. He referred to the fact that he sat in a plane on an aircraft carrier during the Cuban missile crisis prepared to drop bombs if called to duty. I respect anyone who risks their life flying combat war planes, that takes great courage and skill. Flying any kind of plane does. Even flying as a passenger takes a certain amount of courage in my eyes, as I personally hate flying. But let's get serious. This was no test of judgment on his part

As a pilot, all he did was follow orders from his superior officer as to whether he would be needed or not. Had he taken off, then he would have had to make some decisions on his own concerning his own fate. Yes, he was in a stressful situation not knowing if he would be called to duty, but it would have been his first mission. This is all according to what he wrote in his book and he admitted he was nervous, if not scared, at the prospect of going to war. He had already crashed one plane while in training in Corpus Christi, Texas. According to McCain, the crash was due to engine failure, but official Navy reports blame him for pilot error, meaning a lack of judgment. He went on to crash at least four more times in his career, including the one linked to his capture during the Viet Nam war. That incident is detailed as him being shot down by a surface-to-air missile during a bombing run. McCain says all of the crashes were due to engine failure. He crashed the first plane in water, as he states he was able to swim to the surface after the crash. In the Viet Nam crash, he states he was able to eject after being hit.

Once again, I do not question his bravery. But I do question the fact that all of those planes had engine trouble. One thing I learned while in the military is that when your daddy is a respected military veteran, or a high ranking government official, they will cover up his son's screw ups. One has to look no further than little George Bush as an example. Even during his capture, the Vietnamese were willing to let John McCain go because of his daddy. But McCain is said to have denied early release before prisoners who had been there before him. This is what can truly be called an act of heroism. But still it has been proven he lied about the first plane crash in which he claimed it was engine trouble, so how can you believe all the planes had engine failure. When an idea hits me, I usually do searches to verify the facts to back up my opinion, so remember, this is my opinion. But check out this clip of someone who has a similar opinion about John McCain's flying record as it goes into a little more detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kLde8DBM-I&feature=related

So judging from his record, it was probably a good thing that the man Barack Obama has so often been compared to, John F. Kennedy, was able to stare down Nikita Khruschev and avoid war with Russia for John McCain's sake. I think it's safe to say that if he was still using poor judgment as a pilot in 1967, he may not have fared well on his first mission.