Current News and Media Videos

The construction of a fence along the southern border of the U.S. is controversial enough, but the PETA people - you know, those whacked out animal rights enthusiasts - want to use the fence as an opportunity to advertise. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. In other words, they are radically opposed to killing animals for food. Cool. But it doesn’t stop there.

PETA has managed to come up with a new spin on healthy eating. It’s no longer enough to tell people that killing animals and eating them is wrong. Now, the group wants to tell people it’s actually unhealthy to eat animals. In fact, according to PETA, they want to tell illegal immigrants crossing over into the U.S. that eating beans and rice is better for their bodies than eating burgers and and chicken, perhaps the healthiest of the meats in the U.S. Here it is in their own words:

The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: “If the Border Patrol Doesn’t Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will — Go Vegan.”

“We think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the U.S. they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits and vegetables,” said Lindsay Rajt, assistant manager of PETA’s vegan campaigns.

So beans and starch are more healthy than chicken? Granted, burgers might not be all that healthy if you eat them every day. The grease and fatty acids are surely bad. But I’m not sure that a steady diet of beans and rice, eaten every day, is much better. According to one website, overweight women who consume too much starch could be at risk of pancreatic cancer. On the other hand, eating chicken might reduce colon cancer risks.

PETAs advertising plan is just too funny. I can’t believe the Houston Chronicle is taking them seriously.

According to Media Matters, yes:

It seems to me that “the Maverick” isn’t so maverick any more. He hardly ever says what he really thinks. He just delivers the GOPs talking points and he sounds more like George W. Bush now than G.W. does, except for perhaps the stupid verbal gaffes. I know beneath all of that tough exterior is a melon of a man just dying to say what’s really on his mind. He could explode any day now and it’s my hope that he’ll eventually tell the Republican Party to just go ‘F’ itself. Then I might vote for him. Media love or not.

Wesley Clark, a Democrat and retired military officer, told CNN host John Roberts that he honors John McCain’s service as a hero and political of war but that McCain hasn’t held any level of executive responsibility that required making tough decisions like when to attack and when not to attack enemies in combat. Is what Clark said true? Sure. But that doesn’t stop the media from mischaracterizing his comments.

Media Matters, a media watchdog organization, lists these mischaracterizations by top media personalities on its website:

Examples of media echoing this false claim include the following:

* In a July 1 article, Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear quoted comments Clark made about McCain during his Face the Nation interview after asserting that McCain “pushed back hard against criticism of his own record as a Navy flier and a prisoner of war.”

* On the June 30 edition of The Situation Room, guest host John Roberts said that “Clark took a weekend hit at McCain, targeting his history as a war hero and his possible future as president.” Roberts made the assertion despite the fact that immediately afterward, Roberts aired video of Clark saying during his Face the Nation appearance, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility.”

* In a July 1 washingtonpost.com column, Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted that “Clark used an appearance on ‘Face the Nation’ Sunday to strafe John McCain over his Vietnam War record.” Kurtz later stated: “No one’s saying that being a POW entitles you to the Oval Office or places you above criticism. But Barack Obama frequently prefaces his criticism of McCain with a nod to his honorable service. Which raises the question: What was Wes thinking?” But Clark’s statement, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president” — quoted by Kurtz in the column and highlighted (and mischaracterized) by several media outlets and figures as controversial — is itself an argument that McCain’s military service does not “entitle[]” him “to the Oval Office.”

Considering that journalists are supposed to be objective and report the facts, don’t you think that they should watch the video of John Roberts asking the question and Wesley Clark answering it. That would clear up any confusion, wouldn’t it?

See and hear it for yourself. Here’s the video:

Five years ago, when the Iraq war had just started to heat up, an event took place which sparked the rally cry of the United States. It was the story that would set the tone of the war for years to come.

Jessica Lynch, a U.S. Army PFC whose Humvee was ambushed near Nasiriyah and had been taken by her captors to a nearby hospital, freed herself, emerged from her hellhole and with guns blazing managed to escape, killing many Iraqi’s in the process while sustaining several wounds of her own.

Another story spoke of a joint operation directed by the Bush Administration. The mission reportedly included Marine Corps artillery distracting enemy soldiers as Army Rangers secured the hospital grounds while Navy Seals extracted Private Lynch while being fired upon going in and coming back out.

Although the stories were completely false, it wasn’t until about a month following the incident that the truth surfaced thanks to a Toronto Star reporter, whose sources told him that Lynch had been well cared for at the hospital, that her captors had left up to two days before the raid and that fire from U.S. forces had prevented hospital staffers from loading her in an ambulance.

It just goes to show you, you can’t believe everything you see or hear, especially when someone else has an agenda.

Even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in Texas in early March, Barack Obama seems to have won over more delegates.

Obama has an overwhelming edge against Clinton. This has allowed him to hang on to a slim lead during Texas’ delegate selection process which will conclude in June where both delegates have a strong chance of winning the nomination.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Monday that Obama is likely to end up with 36 to 38 of the 67 total delegates up for grabs from the caucus process. Clinton is expected to finish with 29 to 31 delegates. Clinton won the March 4 popular vote by a 51% to 47% margin, giving her 65 delegates from that process to Obama’s 61. That means Obama could end up with 97 to 99 delegates, while Clinton would have 94 to 96.

Not only that, but Obama now leads Clinton by double digits according to a new Gallup Poll. This isn’t the first time during this presidential campaign that one of the candidates has had a double digit lead during the race to the White House. Clinton held an 11-point lead over Obama in early February.

Clinton’s Message, and Moment, Won the Day
By PATRICK HEALY of the NYTimes

According to a survey of voters leaving the polls Tuesday, Mr. Clinton was viewed favorably by 83 percent of Democrats, while 49 percent had a very favorable opinion of him. Of the latter group, Mrs. Clinton got a majority of their votes.

She was backed by 71 percent of Democratic voters in New Hampshire for whom experience was the most important quality; these voters made up 19 percent of those surveyed.

Mr. Obama, who narrowly lost to Mrs. Clinton, also showed strength among the 54 percent of Democratic primary voters who believed that the ability to bring about change was the most important quality. He drew support from 55 percent of them, compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

This is no surprise. The wealthy do not want change. Too much experience in Washington means we get more of the same. That benefits the wealthy of this country, not the middle class or the poor.

Wealthy people are going to always back “experience” which Hillary Clinton “claims” to have 35 years of. The reason they do so is in hopes that their tax cuts and other benefits that were passed for the wealthy will stay in place. Washington insiders like Hillary don’t rock the boat.

The rest of her votes were actually for Billary Clinton. A lot of people think by electing Hillary that it purs Bill back in office. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton.

We already have enough nepotism and cronyism in the senate and the house. Many senator’s and representative’s sons and daughters have taken office as their father or mother left office. It’s like having the nobility of old Europe VS the peasants like the rest of us.

For 20 years now, 2 families have controlled the white house. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election, that is a possible additional 8 years. The Bush family has young members of their family also ready to run for president soon. That could add another 8 years.

Do you really believe a legitimate democracy can keep two families running the country for 36 years or more? Almost half a century of nepotism?

Couple that with the trend of expanding presidential power as Bush has done and we are getting into very very dangerous territory here. Expanding presidential power while only 2 families run the country could lead to the destruction of democracy as we know it.

People will say that I’m being an alarmist here, but look at the number of times Bush has used executive priviledge. People accepted it because “our safety” was threatened by terrorists.

Give more power to the office of president and let two families have that power and this country is in big trouble. Hillary Clinton does not represent change no matter what she claims in her campaign speeches.

Hillary Clinton represents handing over our country to these two families and getting more of the same. I don’t care who you vote for, but please break the chain of these two power families running our country.

The same news media that was all over the impeachment of Bill Clinton barely gives any space or time to impeachment against Cheney and possibly Bush. With Bill Clinton, it involved sex so it sold newspapers and brought in viewers and listeners.

But when it comes to much more serious charges leveled at Bush and Cheney, the backers of impeachment proceeedings have a hard time getting any coverage at all.

MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable Offenses

The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The following is about The Downing Street Memo;

The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”

British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.

The Rest of The Story here

The following are articles of impeachment that were drawn up while Donald H. Rumsfeld was still in office;

Articles of Impeachment
Of
George W. Bush, President of the United States,
Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States and
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States

Part of Article 1:

On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney initiated hostilities amounting to a declaration of war against Iraq without the informed consent of Congress.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included on or more of the following:

1. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading statements to the United States Congress;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from the United States Congress;
3. misuse of the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
4. misuse of the military of the United States;
5. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into supporting hostilities against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and continuing to make such misstatements.

In all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of United States.

WHEREFORE, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

The Rest of The Story here

This is a more recent and detailed explanation of charges against Bush;

George W. Bush has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Bush’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Bush has secretly supported preliminary acts of war within Iran with neither approval from nor funding by Congress.

Bush has initiated the development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the law of the land.

George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.

George W. Bush also misappropriated funds with which to conduct the preliminary stages of this war, prior to receiving any funding or any form of authorization from Congress.

George W. Bush, in violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, launched an aggressive war neither in self-defense nor under authorization of the UN Security Council.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has allowed the U.S. military to violate treaties to which the United States is party and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for these abuse.

These violations include the targeting of civilians, journalists, and medical personnel, and the illegal use of a variety of weapons, including:
-Land mines, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Cluster bombs, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Depleted uranium munitions, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1;
-Napalm or Mark 77 Firebomb, used in Iraq in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-White phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed “as an incendiary weapon” in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November 2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-BLU-82B/C-130 “daisy cutter” bombs, used in Afghanistan in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55.

has directed or authorized the National Security Agency and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.

George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a “signing statement” to legislation, asserting his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself powers reserved solely to Congress. George W. Bush has, in several instances, gone on to act on his self-declared right to violate these laws. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to condone torture, failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

has allowed his administration to fire United States Attorneys in retaliation for the proper performance of their jobs when that performance conflicted with the partisan interests of the President, and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this abuse.

has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, funding misleading journalism, producing misleading video reports falsely presented as independent journalism, using the U.S. military to target journalists in Iraq, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.

George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for, and by failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this security breach.

The following are charges against Dick Cheney;

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:

Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter the law of the land.

These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined democracy.

Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war. Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false and misleading reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the Congress and the people of the United States.

Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal theory of the “unitary executive” aimed at placing the President above the rule of law.

has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited, if any, access to counsel or courts.

Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refused to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting to expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of government.

has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.

Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for.

has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people.

Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to plan national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited a corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.

(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy.

(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.

On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the Vice President did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.

The Rest of The Story here

It doesn’t matter if you agree with these charges or not.

It doesn’t matter whether you think they can prove all or part of these charges.

They are serious charges. The charges are much more serious than those filed against Bill Clinton. If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and do not support the impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, then you are being hypocritical.

Approving of impeachment proceedings does not mean they will be impeached. They could also be exhonerated and found to be not guilty of the charges at all. This would just mean there would be an investigation and a hearing on the charges.

There are a lot of average citizens arrested on less evidence than there is here and they have to stand trial. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty just as Bush and Cheney should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Assumed innocent does not mean that it does not get tried however. There is enough evidence that there should be investigations and a trial or hearing. Impeachment is the process by which we do this with presidents and Vice Presidents.

If you believe Bush and Cheney are innocent of these charges then you should have no problem with there being a full investigation and hearing to clear them once and for all.

Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.

2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.

4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.

5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

6. Violating the Constitution by using “signing statements” to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.

7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.

8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.

9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a “Unitary Executive Theory” giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.

You can sign the petition to impeach bush and cheney here

You know it’s really sad how things have changed over the years so much. This country was founded on great principles. It was founded by people who were passionate about freedom and equality. Whether people want to agree or not, it was also founded on religious principles.

In the early days of America, landowners took turns holding public office. They did it to serve the public. When their turn was over, someone else stepped up to serve. They did it for the right reasons.

There were no “career politicians”. That wasn’t a profession. It was real public service. Now we have senators who serve for 30+ years who aren’t qualified to do much of anything else. If not for the connections they make, they likely would be asking someone if they wanted fries with that.

Remember Strom Thurmond? During the confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas, he actually said to Thomas, “I can’t hear you, please speak into the machine.” Machine? It was a microphone. This is a guy who was expected to vote on Star Wars and things that were Internet Related along with other highly technical issues.

These guys get into office and basically serve for life if possible. It isn’t about public service. It’s about money and power. Now their sons and daughters get into office as if we had a monarchy and they were entitled to it because of who their parents were.

Now it comes down to who has the most money to spend gets elected. It doesn’t matter if they are qualified or not. The public goes out and votes for the candidate they are most familiar with which means the one that ran the most commercials on tv.

It’s become a popularity contest. The media has made it a “race”. People vote for who the media says is winning because people inherently want to be on the winning side. If the media says a specific candidate has no chance of being elected, many people don’t vote for them because they don’t want to “waste” their vote.

It’s not about being on the winning side. Your duty is to vote for who you believe would make the best public servant in that office. If you pick someone and you are the only person in the US who voted for them, you did not waste your vote. You exercized your duty as an American citizen and voted for who you thought was the best candidate.

We have a twofold problem now thanks to the FCC. The media has huge influence over who people vote for. Opinion shows like Hannity’s America and Lou Dobbs influence who people vote for. There are even people that listen to Bill O’Reilly although I cannot for the life of me understand why.

The FCC has now relaxed the rules about how many tv stations, newspapers, and radio stations can be owned by one corporation. That means these corporations can weild even more influence on who gets elected and who runs this country.

You may not be one of these people but I bet you know one. Someone who believes everything they hear or read in the news. You probably know someone that believes Rush Limbaugh is a political genius and should run for president himself. You may know someone that thinks Bill O’Reilly speaks for the average American.

That is what should scare you. Media influence over who gets elected is a serious problem. The fact that corporations with their own agendas are buying all of these news sources up so they can be the ones you listen to should scare everyone.

Soon, these corporations will be deciding who gets elected. All they have to do is have the people on their tv shows, radio programs, and newspapers say what they want them to say. Then millions of drones will listen, watch, and read and go to the polls to do what these corporations told them to do.

Many people will never believe they are one of these drones. They are so brainwashed that they don’t believe that Hannity, O’Reilly, Coombs, Dobbs, Limbaugh, and others can be told what to say. They believe these guys are sincere and honest and would never sway people one way or the other just to get paid.

Many will say they really make up their own minds, but they still follow the party line no matter what it is or if they truly believe it’s a good thing to do. They begin to believe in someone so much that even direct evidence that they committed a crime would not sway them into thinking of them as a bad person.

I just wish there was a way to get more people to think for themselves and quit following whatever one party or the other tells them to do. There are good democrats. There are good republicans. There are bad apples in each bunch.

But you have people who would never vote for a republican and people who would never vote for a democrat, even if the best person for the job is out there. Ignoring voting for the best person for the job in favor of voting for a party is pure ignorance and against the very duty you have as an American citizen to vote for the candidate you think would do the best job regardless of which party they affiliate themeselves with.

That brings up an issue for another post. The fact that we talk about these two parties instead of the many parties that should be involved in politics and elections.

Hmmm, it’s beginning to look like another howard deanesque crash. Hilary did well for a long time by not really answering any difficult questions in the presidentail debates. She was the front runner so she could afford to be noncommital with her answers.

Lately, she has had to answer for her voting record on the Iraq War and that doesn’t help her at all with democrats.

Obama had to point out to her that people that make over $94,000 per year are not the middle class. She didn’t seem to know that or how to answer being corrected on that issue. That doesn’t help her with the real middle class at all. Of couse to hilary, anyone making under $100,000 per year is below the poverty line.

And now it comes out that during a debate she had planted questions being asked by people she put into the audience for that purpose.

Bill has had to come to the rescue several times so far and it looks as if he will have to keep doing that because she is getting tripped up on both her voting record and on tough issues she has no position on or any clue about.

Bill even said that the failed health plan, Hilarycare as I like to call it, failed more because oif him than because of hilary. So he has nothing to lose now by taking the blame even though it was entirely her baby then and if it had succeeded, she would have been taking full credit for it.

I predict hilary will self-destruct even with her husband propping her up.

I posted this under “republicans” in honor of hilary clinton’s senate voting record.

The highlight of the democratic debate on CNN for me was when Obama had to remind Hilary Clinton that only 6% of Americans make more than $94,000 per year and that those 6% are not the middle class as she had said they were.

That’s the problem with politicians and numbers. Hilary Clinton wants to expand health care coverage to go over that $94,000 income level and claims this will help the middle class.

People like hilary clinton and george bush have no idea what the middle class is and they sure don’t know anything about what being poor is. They have had money all of their life and they believe they know what is best for everyone else.

CNN’s Dem Debate Draws Record Audience

CNN’s Nov. 15 presentation of the ninth Democratic presidential candidate debate drew the largest audience for a primary showdown in cable history, as 4.04 million total viewers tuned in.

According to Nielsen Media Research live-plus-same-day data, the Dem debate out-delivered all 16 previous contests since the election cycle began April 26. The season’s previous high-water mark was established by Fox News Channel, which drew 3.21 million viewers with its coverage of the Sept. 5 Republican debate.

I just hope everyone saw that hilary clinton is out of touch with reality. She is a true politician in the worst sense of the word. She has voted for everything george buish has asked for. She is a DINO. Democrat In Name Only. She votes like a republican. Want 4-8 more years of the same we have had for the last 2 terms, then vote for hilary.

The Rest of The Story here