John McCain the other day, and now Clinton & Obama talk about the Foreclosures, and their Economic Plans to turn around a faltering Economy. Like what the hell took so long?

John McCain

Basically, he is all for helping the Banks, the Mortgage Companies, but as for the good old boys, the common folk, well, like George Bush, he is just willing to let the Market Place solve it all. He doesn’t really believe in Government Interference, but then he is a Republican.

Hilary Rodham Clinton

Well she thinks job retraining is a better way to go, and that making it easier for kids to get education help, or tuition is her solution for the Economic Woes. Her outcry about McCain simply leaving it be, is well, rather hypocritical, because it appears to be her plan as well.

“Our government is more focused on how you lost your job than how you can find a new one,” Clinton said. “And while we have been rightly focused on trying to help people who are out of work, there’s been too little thought and effort to help people gain new skills while they still have their existing jobs.” (source)

Now how does this help the folks about to lose their homes?

I grant you, there needs to be a lot more done for those who lose their employment, but frankly it isn’t about Job Re Training or offering easier paths to Higher Education. It is about JOBS that stay put, not get outsourced to India, to China, to Mexico. And Hilary Clinton is ON RECORD in supporting MORE H1B VISAS to further REDUCE AVAILABLE JOBS.

So what will kids be going to school to learn how to do?

John Edwards had it right, when he said the United States needed to examine every single Trade Agreement, and insure it was FAIR. Now that doesn’t mean protectionism, but it means that if they can sell in the USA without Tariffs, then US Companies should ALSO BE ABLE TO SELL THERE.

That is FAIR TRADE.

What good is Job Retraining if next year those jobs are also gone? Isn’t it time to start insuring that JOBS STAY PUT? Like maybe STOPPING THE AIRBUS DEAL?  There are some 47000 JOBS that could be KEPT IN THE USA.  Where is Senator Clinton on that one?

Barack Obama

Out of the Three, he seems to be the only one willing to discuss the housing crises, and the Wall Street influence. He is also about the only one who has some sort of a plan, where he actually talks about Regulation, something Hilary & John both seem to ignore, or pass off.

“If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling,” he said. (source)

At least he can see that, but Hilary talks about taxes, as does John McCain. Neither of them are willing to provide even talking points on helping those facing the loss of their homes. Maybe there isn’t anything the Government can do, but I rather think there are several ways the Government can help.

FREEZE MORTGAGE RATE HIKES

FREEZE FORECLOSURES FOR ONE FULL YEAR.

I mean come on, if the Feds can guarantee OVER TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS IN LOANS TO MORTGAGE COMPANIES, they can surely INSIST THAT PEOPLE GET SOME BENEFIT.

A freeze gives breathing room, not a stupid month like Hilary suggested a few months back, but give people an entire YEAR. Let them pay simple interest or make it an interest free year, but at least let them live without fear for that long. Let the entire market take a deep breath, and then maybe a solution can be found, when cooler heads are thinking.

Right now it is about cashing in, taking your loss now, before it gets worse, but guess what, IT IS GETTING WORSE!

Trouble is, this is an Election Year, and no one is willing to step up to the plate. Only Obama is showing some guts, but even HE is not hitting it hard enough, because let’s face it, they all need the MONEY THESE FINANCIAL GENIUSES HAVE.  You know, the ones who CAUSED ALL THIS NONSENSE?

In some ways, I really wish John McCain wasn’t a Republican.

It would be a whole lot easier to support him, because frankly, out of the Four choices now, Nader, Clinton, Obama, and him, he is about the only one talking straight. His Foreign Policy statement the other day was refreshing, because for 16 years, the attitude from the White House has acted like some Parent lecturing a Child when it came to relations with other nations.

“Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed,” McCain said, speaking to an appreciative audience of head-nodding internationalists. (source)

Clinton took bullying to one level, George W has taken it to a whole new stratosphere, and when you listen to Grandfather John, you see a bit more reason, a bit more flexibility, that was missing from both Clinton & Bush Jr. The world is complex, there are competing ideas and solutions out there, and sometimes they are worth listening to, other times not, but you gotta listen first, to decide. Something Bush & Clinton seem to have forgotten, or just plain Ignored.

You have like him too, for his stand on the War in Iraq. While it isn’t popular, it does at least show his courage too. I mean let’s be honest, everyone wants the Troops home, except maybe George Bush, but that is the basic feeling in America. It would be a lot easier to get elected if John McCain was one of those pushing for it, without conditions, but he believes it is the wrong thing to do. Plus, instead of just being stubborn, he tries to explain why, and that is what a leader should do.

Sure, they may have a difference of opinion, and one would assume they have more facts than the ordinary citizen, but to simply say that. isn’t enough. People need to have trust, but they also need to Know things. John McCain at least is trying, which is a lot more than what any of the others are doing.

That could make 2008 a whole lot more interesting.

President Bush issued pardons for what the White House terms as minor convictions, crimes of non violence, though many were for drug related offenses. Missing from the list were Border Guards Campion & Ramos.

All 15 pardons were for men who were convicted of non-violent and mostly minor offenses, some dating back decades. Among the convictions were drug possession and distribution, illegal firearms dealing, false housing statements and wildlife infractions. (source)

Gerald Ford had the guts to pardon Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton helped his buddy Rich out and pardoned him, and well George did pardon Scooter Libby for his taking the heat on the Valeria Plume crap, but for the Border Guards, no such luck. Despite a Congressional & Senate request to do so, Herr Dictator refused once more to show he is human.

You really have to wonder at this man. I mean okay, it was his buddy Johnny Sutton who prosecuted these two Border Agents, so maybe that is why, after all he doesn’t want his friends to have a bad reputation, now does he? Though frankly, it amazes me at how some of these people got their jobs, to begin with. I mean remember Alberto Gonzales?

You gotta love the way this Presidential Campaign is going. I mean at the outset, everyone promised to play nice, and you know, for a bit it almost looked like it would, until after the first actual voting began. Then everything began to unravel, and I wonder, why is it that when we are losing, we resort to attacking the other person?

It is a chicken or egg question, I suppose.

When they come to write history about the last thirty years, I think that one thing will be to determine, just who really began the practice of using negative attacks, to gain victory. I am not opposed to hard battles, where differences are well documented either, but I am sick and tired of this bullshit Surrogate War. Frankly, I think that Clinton has an edge here, as they are more battle hardened and more expert in the art of Attacks. They have received it, even believe that those who oppose them are part of some conspiracy plot by the Conservative Right, and have launched some good assaults on those who disagree with them, but how does that make them Presidential Material?

Hell Bill Clinton perjured himself and got away with it, so they are pretty good at it. 

Obama has less experience at it, but you know, he isn’t doing bad in his rebuttal attacks. He has some feisty surrogates of his own, and the name calling is certainly becoming interesting. Like Bill Clinton with his implied notion that only his wife has the best interests of America at heart. Like I believe that crap?

Then all this bull crap about Obama’s Pastor and friend. I mean so what, Bill Clinton’s chief fund raiser, backer, confidant, and friend, got convicted of fraud didn’t he? Course buddy Bill did pardon him before leaving office, so like how come that isn’t being discussed with as much vigor as the mouthing s of a bitter man?

The Double Standards Exist, and I have to admit, I am rather disappointed in Lou Dobbs too. I mean he normally is bang on with a lot of his observations, and he leads the Media in bringing up issues that need discussing, but on this one I think he has dropped the ball. I can see his anger too, I mean no one likes to be told that your country sucks, or that people who aspire to be President have such friends influencing them, but then again. How about some of those right wing nut jobs advising Bush? Clinton?

If it is wrong for Cardinal Mahoney to be pushing Amnesty, if it is wrong for Pastor White to not like America because of how it treated Blacks, why isn’t it bad for Pat Roberstson to support John McCain? Or how Falwell and that whole gang supported George Bush? I mean come on Lou, they basically said the same crap that Pastor White did, only they blamed it on Gays, not Whites.

Is that why it is okay?

And why shouldn’t a former Air Force General be incensed at the remarks by Bill Clinton? He more or less, implied that only his darling wife had the best interests of America at heart, implying that Senator Obama was more beholden to some ‘other interests‘, and while on that let’s talk about that.

Let’s talk about Mr. Carver alluding to Bill Richardson as being like Judas, but I don’t see any outrage at that? How come? Oh right, Carver is White and the target is Hispanic. IF the media was truly non biased, they would be airing that remark with as much frequency, as they air the Pastor White tirades. The fact they don’t, shows their racial bias, because Carver is WHITE.

Hilary Clinton supported the Invasion of Iraq. She failed to read the reports, failed to question the intelligence data, and now FOUR THOUSAND US CITIZENS ARE DEAD.

How, Mr Bill, is that caring for the best interests of America?

The Media doesn’t seem to like Barack Obama, and frankly I think his being Black is the main reason. If it isn’t about color, why then aren’t the more outrageous comments by the White Candidates not held to the same standard? Frankly I think that if Barak Obama wins the nomination, the election will be a very dirty one, not like it isn’t now. And I don’t think WHITE AMERICA will let him win the nomination.

It is becoming obvious, as the Media continues to gang up on him. 

Network Solutions has pulled the plug on a controversial Dutch Politician, who was planning to release a supposed tirade about Islam on his web site.

An American internet company has inactivated the website of a Dutch right-wing politician, who was planning to release a critical film about the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book, on the site. (source – CBC News)

It is interesting, in that there are a lot of issues here. I mean is it free speech to promote hatred? No, I don’t think so, but is it Hate if you try to point out that a particular sect, brand, of something opposes what you believe? I mean there are lots of controversial things in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, so pointing them out, warning people about them, is that Free Speech or Hate Speech?

After all, we all remember the speech by Pope Benedict in Germany, that caused a stir in the Muslim World. Then there was the cartoons that got a lot of people upset, angry to the point of violence. So is this ‘suspension‘ about censorship, or about stopping Hate?

Dutch officials fear the movie could spark violent protests in Muslim countries, and have emergency evacuation plans in place for their citizens in those countries. (source – CBC News)

I have heard some pretty hateful things in my 52 odd years of life. From comments about Jews, to how people look at Gays, and I don’t know, but unless they are advocating harm to me, or to ‘my kind‘ I suppose that they should be allowed to have such opinions, to voice them as they please. Naturally, a business should have an equal right to not publish or allow those views to be distributed on their media. Should a business allow this man to vent his opinions, and are they promoting Hate?

What about all those White Supremacist Sites that always seem to exist, or how about the sites run by Reverend Phelps? How come he can say his stuff, but this Dutch Politician can’t? Is it because there aren’t enough Gays to go burn down or kidnap people, while there are Muslims? And why should that even be a consideration? Yes, safety is one reason, but shouldn’t it be applicable for all, not just based on averages, or probabilities?

Seems to me that if a person has an OPINION, that shall we say is HURTFUL TO OTHERS, that it should not be CENSORED. What other opinion will then be CENSORED? And frankly I think that this falls under that category. I know of many good God Fearing Christians who still preach about the Wandering Jews, where they talk about how Christ was CRUCIFIED BY JEWS, even though history says it was in fact, the Romans, and thus the Jews are Condemned to Walk Eternally, unable to go to heaven. Hell, some Preachers have claimed it is for that reason that so many were killed in the Holocaust. So come on, that is just as hateful as saying Islam is a religion of intolerances, or of violence. (Remember Pope Benedict’s homily?) It is a speech that promotes Anti Sematism, and yet it isn’t OUTLAWED nor is any Internet Provider rushing to shut down any Religious Right Site that has it on their website.

Granted, it does seem that Muslim Nations take a great deal of exception to these kind of statements, and cast blame where it doesn’t belong, such as on the Dutch Government as was the case with the cartoons. However, they react, it doesn’t make it applicable to our values? If they believe in that sort of responses, does it mean we have to put aside our values? That is simply creating two wrongs, and I don’t see how that helps ease anything, do you?

While I believe we need to take ‘other peoples‘ feelings and beliefs into consideration, I don’t believe it means that we should deny our citizens the rights for which we believe in. Compromise, yes, but people are who they are. If certain criteria is met, where it may indeed be controversial, may even be mean spirited, but not Hateful, NOT promoting harm to others, then it needs to be allowed.

That is what Free Speech means, after all.