On the morning of September 11th, 2008 I left Philadelphia behind and took the highway ramp leading to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I decided to make the trip across the state to the site of the Flight 93 downing on September 11th 2001.

I always welcome the opportunity to leave the trash, crime, traffic and filth of Philadelphia behind and make the drive across the rest of the state which is quite beautiful. My destination was Swanksville, PA a small rural town in west central PA. Swanksville is somewhat similar to my hometown which is about 2 hours or so to the north in the heart of rural central Pennsylvania.

I drove across the state until I reached the exit where the giant wind turbines tower over the turnpike near Somerset. The giant wind turbines and the crash site are just a short distance apart and I always can't help wonder how many people make the connection.

I turned at the Harley dealer and off I drove past the fields as I followed the winding road up to the crash site. I make the trip to the site about once a year and every time I can't help think of my dad.

My dad drove an 18 wheeler in his retirement in order to pay the bills. He drove to Swanksville on Sept. 10th 2001 to either pick up a load of steel for a company he worked for that builds dumpsters - Stone Valley Welding or to drop off a dumpster. The welding shop was and is owned by our previous neighbor and good friend Steve who is a preacher and Amish. On the days that my dad wasn't driving the big rig he worked as a welder in Steve's shop. As usual nobody was there to load or unload the truck so he had to find a place to park the truck and wait until the morning. He parked his truck on the side of the road just a very short distance from where Flight 93 would go down. The next day after waiting until he thought someone would be around to load/unload the truck he started driving up to the location when the events of Sept. 11th unfolded. I cannot tell you what he told me he saw and heard that day but I can tell you that he was forced out of his truck at gun point by federal agents a short time later. They took his identification and asked him a series of about 50 questions. They held his truck for about 10 hours before they turned him away from the area. This was one of the last one on one conversations that I had with my dad. I spoke to my dad on other occasions after that but other family members were always around and so the conversations were nothing more than "How are you doing?", "Where do you work now? and "Why aren't you  married yet?" and other such chit chat that my family usually asks me after not seeing me for a while.

The events on flight 93 have been disputed. I don't want to argue for one version or the other. We only have partial information and will likely never know all that transpired on flight 93. But, it is clear that some of the passangers were aware of the other hijackings and decided to exercise some control over their destiny and that of our nation. They made an act of sacrifice in an attempt to save others.

My dad only had an 8th grade education and my mom only had a 10th grade education for that matter. We never had much money, but they also made a sacrifice for me. My dad worked as a welder for thirty some years destroying his lungs, eyes and hearing to try to put enough food on the table. My mom and dad rescued me from the hellish state foster care system. They adopted me and made sure that I didn't go back to my birth mother who after my father was killed in a car accident starved me, beat me and kept me tied to a chair in the closet in a tiny little town called Mount Union, Pennsylvania. My sister who I re-met some years ago sneaked food into the closet where I was kept in order to feed me.

As I said, my adopted dad didn't make much money and didn't have much of an education, but he was willing to sacrifice virtually all of his time and energy for me, my new sisters and brother and a half dozen foster kids at any given time. I'm not sure if you could ever say that we were that close. But, I appreciate all that he did for me. My parents were uneducated but they sat and read to me the best they could and taught me how to talk as I was years behind other children in those two categories. I didn't really get the chance to thank him for giving me a chance. I did try to thank him just moments before he passed away three years ago on the day before my birthday, but I'm not really sure if he was able to hear me or understand me. I hope so, but I wonder.

Those were my thoughts as I approached the Flight 93 memorial site. I normally don't make the trip on the Sept. 11th date. I knew that on this day that alot more people would likely be there. I had no idea how many. I had no idea that John McCain would be there speaking along with Gov. Rendell and tons of radio show announcers and tv cameras. Just as the World Trade center memorial and freedom tower are not yet built in NYC, so too goes the flight 93 memorial in the usually quite field in rural Pennsylvania. Only a temporary memorial stands. The temporary memorial has thousands upon thousands of writings, personal notes, small personal items, American flags and pictures of the victims that the thousands of visitors have left since Sept. 11th 2001.

I looked at the design pictures of the memorial and then I looked at the temporary memorial around me. The temporary memorial is America. It contains the American spirit and character. You don't even need to look at the crash site to get emotional. The temporary memorial is always what makes people emotional.

The new expensive memorial design was created by Paul Murdoch a Jewish artist in San Francisco. The design is striking in that it looks alittle like an Islamic crescent pointing towards Mecca. Outside of the "Crescent of Embrace" as they called it is where was to be 44 oval shaped things. 40 passengers and crew died that day. 4 terrorists died that day. The original memorial design incredibly seemed to memorialize the hijackers in some way. After public outcry the designer instead decided to use 40 trees instead. But, the crescent shape remains. The crescent design has been modified, but it remains.

The crescent and the previous 44 shapes might not have been anything. Or perhaps it is some kind of expression of embrace of the terrorists and the victims that the artist wanted to force upon us. Or perhaps it is the opposite, some crude reminder that Radical Islamists committed the act. I don't know the motivations. I can't know his intentions. I can't get into the head of some artist from San Francisco.

I just know that the temporary memorial is simple and American.

The expensive government backed memorial is lacking. They had flyers available for visitors to take and later mail in financial contributions for the new memorial. The new design seems to be an attempt to force one to feel something different than one feels as you walk among the temporary memorial walls with the notes and trinkets.

I had a good visit. But, I much prefer the smaller crowds and less nonsense going on. I will still come back and visit the site after the memorial is eventually built because I want to hold onto my own memories and pay tribute to those victims who died and sacrificed that day. I just hope the new site welcomes me.

To me, the flight 93 crash site represents what is best about America. The people, the character, the sacrifice. The site also represents the largest challenge that we as a nation have ever faced. It is a challenge that is being forced upon us whether we like it or not. It is the challenge and threat of Globalization.

This is the fight that America will have to wage not only with the world but with itself over the next 60 years. America may very well have to tear itself apart once again in order to endure.

I have gotten a number of phone calls today and a few dozen emails asking me what I thought about Hillary Clinton's address last night and what it means. I wasn't planning on writing about the speech, but since folks are asking me I thought I would give a few brief thoughts on the speech.

First off, she did what she had to do. She had to make sure that when Obama loses the November election that the Democratic party doesn't blame her for it. She also wanted to give a good speech that is better than Joe Biden's speech tonight. The next objective was to set herself up for another Presidential run in 2012.

Hillary mentioned her 35 years of experience in fighting for the issues her supporters care about. That was designed to remind folks that Obama has no such experience.

Hillary then went on and mentioned the personal stories of folks she met on the campaign trail. Connecting on a personal level is something that Bill Clinton was a master of and something that Hillary has learned to master as well. Barack Obama struggles with making personal connections with people. This was another reminder to folks that Obama connects to large crowds such as a rock star does but does not connect with nor understand the problems of ordinary folks.

Hillary never once said that Barack Obama was qualified to be President. That was the thing that stood out to me the most. Bill and Hillary Clinton may put on a positive face and say that Obama is closer on the issues than McCain, but Bill and Hillary Clinton both feel that Obama is NOT qualified to be president. The Clinton camp would not be supporting other efforts if they truly backed Obama. You have to trust me on that one.

Hillary was careful to say that Obama WILL end the war responsibly. Obama WILL bring universal healthcare to America that covers everyone. Obama's foreign policy WILL make us more secure. Obama WILL keep America's jobs from going overseas and so on.  

She said that he WILL deliver all of that and more. And those are the things that Obama himself said he will deliver on. Obama doesn't just say he will fight for those issues, he says that he WILL work with everyone and he WILL get it all done. Hillary Clinton knows darn well that Obama WILL NOT deliver univeral healthcare for all. His plan doesn't cover everyone. Hillary knows darn well that Obama WILL NOT end the war responsibly. Hillary knows darn well that Obama WILL NOT keep American jobs here in America. In fact, she knows that he WILL NOT deliver on any of the items that she reminded folks that he said he WILL do.

Hillary removed the heat from herself and the blame if Obama loses. And at the same time opens the door up for herself in 2012 as either a Democrat, Independent or some third party candidate. Don't laugh, you might be surprised what Bill has up his sleeve. In 4 years, Hillary Clinton will come back and say I believed Obama when he said that he would deliver on issues W, X, Y & Z. But, Obama did not deliver W, X, Y & Z.  

Bill and Hillary Clinton know that Obama isn't going to deliver anything. He will be a disaster if he wins (and they don't believe he will win). He isn't qualified to be President and this next President will face more pressing challenges than any other President in history.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have believed from the beginning that the American people will come to their senses before election day and not vote for Obama. They both believe that Obama isn't ready and will lose this November.

But, Hillary had to attack McCain in her speech. Both of the Clinton's believe that McCain will win this November. Thus, Hillary will be likely facing McCain in 2012. That effort would be damaged if she praised McCain. She had no choice to go after him alittle bit, even if she wasn't that critical of McCain.

Hillary agrees that Obama often sounds as if he is closer to her on the issues than McCain. But, she also knows that he will say anything to get elected and that he will not deliver on anything.

Hillary gave a great speech. Now it is up to Obama to earn votes from those Democrats that aren't supporting him. The media and camp Obama believe that it was up to Hillary to deliver her voters to Obama. However, it is up to Obama and only Obama to win over people.

The American people and Hillary Clinton supporters may think that Obama is closer on the issues as Hillary stated, but he is not qualified. Hillary can say that Obama is great on the issues and McCain is poor on the issues, but Hillary and Bill Clinton also know that he is all talk and no qualifications. Many Hillary democrats will still not vote for Obama, no matter what Hillary or Bill might have to say publicly. Because voters know that Bill and Hillary have both made it clear that Obama is NOT qualified. There is too much at stake in this dangerous world to put the most unqualified candidate in history into the White House. Atleast 6 other Presidential candidates running this year are much more qualified than Barack Obama.

Hillary did what she had to do. She comes out as the bigger person. She put a happy face on it, but she didn't say anything about Barack personally that says he will be a good president. She did not say that Obama is qualified. She simply mentioned issues.

The talking heads on MSNBC would like to tell you that Hillary and Bill Clinton are fully behind Obama, but I know that is simply not the case. They want Democrats to line up like sheep and vote for Obama even though he is not qualified and he will say anything to get elected.

The Democrats can now pretend that they are united, but they won't be able to hide the cracks that will appear in the coming months. The November general election will be interesting and 2012 will be even more interesting.

The events of this election season are just bumps in the beginning of a historic shift in American politics over the next dozen years or so that will impact both major parties and the majority of voters who are in fact independents.

The two major parties will be scrambling to adjust to the shift. The DNC gambled this year that Obama best fits the coming shift. They sold it too inexperienced college kids. The DNC and party bosses are trying to head off the changing electorate. They took a gamble that Obama fits the change.

I am convinced that they gambled on the wrong candidate and that they will pay for it in the future. If Obama wins, the American people will pay a heavy price for the DNC's gamble.

Last night the Democratic party featured Michelle Obama. The Democratic party is desperately trying to make Barack Obama and Michelle Obama look like regular people.

The media, the DNC talking heads and Michelle Obama herself have even said that she came from very humble beginnings. Michelle Obama sometimes even uses the word poor in describing her upbringing. She also said that her father struggled to get up every morning to go to his low paying, hard labour job with the water department. Many in camp Obama have even suggested that Michelle grew up in a one room tenement.

The media, the DNC and Michelle Obama herself have not told the complete story and what has been told is not truthful. Michelle Obama's father was infact an organizer for Chicago's Democratic party, city wide. Chicago's Democratic party was the most corrupt city political party in the United States. Chicago politics, then and now is all about power, favors and pay to play.

In exchange for his political work, Michelle Obama's father (Fraser Robinson) was given a very good engineering job at the city's water plant. Let me be clear, it was given to Fraser Robinson for his political organizing and arm twisting for the most corrupt city politics in the nation. Before overtime, Fraser Robinson earned $43,000. a year. Fraser Robinson was able to work overtime hours as often as he liked making double time wages. After overtime, Fraser Robinson was bringing in well over $60,000. a year. For the 1960's, that is in no way poor. Mr. Robinson made more money (25%-50% more) before overtime than any of the teachers at all of the local schools for example.

They lived at 7436 South Euclid Avenue near the University of Chicago hospital. The neighborhood had lots of white professionals, professors and doctors. Not exactly the picture of poverty and ghetto that the media likes to paint.

Just as Frasier Robinson was given a good job for political influence, Michelle Obama took the same route.

In March of 2005, just two months after Barack Obama became a U.S. Senator, the University of Chicago Hospital created a new high paying position just for Michelle Obama.

Michelle Obama had been working in the University of Chicago Hospitals system for $121,000 year. This new postion would start at $316,962 a year. Her new postion was called, Vice-President for Community and External Affairs. Great name for a postion that has no real responsibilities, except to try to gain political access for hospital executives.

Does a hospital that is claiming it's trying to bring down healthcare costs for poor people really need to pay $316,962 a year for a "public relations" person?

Anyways, Michelle Obama got a raise of $195,052 a year because her husband become a U.S. Senator. This position of Vice President for Community and External Affairs did NOT exist before they created it for Michelle Obama and it has NOT existed after Michelle Obama left the position for even better paying positions. 

Only a very few media outlets have asked about this issue. When local Chicago media asked the hospital about this postion, they could not even give an explaination of the job or list the postion's duties. They did not refuse to answer, but they instead actually said that they didn't know what duties the position required or performed. Her employer could not even say what she did!

I have a suspiction that this was a ghost job and she didn't do anything. These type of jobs are created for political influence more often than people realize. A state lawmaker in Pennsylvania just went to prison for being involved with helping to set up ghost postions for a relative. This practice is not legal.

Michelle Obama likes to talk about the rising costs of healthcare and how we must lower the costs and she talks about the need for healthcare coverage for everyone. Yet, she herself contributed to the rising costs of healthcare by accepting her bloated salary position that was given to her simply because of politics. She took a fatcat position that paid her to do absolutely nothing for the local community. She took a fatcat position for a hospital that routinely refused to admit patients without medical insurance. There is even a documented case of a man who died after the hospital refused care to him. Some champion of the poor.

The Old school Chicago style of special favors, power and pay to play politics was alive and well when Fraser Robinson was given a good city job and that tradition continues still today as we can see with Michelle Obama's fatcat ghost job.

Hardly humble then, hardly humble now.

Barack Obama claims that he is fighting against the special interests in Washington. Yet, Obama has been in bed with the ethanol industry ever since he was first elected to the Illinois senate.

Obama pandered for votes in Iowa on the issue of corn ethanol and it helped him win the Iowa caucus. Obama was more concerned about getting votes than raising your grocery bills.  

Currently, Obama is traveling across the country (when he's not playing President in other parts of the world) with former Senate leader Tom Daschle. Daschle is one of Obama's biggest supporters and a trusted campaign advisor. Daschle is also a lobbyist for several ethanol corporations. In fact, Daschle serves on three different boards for three different ethanol corporations. Daschle also works at a high powered Washington D.C. law firm that represents guess who? The corn ethanol Industry!

Obama's top energy and environmental advisor, Jason Grumet, came straight out of the ethanol industry. Grument has been associated with Daschle and Bob Dole in that industry for years. Bob Dole, the former Republican leader of the Senate is also now living high on the hog through his involvement with the corn ethanol industry through the global agribusiness giant ADM (Archer Daniels Midland Corporation).

Barack Obama even flew on ADM corporate jets and has attended ADM funded events (including lavish meals and lodging) since joining the U.S. Senate. Obama helped secure multi-Billion dollar federal subsidies (your tax dollars) for ethanol giants, some of which are also oil giants. These federal subsidies, as usual mostly benefit the giant global agribusiness corporations instead of small farmers.

Obama attached these pork projects to the Bush/Cheney energy bill. Then Obama voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill despite the fact that he often criticizes the Bush/Cheney energy policy on the campaign trail. I am not sure why he criticizes their energy policy when he himself voted for it. Obama voted to give multi-Billion dollars in corporate welfare to global energy giants, including corn ethanol, nuclear and oil corporations. Obama says that the Bush/Cheney energy policy is responsible for the high gas prices. Yet, he voted for it.

The use of corn in ethanol has dramatically raised your grocery bills. These global agribusiness giants make more money raising corn for ethanol than they do for food. So, more and more corn is being diverted towards ethanol. That has lowered the corn supply and is raising the price. Corn prices are rising just as fast as oil prices. This has led to higher corn prices in your grocery store and all food items that have corn in the ingredients such as cereal, soups, flour, vegetable oil, syrup, pancakes, waffles, tortillas, burritos and hundreds of other food products. Corn is in a lot more foods than one might realize.

The rising corn prices are also causing the price of chicken, beef, turkey and pork products to skyrocket, as corn is a main ingredient in animal feed.

The bottom line is this. By securing federal pork spending for global agribusiness and energy corporations, Barack Obama has accomplished the following:

• Higher Food Prices for you and me
• Higher Profits for Energy & Global Agribusiness Corporations
• Higher Gas Prices for you and me
• Higher Federal Budget Deficit
• Future Higher Taxes
• Lots of Perks and Campaign contributions from ethanol interests for Obama
• A win in the Iowa Caucus for Obama that started the media's love affair with him

Looks like Obama got a good deal. Not so good for the rest of us.

The U.S. Congress is at it again. The U.S. Congress has a procedure called unanimous consent (others call it hotlining) which is a way to set aside congressional rules in order to speed up the passage of bills. Thus,these bills can be passed without notice, without debate and without amendments. Historically, this practice was used to pass uncontroversial bills such as renaming a post office after a deceased politician or a bridge after a military hero. Usually unanimous consent bills involved very little spending.

The current Congress has taken the use of unanimous consent to a whole new level. The current Democratic led Congress is now using the practice on all bills and thus abusing the use of unanimous consent in an effort to pass bills without public notice and without a vote. Thus, no one politician in particular can be blamed when a bad bill is passed, because there is no vote on the record.

The Independent Congressional Research has just released a new report that documents the use of unanimous consent in the current U.S. Congress. The current Democratic led Congress has thus far used unanimous consent to pass 94% of all bills! Thus far these bills have included nearly 9 Billion dollars in new spending. Nearly 400 bills have been introduced the very day that they are passed by unanimous consent without any debate or public notice.

The new trend is to use unanimous consent to pass foreign spending bills such as paying for a new museum in Poland, medical spending in Africa and new funding to the United Nations. Other uses of unanimous consent include approve judicial payraises.

Another reason that the practice is used more often besides the deceit is so that members of congress can cut their work week short. Remember when Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that the new Democratic led Congress would be working the full week instead of cutting the week short? Yes, well that didn't last long. In fact, the current congress is now working less than the previous congress and this congress is debating less than ever with their use of unanimous consent.

The lawmakers go off to their weekend getaways and the unanimous consent bills are presented when on staff and interns are present. When the name of the bill is read, it is automatically passed unless someone objects. Objections are very rare. When someone objects to a unanimous consent bill, the congressional leaders of both parties throw a fit and whomever objects gives in and the bill is passed.

These clowns are getting paid to write, examine, debate these bills and they are doing very little of that. They are spending taxpayer money on wasteful projects without any public notice or debate. They cowardly use unanimous consent so that their intent or their individual vote is not known. They must have learned that trick from Barack Obama's time in the Illinois senate.

When used in the traditional way to rename bridges and post offices, unanimous consent is a good way to save time. However, the current abuse of the practice must be ended.

I would suggest a couple of ways to improve the situation.

First, unanimous consent cannot be used when spending is involved. Unanimous consent cannot be approved by staff members. Lawmakers must be present and approve or object to unanimous consent bills when the practice is used in rare cases. The use of unanimous consent should be reserved for designated time periods to allow oversight.

Proposed legislation cannot receive a final vote before a ten day time period unless it is emergency legislation.

New proposed legislation will be posted on a U.S. government website created specifically for proposed legislation. This includes unanimous consent bills (such as renaming a post office). The entire bill must be posted and it must be posted for atleast 72 hours to allow public viewing and media scrutiny. When bad bills and wasteful spending bills are brought up, sufficient time will be given to allow the bloggers and media to notify the public.

Our lawmakers need to actually read these bills. They need to actually debate these bills. They need to be on public record with how they voted on these bills.

We are all in this together. So, if you have additional suggestions to improve the situation, increase transparency, reduce wasteful spending, improve accountability, encourage debate and so on please post along with your comments below.

And please don't flood me with comments to vote for your candidate. All of the Presidential candidates this year that serve in the U.S. Congress routinely allowed the practice of unanimous consent for spending bills to continue without objecting. It is time to hold these clowns accountable.

The Interdependent 3rd Party of Massachusetts, a third party with over 2,360 registered members has announced that it will affiliate/ merge with the New American Independent Party! That will place our total Massachusetts membership at just under 3,000 members and growing weekly. Our membership continues to increase nationwide. Compare that with another moderate third party in Massachusetts, the Reform Party who now has just 60 members.

I have agreed to become a regular contributor and editor at Dan Smith's new The Other Voices independent & third party news blog. I will post regular updates on New American Independent Party news, including candidate interviews on the new blog. I hope to contribute to the growth of Dan's new site. I will continue to post my blog and rant entries here. My contributions at The Other Voices will be less blog and more news.

Dan's new site is meant to cover those independent candidates and third parties that are routinely left out of third party news sites. Too often the third party news sites mostly just cover Libertarian, Constitution, Green party and Nader news. I can't count the number of times that we sent press releases to various third party news sites only to see them ignored. I understand that they fear us. But, out of fairness, they should cover us atleast once in a while.  

Dan has set out to cover the other hundreds of independent candidates and the dozens upon dozens of other third parties. Such a site is long overdue. I salute Dan's efforts and hope to make a small contribution to his mission to introduce the "other voices" to the American people.

I hope to have something posted by tomorrow or even tonight.

If you get a chance, please stop in from time to time and throw me some love.

Hopefully, Dan won't regret adding me.

http://independentsroom.wordpress.com/

-michael

The U.S. Senate voted on the very important FISA bill in February. How did Senate Obama vote?

Well, like alot of important other bills, he missed the vote. He was off campaigning instead of doing the job that he is getting paid to do.

Even though Obama missed another important vote, he did issue a statement on the FISA bill. According to his statement , Obama was clearly against the FISA bill:

"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security."

You can read the story here:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/28/barack-obama-statement-on-fisa/

Now, just like NAFTA, CAFTA, campaign finance and the war in Iraq, Obama has changed his posiiton now that he is the likely nominee of the Democratic Party. Obama's positions have been all over the map over the past month or two. It is getting increasingly difficult for voters to know just where he stands on any given issue.

A few hours after the U.S. House passed the FISA bill by a 293-129 vote this week Senator Obama issued a statment on FISA. Members of the press and alot of his liberal supporters were shocked when he pledged full suppport for the FISA bill.

Obama statement:

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program."

Obama tried to explain his flip flop by claiming that this new version of the bill has a new provision. "It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said.

However, Democrat Russ Feingold and Republican Arlen Specter both said that Obama was incorrect in his claim. The so-called new provision is not new, it has been in the law since 1978. Specter called the exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act."

Where does Obama stand on the issues? How can the voters know where he stands on the issues when he doesn't even know himself where he stands?

What were the Democrats and the DNC thinking?

Nevermind. Don't answer that. I know exactly what they were thinking.

Barack Obama is at it again.

Just like he did when he secretly met Canadian Officials to tell them that NAFTA would not be touched when he was publically saying he was going to either end or rework the damaging free trade agreement to the voters, Obama has done it again. This time on Iraq.

Yesterday, when Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari met with Washington Post editors, Zebari told them that on Monday he received a telephone call from Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Zebari said that Sen. Barack Obama called to reassure him that he (Obama) would not be a radical change from the current U.S. policy in Iraq. Zebari said that he felt "reassured" by his telephone conversation with Obama. Zebari said that there was "not too much difference" between Obama's position and John McCain's Iraqi position.

Zebari said that Obama reassured him that if he won the Presidency that he would not make any "sudden decisions or action" in regards to Iraq. "Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government", Zebari said Obama told him.

Whatever decison he will reach?   That's not what he says on the campaign trail. On the campaign trail, he is crystal clear that the troops will start coming home right away.

Zebari also said that "he [Obama] is not interested to pull all the troops out. He wants a residual force" to continue fighting terrorists, train Iraqi troops and protect Iraqi and American interests.

Obama Foreign Policy advisor Denis McDonough confirmed all of Zebari's claims. McDonough disagreed with Zebari's opinion that there was "not too much difference" between Obama and McCain's position on the future of Iraq.

Barack Obama tried sounding like a fair trader on the campaign trail in order to secure the Democratic nomination. He blasted Bill & Hillary Clinton on the NAFTA issue and criticized Hillary Clinton because she once sat on the board at Wal-mart. He said that free trade has "devastated too many towns in America." During a rally in Philadelphia that I witnessed first hand, Obama said that, "Overall, free trade agreements like NAFTA have had a much more negative impact on our economy than any positive impacts that they might have created." Obama pandered for working middle class votes, despite his history of supporting economic policies that are damaging to the working American middle class.

Now that Obama feels he has the Democratic nomination secured, he is starting to let his true thoughts on free trade come to light in order to let his corporate masters (that he so desperately tries to hide) know that he is on their side.

In a recent CNBC interview Obama said, "I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market." In an interview with Fortune Magazine, Obama stated his support for free trade. He said that he does not want to get rid of NAFTA. Take a look at this exchange in the Fortune magazine interview to be featured in an upcoming edition:

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy"..

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

What Obama says now is that he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

In the interview Obama said that he would not unilaterally reopen NAFTA. However, that is the exact opposite of what he said on the campaign trail. His daily campaign stump speech in Ohio and Pennsylvania always included his pledge to "unilaterally reopen and rework NAFTA".

Obama still says that he will include labor and environmental standards in our free trade agreements despite the testimony from virtually every trade expert that such standards are unenforceable and just political in nature. In fact, after the U.S. Congress passed the Peru Free Trade Agreement (that Obama supported), lobbying representatives for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were heard cheering in the U.S. Chamber hallway at their delight over the agreement with standards that they said were "impossible to enforce"(programmers guild).

You may remember one of the debates in which Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board. Obama said that he "would not shop at Wal-Mart".

Yet, Obama hired Wal-Mart's biggest defender as head of his economic policy team. Jason Furman is known as a fierce defender of Wal-Mart. Furman has called those that want Wal-Mart to raise their wages and beneifts for their workers as "the real enemies".

Obama chief economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, secretly met with Canadian officials to reassure them that NAFTA would not be touched. Goolsbee is another well known free trade supporter.

Barack Obama = Politics as usual from a Free Trade Globalist

The Green party can count on one thing this election season if Cynthia McKinney wins their nomination. That one thing is a guaranteed weak, lackluster campaign that is designed to keep down the Green party vote and inflate the vote for Barack Obama.

Cythina McKinney is in the race to do one thing. Make sure that the Green Party doesn't pose a serious challenge to Barack Obama. Basically, she is blocking other Green party candidates who would make a real effort, even with less money. She may even decide to drop out of the race completely late in the game to ensure that the Green Party is in even more chaos than it already is.

Here is part of a statement issued by Cythina McKinney on her opponent Barack Obama:

"Statement by Cynthia McKinney, Power to the People Candidate for U.S. President, on the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's Presidential Candidate in 2008 - statement issued June 9, 2008

By Cynthia McKinney

On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton announced that her 2008 presidential bid is over, making Barack Obama the first-ever Black presidential nominee of a major party in the history of the United States.

Congratulations to Senator Obama for achieving such a feat!

When I was growing up in the U.S. South in the racially turbulent 1960s, it would have been impossible for a Black politician to become a viable Presidential contender. Nothing a Black candidate could have done or said would have prevented him (or her) from being excluded on the basis of skin color alone. Many of us never thought we would see in our lifetime a Black person with a real possibility of becoming President of the United States.

The fact that this is now possible is a sign of some racial progress in this country, more than 40 years after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. But it is also a sign of the deep discontent among the American people, and particularly among African Americans, with the corporate-dominated , business-as- usual politics that has prevailed in Washington for too many years.

Coming from Barack Obama, the word "change" did not appear as just another empty campaign slogan. It galvanized millions of people --mostly young people--to register to vote and to get active in the political system. The U.S. political system needs the energy and vision of all is citizens participating in the political process. Citizen participation is always the answer.

Senator Obama called for healing the wounds inflicted on working people and the poor in our country after eights years of a corrupt and criminal Bush-Cheney Administration. Just as in November 2006, people full of an expectation for change, including those the system has purposefully left out and left behind, flocked to the polls to vote for Senator Obama. Across a broad swath of the people of this country, and from those who are impacted by U.S. foreign policy, there is a real expectation, a real desire, for change."

Does this sound like a serious Presidential candidate that is ready to take on Barack Obama?

Would Cynthia McKinney give such praise if the Democratic nominee had the exact same resume as Barack Obama, but was a white man named Larry Smith?

If Cynthia McKinney is proud of Barack Obama and wants him to win because he is black, then that is fine. But, she has no business pretending to be a presidential candidate when she is not planning on putting forth a serious effort. She is representing a party that has a membership largely opposed to Obama's policies.

Barack Obama is a fraud with policies that will further weaken the American middle class. If Green Party members want a third party Presidential ticket that will take on Obama and McCain, then the New American Independent Party can provide a home for you in 2008.

I am still seeing tons of people saying and writing that they are going to write-in Hillary's name on the November ballot.

As the chairman of a political party in these great United States and being in a position that I need to know the ballot access / election laws I can tell you with 100% confidence that you are WASTING YOUR TIME.

IT WON'T COUNT!

Many states do not allow write-in votes period. Other states allow them but do not count them. Other states legally have a process to allow them, but refuse to count them. Other states have been ordered by courts to count them, but refuse to do so.

The states that allow them and count them still REQUIRE THE CANDIDATE TO SIGN THE FORMS AND FILE THE PAPERWORK before the deadlines. Thus, Hillary Clinton would have to approve of the idea and do the work. She is NOT going to do so.

So, please do NOT try write-in votes for Hillary. You are wasting your time and your protest vote will never be heard.


I am sure that I will hear from some people who will tell me that they will still try it, just incase. Well, go ahead and do it. But, you are wasting your time and your vote. We have a real plan to maximize your protest vote.