The Truth about Vote Tampering

Our Own Tampering
We, the US, have hacked or interfered (ballot box stuffing & outright intimidation) with more Central and South American "so called" democratic votes than you can shake a stick. . Count interference in the Middle Eastern countries, and you have a Baker's Dozen.

We've helped to overthrow bona fide democratically elected leaders in Iran (Mossadegh see below) and South America and installed or propped up brutal dictators in even more countries. Anyone remember the Shah, Manuel Noriega or Ferdinand Marcos?

To complain about Russia initiating some fake news and doing a Democratic Party email dump is a blatant "Pot calling the kettle black" sham. Not a single vote was tampered with.

We've turned into a hypocritical nation of crybabies.

James Comey is a Hero

James Comey:

If you don't really know much about James Comey outside of the Clinton emails, let me refresh your memory and give you a little history of this 6'5" pure American Hero.

This man personally stopped a desperate Whitehouse, under Bush and Cheney from overstepping the law with the illegal surveillance program in 2004.      

One night in 2004, James Comey proved himself to be a hero and honorable as he stood up to a President and his staff over illegal surveillance.

Click the link to read on from the original article or read here.             

James Comey

On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.
"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

The broad outlines of the hospital-room conflict have been reported previously, but without Comey's gripping detail of efforts by Card, who has left the White House, and Gonzales, now the attorney general. His account appears to present yet another challenge to the embattled Gonzales, who has strongly defended the surveillance program's legality and is embroiled in a battle with Congress over the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

It also marks the first public acknowledgment that the Justice Department found the original surveillance program illegal, more than two years after it began.  Gonzales, who has rejected lawmakers' call for his resignation, continued yesterday to play down his own role in the dismissals. He identified his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, who announced his resignation Monday, as the aide most responsible for the firings.

"You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general," Gonzales said at the National Press Club. "The deputy attorney general would know best about the qualifications and the experiences of the United States attorneys community, and he signed off on the names," he added.  Those comments appear to differ, at least in emphasis, from earlier remarks by Gonzales, who has previously laid much of the responsibility for the dismissals on his ex-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson. They stand in contrast to testimony and statements from McNulty, who has acknowledged signing off on the firings but has told Congress he was surprised when he heard about the effort.

The Justice Department and White House declined to comment in detail on Comey's testimony, citing internal discussions of classified activities.  The warrantless eavesdropping program was approved by Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It allowed the NSA to monitor e-mails and telephone calls between the United States and overseas if one party was believed linked to terrorist groups. The program was revealed in late 2005; Gonzales announced in January that it had been replaced with an effort that would be supervised by a secret intelligence court.

The crisis in March 2004 stemmed from a review of the program by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which raised "concerns as to our ability to certify its legality," according to Comey's testimony. Ashcroft was briefed on the findings on March 4 and agreed that changes needed to be made, Comey said.  That afternoon, Ashcroft was rushed to George Washington University Hospital with a severe case of gallstone pancreatitis; on March 9, his gallbladder was removed. The standoff between Justice and White House officials came the next night, after Comey had refused to certify the surveillance program on the eve of its 45-day reauthorization deadline, he testified.

About 8 p.m. on March 10, Comey said that his security detail was driving him home when he received an urgent call from Ashcroft's chief of staff, David Ayres, who had just received an anxious call from Ashcroft's wife, Janet. The White House -- possibly the president -- had called, and Card and Gonzales were on their way.

Furious, Comey said he ordered his security detail to turn the car toward the hospital, careening down Constitution Avenue. Comey said he raced up the stairs of the hospital with his staff, beating Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's room.  "I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that," Comey said, saying that Ashcroft "seemed pretty bad off."
Mueller, who also was rushing to the hospital, spoke by phone to the security detail protecting Ashcroft, ordering them not to allow Card or Gonzales to eject Comey from the hospital room.
Card and Gonzales arrived a few minutes later, with Gonzales holding an envelope that contained the executive order for the program. Comey said that, after listening to their entreaties, Ashcroft rebuffed the White House aides.

"He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me," Comey said. Then, he said, Ashcroft added: "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and pointed at Comey, who was appointed acting attorney general when Ashcroft fell ill.

Later, Card ordered an 11 p.m. meeting at the White House. But Comey said he told Card that he would not go on his own, pulling then-Solicitor General Theodore Olson from a dinner party to serve as witness to anything Card or Gonzales told him. "After the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present," Comey testified. "He replied, 'What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.' "

The next day, as terrorist bombs killed more than 200 commuters on rail lines in Madrid, the White House approved the executive order without any signature from the Justice Department certifying its legality. Comey responded by drafting his letter of resignation, effective the next day, March 12.  "I couldn't stay if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis," he said. "I just simply couldn't stay." Comey testified he was going to be joined in a mass resignation by some of the nation's top law enforcement officers: Ashcroft, Mueller, Ayres and Comey's own chief of staff.

Ayres persuaded Comey to delay his resignation, Comey testified. "Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me," he said.

The threat became moot after an Oval Office meeting March 12 with Bush, Comey said. After meeting separately with Comey and Mueller, Bush gave his support to making changes in the program, Comey testified. The administration has never disclosed what those changes were.

Hillary Is Very Sick!!!

Hillary goes into an uncontrolled spasm.

There is something definitely wrong with here.  It's undeniable.  Someone must know the truth.  We don't need another Woodrow Wilson issue where a president has a stroke, is incapacitated and it's kept secret.

The will either break wide open with another event or someone in her inner circle will spill the beans.

Hillary or Huma: Who will take the fall?

Hillary Clinton is a FatCat. She's the same pay to play type of politician we should despise and excise from our government. She gives favors to the power brokers who donate to her husband's foundation, The Clinton Foundation and Hillary's trusted aide, Huma Abedin, were in constant contact while Hillary was Secretary of State. Huma facilitated many meetings between high $$$$ donors the Secretary and took care of Bill at the same time. The Clinton Foundation is akin to many Saudi Arabian charities, in that it uses a legitimate cover of working to better the human condition while supporting another nefarious agenda entirely.

The next 15,000 emails should give us a better idea of the real story.

Hillary Clinton is the type of woman that could easily sacrifice Huma when the chips fall.  She will deny all knowledge of the connection between The Clinton Foundation, top level meetings with donors and her husband.  She'll blame Huma for overstepping her role.

Huma Abedin could easily end up falling a a sword for Hillary when all is said and done. 

Add caption

EpiPen & Mytlan Labs Gouge Consumers

This is the kind of crap government needs to stop. The EpiPen has been a life saving device for people with allergies for decades. Adults and children carry them in case of an allergic reaction to bees, peanuts, shellfish and many other products in our environment. Over the past 6 years the price has gone up 500 percent for no other reason than greed. Mylan Labs bought the product in 2007 and has made no significant changes other than pricing and launching an expensive ad campaign.

Congress needs to haul the CEO in and ask him to justify his actions. Families are now making possibly life threatening choices to find alternatives or to keep expired product around because they can't afford to replace their devices.

EpiPen Price Surge Causing Families To Risk Severe Allergic Reactions

Hillary's Health

Evidence is mounting that Hillary Clinton has, at the very least, some sort of chronic condition that gives her pain.  More reports, from demands for pillows to seeing aides help her walk and get up from chairs suggest there is something wrong with her.

It wasn't that long ago that John F. Kennedy's staff hid his bad back.  While this condition, may or may not affect her campaign or her ability to govern, it does suggest that we are not receiving a complete picture of her health.

Everywhere she goes, pillows can be seen in the chair she'll sit.  She rests on the weekends and has had a persistent and troubling cough.  All of it may be nothing as she is getting up in age, but then again, there may be something seriously wrong with her.

Knowing the stealth and secrecy of the Clintons, her condition may be far worse that we know.  If it were anyone else, there might not be much to worry about, but with the Clintons, something shady is suspected.

The purpose of this blog is to look at corruption in government, praise those brave souls who challenge the status quo and expose misdeeds by the very officials in which we place our trust.  I hope we can trust Hillary, but time and time again she's weaseled her way out of problems. 

Kathryn Bolkovac's Battle Against Corruption

THE WHISTLEBLOWER

Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman's Fight for Justice

Kathryn Bolkovac with Cari Lynn

St. Martin's Griffin

• 
• 

• 
  

When Nebraska police officer and divorced mother of three Kathryn Bolkovac saw a recruiting announcement for private military contractor DynCorp International, she applied and was hired. Good money, world travel, and the chance to help rebuild a war-torn country sounded like the perfect job. Bolkovac was shipped out to Bosnia, where DynCorp had been contracted to support the UN peacekeeping mission. She was assigned as a human rights investigator, heading the gender affairs unit. The lack of proper training provided sounded the first alarm bell, but once she arrived in Sarajevo, she found out that things were a lot worse. At great risk to her personal safety, she began to unravel the ugly truth about officers involved in human trafficking and forced prostitution and their connections to private mercenary contractors, the UN, and the U.S. State Department. After bringing this evidence to light, Bolkovac was demoted, felt threatened with bodily harm, was fired, and ultimately forced to flee the country under cover of darkness—bringing the incriminating documents with her. Thanks to the evidence she collected, she won a lawsuit against DynCorp, finally exposing them for what they had done. This is her story and the story of the women she helped achieve justice for.

Obama's Shame and Legacy: The GMO Sham and How Monsanto is Destroying Our Food Supply

Obama’s GMO embarrassment: Why the new labeling bill just signed into law is a sham

The DARK Act, which Obama just passed last week, is another way to masquerade non-labeling

ANDREW KIMBRELL, ALTERNET

ACT, FDA, GMO, ORGANIC, SENATE, SUSTAINABILITY NEWS, BUSINESS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS

(Credit: Shutterstock)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

It is known as the DARK Act — Denying Americans the Right to Know. It was signed by President Obama last week in the afterglow of the Democratic National Convention, without fanfare or major media coverage. The bill’s moniker is apt. With a few strokes of his pen Obama scratched out the laws of Vermont, Connecticut and Maine that required the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

He also nullified the GE seed labeling laws in Vermont and Virginia that allowed farmers to choose what seeds they wanted to buy and plant. And for good measure he preempted Alaska’s law requiring the labeling of any GE fish or fish product, passed to protect the state’s vital fisheries from contamination by recently approved genetically engineered salmon.

The White House justified the DARK Act’s massive onslaught on local democracy on the grounds that the bill would create national standards for labeling of GE foods. It does nothing of the sort. According to Obama’s own Food and Drug Administration, if enacted, the bill would exempt most current GMO foods from being labeled at all. The FDA further commented that it “may be difficult” for any GMO food to qualify for labeling under the bill. And for any GE foods that might be covered, the bill allows for food to be “labeled” through a digital system of QR codes that can only be accessed if the consumer has a smartphone and reliable internet connectivity.

Unfortunately for one-third of Americans, it seems President Obama does not know the digital divide is real. More than 50 percent of America’s poor and rural populations — a disproportionate number of which are minority communities — and more than 65 percent of the elderly don’t even own smartphones, and for those that do, many cannot afford monthly payments or live in areas lacking internet access. A minimum of 100 million Americans will not have access to food information because of this labeling system.

Reverend Jesse Jackson understood this. He wrote a letter to the president urging a veto and saying that the bill raised “serious questions of discrimination” and left “unresolved matters of equal protection of the law.” Do all Americans have rights in an increasingly digital society? Or will they be discriminated against because they have limited means?

Adding insult to discriminatory injury, the bill also allows for labeling through 800 numbers and websites. The idea that Americans can spend hours in the supermarket calling or searching websites to find out if each and every product they buy is genetically engineered is absurd. It’s just another way to masquerade non-labeling.

The president refused to listen to his own FDA, a majority of the Democratic members of the Senate, hundreds of thousands of comments from the public and the pleas of civil rights leaders, and signed a discriminatory phony labeling bill aptly dubbed by Senator Barbara Boxer “a sham and an embarrassment.”

How did this train wreck of a bill even reach the president’s desk in the first place? The answer is a sad commentary on the corruption seen far too often in our federal legislature. The DARK Act was not subject to any hearings. No expert testimony was taken. Rather, it was the result of backroom dealing between a few senators and industrial food and biotech companies. The DARK Act was actually defeated in March in the Senate as Americans involved in the food movement delivered millions of outraged comments to their senators.

But Monsanto and the company’s friends in the Grocery Manufacturers Association were not going to take this loss easily. Republicans in the pocketbook of Big Ag were easy to sway — they actively pushed for the bill they knew would be the next best thing to no GMO labeling. A handful of Democrats, up for election again in 2018, were able to be bought by Monsanto and the other corporations pushing the DARK Act. Senators Stabenow (D-MI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Heitkamp (D-ND) and Donnelly (D-IN) began private negotiations with the GMA and Senator Roberts (R-KS) to see if they could find a way to get the DARK Act across the finish line.

But would bringing in those senators looking for campaign dollars be enough to get the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to a final vote? Probably not. So the bill’s proponents made a deal with the Organic Trade Association, which represents organic food companies but is increasingly influenced by big food companies like Smuckers, General Mills and Kraft — food giants that have only a small percentage of their business in organic brands. While virtually all of the legitimate organic farmer organizations were opposed to the DARK Act, the OTA had “big organic” industry interests in mind and simply sold out for some organic “pork.”

The last provision in the bill, added at the 11th hour, allows all organic foods to be labeled “non-GMO” without any testing to see whether they contain any GMO contamination, as can happen with some organic products. So while non-organic companies that want to label non-GMO will have to undergo testing and verification by third-party verifiers like the Non-GMO Project to ensure that they do not have any significant GMO content, that is not so for organic — they will have a “get out of jail free card.” The OTA endorsement did the trick and the bill was rushed through the Senate, then the House.

So through campaign corruption and an organic industry sellout, the DARK Act wins? Not so fast. Numerous groups (including the author’s) have committed to fighting this bill in federal court. No bill this blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional should be allowed to stand. So the fight against the DARK Act, and for local democracy and the right to know for all Americans, continues.

A Most Horrible Decision: Trump vs. Hillary

A Most Horrible Decision

A picture showing Trump, Hillary and Bill because we know if Hillary wins it will be as if we have a continuation of or a 3rd term of Bill's presidency.

We are faced with one of the worst possible outcomes in the upcoming presidential election.  Never before has there been a choice where neither candidate inspires devotion, confidence or even a strong, "I really like this guy or girl." 

As seen in the picture above, Donald Trump has been hobnobbing with the political power brokers his entire career.  He knows how to schmooze people, make enemies and blow his own horn. If he is successful, he will be the first reality star president. 

Trump has been a public figure in the US his entire life, mostly by his own powers of self promotion. He has been moderately successful in real estate, but more successful as a reality star in the vein of Kim Kardashian. He's built a name that exudes success even though he's had many failures in his life, whether they be in business or in his marital life.  People love him or hate him.

The "Donald" is no stranger to controversy and he proves that hour by hour and minute by minute. The fact that he is now representing the Republican Party as their Presidential candidate has not stopped his mouth from spouting off one ridiculous opinion or insult after another.  He may be saying what many people are thinking, but the constant string of verbal attacks on anyone and everyone in his way will not win him the Presidency.  I said at the beginning of his run that the only one who can defeat Donald is Donald. He is living up to the wildest imaginations of how not to win a presidential race.

On the other hand, Trump could win if he decides to dial it down a notch and take on a slightly more standard campaign demeanor. We don't want to de-Donald him, but when the primaries end, candidates typically change their focus and re aim their guns.  Having a woman candidate opposite him presents a challenge in that he can't be seen as woman bashing, regardless of how bad the choice is in the opposition.  Donald has been digging a hole since the day after the convention and he needs to dig out fast.

Hillary is a force in her own mind and in her own right.  She has a diverse past equal to that of Donald's celebrity.  Yes, she did become a senator and Secretary of State, but had it not been for her husband, her success would not have been possible.  Being thrust into the limelight and taking good advantage of it is her forte.  She is an intelligent woman and a cunning politician.  She does know and have the ear of many world power brokers.  As far as qualifications go, she is head and shoulders ahead of Trump. On the international front, Donald is a school boy and Hillary is a college student.  

With Hillary, we get the status quo, cozying up to the conglomerates from all sides, compromising on all fronts without taking a real stand on anything for fear of betraying a gold level donor.  With Donald, we get a loud mouth with totally "out there" ideas on trade, foreign affairs and most other areas, but he does know how to get things done and would bring on experts from big business and tech firms to head the departments.  He is not beholden to anyone and that's a good thing.  He can't and hasn't been bought. He would most likely keep to his word and not listen to high dollar outside interests. 

Hillary was bought and paid for years ago and the Clinton Foundation is simply a front for influence. Anyone who sees it in the same vein as the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation is in a dream world. It doesn't help anyone anywhere and is a sham.  There are so many skeletons in the Clinton closet that even a warehouse would burst at the seams, but the teflon remains and nothing will stick.

Hillary won't turn over her transcripts of speeches to the big banks because she simply told them not to worry, that she won't rock the boat or enact too many checks and balances on their business. Donald wont turn over his tax returns because he will be found not to be a billionaire at all.  His net worth is in the mid $500 million range.  It would dim his star.

Donald has tried and failed to ignite a firestorm about the Clinton scandals from Bill's, under the desk of the Oval Office high jinks with Monica to the Whitewater Scandal and Vince Foster to Benghazi and the emails, but the public either doesn't know or care about anything in her past.

Hillary is just sitting back and letting Donald self-destruct, which is exactly what he is doing.  His advisers must be frantic and rank and file republicans are hiding under rocks so as not to be tied to the Trump name.  The leaders of the party have only grudgingly supported the candidate and not Donald by name.  

In four years we can look forward to a Paul Ryan run, but until then there is just not a strong republican in the wings.  Bernie Sanders was honest, not beholden to anyone and an incredibly nice man.  Some of his ideas were too progressive and costly, but he was trustworthy.

The Sanders campaign was doomed from the first as a result of the "Super Delegate" crap.  These delegate were unconstitutionally pledged to Hillary before the first vote was cast.  When the press bought into the scheme, the numbers showed Sanders way behind on day one. Many people failed to vote for him because they felt he couldn't win.  What a sham of a system, making the US look like a rigged 3rd world dictatorship.

So, we have Donald and Hillary.  Vote and hold your breath, pinch your nose and pray that the time goes by fast over the next four years and that no real damage is done to our good name or in any real substantive way.  Never has there been such a bad choice.  It's not the lesser of two evils, but rather the least painless method of death.   

Global Warming

Facebook Page

Is the Earth getting warmer? Yes. Has any of this warming been due to the human variable? No one knows, but there have been many large and small cooling and warming cycles on our planet of the long lasting Ice Age type and smaller events brought on by variable solar activity, volcanoes and other non human factors.

The last Ice Age ended over 10,000 years ago, but no written record of the retreating ice exists. The very first writing of our human history was the story Gilgamesh and about King Uruk, from 2100 BC. In these clay tablets from old Mesopotamia are references to a great flood. It is also mentioned in the bible.

It is most widely thought that as the waters rose in the last days of the Ice Age, a land bridge on the Black Sea broke through and flooded vast stretches of land nearly 7000 years ago.

Robert Ballard, the famed explorer who found the Titanic, has uncovered an ancient shoreline under the Black Sea with artifacts dating back 7000 years. This time would fit into the references of a great flood in several overlapping stories from that time.

The warming has continued to this day. The human variable in our warming cycle was irrelevant then and at best infinitesimal today. The current estimate for man's effect is about .5 degrees Fahrenheit. Even that is suspect due to local urban warming zones around our cities. Other studies show recent past cooling cycles and even a mini ice age at around 1650 where there was a long period of decreased solar activity. Some scientists are predicting another cooling cycle to begin around 2030.

What does all of this have to do with the hysteria around the term Climate Change? While it is true we are pumping hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and pumping enormous amounts of particulate into the air as well, the ultimate effect of this is not known. There may actually be a cancelling effect of the particulate vs. the greenhouse gases.

There are just too many variables to account for in our models, the Earth itself being simply too huge to measure and predict. The Sun's effect on our climate is impossible to measure.

We do need to clean up our act on pollution. That much is certain, but to say that we are headed for a catastrophe is a stretch by anyone. There are as many studies one way as the other and the evidence is contradictory at best and outrageously false at worst. One large volcanic eruption or a violent solar flare could change things either way. Man is on a collision course with nature, but global warming may not be that event.

http://www.forbes.com/…/the-period-of-no-global-warming-wi…/

Election Reform Needed?

We are one year out from the next presidential election and we already have nearly half a dozen people scrambling to be part of the most expensive campaign in history.  This next election cycle could top $2 billion.  Without a doubt, before she even announces, Hillary is the only Democratic candidate.  I can't even foresee anyone opposing her.

This presents a problem for her being the only one on the ballot and being unopposed.  There will be no debates, no town meetings with other candidates where the voters can compare and contrast the opposing views as they do in most election cycles.  How will Hillary get the attention of the press? It's a big problem for her.  I wouldn't doubt it if Bill tries to work something behind the scenes to have some bozo democrat run against his wife.  The Democratic primary season will be very boring as will the typical "infomercial" convention.

On the Republican side, the money and candidates are lining up to take on the heir apparent, Jeb Bush.  Ted Cruz is in.  Chris Christie may run if he can drop a few pounds and keep attention off the traffic debacle. Marco Rubio may run and there are others. Ran Paul will be part of the show also. Jeb's problem is that in the primary cycle, he is not conservative enough on the hot button issues of immigration reform and Obama Care.  He will have to pander to the Tea Party and the right wing of the party to get through the primaries if he wants to get past the flamboyant Cruz.

With the primary season 1 year away, it's time to relook at how we elect a president.  Our system is the most convoluted, long, drawn out, loaded with money system on earth.  Other countries simply announce a presidential campaign and the process may take six weeks.  Other countries have a "no confidence" vote in the parliament and the very short election cycle begins.  I think we can find something better than our system.

Many other countries vote on weekends and take two days to do so.  This allows many more people to vote and the voters don't have to take off from work.  It is interesting to note that the US has the lowest voter turnout of virtually any nation on earth for a presidential election and we spend ten times the money of any other nation to elect a leader.  Which party would benefit by having more people vote?

I propose that we squeeze the primaries to a 60 day window where each region of the country be in their own block.  The nation would be split up into: The West Coast, Mountain States, Central, Southeast and Northeast.  Voting would take place on a Saturday.  By doing this, the candidates could and would be forced to focus on one region at a time and would visit more states within that region.  So many states get ignored the way the primaries are scheduled today.  States are constantly trying to leapfrog each other by changing the date of their primary to get the attention of the candidates.  This change would solve that problem.  In the end, the candidates would save money and time and the voters would be more likely to learn about a candidate and to vote.

The 60 day cycle would be in May and June of the election year.  That would leave July and August for the "Infomercial", sorry, the Convention and then the actual election campaigning would be September and October.  It might take an amendment to the Constitution to force such a radical change in our presidential election process, but the change is needed.  I think it is more likely that the state legislators would take this on before anyone in the Congress would.

Our presidential election process is out of control and consumes our legislative process.  Everyone is perpetually running for office.  They won't do what is right for their state or nation, but rather what will win votes for the next election cycle.

Indiana Shame

It is amazing that the Republicans in Indiana did not have the intelligence to understand the law that they passed.  As with most state legislators and the members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, the members generally do not read the bills they pass, but leave that responsibility to their aides who paraphrase the main point of bills and give the members a brief synopsis.  Had any member in Indiana actually read and understood the bill, hopefully, they would not have ever passed it.

Of course, some Hitlerian legislators may have read and understood that the bill allowed businesses to freely discriminate based on sexual orientation.  Let's say a business, a flower business, had a customer come in to buy flowers for a wedding and let's say the customer was gay.  Well, said business, under the bill, could have simply said, "We don't want your business."  This would have been totally legal.  Had the customer been black or a woman or a Jew, the discrimination would have been illegal, but for a gay person, the discrimination would have been just fine in Indiana.  Is this called religious expression?  It's not part of any religion I want to be a part of.

The last time I looked, under the 1st Amendment, freedom of religion meant that citizens can practice their religion without government intervention, but this does not give them the right to infringe on the rights of others.  In other words, if you want to have a public business, you must adhere to public laws. If a business thinks they can discriminate against gays then they need to put up a sign in their window saying so.  Let's see how many businesses do that.  

Watching the Republicans back peddle has been a real laugh.  As a long time Reagan Republican, I'm to the point of leaving the party.  Between the Tea Party Nazis holding up needed legislation to the constant drum beating against anything the President offers, the polarization of the Congress has further eroded confidence in our system.  They seem unable to get anything done. They have lost the art of compromise.  

The next Presidential election will be interesting.  Should Ran Paul or Ted Cruz get in, It might be time to move to Australia.  

Pelosi's Crime

How dare Nancy Pelosi take a trip to Italy courtesy of the taxpayers immediately after telling the American people that we have to tighten our belts. When will these fatcats of Congress realize that they are not the privileged class, but are supposed to be our servants? She is the worst example of why people mistrust and despise politicians. Was she negotiating a new trade agreement? I never knew Congressmen had that job.

I'm sure all Americans are delighted that she was able to receive her grand parents birth certificate's from the Italian Prime Minister, and it was touching to see how she cried at the thought of her long lost relations, but couldn't she have simply had them FedExd to her office or home and not spent $200,000 dollars taking a dozen other fatcats on an Air Force jet?

Who do these people think they are? She and Madoff and all the others need to be perp walked down Pennsylvania Ave for all to see. She is no better than the former head of Merill Lynch. I'm surprised she didn't have caviar while jetsetting across the ocean.

We all need to stand up and scream at what these criminals are doing to this country. If I steal a TV from the Walmart I go to jail for 6 months, but If I spend $200K of taxpayers money on what is no more than a personal trip, I call it work related and go onto the next criminal act. Or, even worse, If I rob thousands of people of $50billion I get to stay in my penthouse and never spend a day in jail. When will the insanity end?

Where is the press? Where is the House Ethics Committee? Where is the outrage?

Help me out here.

Senator Stevens

And yet we have another in a long line of "So Called" public servants indicted on charges of lining their own pockets with money, goods and services. Ted Stevens. I don't call him Senator because he is not worthy just as "Duke" Cunningham is not worthy of any title other than corrupt or criminal.

Ted Stevens brought home the bacon to Alaska for many years as a member of many committees in the senate. It turns out Ted was taking delivery of Viking grills, getting home repairs and generally acting like the fat cat politician caricature that we love to hate.

While there are many honorable men and women in the Senate, Ted is not one of them. With bridges to nowhere and numerous other pork barrel earmarks, Ted is neither honorable nor the kind of man we want deciding our fate. I don't know what gets into the ethics gut check of these politicians, but we have to find a way to police our leaders, not with a self policing "wink wink nod nod" body, but with an outside group of retired judges with strong records of political independence. How else can we hold these men and women accountable?

While not part of the policing activity, there are some reforms that would curb the feeling of entitlement that many long term politicians seem to feel. One way would be to have term limits with four terms in the House and two in the Senate. This would prevent the huge power bases that ranking politicians seem to be able to build. Another would be to take all private funding away from elections and fund them publicly. Politicians should be beholden to their constituents, not to their highest $$ supporters and fund raisers. Maybe they would do the right thing for once rather than simply working for reelection.

It seems the only thing members of Congress will vote for these days is their own or others earmarks. We can't get them to vote for Immigration reform, Energy reform or Social Security reform, but they do fly back for hot button issues like the Terry Shiavo or to limit Stem Cell research. I don't believe any reforms will take place in my lifetime that will do anything other than incrementally add to what we have. Nothing is ever taken back, turned off or shut down, but they do vote to stop allowing Medicare to use competitive bidding when buying equipment for the elderly. The medical equipment makers shut that down with sweet donations to your favorite politicians. God forbid we try to save money anywhere. It goes on and on.

Let's clean up Capital Hill. Vote as many fat cats out as possible so that we can start with a clean slate. I'd rather reinvent the wheel than ride on the corruption ridden free spending wagon we seem to be forever hooked to.

Congressional Pandering

The Congress is now at it in a thinly veiled effort to pander to the American people. It was bad enough when both Hilliary Clinton and John McCain wanted to buy off the good people of this nation with a ridiculous gas tax holiday, but now the Congress, mainly from the left side of the aisle, wants to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to temporarily drop oil prices.

What is needed in this troubled nation is a long term comprehensive energy policy that will touch every facet of the economy and each of our lives. Any short term measure is simply short term folly. I will spell out this policy over the next few weeks. All it will take is the will of the Congress and the support of the people, but more importantly, the understanding that to do nothing will bring our nation to it's knees.

Trillions of dollars are leaving this country when those dollars could be invested right here in our own soil. Our people are bleeding, spending less, paying more for food and suffering at the hands of our own "Do nothing" law makers.

Our dependency on foreign oil has been talked about for nearly a generation while Brazil has become energy self sufficient in the same 30 year period, but without the effect of competing with a vital food source, corn, but more on that later.

Thank god the republicans voted down the measure to drain the SPR, but they have no better plan than to drill. There is no single idea. Yes to drilling, yes to conservation and yes to a Manhattan style project to, not only get us through this crisis, but to put us back on top as a world leader.

Everyone Else is Wrong About Iraq

I don't believe the Bush Administration would admit that the Iraq war was and is a mistake even if every last Iraqi and 100.000 G.I.s died. They have steadfastly rebuffed, ignored and belittled every outside opinion from Colin Powell to James Baker to even George H. W. Bush.

I don't blame The President though. The real enemy is Vice President Cheney. He is the sole remaining cheerleader and supporter of this war. There is no one left in the administration who truly believes in this lost cause.

I honestly feel sorry for Tony Snow in his half hearted, but loyal defense. Even the American Ambassador to Iraq could barely come up with answers on Meet The Press.

What will it take for them to admit their mistakes and make a major change? Iraq is a pot that must boil over. We are only holding the lid on. Saddam was admittedly an evil dictator, but he did hold the nation together in relative peace. With him gone and a power vacuum in his place, the volcano must blow. It is as sad fact of history. It will be ugly and all we can do is gracefully exit.

Enough is Enough

Listening to the remaining Bush loyalists still attempting to justify the war in Iraq is like listening to Big Tobacco executives trying to justify the selling of cigarettes. How can anyone anywhere, at this point, believe that we were ever justified going into Iraq?

It is so telling that 99 percent of the books written on the subject have come out against the original rationale for the war and the conduct of the war. I don't see anyone, other than Tommy Franks and Paul Wolfowitz staying loyal to Bush and Cheney. Now even "Slam Dunk" George Tenet has finally come out to say in public what we have all known these many years, that it was Cheney and his cronies who pushed this folly from the beginning, even before September 11th.

I wish someone would make public the proceedings of the Cheney Energy Meeting. Regime change was mentioned in that meeting, but little else is know about what transpired. September 11th must have been the great gift his neocon crew was waiting for to start a war. If they truly believed that Iraq would become the model for democracy in the middle east, then they were even more delusional than we suspected.

If Saddam Hussein, as Secretary Rice stated on This Week with George Stephanopolos, was a growing danger in 2001 and needed to be taken out, why then haven't we made plans to attack North Korea? Saddam may have wanted a bomb many years ago, but Kim Jung Il has a bomb. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but otherwise ensured a functioning nation. North Korea, on the other hand, has not been a functioning nation since the 50s.

If we had simply kept the focus on Afghanistan and left Saddam bottled up in his no fly zones, we could have saved 3500 Americans, 500,000 Iraqis and prevented Al Queda from finding a safe haven. At least when they were scattered, they were unable to wage war against us. Now that Bush has given them a wild west style shooting gallery, Iraq has become a magnet for Jihadis.

The sad part of this affair is that we now have nearly 3500 dead brave soldiers who died in a Vietnam style conflict. We got out and allowed the inevitable to happen. Now that the strong dictator form of government has been removed from Iraq, the only choice is to allow the inevitable to again take place.

I'm not for an immediate pull out. It would lead to mass chaos and destroy what is left of our good name, but we must give the virtual Iraqi Green Zone only government an ultimatum. We need to quickly bring all parties into the government and turn them against the Al Queda foreign fighters. Saddam even warned his people to beware the foreign fighters after he was gone. They care nothing about Iraq and only want to prevent anything, but a full Islamic government from taking over.

We may have to wait for a regime change in America for anything positive to come out of Iraq.

Where Americans Die

The Bush administration touts the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 as a measure of the success of the war or terror, but they are missing the point. Where an American dies is irrelevant. Whether on the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Bali, London or New York, a death is a death.

We have now lost 3000 Americans since 9/11. How can anyone say with a straight face that we are safer? The war in Iraq has now almost eclipsed the duration of WWII against Japan. That war was akin to containing a wildfire with an endgame in sight throughout. The war in Iraq seems to get worse by the week and month and there has been no containment because there is no defined enemy.

There is nothing to cut and run from except hatred. There is no army or force to defeat. There is no discernible enemy to root out. We must leave Iraq in an orderly fashion and turn the nation over to the Iraqis. Whether the nation stays together as a loose federation or breaks up into distinct sectarian and ethnic regions, it is not our concern at this point. We have done all that we can do.

I don't believe either the democrats or the republicans have a definite plan. We will have to wait for the Baker report to be released after the election. While they may not have any new ideas, they may have formed an educated consensus rather than staying the flawed course.

So it really does not matter where Americans die. A death is a death to the family members left behind. Who is safer today? Only air passengers can truly feel safer.

Election Reform

The nation's electoral system is broken. There were issues even before the Florida fiasco of the 2000 presidential election, but the reaction to those issues has created a more frightening scenario. At least after the hanging chad issue in Florida, a recount was possible with the confidence of knowing that each ballot had been inspected by a competent representative of the state and/or local election commission.

I fear there will be dozens if not hundreds of major issues in the upcoming mid term election because there will be so many close races nationwide. The new computerized touch screen voting machines will be the cause of delays in results, inability to carry out a recount, lawsuits and general havoc that will reach to the core of our system.

Former President Jimmy Carter has observed hundreds of elections worldwide. In all, if not most of those elections, a simple low tech paper ballot was used. Voting must be 1. easy to understand, 2. require few skills to complete, 3. allow for a recount, 4. have guards against fraud and 5. the registration system must be able to verify that those who vote are legal residents.

The touch screen voting systems fail on four out of five of these requirements. The few screens I have seen are fairly clean with little to confuse a first time user. Most people who have used touch screens in stores or banks will be able to follow the flow. Unfortunately, many voters over 60 years or so do not or have not used these types of screens in other tasks of their lives. These voters still go to the bank teller for withdrawals and do not use the self check out systems in stores. Touch screens will be foreign to this group for the most part. We take for granted that everyone can program a VCR or TIVO and that everyone knows what a back button is. For computer users, and that is most people under 60, answering "Yes" or "OK" to confirm an action on a screen is routine. For my mother , it is not. The lack of these basic computer skills will slow voting to a crawl and stress the undermanned and under trained voting station workers to the breaking point.

Numerous studies have shown that even a moderately skilled computer hacker can break into and either circumvent or manipulate the software in the voting machines. If this were to happen and the extent of it could not be isolated to one machine or polling station it would bring down the system in that district and force a re vote, an unheard of practice in this nation. In addition, with the close races expected next week, the importance of a recount will be greater than ever. There is no sure method of recounting touchscreen voting records. There are no paper ballots. The only prescribed technique is to pull the data again from the machines and compile the total. Unfortunately, the numbers will be identical if all of the data cards matched the original count. As long as the serial number tracked cards are handled properly and accounted for during the counting process, there should be no difference in the vote totals. I can imagine a scenario where some date cards or downloaded information get lost or becomes corrupted, damaged or wiped, but other than that the vote should not change. What happens in a recount situation where data is corrupted? Do those votes come off the totals? Unless paper records are kept at each stage of the original counting, how do we know what the totals from the cards were?

Ballot manipulation is nothing new and no matter what system we use, there will be tampering, but digital data can be manipulated and the tracks can be covered far easier than with paper. Without a recount possibility in a close race, the lawsuits will fly and our judiciary would begin to decide races. I don't think we want that no matter which side of the aisle you reside.

Of course, this is all moot if we can't even discern who can vote, where to vote, how many times and with what type of ballot. Absentee ballots are becoming the preferred method lately. What are the safeguards to keep someone from voting by absentee and on voting day. We have taken away most safeguards. You no longer have to vote in your precinct on national or state elections. Picture IDs are considered intrusions on our privacy and unfair to minorities. Has anyone ever heard of drivers licenses? If we can't control who votes and verify that the vote is legal how can any vote be trusted and what would be the point of a recount?

A Final Note: Why do we vote during the workday? Many millions of people do not vote because they are working. When they get off, the choice is whether to go home or stand in line to vote. Many of these people make the choice to go home instead. The argument is that employers give workers time to vote, but in practice, it doesn't happen that way. Hourly employees rarely leave work to vote.

A large proportion of nations cast their votes on weekends when more people can participate. Why don't we? American participate in voting less than almost any nation on earth. Why is that? Is it because they feel as if their votes do not matter? Is it because they don't feel any passion for the issues or candidates or is it because Americans simply don't care about what is happening beyond the privacy fence of their backyards? I don't know the answer to these questions, but our politicians need to know and need to make changes before only 10 % of those able to vote actually vote. Will that be a representative government?

Dear Mr. Rumsfeld

Sir, you seem to be a little upset at the legitimate questions from the esteemed members of the Pentagon press corps these days. In fact, yesterday, you became downright agitated and shrill. I have admired your intellect over the years and your handling of said press corps, but these days you seem to be simply defending, and I will take a phrase from your vice president, the last vestiges of a failed regime.

Our troops are indeed heroes for putting up with your failed Iraq policy and putting their lives on the line every day. We have now lost more of them then lives lost on 9/11. The truth is that I don't see how you can face mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and other family members of those lost in the war of choice. Your callous disregard for their welfare is downright negligent. If what you say is true about us changing tactics to adjust to the threats in Iraq, then your tactics are also failed. Are we simply driving down the left side of the roads of Baghdad instead of the right to get a different view of the IEDs before they blow up killing more soldiers?

Mr. Rumsfeld, your time is over. I have no doubt that Iraq will stabilize well after American troops have left the country and it may eventually join the UN under three different flags, but as long as we remain there to be targets of opportunity for whichever faction wants us dead at that moment, there will be no peace.

Make the plans now. Put as much pressure as possible on the Malaki government. Find some Saddam era generals to take control of the Iraqi army and give them marching orders to regain control of the streets. Do this and get our boys and girls home and you may save your legacy. If not, you will go down as the worst Defense Secretary in history.