Keep those letters to your representatives coming!

Ok, I know it's a "form letter" response, but obviously there have been enough people writing to members of our government that they had to come up with a form letter on how they are going to act towards Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment for President Bush.

I know it seems like there is not a chance in hell that anything might not happen, but we have to at least keep trying to make Bush accountable for his actions. If for nothing else media exposure to let the people of this country know that he is not just some dimwitted fool (though, I'm not taking that away from him), but he also withheld crucial information and lied not only to Congress, but to the American people about many things but most importantly our reasons for invading Iraq.

Keep the letters coming!

Why I care about the 5-4 ruling, and how it effects me personally.

Roughly a week after September 11 I received a voicemail on my cell phone indicating that I needed to call the local FBI back to have a conversation. I didn’t think anything of it because I thought it was just one of my friends screwing around with me. The next day to FBI officials rang my door bell at my house in East Boston, MA, which was less then a mile away from Logan Airport. I was surprised to say the least. They starting asking me questions and held up pictures of the hijackers and asked me if I knew them. I answered their questions, and told them that I had only seen the pictures on the news in the days right after the attack. Finally they told me that a neighbor had told them that “A muslim looking guy moved in next to door some months ago. I never see anyone go in or out of the house during the day, but on the weekends I see a lot of people over there.” That is what they had to go on. I explained to them that I usually went into work between one or two, and I usually came home at around three or four in the morning because that is the schedule I liked to keep as the International project manager for a telecommunication company, and of course being young and owning a house let me have quite a few parties when I was not working. They called some of my friends, and even talked to my boss at the time and I had thought that this was the end of it.

Before I continue let me give you some background information. I’m a brownie - meaning my parents are both Indian, but I was born in the United States. I guess for some people the name, Vinod Tonangi, sounds slightly islamic. I have no idea, nor do I care. though I was raised Hindu I am a non-believer of any organized religion. I thought it was an isolated incident and I forgot about it. After leaving my old position I had started my own telecommunication company, and worked with people all over the world. Working with technically integrated societies was just not as profitable as emerging societies because telecommunication costs were already low and did not leave me any room for a significant margin. I preferred to work with countries that were, at the time, less technology advanced. Some of these countries were Brazil, Kenya, and Eastern Europe, however many of these countries I worked with were also in the middle east such as Syria, Jordan, and Iran. I received a shocking letter indicating that I was currently under investigation under Homeland Security because I had wired a money to a telecommunication company in Iran. Since this was now the second time I had this issue I was quite scared after hearing stories of what has happened to other innocent people in the current Administration, but I quickly sent them all the information that they asked for. I included contracts, invoices, email discussions, and a summary of what my relationship was with the company in question. This happened almost two years ago. Today Homeland Security still holds the money in question, and whenever I ask for an update they tell me it is “still under review”.

I understand the government should follow any and all leads, and I am happy to provide them information if they require it. I also understand the fact that I being a brownie may single me out to get “random” checks in the airport, or the fact that they always stare at my passport for 15 minutes since I have visited quite a few countries during my position as international project manager for a previous company, but my fear was that if I was incorrectly implicated in any crime I would never be able to tell anyone my case. It would have been quite easy for the government to freeze all my business bank account, by personal bank account, or even take my house. I was not just worried for me, but for my wife who besides working for my company has never worked for another American company in her life. I met her while I was living in Eastern Europe working on a project.

“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

Statements like this from Alberto Gonzales, and the increasing removal of our civil rights such as the Patriot Act continued to make me cringe. When I read that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling instated some of our precious civil rights that I used to take for granted when I was younger, I was ecstatic. People always ask me why I am so passionate about Barack Obama becoming our next president, and I have to answer them that not only am I a political geek, but this is an extremely personal issue for me, and I know other supporters are very passionate because it is personal them. If you forget about your political loyalty for one minute, and just focus on the facts it is easy to see that we should have never lost as many as our rights as we did after the attack in September. I’m glad to see that we, as a country, are now trying to correct the injustices that many of us agreed to when we lived in a state of fear. I applaud the Supreme Court, albeit a quiet applause due to the close ruling, and I hope our elected legislative officials continue the trend.

It’s starting to feel like America again.

Why women won't vote for John McCain

To all of your frustrated Hillary Clinton supporters: Everyone understands that you are upset that the 1st woman to really have a chance to become president lost the nomination, and it was close...damn close, but now you have to realize that Obama is by far a much better leader then John McCain.

Realize that McCain does not care if he sends your brothers, husbands, sons, and daughters to Iraq, or even to Iran, as he doesn't think it is "too important" when they come back home. John McCain will inevitably nominate supreme court justices that will overturn Rowe vs. Wade. McCain also believes public funding for abortion or for organizations that advocate for abortion, should be prohibited - BUT you knew all this information right? Well, I hope you did, but I'm sure you probably didn't know this:

McCain Voted to Gut the Family and Medical Leave Act. In 1993, before finally voting for the Family and Medical Leave Act, McCain voted to jeopardize leave for millions of workers by gutting the bill. He voted to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act unless the federal government certified that compliance would not increase business expenses or provide financial assistance to businesses to cover any related costs.

McCain said President Bush's Veto on SCHIP was "the right call." The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, was established by the federal government ten years ago to provide health insurance to children in families at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. The Democratic leadership of Congress in 2007 proposed a massive expansion of SCHIP that would have extended federal health insurance coverage to children in families making as much as $82,600 per year, which ultimately would have made 71 percent of America's children eligible for federal health insurance assistance, a form of welfare. The Congressional leadership proposed funding this dramatic expansion with an increase in the tobacco tax. It was vetoed by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2007. Sen. John McCain, told CNN he agreed with President Bush's veto of legislation expanding a children's health insurance program, saying the bill provided a "phony smoke and mirrors way of paying for it." He later said "Right call by the president."

McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies. In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. So he's not only aganist abortions but he is also aganist finding out how to prevent them?

McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.
McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.

McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

McCain Opposed Equal Pay Bill for Women. In April 2008 Sen. John McCain skipped the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which “restores the longstanding interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” overturned last year by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. McCain explained his opposition to the bill by claiming it “opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.” Later, he added that instead of legislation allowing women to fight for equal pay, they simply need "education and training".

“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them. It’s a vicious cycle that’s affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,” he said.
The issue was not “education and training.”

When denied equal pay by her supervisor, Lilly Ledbetter was doing the exact same job as her male counterparts and received numerous performance-based awards.

...and finally

The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007:

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?"

McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."

Need I say more?

Do what is fair, and right. The president must be held accountable.

The following is my letter that I have sent to members of the media, senators, and representatives of Congress. I urge you to do the same. Feel free to "borrow" the text below. Here is a link to contact your representative.

I am writing to you as a married, 29 year old small business owner, living in New Jersey on behalf on not only myself but on behalf of the majority of Americans in the Unites States, and those living abroad. I represent a large group of concerned citizens, and we believe the president must be held accountable for the crimes he has committed. It is now well known that both current President George W. Bush, and Vice President Richard Cheney lied to the American public about the intelligence that was known to the White House in the weeks and months that followed after 9/11.

A recently released Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SIC) report has accused President Bush and Vice President Cheney of knowingly making untrue statements leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The report concluded:

• President Bush said that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership that was not substantiated by the intelligence.
• Both Bush & Cheney misrepresented what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons capabilities.
• Former Donald Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq’s weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.
• Cheney's claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was simply not true.
  

In addition to the SIC report there is a wealth of other information that is general knowledge yet has not yet been portrayed as the real truth about the Iraq War. Here are some of those facts:

• Prior to the Iraqi occupation UN nuclear inspectors have repeatedly contradicted claims made by the White House. They concluded the notorious aluminum tubes former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said were for uranium-enrichment centrifuges were actually conventional 122-mm rocket artillery casings. According to UN Resolution 687 after the Gulf war, Iraq is permitted missiles with a range of 150 km. The U.S. charges Iraq is testing missiles that have flown 14-20 km farther.

• On September 8, 2002 Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, told the Sunday Herald that between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'. Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite.

• There was no immediate nuclear weapons threat from Iraq. In April of 1992, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded Iraq was "at least three years away from making one crude atomic weapon.", yet Bush is quoted stating: "Every day that passes brings Saddam one step closer to realizing his goal of a nuclear weapons arsenal."

• The White House claimed that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger and that this was evidence of a renewed nuclear weapons program, however President Bush had been informed by intelligence officials months before his speech that the sale never took place and that the documentary evidence had been forged.

• President Bush was informed on September 21, 2001 in a secret President's Daily Brief that there was no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. Congress did not even learn of the existence of this PDB until summer 2004. The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents. Despite secretly knowing there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, days before a congressional vote authorizing the war, Bush said "Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert." And he added "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

• Vice President Cheney said that a September 11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: It's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack." Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting.

• Eye Witness reports such as former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan who wrote that President Bush, Karl Rove, and other top administration officials were "involved" in misleading the White House press corps about the outing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame. He also stated that while he was lied to by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, President Bush admitted his role in the leak during a candid conversation.

The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment of any President or Vice President who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This applies to any serious abuses of power. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly committed numerous specific federal crimes while in office, especially a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. It is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to “obstruct or impair” the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.

I believe that it is clear to see that the President and the Vice President are definitely guilty of committing of misrepresenting the truths of not only when it came to big issues like Iraq, but during the entire administration. Whether you are Republican, or a Democrat it is inconceivable that your conscious would allow this to be done to our Constitution, our Country, and our People without holding the people responsible for these crimes responsible for their actions.

It is time to do what is fair, and right.
We must not set a precedent of allowing our President to deceive the people, and to disregard the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you for your time,

Vinod Tonangi

Obama is declared the nominee, but Hillary is still in.

Barack Obama is now officially the democratic nominee, however Hillary Clinton, despite earlier reports from the Associated Press, did NOT concede. On BigRedMat I've never supported the idea of shortening the primary season to begin "the healing process", but I believe yesterday, June 3rd, was the right time for Hillary Clinton to officially endorse Barack Obama, and the fact that she did not do it yesterday, even after he surpassed the needed delegate count, continues the animosity, and in some cases anger between the two groups of supporters.

I think even Obama supporters, such as myself, realize that Obama won by an incredibly small margin, and that Obama will need to attract Clinton's supporters over to his side in order to win the general election. Hillary Clinton's supporters are enthusiastic, dedicated, and loyal, but unfortunately many of them are also angry, sad, and feel disenfranchised. There is definitely a need to bring her supporters over to the Obama side, but I disagree that the best way to accomplish this is to bring Clinton to the Obama ticket as his Vice President.

Remember that we have elections not simply to brag that we have won or lost, but to actually accomplish something in the future. I agree that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be all but unstoppable in November, but Hillary Clinton does not like living in the background, not even when she was the First Lady during her husband's presidency. Their disagreements over healthcare, social security, presidential negotiation tactics, and the war in Iraq, to name a few would be hard to stomach when it comes time for a Vice President to push the president's agenda.

In the end I believe that most Clinton supporters will vote for Barack Obama. I am sure there will be a small percentage of them that will stay home, and it will be quite hard for Obama's campaign to bring them back to the voting booths, but Clinton can help Obama starting now. In the end it is not only in the party's best interest, or even in the country's best interest, it is also in her best interest.

If Hillary Clinton is perceived as hurting the Obama campaign because of her lack of endorsement, she will not have many friends left in the democratic party. Some of her supporters already think that she should have conceded weeks ago, and the simple action of saying that she will not "make any decisions tonight" hurts the party, the country, and her chances of holding any significant political office. By not graciously exiting and getting behind Obama she is being perceived as blackmailing her way into his administration and that is pure poppycock.

Forget about Iran, what about the Kurds?

The current administration has starting mumbling that we may need to invade Iran as we did with Iraq to protect ourselves & Israel from future weapons of mass destruction. Though this claim sounds familiar there are other threats that should be viewed as more immediate. There are over 25 million Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Armenia. An estimated 20-25% of the entire population of Iraq are Kurds. Turkey has had violent flare ups with the Kurds for some time and is on record stating that the Kurds are an "ethnic secessionist organization that uses terrorism and the threat of force against both civilian and military targets for the purpose of achieving its political goal."

So just what is their goal? It is to create an independent, Kurdish state in Kurdistan, an area that comprises parts of southeastern Turkey, northeastern Iraq, northeastern Syria and northwestern Iran. The group that is organizing this goal is known as the PKK and since 1984, PKK violence has accounted for the deaths of more than 30,000 Turkish security personnel, government officials, diplomats, commercial interests, and civilians. In 1999 PKK's leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was removed, however in 2004 violence erupted yet again. In 2006 Stephen Hadley, U.S. Security national advisor, and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack issued statements about the Turkish violence officially calling the PKK a terrorist organizaiton. Condoleezza Rice is quoted saying that the US Government would work with Turkey and with the new Iraqi government to "deal with this problem".

The US Government knows that they are a problem, but we have not done much to solve this issue. Currently the US government is only helping Turkey identify Kurdish rebel camps in Iraq. The issue here is that the current administration wants to stay in Iraq, and in order to solve regional tensions, but the issue with the Kurdish rebels has to be solved, or at least contained to stop the spread of violence. There are over 25 million Kurds that do not have any land to their name, and that is what they are fighting for. This could cause increased instability for Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Armenia. Though I don't want to praise Saddam Hussein for anything, many pundits believe that he forced the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia to live together, even if it was because of an iron fist & ethinic cleansing. The current Iraqi government and the US occupation are not solving this issue.

The large population of the Kurds, and the mere fact that they reside in some of the most politically unstable regions of the middle east is unsettling, though to be fair the the large Kurdish population does not share the violent tendancies of the Kurdish rebels. In fact, the current Iraqi president is Jalal Talabani, and he is also the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, or PUK, which represents about half of the Kurdish population. The other half is represented by Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) which was founded by Mustafa Barzani. For years, the parties were fierce rivals, but the utlimate goal of both parties has always been the creation of an independent state for the Kurds, but they both realize that they must work within the Iraqi government, for now. The governments in Turkey, Iran and Syria fear separatist movements and it's not just Turkey that has fights with the rebels. Iran has also fought them on the Iran-Iraq border.

In northern Iraq the official language is Kurdish, not Arabic; and the Iraqi flag has been taken down in many places, and replaced with the Kurdish flag. The leaders of the PUK and the KDP want Kirkuk to be the capital of Kurdistan for historical reasons, however the city is right next to some of the largest oil reserves in Iraq. The Kurds in power are trying to "reverse" Saddam's ethinic policy. When Saddam was in power he imported Arabs in these Kurdish areas, and ethnically cleansed Kurds that spoke out, now Arabs are being forced out of Kurdish areas, and other Kurds that have lived peacefully in other areas are being forced to move to other areas that are less secure, but are heavily Kurdish populated. Since the Kurds want an autonomous region in Northern Iraq, they are also supporting similar Shiite concerns as the Shiites want an autonomous region in southern Iraq as their own.

Maintaining a central federal system has become increasingly difficult to do in Iraq, with many groups wanting their own region to call their own, and does not seem very likely in the end. We must work with these groups and make a firm decision to split Iraq into pieces or keep Iraq on solid state, however last time we tried this it didn't work out very well. Israel & Palestine still fight for Jerusalem. It is a capital of two seperate states, and the regligious home for three different religions. In Iraq the issue could very well be where the oil reserves are, and the question remains if we don't split of Iraq now where they be a civil war later? Or if we split Iraq up now will their continue to be violence because of oil? In my opinion whether or not we help craft the borders, or if we do nothing there will also be violence because if the Kurds take over northern Iraq, and also take over the oil reserves we will have just as much violence if not more. A bipartisan U.S. panel made recommendations to the White House on Iraq strategy and recommended a stronger central government was needed which would control oil revenue, however the Kurds obviously want to retain control over that money.

So before we start preparing for another war, let's finish up the one that we have going on right now, because the issues we face in Iraq could be potentially deadly for the entire region. Personally, I wish we could have some actual discussions and debate about this topic rather then Iran.

Letter to Fox News

I sent this letter to Fox News about their Obama "joke":

I am asking my readers, as well as anyone else to boycott Fox News after the comment Liz Trotta announced that should would be happy if Obama was assassinated. There is no place for jokes about an assassination of a candidate for the president of the United States. Whether or not she, or Fox News agrees with his views or policies suggesting that he should be assassinated is not only negligible for a news program, but it is also extremely un-American, and quite honestly absolutely no reliable respectful media would ever air such a comment.

At the very least a national apology should be made for letting the comment air when it was such a gross mistake. Shame on you Fox News. You have proved how far you will go in order to meet your goals. Your channel category should be moved from a right wing news channel to pure and utter gossip.

For those of who have not yet been able to view the comment, please view it here:



...and if you would like to send your comment to the show that Liz Trotta said these comments on, please send an email to americasnewsroom@foxnews.com

Why America is losing the war on "terror".

Terrorism is not new, but the way it has been branded during the Bush Administration is indeed unique. If we want to try to decrease the amount of individuals that would cause harm to us and to our friends we have to start from the beginning. What is terrorism? The dictionary term for terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

There are some basic principles that we need to understand. First we must remember that any media that reports terrorist actions are indeed spreading terrorism. If a terrorist organization completed a horrendous act, but it was not reported on locally or globally there would be no intimidation, and hence no reason for terrorists to continue to harm people for ideological or political gain. Of course we can not ban the media from reporting these terrorist actions. After all - it is news, but when politicians run campaigns solely based on fear we must hold them accountable for helping the terrorists with their goal. This might be a hard concept to swallow, but it is true. Terrorists want to scare their enemies so they can obtain whatever they want, so why are politicians doing the same thing? I can not just blame republicans with this issue. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton are all guilty of creating an unnecessary level of fear simply to gain power, and to win elections.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Americans understand that there are significant threats to this country from organizations that wish to do us harm, but we need real solutions to our very real security problems. Diplomacy has been under attack for the past seven years, and when Obama simply stated that he wanted to talk to leaders of countries and organizations that are considered our enemies diplomacy was attacked again. Terrorism and state sponsored violence, or even fear from other countries is nothing new, however the way it is being packaged today is very different from our history. Have we forgotten the cold war? Though the United States and Russia were involved in a heated arms race we still talked with each other. During the Vietnam war it was the Chinese that were exporting weapons to Vietnam, however Nixon sat down with China and worked with them, and even now we are currently working on diplomatic discussions with North Korea, however the president and other members of the republican party completely disagree talking to countries like Syria & Iran. There is no way to increase stability in the middle east without having diplomatic discussions with both Syria and Iran. Iran is exporting weapons to Iraq to help Iraqi rebels (also known as "the insurgents") to harm the American installed Iraqi government and our soldiers. Syria & Iran are exporting weapons and quite a bit of money to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hezbollah is bent on destroying Israel. If we don't work with these two countries there will never be any semblance of peace in the region.

Americans also need to realize that politicians in countries like Syria, and Iran run on a campaign of hate, just as politicians here run on a campaign of fear. The citizens of these countries do not have access to the international media as Americans do, and these ideologies are not just taught by politicians, but also by the media and educational institutions. Just as many Americans bought into the idea of FEAR, the citizens of these countries have bought into the idea of HATE. The process of eliminating terrorism is not simply a political one but a human issue.

Here is a sample of what the children of Palestine are being brainwashed with:



It is very easy to hate an entire country without realizing that they are being taught hate by their parents, teachers, politicians, news reporters, and even children cartoon shows. The only way to defeat, eliminate, or at least decrease the amount of people that wish to do us harm is to teach them otherwise. We need international support and money to create schools, to negotiate diplomatically with the leaders of these countries and to try and deliver uncensored world news to the masses.

Before we invaded Iraq we were told by our leaders that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, and that Saddam Hussein was going to bomb us with his weapons of mass destruction. We were lied to, and as a country, we voted to go to war with Iraq, and 5 years later we have displaced 4 million Iraqi refugees, and killed almost 100,000 civilians by military or paramilitary action. Is it that hard to believe that an entire population could be lied to and commit reprehensible acts on a people based on the word of politicians?

What we need is diplomatic negotiations, followed by understanding. Of course, our negotiations, will always be backed up by a threat of force, but it should be exactly that - a back up solution, not our primary course of action when dealing with a country that is our enemy. I urge any politician to talk about foreign policy, however as Americans we deserve to have unbiased truthful information instead of talking points that are shown on the 11 o'clock local news. I understand that politicians want to win their elections, but there has to be something more then just the winning of an election. This can not be the entire goal of a politician, and yet when politicians run their campaign by instilling fear in the American public I don't see what good it does for them, their party, the American people, or to the world in general.

Let's talk to our enemies. Let's get to work.

Is it over for Clinton?

Many major media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and even David Gergen, former advisor to Bill Clinton, have all said it is over for Hillary Clinton. The truth is that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning have been slim to none for over two months. The difference now is that major supporters and super delegates are now switching their support to Obama. Many have seen her negative campaign ads, and her blatant pandering, such as the backing McCain's plan for a gas tax holiday for the summer, as the last straw. Supporters such as:

- DNC member and superdelegate from New Jersey Christine Samuels
- Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joseph J. Andrew
- Washington D.C. councilman Harry Thomas Jr.,
- Service Employees International Union member Sarah Swisher
- Civil rights leader & Illinois senator John Lewis
- United States Representative, Senator, and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern

...and the list is growing.

Hillary Clinton has proved that her campaign part of the problem of the "old politics regime", instead of a political solution. From the 3 a.m. ad, to the ads lying about where Obama is getting his money. People know she lies, and she'll do whatever it takes to meet the end goal. Unfortunately for her, that is not the type of president that most democrats want in the white house. We just had an administration that did whatever they wanted without keeping the constitution, and the will of the people that elected them in mind. Nobody, not even republicans want 4 more years, and Clinton is looking more and more like McCain's running mate.

What's more is people have finally started to question her "experience". For months know everyone has been trying to find out what the 35 years of experience actually where. Thirty five years takes us back to 1973, when Hillary Clinton was finishing up law school. Now Clinton does have quite a bit of professional experience including corporate and public-interest law, and she performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund as well, but she doesn't quite have what t she claims when it comes to government experience. Hillary Clinton had said that her experience in the white house has prepared her for being president herself.

Really? Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did make trips to Bosnia & Kosovo, on behalf of the American people but her role was not as a negotiator but merely as the First Lady. After moving to New York, Clinton was elected as senator for New York State in 2000, and was reelected in 2006, and shortly after that she started campaigning for the presidency. Most democrats can see how this information would be a problem in the general election when you compare Clinton's experience with McCain's experience. Aside from his military experience he has been in congress for 25 years.

There is no way her campaign can continue to run on experience, and when she supports things like the gas tax holiday she can not run on change. She is loosing support with democrats, and super delegates, and with the recent delegate wins for Obama this week, she has increased the gap between her and Obama with respect to total delegates. It is getting increasingly harder for Clinton to continue, and on top of all of this - her campaign is having money issues. She has loaned her campaign almost $6.5 million dollars. People are not willing to invest in a loosing candidate, and her campaign knows it. The question now is what will she do.

There is no chance of Obama selecting her as his Vice President, or a prominent Cabinet position with the campaign ads and statements that she has made. She has made that decision for him because there is no way Obama can run on change and bring Clinton on board his administration. So what will she do?

My guess is that her campaign has given up, and they are doing their best trying to convince her, but she hasn't given in yet. One thing is true, Hillary Clinton is a fighter, but like most voting democrats, I don't want someone like Hillary Clinton fighting for herself, I want someone that will fight for me.

Is Cuba still an enemy?

Ever since Raul Castro came into power he has been doing his part to bring Cubans into the 21st Century. While I believe there is still much to do it does not make sense to continue the trade embargo to a country that is now trying hard to restore rights and deliver the conveniences that we all take for granted. Since Raul Castro became president he has increased the state pension by up to 20%, and finally gave Cubans mobile phones, and most recently personal computers. The average price of a computer in Cuba is around $800, but considering the average wage of a Cuba is only $20 a month this is still a luxury most can not afford, however it is a start. Unfortunately internet is still limited to businesses and government agencies due to an inability to connect to undersea fibre-optic cables because of the US trade embargo. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, is laying a new cable under the Caribbean which most likely will be utilized by Cubans.

I believe it is time to end the trade embargo with Cuba, because all we are doing is making our enemies stronger friends. As a democratic society that believes in encouraging democratic beliefs, and civil liberties we should take the 1st step to help the Cuban people, not by delivering aid or militia, but engaging in simple trade relations. With Fidel Castro out of power there is no major threat to national security, and by continuing the trade embargo we are only frustrating a country that is only trying to right its wrongs.

I believe this is just another reason to add to the list why we need someone like Barack Obama that would stop this insane trade embargo and start trade relations with Cuba. Instead of trying to defeat all our enemies (which has proven to be almost impossible), we can try to make friends which is what a democratic society should fight for.

Please sign this petition to allow travel in Cuba, and a please sign the petition to end the trade embargo to Cuba.

If Wright is Wrong then McCain is a Looser

Barack Obama’s former minister Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr has made comments that are upsetting to many Americans, however I don’t believe that this story is as big as the media makes it out to be. I understand Reverend Wright has some beliefs that many of us don’t agree with, but how does this affect my understanding or respect of Barack Obama? Is the media saying that Obama shared Wright’s views because Wright was Obama’s minister for many years? Obama has given quite a few interviews and speeches where he has said that he does not share the same views with his former minister, as is the case with the vast amount of the religious population in America. Is the media implying because of Wright’s influence in Obama’s life Obama is less unpatriotic? Obama has dedicated 20 years of his life to community service, and is running for the highest office in the land. I don’t see how anyone can come to this conclusion. Personally, I believe Rev. Wright is not unpatriotic, but he is bitter. He’s bitter because of what african americans have had to deal with for hundreds of years. We can’t forget the fact that Rev. Wright was a US Marine and a navy officer, or that he lead his church with over 10,000 members for over 36 years, but even I must disagree with some of the racially biased comments that he made. In the end, however there is absolutely no clear link between Rev. Wright’s comments and Obama’s candidacy for president. There are links between ministers and other candidates that can leave a much more sour taste in your mouth.

John C. Hagee is a CEO of his non-profit corporation Global Evangelism Television (GETV). According to his book, A Warning to the World, Hagee believes that that Russia and the Islamic states will invade Israel and will be destroyed by God. This will cause, the head of the European Union, who he also believes is the “anti-christ” to create a a confrontation with Iran. In his latest book, Jerusalem Countdown, he states that an Iranian confrontation is a necessary precondition for Armageddon, which will mean the death of most Jews, in his eyes, and he Second Coming of Christ. Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for "a level of sin that was offensive to God." He referred to a homosexual parade held on the date the hurricane struck and this was proof "of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." Hagee has called Catholicism a “false cult system”, and “The Great Whore”, however John McCain went out of his way to seek Hagee's endorsement. McCain spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker says, "Hagee endorsed John McCain. While we welcome his support, it shouldn't be seen as a wholesale endorsement of all of Mr. Hagee's views. In fact John McCain was asked about this issue personally and McCain told reporters that "it's simply not accurate to say that because someone endorses me that I therefore embrace their views."

Exactly. Why is the Wright-Obama discussion still hot? Let’s keep going...

Rodney Lee Parsley, a televangelist of World Harvest church and founder of the Center for Moral Clarity, a key McCain ally in Ohio, continually discusses his dislike for activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture", the "abortion industry," and the entertainment industry, but Parsley targets another threat to the United States: the religion of Islam. In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues “I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.” In his book, Silent No More, he notes that Christopher Columbus shared his goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492...” McCain has been largely silent when asked if it was appropriate to seek Parsley’s endorsement given his views on Islam and homosexuality.

I guess some hateful white ministers are acceptable and some black ministers are not?
Note to the Media: Stop playing "gotcha!", on issues that have no bearing on this country, or this election. We need political reporting that is 100% yellow-free.

Halliburton, KBR, Cheney, Iraq, Blackwater, Bush - what? I don’t get it.

Well. Let me explain. Everything you read here has been well known for over 3 years. It’s a shame that we have done nothing about it.

Under the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, paid Brown & Root 8.5 million dollars to do a study on the privatization of military logistics operations. This study established the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, which gave its first general contract to -- itself, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, and Cheney worked with the pentagon to downsize the military. Cheney left the Department of Defense when the new democratic administration began under President Bill Clinton in January 1993. Cheney then served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton where he earned at least 44 million dollars during his tenure at the oil and gas service company. He later left his position as CEO on July 25, 2000 to pursue the position of the Vice President of America. During the 1995-2000 period, one dollar of every seven spent by the Pentagon, passed through what is now Kellogg Brown & Root, also known as KBR.

Vice President Dick Cheney claims he has severed all ties with Halliburton, however he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately $150,000 a year and he retains stock options worth more then 18 million dollars. Both Cheney and Halliburton have insisted that he had no part in the government’s decision about the Iraq contracts however, the largest contractor KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, was in Iraq 6 months before the United States decided to go to Iraq. KBR was in Iraq creating an infrastructure to provide help to the American army with tasks such as serving meals to delivering fuel, washing laundry and delivering mail, duties that used to be handled by the Army itself as well as preparing for major construction of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants.

On March 31, 2004 four Blackwater contractors in the Sunni city of Falluja were burned and dragged through the streets and were hung from a bridge. It was the first time Americans learned what private security contractors were and how many of them they were in Iraq. The military at this time was not considering such a drastic show of American might had it not been for this single incident. The military was planning to take over the city of Falluja more diplomatically, and this created frustration between true American soldiers and paid contractors. After an investigation it was found that KBR had hired Blackwater for transportation services in Falluja even though their contract specifically stated that they would be supported only by American troops. Under a congressional hearing Tina Ballard, the Army’s head contracting officer, announced that the Army would recoup 20 million dollars from KBR as it was clear that under several layers of subcontracts Blackwater was hired by KBR. This is not just a matter of secretive markups, tacked on through the subcontracting maze and passed on to the taxpayers. KBR may have knowingly violated military policy, which effectively bans its contractors from engaging any security other than official US forces.

According to the latest census estimates there are 163,000 private contractors in Iraq and 54,000 are from KBR, and although the use of private contractors is not a new concept having over 100,000+ private contractors is a far cry from the estimated 9,200 contractors that worked during the Gulf War. Besides the simple fraud issues between Cheney, Haliburton, KBR & Bush there is more to the story here. Private security contractors like DynCorp International, and Blackwater do not report to anybody. They are immune from Iraqi Law, and they are not punishable by a military tribune since they are not part of the military. These security contractors literally have a license to kill and it frustrates not only our own troops, but Iraqi citizens and insurgents. The entire basis for our country, the United States of America, was founded on the belief that absolute power will inevitably result in absolute corruption, yet we continue to hire private security companies that have absolutely no repercussions. Now just add the jealousy from our troops as private soldiers can earn $400 - $1000 dollars per day, and incredible amount more then a soldier’s salary, and we can see that this is turning into a real problem. We need to get our soldiers, and our private contractors out of Iraq, however just in case you were wondering, KBR is still hiring.

Will the saga end today?

Nope. Today is the democratic primary in Pennsylvania, and Obama & Clinton are still going at it hard. Obama has done quite well so far. He was behind 24 points, and now he is behind 6-9 points (depending on which poll you believe). I think Obama will win Philadelphia and that means he has a real chance to take the state, however whether or not Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania the democratic primary will continue. I see no reason why her campaign would concede after the Pennsylvania primary if they haven't conceded before. As Clinton gets tougher and more negative Obama is only getting stronger. Frivolous issues like wearing a lapel pin, his former minister, or his "bitter" comment don't seem to be affecting the polls as much as the Clinton machine wanted. Even today Bill Clinton accused Obama of playing the race card, again and there doesn't seem to be any affect. People have stopped listening to a man whom I consider to be the best president in my generation's lifetime. His comments are not destroying the democratic party, but they are destroying how many Clintonites fell about him. Their tactics are not working anymore because unlike the primaries in Ohio & Texas, Obama learned to play hardball and even the Clintons have got to admit he's quite good at it, and he never steps down to their level while responding to their accusations.

So if someone doesn't concede today what will happen? Basically, more of the same. The democratic party will come together, people forget that most Americans have political ADD. By the time the general election comes around everything that was discussed in the primary will be long forgotten. There is no danger that democrats are going to vote Republican or Independent this time around. I voted for Obama in the New York Primary and I will vote for him the general election. I'm fairly certain that he'll not only win the nomination, but also the general election, however if Hillary Clinton was to somehow win the nomination I would definitely support her in the general election. This is not because I agree with all of her views or her tactics, but McCain would continue the destruction of the United States of America. George W. Bush said he was a uniter, well apparently this was one statement where he was actually truthful. He united 80% of the country to disapprove of his presidency, and I believe that like me, people are so disgusted by republicans that they will continue to vote democratic even if the tactics, or exact views are not to their liking.

Letter to anyone in the Bush Administration

The war in Iraq is nothing other then a civil war. A civil war in which we can not do anything about. Before we took Saddam out of there, he was the one killing terrorists, now the terrorists are free to kill US soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi civilians. No matter when we leave, whether it is tomorrow, next year, or 10 years from now, a massive civil war will break out, and there is nothing we can do to stop it since this we are fighting a social & political issue with our military. You can not fight fanatical religious beliefs with legislation or with an army. The only thing we can do is try to educate them - how? Instead of spending trillions of dollars on this "war", we should offer money for school systems, utilities, and other uses, however we should be able to control these funds by making sure Iraq follows simple guidelines such as a) arresting terrorists, b) destroying corruption, and c) teaching tolerance in all levels of the school system. We can take a lesson from the European Union that gives enormous sums of money, however would stop funding the country if rules were not met.

Interference by the United States (from 1937+) in the middle east has only had a negative effect, and though most Americans understand that we need to have some sort of political assertion as we require their resources there has to be limitations. Our foreign policy should be changed to be appear more diplomatic, rather then looking like the Marlboro Man.