A Step Back From Our Preoccupation With The Election: A Look Back At The Kennedy Assassination

President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, almost 45 years ago.  Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer according to the Warren Report and was assassinated himself just two days later.  The Warren Report concluded Oswald shot Kennedy with his rifle from the sixth floor window in the Texas School Book Depository Building as Kennedy's motorcade passed by.  However, Oswald did not fire any rifle that day in Dallas, much less his own.  Unfortunately, he could not stand trial and defend himself. 

 

The public has been lied to all these years by our own government and the crime has been covered up.  The key to Oswald's innocence is easily determined by common sense.  Only one witness identified Oswald as being in the sixth floor window of the TSBDB, Howard Brennan.  His story to the FBI varied from month to month and then positively identified Oswald as the man he saw in the window.  But Howard Brennan failed to pick Oswald out and positively identify him in a police lineup. 

 

Lee Oswald, while in jail, said he was just a patsy.  That was a true statement and our government knew it.  Here is the common sense part about Oswald's innocence:  The murder of a President is no common ordinary killing, yet we are supposed to believe that Oswald left the rifle he was supposed to use in the killing on the sixth floor, not very far from where the shooting was supposed to have taken place --- A rifle that could be easily identified and traced back to Oswald, and the government is going to tell us that he left it there on the scene to be found.  Give me a break.  Your ordinary killer does not even do such a stupid thing.  The rifle was planted.

 

Those who support the Warren Report always try to come up with explanations that have no bearing on the matter, but it wont wash.  A paraffin test was taken of Oswald's right side of his face to check for nitrates that are deposited after a rifle is fired.  The test were conducted by the Dallas City County Criminal Investigation Laboratory on November 23 and did not reveal any nitrates from having fired a rifle recently.

 

Lee Oswald was murdered because he never would have been convicted in a court of law for the murder of JFK --- That would have spelled conspiracy.  Our political system has never been the same since that tragic day in Dallas.

 

NOTE:  Information shown herein concerning  Oswalds identification and the paraffin test taken from Retired Police Chief Jesse Cury limited collectors edition of JFK Assassination File, published in 1969.

Clinton: A Sure Democratic Win; Obama: Not So Sure

Latest polling released from Quinnipiac from critical November swing states shows who is the clear favorite: Sen. Hillary Clinton.  Here are the results:

Florida

Clinton defeats McCain by 8%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Ohio

Clinton defeats McCain by 10%

Obama loses to McCain by 1%

Pennsylvania

Clinton wins by 14%

Obama wins by 9%

Overall, it appears Obama can carry Pennsylvania, but that still just puts Democrats where we were 4 and 8 years ago. Democrats must win either Ohio or Florida (I'd like to see us win both) to win the White House.  Sen. Clinton can do that. Obama seems to be having problems.  

The point is this: Do Democrats want to nominate a candidate who can't win?  Or would they rather nominate a candidate who has clear strength in the crucial swing states?  If I were a superdelegate, the choice would be clear --- nominate the winner. 

The Democratic Race: It's Closer Than One Thinks

There are those journalists and pundits who are continuing to urge Senator Clinton to withdraw on the basis that she is too far behind Senator Obama to catch up.  That is still their thought after what happened in Pennsylvania this past week.

 

USA Today published some facts in their newspaper dated April 25 as follows:  Popular Vote:  Obama 14,417,619 million, Clinton 13,917,009;   Popular Vote with Florida:  Obama 14,993,833 million, Clinton 14,787,995;   Popular vote with Florida and Michigan:  Obama 14,993,833 million, Clinton 15,116,304 million.

 

Electoral votes based on States won.   Clinton 284,   Obama 202.  Obama has won 17 primaries and Clinton has won 16.  Obama has won 13 Caucuses,  Clinton has won 2.  There are still several primaries and caucuses left in the Democratic process, so a rush to judgement is uncalled for.  The people's vote should be taken before any candidate drops out.  It should be noted just this week, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Reid said they would like to see the super delegates make up their minds by the end of June.  A far cry from their statements made a few weeks ago when both clearly implied that they wanted Clinton to withdraw.  Reality finally caught up to them.

 

Over the last month or so, journalists and pundits have also tried to brain wash the voters into believing that the Democratic campaign has been so negative that whom ever wins the nomination will lose the support of the other candidate and his or her voters.  That's a croc, because those voters will only be hurting themselves and what they say they stand for if they vote Republican.  

 

The upcoming primaries are going to be pivotal as to what is really on the voters mind.  The American people should be enjoying this race while they can because the general election will really show what negative campaigning is all about and it will be coming from the Republican Party and Senator McCain you can bet on that. 

The United States: A Nation Without A Leader

I wrote a post some time ago pointing out that President Bush still had the power of veto because the Republicans in Congress still have enough votes to rubber stamp his wishes, but that his Presidency has become irrelevant.  That is true more so today than ever before and the United States is still a nation without a leader.

 

Oil and gas prices have been out of control for over a year and have reached levels never before seen in America.  Bush is AWOL on the subject and has no leadership role taking any action.  President Carter faced a similar situation and problem when he was President, although not as serious as it is now.  He faced the problem and took serious action by reducing the speed limit to 55 mph on the Interstate system, by regulating the thermostat in all federal buildings, tax breaks for energy saving devises, and creating the "Strategic Petroleum Reserves."  Prices not only came down, but energy usage was reduced and the oil and gas industries' supplies in their inventory were increased.  When Reagan took office, he changed all of Carter's policies.  If President Carters policies were continued today, we would be in much better shape with more reasonable prices at the pump. 

 

The economy shows Bush's irrelevance more and more every day.  He is so out of touch and ignorant on questions asked of him concerning the economy that it would be comical were it not so sad.  Our nation and its people are at a stage now with so many serious problems and are facing them without a leader.  And this is the guy who thinks he does everything better than past Presidents.  I hope the people keep that in mind for the November election when the opportunity is presented to elect a President who will lead.  The Democrats and the people have to bring back the saying, "Where was George?" 

The Economy: How CNN Has Failed The People

CNN has been running a daily report titled, "#1 Issue-The Economy" and how it affects the people.  Their journalists and guests who speak on the subject offer hype, cliches, and the usual economic talk that never tells the true story of what is really taking place with the economy.

 

Republican administrations don't preside over an economy that is broad based, sustainable, and with even job creation.  CNN has failed to point that out and the reasons why.  They can not bring themselves to face the facts that Reagan-Bush and Bush-Cheney had/have no economic policy.  They had/have a policy of deficit spending and creating debt for the country and its people.  And until the people understand this and our fiscal house is put back in order as President Clinton did, the economy and the people will suffer.  CNN, its journalists, and its guests have failed the American people by not exploring what has happened to the economy on Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43's watches with the massive debt they have placed on this country and the economy. 

 

CNN is incapable of telling the people the facts concerning the economy and are also incapable of giving out accurate information during this primary season.  

Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Speech

Breaking News Concerning MSNBC Anchors

Besides the fact that I personally will never watch MSNBC for election coverage again, considering Olbermann's constant whining and bad mouthing of Hillary Clinton, her supporters, anyone who offers even semi-positive analysis of her campaign, or anyone who utters one thing that could be construed as a tiny bit critical of Obama, Taylor Marsh, over at her blog, is breaking some news concerning Olbermann and the MSNBC crew:

____________________________________________________________

Keith Olbermann just broke down in tears.

Russert went running from the building.

Chris Matthews can't feel his legs.

UPDATE: Breaking... Keith just stopped crying, and Russert just ran back into the building. They're now tag teaming on numbers and every time a new number comes up Keith pleads this is the number that will push Hillary out. Uh-oh... What's this? Keith just fled from the set screaming... Russert is now talking to Matthews. Stay tuned... ...

Clinton Wins PA; Race Rolls On

Here's food for thought: What does it say when you out spend your opponent 3 to 1... and still lose?  What does it say when the media has already anointed you the nominee and has counted out your opponent for over two months now...and you still lose?  What does it say when you've been given numerous opportunities to put your opponent away (New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania)...and you lose every time?  

Does anyone ever stop and ask themselves the above questions?  Seriously, Obama had everything going for him --- money, time, the media --- and he still can't put Hillary Clinton away.  Regardless of the final margin of victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania, the fact that she still won, despite all the odds, is a real testament to her strength as a candidate (or is it Obama's lack of strength).

And now the race moves on to Indiana and North Carolina.  Obama will win North Carolina, and he should do so extremely conformably.  The true battle ground is now Indiana.  Again, Obama has all the advantages---money, time, media, and he's from a neighboring state.  Harold Ford Jr., a high ranking Democratic Party official, really had a great take on the Indiana primary on MSNBC just a few minutes ago.  He pointed out that Obama needs to win it --- not because he needs the delegates or the popular votes, but rather as a matter to show that he can still win in states that are not his "base" states.  North Carolina is an Obama base state, as is Oregon.  The same can be said about Kentucky and West Virginia for Clinton.  But, as Ford alluded to, Indiana is, more or less, neutral territory.  The question will be answered, based on the Indiana results, if Obama is limited to his base states.  If he can't win Indiana, Ford analyzed that it is a bad sign for Obama in the eyes of the undecided superdelegates, and I agree.  Exactly how much time, money, and states does Obama need to put Clinton away?  If he can't do it in Indiana, he can't do it --- period.  

So, in conclusion, I would like to congratulate Sen. Clinton on her hard fought victory in Pennsylvania.  Tomorrow, it's on to Indiana, and then on May 6, this all begins again.

(P.S.: Clinton agreed to debate in North Carolina; Obama rejected.  Is he scared?  Obviously so.)

Is Senator Clinton's Negative Rating Really 63% As The Polls Say?

I doubt it very much and the voters surely tell a different story.  However,  journalists and pundits have been talking about it for over two weeks and treat it as gospel.

 

As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows:  Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%;  Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%.  Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers.  They also don't show up in national polls vs. Obama or McCain.

 

Journalists and pundits have shown those negative numbers and then indicate to their audiences that Clinton can't win with those kinds of numbers.  The voters have proven other wise.  Senator Clinton has won New York, California, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Michigan.  All of those states have a very diverse population.  That speaks well to her candidacy. Today, it is time for Pennsylvania to vote and we will see how that turns out in just a few hours.  To those who think the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida should not count, you should remember those elections were legal and set up by each state with each and every candidate having the option to put their name on the ballot.  The DNC said they would not seat those states delegates at the convention and they have a right to do that, but they do not have the right to not count the popular vote of the people in a legal election held under state law.

 

Polling has misled the people on so many issues that it has become a tool unbecoming of a democracy.  Questions people are asked are not in tune with what is taking place in America and/or what the candidates really stand for or what they would do if elected President.  All polls are designed to do is influence people's vote and to create news that is not really there.  Voters can do themselves and their country a great favor by not letting anything in the polls influence their vote.  They should also remember that people in the news media always try to influence one's vote with their biased, one-sided coverage.  That is why they come on air after the debates and try and tell you what you just heard in the debates. And worst of all, they use people in the post debates that have no creditability to start off with.  In short, think independently and let election day results, not polls, show you the true feelings of the public.  

The Morning Dose---4/22

This morning, just hours before the polls close in the keystone state, the Morning Dose comes from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, urging Pennsylvanians to vote for Clinton in today's primary:

_____________________________________________________________

(...)If Barack Obama does well here or pulls an upset, the Democrats' leader in states, delegates and popular votes could be propelled to de facto victory.

If Hillary Clinton wins as expected, she should be able to fight on to the convention -- and a double-digit victory might give her momentum to seize the nomination.

For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama's appeal with many Democrats is undeniable. He is the "rock star" of this election year; some supporters at his rallies have fallen into a swoon.

Those who have endorsed Obama have rhetorically swooned, too, designating him the future of American politics, while denigrating Clinton as a relic of politics past.

How ironic, since Obama owes no small part of his success to the grooming and support of Chicago's old-line Daley political machine.

In policy terms, relatively little may separate these two. Obama ranks as one of the most liberal U.S. senators, but Clinton is no conservative. Determining how they differ is difficult, though, because Obama is long on soaring rhetoric yet painfully short on record.

He has spent just three years in the U.S. Senate. Before that, he spent just eight years as one of 177 state legislators in Illinois. Before that, he was a university lecturer, a community organizer, a civil-rights lawyer.

Quite simply, this is no portfolio for a president, the world's most powerful leader. The presidency is no place for on-the-job training in the best of times -- and certainly not when the nation is at war, the economy is struggling, and federal governance in general is adrift.

More disturbing is what seems to be Obama's private view of America.

Start with the "God damn America" diatribes of his one-time pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Obama claims he didn't know of these, even though he sat in Wright's church for 20 years.) Add his wife Michelle's remark about being proud of America for the first time in her life only because of her husband's campaign.

Now we hear Obama himself disdaining small-town, Middle-America attitudes and values -- a "clinging" to God, guns and bigotry -- as a legacy of bitterness.

Everyone utters stupidities now and then. Yet taken together and uttered repeatedly, they sound like a pattern of thought in the Obama household. It's a pattern the nation can't afford in the White House.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government -- as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right.

She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.

Many of her views on domestic issues are too liberal for us, but on others she seems to have moderated. She told the Trib she opposes raising the cap on Social Security taxes, and she is less eager to raise income taxes than Obama.

More important, she is extremely knowledgeable on crucial foreign issues. Meeting with Trib editors last month, she ticked off an impressive list of international challenges and the solutions. (In Wednesday's Philadelphia debate, Obama praised George H.W. Bush's foreign policy -- apparently not realizing that one of its architects was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a man he regularly excoriates.)

As we noted at the time of that meeting, Clinton's decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our longstanding criticism of her. That is no small matter: Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not.

She has a real record. He doesn't.

She has experience of value to a president. He doesn't.(...)