MajorityViewToday

I do not see proper freedom for Iraq with a 3 year stay!

2008-11-16T22:59:00.000-08:00

We need a proper President of this country so that the Iraqis can have someone to trust when withdrawal of U.S. illegal occupation takes place.

Pending that event, impeachment and a new election for a President who respects world order and the laws, The U.N. might offer neutral troops of choice member nations to offer safety and supervision. This was what Ralph Nader would like to see happen, end the U.S. occupation and allow safety for supervised elections to net self-rule and safety for Iraqis and preserve their sovereignty. If elected, Americans would show they too would like it to happen, and the majority vote would prove the backing of the proper view of world order and our U.S. Constitution. Nader knows what needs to be done, but for the country to net truth, the public has to realize it owes the proper actions. Truth voting. Honest statements. The SIX not TWO should have been wanted by not just the media, but the public who votes. Refusing to vote for change, nets the present.

A renowned author whose opinion is credited as smart and ethical, Linguistics Professor Noam Chomksy of MIT, has written numerous books criticizing the failed policy of the recent Presidential Administrations and has called the violations of our military (should we ask, status or state? military should not be at an offensive level, as Chomsky has urged for years), "Rogue State." The U.S. and Iraq, he noted for years, are BOTH Rogue States, not in compliance with international law. But, the U.S. administration is not listening, and the people are not noticing the media has refused to address proper Non-Rogue state requires SERIOUS election change, or impeachment. We can find it in books everywhere but not the supposedly "mainstream media." I am of the view, the mainstream media is not mainstream at all. It is the mouthpeace of offensive military enthusiasts which are only a few, not the many of the people, and clearly the reality of ROGUE state means CORRECTION is needed by the many of the citizenry to net the proper view and compliance with both international law and our U.S. Constitutional law. The current Congress and the Bush Administration has spent all the taxes well into the future. They are not conducting government FOR THE PEOPLE, OF the PEOPLE, or BY the PEOPLE. They are what Ralph Nader has said all along, his entire career, they are for corporate greed and profit, NOT the PUBLIC INTEREST. Only a government that does what it should can succeed. It is very simple. For Bush it is too difficult to do what he is supposed to do, Ralph Waldo Emerson said there are children of God, and children of the devil. While I would not describe it that way, there are some who clearly are not doing what God would want or expect. Choosing bad is not how to succeed to net government for people. We are supposed to be "one nation, indivisible, under God." When we allow a President to turn us into a world rogue state, and to shred our Constitution, we have failed as a people to uphold our government framed in a legal document that IS a backbone that delivers good results, if it is upheld! Upholding the Constitution INCLUDES impeachment. It is there to use when needed, and it is necessary for the public to show they want the Constitution UPHELD, and when the President refuses to uphold it, the PUBLIC must demand the impeachment!

We need to uphold the U.S. Constitution as a proper democracy so we can have our government and have world order and safety for the international global community which, through the United Nations, as urged by Kofi Anan (I believe it was 2003) when he spoke to Harvard graduating students, to seek "global solidarity."

Military threats and increased weapons was not what he was talking about. He was expecting goodness from the global community and support at the best and highest offering to net the solidarity. Life supported at a high level, not low! Harvard graduates were expected to understand "solidarity" is a coming together to exchange wanted information, friendships, and material support, where appropriate. The result: global solidarity.

Kofi Anan was talking about the obvious opportunity to use our fruits of civilization to honor our natural habitat and respect the people's all over the world with our riches of both natural resources and achievements of cultures and educations and training and learning all over the world.

We need to depart from the bad and easily seen, and pursue the good!

Now, in 2008 with Bush ripping apart all our laws to protect and provide our government, we have a need to respect the strength of doing what is good for America and net what is good for the World, also! Uphold the U.S. Constitution. Conduct honest elections for honest upholding of our U.S. Constitutionally framed legal government that protects our citizens with a people's representational branches of Executive, Legislature, and Judicial, which is supposed to offer checks and balances so that the power of any branch does not become too large. The media is nicknamed the fourth estate. Freedom of speech is protected in the U.S. Constitution so that the people can have the freedom to have information about the conduct of government and to have the public view of what is going on, enforceable.

When the power of the people is taken from those who are in office, the people can take action. It is in our Constitution. Voting is one "best" method when simple BETTER change is due, and the people SEE IT AS A CLEAR AND PRESENT NEED to vote in that new, as a adaptive and good benefit for a popular mandate wanted by the people best shown in new officials.

Terms are given in the Constitution, because the government is supposed to be from the people, as a wanted cumulative truth at a majority level. Change is supposed to be desireble, and the best new coming from the people successful within the citizenry at a recognized level, this is a wanted new welcome for new welcome change at election time.

Impeachment is also a way to remedy the BAD practices of an elected official when it is necessary because they are in office and their actions are against good public policy. Impeachment is a REMEDY to uphold our Government. It removes the bad official from office, and proves the public can and will enforce their sovereignty against bad actions, illegal. Bush took authority away and there is no such proper power to do so, war is not for the President to declare, in a democracy. Cause was not shown, and the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the authority. The fact that Congress did not do their duty is sufficient to say the people are aggreived under the U.S. Constitution, and Bush used undue influence of misplaced trust in his authority when the Congress knew he had no such authority.

The "PEOPLE" described in our Constitution are the nation as a whole, not the individuals who take office. They are supposed to be the accepted and proven, known, LEADERS for ON TRACK government WANTED for a track expected and wanted by the people who vote.

We are not supposed to vote for what is not wanted, that is the lie of the people in power who are clearly BAD and need to be voted OUT. The Democrats told voters there are only two parties and so did the media. It was an outright lie. There are 100 million registered voters not registered in any party. They do not have to vote Democrat or Republican. Even the Democrats and Republicans CAN vote outside their party on election day, but they did not want to, how many KNOW THAT! They tried to force us to all have to vote for their party, which is due for change, and the change was four against the two in office. The media was as bad as the two parties. But, the MAJORITY is outside the two parties at a registered level, and can force the right restoration, if they choose to. 100 million can easily win against either the 36 million Democrats or the 26 million Republicans. EASILY! An informed voting electorate CAN VOTE TRUE CHANGE at a majority WIN level. Apparently we need to get the lying media who doesn't want democracy out of our faces, and put the journalists who like democracy and a safe and sovereign country that behaves, a watchdog media with conscience that seeks and tells the truth, that will net the informed public.

Spending taxes on unwanted military offensives instead of offering peace and diplomacy is cause to require change at election time.

When the government spends all the taxes on unwanted actions, the remedy is not to assume the people who did the deed are good and the government is bad. The government IF done with actions according to the law framed, would deliver DEMOCRACY for PEOPLE and not offensives.

"Drill, Drill, Drill!" as happily stated by Sarah Palin, was not smart, and was horrific, in my view. The media is not offering enough perspective. They should criticize with sanity, after showing some of her most offensive traits. They acknowledged she abused power when she used political influence to net election success. Connections instead of a good track record is not what should net a public trust. A good and credible track record plus the personal impression visible to the public is what would net a proper candidate worth voting for into a public office.

Conservation of resources is supposed to net a harmony between nature and man. Nature has its own checks and balances and they are necessary to maintain our natural habitat. We cannot pollute and rape essential parts of our ecosystems and expect the creator's intended results--good is what was apparently intended, and to destroy is to invite bad results. Nature will not recover if we destroy without proper conscience.

We need to vote in the good leaders at the BEST possible level of proven leadership to UPHOLD a Constitution that truly is a legal framework that is strong when it is upheld by honest, able, and smart leaders whose track record is clearly for the PEOPLE at a proven level.

I know Ralph Nader has such a track record, and I am certain the media knew that too.

It means they need to be forced to admit their fault of destroying our election and refusing the change needed.

I am putting together a little pamphlet, SIX not TWO, because we had SIX not TWO on the ballot, and CHANGE was wanted by the majority of the voters, and they were not given the true choices that were offered by new parties responding to the changes needed for our country. These new candidates from "outside" the established two parties, were eager to use the U.S. Constitution as the BEST way to lead us on track, I am reasonably certain.

They deserve the chance!

Will the public see the proper duty to demand a fair election when they see the SIX not TWO is proper democracy and is that simple. Vote for the one you believe is best, and chances are the majority if they vote their own individual truth, we will net a majority rule of personal opinion shown to be honest truth for a nation. When a candidate nets the majority by honest votes, then the candidate can believe they are truly wanted by the country for the office of President. There is no such thing as TWO PARTY SYSTEM. There is a majority outside the two parties, and the two parties are the ones in office, and they do NOT rule who you CAN vote for.

I voted for Ralph Nader, because I wanted the BEST President who is able and willing to take office!

BYE BYE OBAMA - THE CASE IS AGAINST WHAT WAS VOTED, THE MANDATE FOR PEACE AND BUDGET AND CONSTITUTION UPHELD IS NOT SHOWING

2008-11-09T16:55:00.000-08:00

My recall of the first debate, was that McCain exclaimed, "You weren't even there!" So, I checked WHEN Obama was in the Senate in Congress, it was January 2005. The war declared by BUSH (against U.S. Constitutional legal framework of DEMOCRACY for America) was March 2003, with an "October Resolution" by Congress in 2002. WE THE PEOPLE of America AND the World, and even Iraq, OBJECTED. The PEOPLE of Italy made the front page news with the thousands upon thousands in the streets, international peace and safety for Iraq, and the world, that indeed was the world view. But, Obama what is he claiming in this text below?

I believe he is trying to pretend a stand that is not true-A that he was there, when he was not, and B-that he is for peace when he is not, and C-that he would not invade when he would (he says so, it is offensive to proper international law and the U.S. Constitution, he has NO AUTHORITY and the people who just voted heard his lies of peace and believed, he wants military and is focused on it, and it is shameful and egregious and not leadership from any possible view. We do not want war, we want good government.

When and where did he object, if indeed he did object back when Congress FAILED to represent the U.S. Constitution and the American PEOPLE?

The first debate, a clip from the transcript, quoting Obama:

OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan. We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment. And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that's not the case. We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government.So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

GET OUT TO KEEP IRAQ SAFE AND U.S. SAFE and UPHOLD WORLD ORDER AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS! no OBAMA, NO NO NO.

Every day, I promise to fight against this tyranny of two parties whose ousting by popular informed voters is DUE to restore LAW and ORDER and the United States as a Proper Country.

Right now, there is no proper anything happening in the United States, ALMOST,and the U.S. has NO CAUSE for remaining in IRAQ.

There is NO two party system, only IN OFFICE due for REPLACEMENT by leaders capable of ON TRACK agenda to uphold the Constitutionally provided democracy and our laws which frame a good government.

It is not the system, it is the people in power who should be voted OUT.

SIX were on the ballot not TWO and the MEDIA did not want the PROPER CHANGE voted by an Informed PUBLIC.

The Government is ENTIRELY FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST (when the U.S. Constitution is upheld) our government is not for corporate corrupt tyranny.

The media apparently likes corrupt tyranny much more than democracy and public interest as our government. Hello Obama they gleefully applaud, and that is why Nader, icon for public interest is not yet in view as a Presidential Candidate deserving majority view and potential success for voters to support at a majority level.

PEOPLE have to take the media to task.

There was some Iraqi invitation for us to negotatiate a withdrawal, and IT IS DUE. (Show me any country who wants us to invade! I think Obama is crazy and so is Bush, and they need to go, with JUSTICE, out, on the record, with WHY, and WHAT FOR....restoration of our Constitution and the country's safety and the world's as well.)

NADER is the BEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR BOTH RESPECT AND SAFETY, and HONESTY. (My opinion, as Ben Franklin found it wise to say, and to listen to the audience..)

.but, the fact that Nader was pre-empted by a corrupt media is cause for complaint not just by me, but by the audience, and the outrage as a rational, reasoned, legal and public interest correct media correction, -- people can petition the courts as a refuge,

and there are media who will publish the truth if the courts are properly petititioned by the people...FEDERAL COURT, of course. Call the ACLU and ask them to act. One idea.

Multiple organized proper legal requests, are GOOD.

Lawyers for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is another legal advocate for public interest at an accomplished and informed level -- they can petition separately, and the courts can join the complaints.... can join, as a proper PEOPLE's complaint.

Request for "Relief"? A-publishing the status of the impeachment which was before Conyers, papers introduced by Kucinich, not known to the public, and it should be. B-Validity of polls used for the debates MUST BE POLLS WITH ALL SIX, NOT TWO WHEN SIX ARE ON THE BALLOT AS A NATIONAL FACT.

C-FAIR, UNBIASED PRESENTATION OF THE CANDIDATES CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO, THEIR EDUCATION, TRACK RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENT, AND PLATFORM AGENDAS...PICTURES CERTAINLY ARE DUE AS A MEDIA DUTY TO THE PUBLIC

D-DEBATES WITH THE CHALLENGE CANDIDATES TO THE STATUS QUO DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AS APPROVED BY THE PARTIES (TO ME, THE PARTIES CERTAINLY CAN WITHDRAW A CANDIDATE!) (An unbiased format is feasible...the candidates can do what Massachusetts did for the Governor, the four candidates were all invited formally, and the format was simple, the candidates each presented their agenda, then they debated several rounds, then they offered a summary...OR, if the League of Women Voters is given an opportunity to present their experienced format that they would endorse and come back to the debate hosting status with court protection of no two party corruption, and format required as open, and agreed to by the PUBLIC as approved with the ACLU and the LAWYERS for NON-PROFLIFERATION as approving a format that is seen and agreed to as non-partisan and openly determined, not behind closed doors...these are common sense basics REQUIRED FOR DEMOCRACY.

AMERICA NEEDS A PEOPLE'S COMPLAINT FOR PROPER ELECTIONS AND DEMOCRACY.

STATUS QUO IS NOT POPULAR (measured at 89% disatisfied, appraising the country as OFF TRACK not ON TRACK) AND THE POLLS HAVE AVOIDED THE PUBLIC'S VIEW OF ON TRACK.

EXCEPT THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING ANSWER TO A QUESTION OF THE OVERVIEW OF ON TRACK OR OFF TRACK, WHICH THEY CANNOT BURY, TRY AS THEY ALWAYS DO, THE MEDIA HAS REFUSED THE OBVIOUS CORRECTION REQUIRED, THEY GET THE ABYSMAL WAY BELOW PAR EVALUATION OF THE NATION ON TRACK, AND THEN TRY TO FORCE THE CURRENT TRACK AS IF WANTED -- CLEARLY IT IS NOT WANTED-- BUT THEY TRY TO ENFORCE THE UNWANTED TRENDS WITH ALL THE OTHER QUESTIONS, NO PROPER RETRACKING IS TENDERED.

FIXING THE STATUS QUO HAS BEEN REFUSED BY THE MEDIA.

THEY DO NOT HONOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE WATCHDOG DUTY. THEY ARE COMMERICALLY CORRUPT IN OUR FACES.

IT IS NOT BIAS, IT IS ENFORCEMENT OF UNWANTED GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE PEOPLE. AND THEY CALL THEMSELVES MAINSTREAM, THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE THE UPHOLDERS OF UNWANTED OFFENSIVE GOVERNMENT AGAINST PEOPLE FORCING TWO PARTIES WHEN SERIOUS CHANGE IS BOTH WANTED AND DUE.

What has Obama done? For proper Government of this country? The speech he delivered on November 22, 2005, shown in the post below, the link takes you to it directly....................................................what has he done in Congress? that is a question to discover the truth.)

This was not in Congress.

n Illinois state senator, delivered these remarks in October 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago.
(Also see Iraq War Statistics & Results, Updated.}
"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I Don't Oppose All Wars
I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.
I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
On Saddam Hussein
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.
You Want a Fight, President Bush?
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."
(See Rating Barack Obama - Debate Scoreboard for the 2008 Race and Barack Obama in 2008 Info Center Hub.)
Suggested Reading
Profile of U.S. Senator Barack Obama Obama's Inspiring 2004 Democratic Conventiion Speech Iraq War Statistics & Results
Related Articles
Barack Obama on the War on Terror, the Iraq War and Homeland Security
Senator Barack Obama's Remarks on Lessons of the Iraq War
Senator Barack Obama's Remarks on Lessons of the Iraq War
U.S. Troops In Iraq: How Many Troops in Iraq are Needed to Fight the War?
War on Terrorism - President George W. Bush - 28 June 2005

OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A REAL DEBATE AND IT IS CERTAINLY DUE.

THE OPPOSITION TO THE STATUS QUO WAS ON THE BALLOT AND THE MEDIA WAS EGREGIOUS. THEY OFFERED POLLS THAT TENDERED AN OUTRIGHT LIE: TWO CHOICES ONLY WHICH ONE, AND A DIVIDED NATION.

AND, THEY HAPPILY TRIED TO SAY NADER WAS DIVIDING THE NATION. THE HECK ...THEY DID THAT, NADER OFFERED PROPER CHALLENGE, AND THE VOTER REGISTRATION SHOWS THERE IS TONS OF ROOM FOR A CHALLENGE TO THE TWO SUPPOSED MAJOR PARTIES WHO CAN CERTAINLY BE VOTED OUT, BY A MAJORITY WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED IN THEM.

100 million voters are NOT registered in the two parties.

24 states do not register party. They are NOT supposed to be called red or blue states. THE MEDIA did that. NO SUCH SYSTEM EXISTS, it is the die-casting of the media and it is entirely unacceptable. Every state is supposed to have proper information so they can know WHO is each of the candidates on the ballot.

SIX were on most state ballots. THE MEDIA WILLFULLY FAILED their DUTY as a watchdog, and LIED to the public.

They claimed an untruth and wanted the result, red and blue states with no opposition, there was opposition - 4 outsiders challenging the candidacy of the two entrenched status quo OFFTRACK military offensive corrupt no principles no back bone, no constitution, in view. The People have the right to justice and a PROPER President who will uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Bush should be impeached.

We all know there is no money for Obama's military offensive red ink, but that does not make it ok. That he cannot do his ugliness, is a lucky reality, while we get to fix this situation, and make the media accountable for their lies in our faces, and the hype of unworthy candidates as if they were our choice, when the majority never got the proper view of any of the candidates running. There were SIX not TWO, and I was for NADER and spent my time trying to make that proper view presented by the media, and they refused like cockroaches immune to democracy expectations. Corrupt entirely corrupt corporate commercial corrupt, willful. They need to face the FRAUD perpetrated as a PEOPLE's complaint of a serious level of intentional usurption of democracy, they need to be forced to face their deeds.

Lawsuit, or confession, something must be done. Make the truth be known. They lied, is a fact. Polls of two choices by the Washington Post in our faces claiming we, the independents wanted Obama or McCain, NO NO NO.

I told them that for four years. They refused to pay attention.

They have their deeds on the record. They are HEINOUS. Cockroaches of evil unknown proportions. Pay? No, they deserve no pay whatsoever.

The City Of Cambridge does not subscribe to the Washington Post. I believe it is the lack of demand by the public. When I wanted one particular article and they told me they no longer subscribe, I thought, well, that is justice.

A lawyer visiting Cambridge, who I happened to chat with for a minute, we were both shopping in the Harvard COOP, he was from Missouri, here with his family, and when I mentioned the situation of the media not offering proper election coverage and restricting it to two parties heinously and refusing Nader the proper limelight, the attorney, when I said specifically the Washington Post (I was about to mention their heinous poll of independents which did not offer anything other than their two choices to independents, and put the headline as that result...it was a high offense), before I could say what they had done, he interjected, "Washington Post! Now, THERE's a Paper for you." He was disgusted with them. It was the closure to the conversation.

But, he thinks he has something to vote for?

I did not think so, at a majority level, it was not an honest election. The media free to do as they please ending our democracy is not acceptable in any possible view. IT IS CONSUMER FRAUD at the highest level of intentional harm, without conscience.

Obama, likely is hugely happy with such behavior, look at him, certainly he knows who he is. Not a winner, no.

Obama's Supposed Eloquence as to what Makes America Great is a Gross Out

2008-11-08T15:44:00.000-08:00

Ok, I just checked to see what the truth was as to Obama's debate claim, and his website claim, that he "spoke out against the Iraq War"--to me, he is completely OFF TRACK and I am posting the link to the speech he likely was referring to, when he calimed he spoke eloquently against the Iraq War, this is NOT "eloquently against the Iraq War."

November 22, 2005 speech:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/

I am grossed out, it is not what President Nader would tolerate, I am certain. How about you, is this what you voted FOR?!!!!

What does Ralph Nader offer? Of course, check his website, as you can compare Obama's website, both are different, clearly, and the fact the votes were not stuck with the two parties as dominant and fearful to voters, that we had freedom to choose, especially with 100 million non-partisan registered voters OUTSIDE the box, but IF the media had done their job properly, people would not have been fearful of anyone but the RIGHT ONE likely to win, because the merits would be in EVERYONE's face, as they should be.

Nader offers withdrawal, as soon as possible, negotiations and U.N. replacement of U.S. troops, to oversee the elections and assure safety of the Iraqis as a soverign country, with the proper and full right to self-rule. 6 months is Nader's estimate after taking office. Nader is for a cut the military, restore proper law and order, and peace policy, and NO MORE BAILOUTS, budget on track, in the black, and no more war, unprovoked, unwanted. The Iraq War is illegal and not "American Honor" to stay is dishonor.

Obama says 16 months, and you have his site to view the continued lack of proper peace policy and respect for the U.S. Constitution and the International Law (invading a country is against the law, when unprovoked, it is a warcrime). Obama knows Bush and Congress have a huge military budget in red ink and red blood, and that they do not have the money for their own paychecks, and so, they did a red ink bailout, and, yes, both Obama and McCain voted for the bailout.

Battle and disgusting injuries for a villain's claim of democracy?

Enfored RULE froim the OUTSIDE?

And, an election of forced TWO PARTY rule favoring continued WAR when the WORLD DOES NOT WANT IT...I believed the country does not want it, either, at a majority level.
The media I believe is the deliberate misleader, certainly there were SIX not TWO and the proper presentation is still DUE...you could say, "overdue."

VICTORIES ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE SPOILERS THIS WAS NOT DEMOCRACY

2008-11-06T11:08:00.000-08:00

The Democrats are organized criminals against democracy. There is no two party system only in office with clear intent to refuse the required election results of voting CHANGE due.

The anti-democracy party claimed THEIR spoiler of democracy, "no choice but us", "status quo" rules against the people's desire for peace and end the war NOW, no more military offensives, no more red ink and blood, this is not what won, corruption and lies and smooth talk and no action except more offensive against people here, there, and everywhere, that is the ugly action in progress, it is not democracy. The challenge was entirely refused by the media, and the people are permitting the media claims of pretense of democracy at a supposedly informed level. The media lied at every step. No proper presentation of the SIX not TWO on the ballot across the nation for the CHANGE to be informed decisively showing-no-they, the media pre-empted democracy at every step.

Media bias was tendered as if fact, by the media now standing with ugly moral corrupt laurels of complete usurption of everything this country stands for. Their polls were intentional prevention of challenge against the two. They said you have two choices, which do you want, and just like the villians holding the villain trophy, a claim of winning, when indeed they are worse than thieves, they lie, boldly, without masks, unless smooth talk is the mask of lies against people to win....the democrats and republicans allowed misrepresentation of both of their parties true stands, and they allowed the corrupt as the frontrunner, put there by the media, and forced as the only two choices by the media...this is corrupt media trophies handed in our faces, corruption against America, the Constitution, and against the PEOPLE, everywhere.

We are supposed to vote out the bums on election day, the challenge is supposed to be allowed by both the challengers and the people, to RULE at a majority level.

The people who voted for Obama, believed his lies, and the people who were outside the two boxes, at 100 million non-partisan level, believed there were only corrupt choices, and they allowed that as their only two evil choices, and voted in the media triumphant ugly boxes of a claim of a divided nation, whose lack of 50/50 is due to the hatred of the current administration, so the democrats who may indeed be even worse, than the democrats, the attempt to change, was handed to the villains over the present, as a new laurel, the U.S. Constitution upheld is no where in sight with these claims of no choice but us, only we can win, and if you don't vote for us, you lose. The voters should have known how to vote, FOR a PRESIDENT who is FOR you, not against EVERYTHING that matters.

I have seen a lying article in the Nation before, so the article just sent to me, by a different writer, my first hated Nation article was an editorial by Alterman, who wrote heinous lies about Nader in 2004, Alterman obviously loves status quo and hated a challenge and needed to use lies to prevent the Nader honest challenge tendered by Nader to offer democracy for PEOPLE not a party, sincere and true leadership with a proven track record. Alterman knew such an offer was tendered, but he prefered not to notice, and to call honesty lies, and tender his lies as truth. He lied and said the republicans were supposed to be behind Nader so the republicans could win, and that was outright heinous lying published. A former republican had donated the 2,000 allowed to Nader, and to the idiot Alterman, that was supposed to be enough to tarnish Nader, NO, the fine print in the Irish Voice which also wrote a heinous headline, and deliberately misled readers, but did not lie, they included the fact of why the donor had CHANGED his voting and donation backing, ANTI-WAR. He liked Nader best, and saw the need to change. 2,000 was the individual amount allowed. The donor did not go way out and do the fund-raising he had done in 2000 where he had raised 600,000. No, he simply donated 2,000 outright to Nader, and that is the "toe in the water" to begin putting money where the mouth is at an individual level. But, the Irish Voice had intentionally tried to disqualify the real change which was on the record. They distorted but published facts, but lead with mislead, knowingly. ANTI-WAR change caused a Republican to give MAXIMUM to NADER should have been the 2004 Irish Voice headline. Should have been. If you have access to the old article, you will see it was not their negligence, it was intentional attempt to undermine the actual change for ANTI-WAR as the BEST choice by that individual, and should have been held up as that. Certainly that person was entitled to have his freedom of choice, and certainly the public DOES NOT WANT WAR.

The media seems to have a very different stand, they lie, in our face, to the level of obvious, extremely ugly and offensive every day. Disgusting crass immoral standards as if that sells.

IT IS TIME TO FORCE honesty and eliminate the corrupt media which is promoting anti-democracy lies of no choice but warfare in our faces as if that is what we voted for, and we ok'd Obama, we did NOT.

We did not have democracy on November 4th.

The people were not told how to vote for CHANGE, they were given ONLY two "real" choices but there WERE SIX.

How many knew all the proper information about the SIX not TWO and the truth of Obama and his voting on the positions which McCain said in the debate, Obama was completely being hypocritical, he had voted YES for everything he was claiming he would not do IF elected.

WAR unprovoked is not the stuff of a president to "BELIEVE."

To believe NADER could win, people A-needed to know who he is and his track and most importantly that he was on 45 state ballots.

To believe NADER could win, people who knew who he was, needed to believe EACH VOTE COUNTS to net the majority.

They ought to vote honest votes.

But, there likely was a majority who voted and did not know A-the truth about Obama, and B-the truth about Nader, and C-DEMOCRACY MEANS YOU VOTE OUT THE BUMS, you do not ask the change to happen from those in office. You vote in the change!

Who voted for the horrific positions claimed by possibly another Nation writer who lies?

Alexander Cockburn
Against Obama

...(third paragraph into the article, now quoting that article paragraph complete text)

"Obama invokes change. Yet never has the dead hand of the past had a "reform" candidate so firmly by the windpipe. Is it possible to confront America's problems without talking about the arms budget, now entirely out of control? The Pentagon is spending more than any point since the end of World War II. In "real dollars" the $635 billion appropriated in fiscal 2007 is 5 percent above the previous all-time high, reached in 1952. Depending on how you count them, the Empire has somewhere between 700 and 1,000 overseas bases. Obama wants to enlarge the armed services by 90,000. He pledges to escalate the US war in Afghanistan; to attack Pakistan's soverign territory if it obstructs any unilateral US mission to kill Osama bin Laden; and to wage a war against terror in a hundred countries, creating for this purpose a new international intelligence and law enforcement "infrastructure" to take down terrorist networks. A fresh start? where does this differ from Bush's commitment to Congress on September 20, 2001, to an ongoing "war on terror" against "every terroist group of global reach" and "any nation that continues toi harbor or support terrorism"?" (The Nation, November 10, 2008)

THE VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR THAT version of Obama, I AM CERTAIN.

OBAMA AND HIS WAR SPINE ARE BOTH LIES AGAINST EVERY COUNTRY IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Nader offers RESPECT, honor, AND ABILITY TO LEAD ON TRACK NOT OFF TRACK.

THERE IS NO COUNTRY THAT SUPPORTS SUCH OBAMA HORROR.

Hopefully, Alrexander Cockburn, a very different writer, possibly is writing the truth, but hopefully not, but if he is, certainly the country needs to complain that the truth was not before the public when they voted, and change at a credible level is most likely from the outside challenge where the bums get voted out and one of the four challengers gets at least the opportunity to challenge.

NADER did two huge rallies when the Democrats held their convention and the Republicans held theirs...the media WAS informed, and they did not cover the rallies.

THEmedia OWEs all the NADER believers and the nation, the truth of the NADER challenge, and the truth of the other three who also were on the ballot offering the possible national majority deliberate and informed vote for change.

NADER is against red ink and red blood, he is for a budget in the black, and priorities ON TRACK.

He will cut the military budget and honor the international peace treaties, and uphold sovereignty and respect for all countries to have proper global community with mutual respect and the right to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

At a people against the two parties lawsuit initative, people should petition the Supreme Court to demand a new election with FULL fair and proper FACTS of SIX not TWO and the truth of the agendas of each candidate, required in writing by each of SIX not TWO, and then a debate, and any/all polls should be required to include all SIX not TWO on the ballot for accurate and honest polls of PUBLIC opinion on the merits.

WE do not have two parties, we have a Constitutional MAJORITY result supposedly voting on honest information, that was NOT tendered.

People at a majority level thought Obama offered Peace but they knew he is in office and that should be a reason to vote OUTSIDE the two "required" choices to WIN democracy not Tyranny.

TRUE CHANGE WILL NET SUCCESS DEMOCRACY - ELECT PRESIDENT NADER

2008-11-04T10:33:00.000-08:00

After one hour or more, of a warm, sunny day in Harvard Square with three displays for WHY Nader can and should win, but "you decide" (at a majority level), and a map of the nation showing only electoral college numbers for each state, and that any state is up to the voters entirely, no pre-cast majority, the BEST is the supposed result, and wins each state-people didn't see how he can win. OF COURSE if you believe he should win, and you do not vote for him, then you know WHY he didn't win. I vote for NADER because I WANT PRESIDENT NADER and I want democracy and the proper public support to make happiness for Nader at a proper support level, to honor his achievement track record and support his agenda for the country. He has run 4 times, and WHY he is running this time, is he is hoping PEOPLE will vote the agenda as a DEMOCRACY by people for people.

People seemed to think the right stuff is happening. MAYBE, but I KNOW people THINK CHANGE IS DUE, and if they vote two boxes instead of freedom, they are not voting CHANGE.
Why do they expect change when what they vote is the status quo, in a DEMOCRACY you have proper freedom, and are supposed to have a FREE PRESS who tells you the truth, the press LIED and said two are the status quo reality, it is a lie, the votes are REAL and PEOPLE RULE, not the status quo. The media does not own your vote. YOU owe your truth for voting for what you want.

Massachusetts and MOST of the Nation has SIX not TWO on the ballot.

IF you want CHANGE, and do not want the Republicans or the Democrats, and especially neither Obama, who is IN OFFICE NOW, and McCAIN who is IN OFFICE NOW, when both of them voted for the bailout and both of them like military, and claim they do not want war, but they vote for the weapons instead of peace and proper honor, it is TIME FOR SERIOUS DEMOCRACY to win and the CHANGE to net a REAL PRESIDENT.

Even Texas can write-in Nader, at a majority winning level.

If the majority has not yet voted, if you need to know the reality, every vote DOES count, no vote is wasted, you can vote change and net CHANGE at a majority level.

The MAJORITY of the NATION is registered NON-PARTISAN.

24 States do not register party, 82 million.

26 states do allow declaration, 21.3 outside.

26 million Republicans

36 million Democrats

WE ARE NOT STUCK IN TWO EVIL BOXES, CHANGE IS DUE IN A DEMOCRACY, IF YOU WANT CHANGE YOU VOTE CHANGE

NADER OFFERS A BUDGET IN THE BLACK AND PRIORITIES ON TRACK.

PEACE NOT WAR, CUT THE MILITARY BUDGET, BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW, AND RESTORE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH PROPER INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY AND HONOR THE ABM TREATY AND THE UNITED NATIONS.

There are FOUR CHALLENGERS for PRESIDENT on the BALLOT across the country, if the majority votes for CHANGE, it will put the Democrats and Republicans out of the ugly tyranny against the truth of democracy, people rule, not the parties, and there is NO TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

Each vote is supposed to be for the BEST, and IF you want CHANGE you VOTE CHANGE to NET CHANGE.

The majority result is the "winner" in each state of 48, and two small states have district representation.

270 electoral votes wins the Presidency reflecting the democracy at the ballot box, the cumulative total vote DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATUS QUO when you want change, YOU VOTE outside to net the OUTSIDE success.

Any of the six CAN win.

Who is the BEST is supposed to be the majority opinion for CHANGE WANTED with PROVEN LEADERSHIP.

You vote YOUR opinion.

You owe ONLY your BEST as the ONLY proper vote, true to yourself and true to your country.

TO BELIEVE HE CAN WIN

2008-11-03T01:10:00.000-08:00

Avoid the campaign because they stink, IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE NADER CAN WIN. Focus on WHO you will be putting in to office and expect THAT success. Look at his track record on the internet and know that is who you are voting for when you vote NADER, not the campaign who doesn't realize the majority can rule and tomorrow is the day, and their duty is to support the win for their candidate. They have to be ignored, apparently. Please figure it is them, NOT NADER, and vote for him, and know they are very bad. Emerson said, "Speak in the affirmative, emphasize your choice, utterly ignoring all you reject." I cannot fire the horrific naysayers sitting there doing damage not proper support, and hire those who know NADER CAN WIN and SHOULD WIN and who would bend over backwards to do that proper effort. Yes, the young man answered the phone at 2 a.m. but the fact that Obama on the site, not Nader, and my sarcastic, I couldn't believe I was looking at the NADER site, I hate Obama, he said, "we do too" - they are too stupid for my tolerance level. I suggested that they take the photo down, and put up the new photo of a pie on Obama's face, red cherry dripping down his face, to symbolize red ink and red blood and that we do not want him even in the picture, but no, when I checked the site after 10-15 minutes, the Obama face was not covered in the proper red ink and red blood, only the two parties trying to lull him, and that is insanity, he is NOT the candidate to woo, he stinks, to high heaven. NADER is on 45 ballots and he is the man I want in office, NOT Obama, there is no way, they can be serious. Obama is out, he already had his chance in office as a senator to make a difference and has not. He voted for the bailout. Not all congressmen did, some did the right thing and said NO. They already spent all the taxes, and are engaged in military offensives ENTIRELY AGAINST all proper policy, and Obama wants MORE. How the @#%& did he get the privilege of appearing on Nader's site before the election, if it is just a warning to stop the voters, it is not how to, and I am so unimpressed it is not possible they can be ok, they stink. Ashley should be fired as soon as Matt and Ralph return from PA. I wish. But, today was supposed to be 100% affirmative ON TRACK and no anger, only on track. I do believe firing bad people is on track and affirmative however.

I am for NADER, and am going to be telling people all day, the MAJORITY VOTER SUCCESS CAN HAPPEN, PLEASE BE PART OF IT.

Do not look at the votenader.org site, because the campaign put Obama there as the feature for the day. It is not what I expect when I want NADER smiling in my face. I expect to see NADER smiling on HIS SITE, and he is not.

So, figure it is the truth, the campaign stinks, and he is
GOOD and even EXCELLENT and the people are pathetic, and you are not putting Ashley anywhere, or Theresa or any of the staff who do not believe he can win.

VOTERS can make him win, and IGNORE the campaign.

If you send money, send it to NADER himself, I am saying this, because they do not deserve the money that is due NADER for NADER's proper success.

They think they do, I have no doubt, and they do not properly appreciate the FAILURE they entertain when they put Obama in our face instead of doing what they can do, PUT NADER on the feature and say what his top priorities are, and use a recent favorable comment from people.

To that effect, I am going out to Harvard Square and will collect and post favorable comments here on this site, and will send them to Nader at info@nader.org which is his commentary site, not the campaign site.

I am horrified that the campaign is not appreciating the REALITY that being on 45 state's ballots and having the track record and sincerity that NADER offers is CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE CAN WIN, and there is no system to stop him or the voters from getting success.

The site looks as if they are aiming to do just that, and firing them today, likely will not help, although I would fire the poster of the current Obama featured instead of NADER featured, I would certainly consider it proper affirmative behavior. There are others on the campaign who do not expect they HAVE TO want to WIN...and, I believe it is true of the other campaigns, so take it with the necessary grain of salt, and vote for the man you want in office, and expect NADER and not the idiots who sit and answer the phone and expect him not to win, let them find out who they are and that NADER will/can win IN SPITE OF THEM.

How can it not be actual malic e that they would post happy Obama on his site, NADER's site, the day before the election?

No, it is not acceptable, but FIGURE NADER does not have enough proper staff or control over a political campaign, and that isthe reason, I believe they are self-appointed and inferior to the proper view of a success.

To win, you must want to win.

That, I believe, if any reader of this blog has the opportunity to ask Nader if he WANTS to enter office, they will get the adamant, OF COURSE, if the majority votes they want the change, OF COURSE.

And, it is bad to say, in almost any case, Nader knows he is right and his platforms are right, and the country that is off track MUST vote change to survive as a nation with any shred of self-respect. Goodbye Obama and McCain, HELLO PRESIDENT NADER and VICE PRESIDENT GONZALEZ!

Vote out the bums.

Vote in a true and capable policy advocate for PEOPLE and net the BEST into office, as is supposed to happen.

There are some good staff on the campaign, I believe Jason Koufoury has worked very hard (two major rallies is certainly praiseworthy), and Sally Soriano, the campaign manager is there, they have achieved the 45 state ballot access, and volunteers across the country worked hard for that success, I am upset that in spite of all that proper and necessary hard work, they are not believing they owe the WINNING attitude and the other stuff to go with it. I figure there are some rotten apples in every basket and I would say Ashley is that. No Obama belongs on the Nader site today, but there he is in spite of sanity. As if the devil himself put him there. But, blame Ashley Sanders, she boldly put her name under the post to take the proper credit. She deserves THAT credit!

I have no intentions of letting Obama win. I want NADER to WIN Massachusetts and California, and hoping Texas will write-in NADER at a huge millions level...the 270 electoral college vote is there for the majority to rule they want NADER as BEST, and that the BEST CAN WIN, if the majority votes it.

Stupid campaigners do not belong in the way, neither does Obama, assisted by what looks like the devil himself!

Stay on track to get a MAJORITY VOTING ON TRACK FOR SUCCESS ON TUESDAY.

There are enemies who would stand in the way. Obama and McCain, o bviously represent the red ink and red blood and are not embarassed. They should be.

OF COURSE NADER CAN WIN, IF THE MAJORITY WANTS PRESIDENT NADER, ALL IT TAKES IS THAT VOTE BY EVERY HONEST VOTER TO NET THE WINNING TICKET OF INDEPENDENCE FROM CORPORATE CORRUPTION AND PUT NADER AND GONZALEZ INTO THE LEADERSHIP FOR GOOD ADMINISTRATION UPHOLDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. Two cute and handsome lawyers who like the good in office, not the bad, and are happy to be running, and will welcome majority rule success, like you would not believe, so BELIEVE!

WRITE IN NADER IN TEXAS, GEORGIA, NC, IN TO NET "WINNER" MAJORITY RULE

2008-11-02T09:39:00.000-08:00

"Be True to Yourself and it shall follow as the night the day, thou can'st not then be false to any man." Shakespeare.

VOTE FOR THE BEST OF THE SIX, AND KNOW YOUR VOTE WILL THEN BE TRUE TO YOURSELF AS WELL AS YOUR FELLOW MAN

OF COURSE IF EVERYONE DOES THEIR HOMEWORK AND CHECKS THEIR ELECTIONS SITE FOR THEIR STATE BALLOT AND COMPARES THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON THEIR OWN SCORECARD THEN THEY CAN EXPECT A GOOD MAJORITY HONEST AND TRUE TO OURSELVES AND THUS TO THE NATION, RESULT.

IF YOU COPY SOMEONE ELSE, AND DO NOT VOTE YOUR OWN INFORMED AND HONEST OPINION-you will be false to yourself and to the nation, and that is an offense against the world.

Do not vote unless you vote an honest vote, true to your INFORMED opinion.

KNOWING YOU KNOW OF THE SIX NOT TWO, YOUR CHOICE IS BEST, THEN YOU WILL NET A MAJORITY SUCCESS, BECAUSE YOU HELPED VOTE FOR THE BEST AND GOT THE BEST INTO OFFICE!

DEMOCRACY VOTES OUT THE BUMS AND PUTS THE BEST REMEDY INTO OFFICE.

89% say America is off track.

That means vote the bums out, to get ON TRACK.

No Obama, No McCain

50 STATES CAN VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ.

Texas,

Georgia,

Indiana,

North Carolina,

CAN write NADER in and still net majority rule in the four write-in states, yes,

TEXAS CAN ...IF THEY WANT NADER,

THEY HAVE TO DO IT INDIVIDUALLY TO AFFIRM A MAJORITY SUCCESS...write in "NADER"

and get 34 electoral votes for NADER at "winner take all" in TEXAS

(over 12 million, I say, oh yes, if you want him, please do not hestitate to write him in and prove PEOPLE rule when the corrupt do not want a challenge to vote the bums out, PEOPLE still rule when they VOTE and can vote NADER to WIN. )

It takes a majority, but each of us has to do our individual duty.

I woke up to thinking of SHAKESPEARE, "Be true to yourself, and it shall follow as the night the day, thou can'st not then be false to any man."

True to myself, means my duty is to vote for my BEST choice, and figure I am doing what I hope everyone else will do, vote out the bums, Obama and McCain belong OUT, and vote FOR the CHANGE that will put the nation on track and budget in the black, and restore PEACE!

Four challengers, check which is the best and strongest, and VOTE the CHANGE to net the CHANGE for the BEST into office as President.

Look at your state site, elections, where to vote, click on that link, enter your address for the preview of the ballot and the voting site for your address, and see who the candidates are.

Do one hour minimum of HOMEWORK to decide who is BEST and compare the four outside challenges platforms and rate them 1-10 for being what you want; (Exit Iraq NOW with negotiated timetable? complete withdrawal?) (Budget for good government for People, no more deficit of spending against people for unwanted war, the world does NOT want our wars, they are Bush's and McCain and Obama are as bad or worse...they offer platforms that are NOT for upholding a balanced budget for America, but offensives against the world, and the result is against both America and the world, they are not ok at all, they have NOT earned the Presidency.

Even attorneys in Boston have said to me, "what did Nader do besides a CAR!" (Nader, dear readers does not drive a car, yes, he knows how to drive, and used to drive a Studebaker at Princeton, and Albert Einstein walked in front of him, but it was when he found out how corrupt GM was that he decided to refuse to drive any car)--so, he does not "do" a CAR, he has advocated SAFETY, hugely, at every level that he advances when he engages in any cause, now it is politics, SAFETY is proper democracy, and voting on the MERITS for BEST is the proper ballot box power to vote out the BUMS and use MAJORITY PEOPLE RULE to declare what is WANTED by the PEOPLE as RULE when they pick a vote of who will lead them as a nation ON TRACK.

Nader's previous accomplishment track:
(Attorneys are too busy to bother with the encylopedia and the media has done the deed of extreme refusal to offer public information to promote proper newsworthy objective reporting of the facts of the TRUTH, there IS CHALLENGE and NADER is offering the strongest, and he is not running on a Party, he is running as a CANDIDATE, on his track with platforms to lead the nation ON TRACK.

Previous track for the lazy attorneys who ought to do their own "discovery" of the facts of who they owe their vote to, to be true to themselves, the nation, and even, oh yes, the legal system itself and the U.S. Constitution. Bush is not a Real President he is a usurper. NADER will uphold a democracy and the Constitution. Prior track listed on a campaign tee shirt given to me this week:

Safe Drinking Act
Clean Air Act
Freedom of Information Act
Environmental Protection Agency
Seatbelts/Airgbags/Tire Safety
Consumer Product Safety Act
Pension Protection Act
whistelblower Protectioon Act
Safe medical Device Act
National Traffic & moter Vehicle Safety Act
Clean Water Act
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
VoteNader.org

What are some of his top platforms?
1. End the Iraq War Bring the Troops Home; Complete Withdrawal, U.N. supervised elections for self rule for iraq-PEACE
2. Restore the U.S. Constitution (Bush is not obeying or upholding it)-UPHOLD CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT -democracy for people
3. Raise the minimum wage-FAIR LABOR PRACTICES
4. Protect the Environment; solar energy, renewable clean energy technologies-ENVIRONMENT
5. Single Payor (Taxes pay; people earned the "free"/universal healthcare tax paid would be "UNIVERSAL" HEALTHCARE)
6. NAFTA - renegotiate to upgrade standards
7. Make corporations pay fair share of taxes
8. Succeed in the war on drugs instead of failing as the current $50 billion a year is doing
9. Consumer Protection against corporate fraud
10. Balanced budget ON TRACK for human needs priorites and good government not evil

Look at the track that precedes, this and ask yourself, will he do it? Do I want this success?
Does this candidate get my vote?
I am being true to myself, and hoping others are not copying but will believe the agenda wanted is the vote to vote and the bums in office must find the power of the people is at the election poll, not the weapons and bloodshed..we do not need or want their red ink or blood.

We can be nice, we can vote them out, and vote for a REAL PRESIDENT to win a MAJORITY.

Be true to yourself and the nation, do not vote a false vote! Your vote if honest and informed, should be the same as the majority and expect your BEST choice as the right choice and the majority owes the right choice to WIN!

COMPARE THE CANDIDATES WITHOUT THE DEBATES!

2008-10-29T16:13:00.000-07:00

Obviously in a democracy, the people in office doing unwanted offensives against proper government MUST be VOTED OUT and the BEST candidate to offer the WANTED agenda, MUST be voted in, successfully, by the MAJORITY.

Success is the best revenge.

The media admits they are failing democracy and that they are for profit and have no intentions of changing their priorities. Dan Rather was very in the face of an expectant audience when he admitted he knew we are failing democracy, at the JFK School of Government, which "rated" the media as the topic at hand, and Dan Rather admitted FAILING DEMOCRACY-2004 post election review. Oh yes. Unabashed, hideous greed unblinking.

The media who pretends to represent America is knowingly NOT representing America, they want millions per year, and expect the majority to PAY.

We the people have to do the voter review of candidates at a 100 percent self-review and educate and develop our own non-partisan unbiased review to decide which candidate will bring a proper leadership to the majority ON TRACK.

SIX not two are running. The two who the media wants you to believe are liars, and want to keep the media in their pockets, in the RED INK out the kazoo....kazoo...what is kazoo? 9 trillion in debt, and SKYROCKETING. Obama wants to spend red ink fake money nowhere in sight, to RACE into the HEAVENS with his OFFENSE against both the heavens, and the earth, and, of course, as he already said, "China" is ahead of us?

Since when were we devising our government for a competition with any country? Oh yes, we have heard of it before, but the majority would prefer the NORMAL values of a LIVING WAGE and a PLACE TO LIVE, and SELF RESPECT that comes with an HONEST government that is a FRIEND to other countries. I believe that is what North Korea is serious about, proper self-rule, immunity from outside offensives, and peace and prosperity according to their own choices for their people. It is certainly NOT up to the U.S. to decide who they are, it is their choice to have a pastoral, peaceful, rustic country and a technology that is "basic" and does not offend nature. Diane Sawyer thought them strange, I thought her very misguided at best, and disingenuous and insulting to them, as likely. (She may like profit and greed, as is apparent by her amazement that they are not like her at all, utter amazement she showed.)..but, she is NOT the majority of viewers, who really do not have a proper news media for proper "living wage" represented for the REAL MAINSTREAM AMERICA--WHICH SHOULD VOTE THEIR MAJORITY RULE on November 4th!

Since when did the romantic behaviors of horse and buggy or farming as the basic life support of a community seem too strange to consider "ok" and "due" as best, not backward, but respectful of life, from every level?

I believe both China and the U.S. have a lot of work to do, and partnership would be likely welcome, but the independence and respect is ALWAYS best. I frankly, assume, they were expecting that...and that Obama is offering a delinquent child's view of how to view the world, it is not my view, and I hope the majority is for solid U.S. sovereignty for the U.S. to restore our government, not to continue offensives against law, people, and nature, with no benefit whatsoever. Audacity of hope? To me, he wants power to offend, just like Bush, and oh yes, just like McCain. Peas in a Pod, throw them out of politics. End their supposed viable status, see if they fit in a chart of a WANTED agenda, when you do a scorecard.

Scorecard topics-three charts:

A-ISSUES/Positions
B-TRACK/Achievements
C-PERSONAL QUALITIES/"Most likely to succeed"

Do a Card for Issues, List the issues in the left column, then your position, then the candidates: each in a column, and put a number of a RATING (1-10) for each issue as it compares to what you WANT for the RIGHT POSITION for a AGENDA ON TRACK! (IF you have 10 issues, each candidate has a potential score for the agenda on track of up to 100% on track according to your homework/research of their positions, and your agreement of the right position matching what you want. (Example: Universal Health Care, they are not all offering that, Nader is offering tax paid healthcare and that means free to everyone, I call that "universal" - he calls it "single payor". the payment is the government using the taxes paid applying to anyone who needs healthcare, the non-profits are the deliverers, and they give you the care, free choice, and you don't pay, the government does. You earned the tax benefit, because of being a taxpayer, and those who do not pay, well, yes, they get the healthcare too, that is indeed, "universal healthcare." It is a special benefit that almost everyone believes everyone deserves "life" and the medical services to offer rescue as needed! No one wants to see someone needing emergency care turned away because of their income level or whether or not they can pay, we like the rescue success as a good result of taxes paid by the nation, so that our nation can proudly offer medical care for free because WE earned it!

McCain, wants the for-proft insurance system to be regulated. I believe I heard Sarah Palin say, they would offer a $4,000 tax "credit" (that means deduction from your annual taxes at the end of the year, it does not let you buy any medical care, except that it increases your income annually as it compares to your medical expenses--if you spend $5,000 on insurance, you will be able to deduct that from your gross income when reporting your IRS return in april. So, a person earning $30,000 gross would get a deduction of $4,000. so, you would be taxed on 26,000 not 30,000 but you would still have to buy your health insurance "up front".

I beleve Obama's plan is similar except he criticized McCain for saying regulation would help reduce costs. Of course, McCain says the opposite, that it will make it more reasonable, by regulating it. You get to rate this issue. (1-10) what is YOUR preferred position? for profit insurance? Regulated, tax credit, v. unregulated v. tax paid, free and free choice?

Do not forget a government that focuses on the profit industry instead of delivering government benefits, is a "corporate" rule according to Nader. I agree. The League of women voters suggests AFTER doing your scorecard on the candidates, talk to other people, before voting. But, you take responsibility for voting for the BEST candidate to deliver what YOU want. Obviously maybe you do not understand the candidate's position on an issue, or know what you need to know about their sincerity and track record.

Obama says he wants peace but he wants to increase an already way overblown military budget. (LOOK AT THE MILITARY BUDGET, it is in the world almanac, and it is on the web if you use a search engine. Get the truth of the budget from the official government reports. When a candidate says he/she will cut taxes, see if you understand what that means.

Republicans are notorious for giving the wealthiest the tax "breaks" and taking more taxes from the middle class and the poor. That is how the rich keep on getting richer and the poor, poorer.

Nader wants to close that gap. The Republicans admit they do not. They will increase the gap as they always do. The Democrats say they want to close the gap, look at what they are offering.

MY OPINION is that the Democrats offer is even worse than the Republicans! It is shocking. See what they say they will do with taxes! See if you think they are better or worse than the Republicans. BUT, you have CHOICE, do ALL SIX, and see who does the best with TAXES!!
You can do this, it is interesting, and of course, worth doing! And, last but not least, I think this is interesting, can you do a "take" on your favorite candidate?

What do you think is MOST important to the candidate if elected?
What is the method of "peace" from each candidate? Bush offers war and calls it peace. Nader offers peace. Obama and McCain want to increase the military as if Bush's isn't enough!!!!!! (You gotta be kidding me! No, they are not kidding. They have no respect for sovereignty, a budget on track, or proper international law.) I have to check the other three on these issues: Baldwin, Barr, and McKinney. We all should do a scorecard on the issues for all six candidates and see who gets a A from us.

Likewise, track to support each issue.

And, personal traits we believe most important to succeed. League of women voters listed a few to get voters started, "honesty", "likeability", go to their link for their various suggestions....

http://www.lwv.org/Content/ContentGroups/Elections/Publications/Candidate/ReportCard.pdf
BUT NOTE THEY HAVE ALLOWED THE TWO PARTY EVEN THOUGH THEY SHOW A THIRD INDICATED....please do a fair and proper competition of SIX...and see if everyone who does the scorecard homework ends up with a serious BEST result that is a majority, we just might get a real democracy and a real president who represents this country on a track we want by the majority appraisal by voters who are willing and able to do homework.

The WINNING CANDIDATE gets the state electors to vote, it is ONLY the winner whose slate of electors vote...in the winner take all, and even in the two states who do district, the CANDIDATE who wins GETS the ELECTORAL VOTES...the Electoral College is the state proportionate affirmation of the state majority winner(s)...it is not the two parties, it is the winning candidates by the VOTERS DECISION AS TO BEST BY A MAJORITY RULE...BOTH the Popular Vote and the Electoral College are the BEST choice for the state, a confirmation approval of the popular vote. THERE IS NO TWO PARTY SYSTEM ANYWHERE, UTTERLY and COMPLETELY NO SUCH SYSTEM.

(YES, this was the media's duty, and then this homework would be good for checking our opinion against theirs, and then we would feel safer, but when the media says you have two choices, the result is LOOK FOR YOURSELF and figure the likely thing to do is vote AGAINST the media choices as obvious greed, unprincipled and against democracy, and that they want the media in their pockets and will use it against the nation, at a very horrific already in our faces, view level, unblinking. VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT, NOT A PARTY LABEL. Know your candidate and the positions and the track! If you find them the BEST, you should like your results!)

And, can they do it, and do you want it as a good agenda? (Hillary wanted Healthcare, but she was only rejuggling CORPORATE healthcare, not anything to do with universal.)

Example:

1. Friendship v Invasions for GLOBAL PEACE, rate each candidate 1-10 and say "10" is BEST.
2. Environment-Protections or Offensives/Oil depletion here or there, or conservation and renewable energy, rate each candidate 1-10 and say "10" is best
(Thanks to the Democrats, in 2004, when Nader's lecture was opened up to the students at the JFK School of Government at Harvard, a PhD candidate who was specializing in energy, he said as his intro, "accused(!)" Nader of offering 32% and was "angry!" and wanted the "reasonable" offer of Kerry (somewhere in the 20's for the proposed reduction levels), and insisted Nader, as the highest was "in the way" of the success of the "good"--to my utter astonishment. I was aghast, and could not comprehend why he did not welcome NADER. Nader apparently knew, the angry student is an insincere person, and prefers greed and does not want to do the necessary reforms, and does not want reasonable living, he wants his unreasonable LEVEL of current POSSIBLE greed, against the majority and the future, as apparently Dan Rather does and did when he admitted failure and wanting to continue? Rather belongs out of the picture,especially when he admits he wants profit. He is like King Tut, what does he think his greed is accomplishing? Since when is FAILURE good? I am sure Nader and Matt Gonzalez would like to know, now, in 2008, when the country has not cured the TWO evil boxes as UNWANTED instead of wanted--they are ONLY wanted by the greedy, not the majority.)
3. Out of Iraq-Troops Home; Complete Withdrawal; UN supervised elections for self-rule of Iraq-
4. Universal HealthCare (Tax Paid)-
5. Restore and uphold the U.S. Constitution (repeal the Patriot's Act, and restore Civil Liberties), 2 year limit on army funds raised as maximum! (Keeps focus where it belongs, and what candidate offers that proper self-government focus, a budget for America on Track?)-

What are YOUR AGENDA PRIORITIES:

List them, and compare your rating of the candidates(all six, rated 1-10 on the issues, pick your top ten, and see who makes the grade of A! Doesn't that candidate deserve your vote?) -- as they match YOUR position on the issues.

(I believe most of the country wants the troops home, and the Iraq War ended, and the budget back in balance, and priorities on track for America, and respect and friendship for the global community)

(some do not, we know who they think should be President, but they are a clear minority, 26 million Registered Republicans and many of them are very unhappy with Bush. Not all members of the two parties like their current nominee, but they should realize whoever is elected President should be a person, best able to serve the majority public interest, for leading our nation on track! You do not elect a party, you elect a President!)

http://www.baldwin08.com/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://votetruth08.com/
http://www.votenader.org/
http://www.barackobama.com/

Moving forward.....

Scorecard the SIX not TWO candidates, and decide which one is BEST for YOUR vote, for YOUR honest decision on what YOU hope the MAJORITY will vote for, do not vote against, there are SIX and the TWO do not rule! The opportunity to unseat is before you, and 100 million non-partisan voters say it CAN BE DONE, put the two parties to shame, they are either 36 million registered Democratsn or 26 million Republicans, but over 100 million non-partisan, who can vote for ANY one of the SIX, any one of the FOUR outside the two supposedly major parties, CAN WIN the PRESIDENCY.

Are there "red" and "blue" states? No, of course not. There are 24 states who do not register party. While there are parties in those states, I would say likely they are very willing to do their homework, and check the truth from each voters' opinion as to BEST for a NEW leadership to enter office. 82 million. And, 21.3 million OTHER (mostly independents) in the 26 states. 36 million Democrats, and 26 million Republicans. It is NOT between the Democrats and Republicans. IT IS UP TO THE MAJORITY to vote individual choice and expect democracy to offer honest results. No party, a CANDIDATE, six choices, ONE Winner.

Over 100 million v 62 million of the combined two parties
does NOT give either established, attempted entrenched party, the 50% currently tendered by the media.

NO. No two party except currently in office.
SIX on the ballot not TWO.

A majority is OUTSIDE and can vote OUTSIDE
if the BEST wanted candidate is OUTSIDE he/she CAN WIN. And, of course, Democrats and Republicans are NOT stuck in two evil boxes, vote the bums OUT and vote in
the new WANTED BEST AGENDA TO WIN the Presidency!

Can Do's Can Do Miracles.

EVEN TEXAS can write-in NADER at a MAJORITY RULE LEVEL. They can choose their BEST as the TEXAS majority...outside...they are registered only, not party registered and utterly free to ignore the two party liars of only two choices, and decide which is BEST, and get the BEST PRESIDENT, If they want to, of course, it is LEGAL to vote for WHO you WANT! (I believe it is illegal not to! Two parties status quo with no choice is illegal, anti-democracy, against the proper majority rule, entirely. We are 100 million not registered in the two parties, and 62 million in the combined two parties. No way do they rule. No, no, no.

Especially in MA ,NJ, CT, ME, AK, NH -- where the INDEPENDENTS are more than either party or a majority (MA). 24 states are non-partisan, 82 million voters. 24 states which do not register party: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missippippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennesee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington (state), Wisconsin.

(IF all 24 states went to Nader or a third party candidate, 22 electoral votes would need to come from the states where they show party declaration. Obviously the states with the larger electoral college numbers carry the most weight with the electoral college, but it is a majority rule "BEST" CAN WIN result, not a two party result.

The BEST is supposed to win, and the established parties are supposed to be ousted if the people want that change, the PEOPLE DO RULE at a majority rule level. Each individual owes honest voting to make it happen.

You can seeVoter Registration statistics for all 50 states, if you scroll back to a few posts earlier, you will see each state with the June 2008 numbers posted. MA is 51% OUTSIDE THE TWO PARTIES. MA has over 2M independents and one and a half democrats and 12 percent (400K) Republicans. Who should get MASSACHUSETTS? The voters decide. FREEDOM and true agenda for the BEST should net the WINNER! The media likes to give the two parties a 50/50, they CANNOT begin to claim accuracy. NO NO NO. Massachusetts IS LIBERAL, but not "safe" for Democrats, no no no. We are majority independent in MA and majority non-partisan in the nation of 50 states plus D.C.

We need to see the TRUTH of a NATION! GET out of the two party forced media in their pockets result, and vote for FREEDOM for the majority to get TAXES spent on GOOD GOVERNMENT. Vote for the candidate who offers WHAT YOU WANT for ON TRACK.

We can do this!