The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
“Mad about The One. The US media have been captivated by Obama, at the expense of their curiosity and scepticism.”
This is the title of an article by Harold Evans in The Guardian on November 1, 2008. He resorts to the bias he decries in his one-sided column. I have reproduced it below in its entirety, along with my annotations {…} . Phrases that I comment upon are in boldface.
It's fitting that the cynicism "vote early and vote often" is commonly attributed to Chicago's Democratic boss, mayor Richard Daley, who famously voted the graveyards in 1960 to help put John Kennedy in the White House. In this 2008 race, it's the American media that have voted very early and often. They long ago elected the star graduate of Chicago's Democratic machine, Barack Obama. {Obama is a hardly a “graduate“ of the machine. What about Harvard Law, Columbia, etc.?}
I am not talking of editorials in newspapers, though Obama has the preponderance of the endorsements over John McCain. Obama certainly deserves the credit for recruiting impressive advisers and running a more efficient campaign machine than any one in the US's political history.
What's troubling to anyone old-fashioned enough to care about standards in journalism is the news coverage in mainstream media. Forget the old notions of objectivity, fairness, thoroughness, and so on. The nastiest rumours on both sides haven't been published, but the coverage has been slavishly on the side of "the one". {“Slavish”? Evans’s description.}
This video that I compiled to accompany my original song chronicles what happens when voters are defrauded and votes are left on the table.
The title of the song is 'We Were Robbed! (The G.O.P.)'. It can be found here: We Were Robbed! (The G.O.P.)
We Were Robbed! (The G.O.P.)
The video for We Were Robbed! (The G.O.P.) serves as a reminder that the last 8 years have been run by an illegitimate administration that was thrust into power on the backs of 19000 eligible voters in Florida that were illegally removed from the voter rolls. This was conspired by Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Clayton Roberts, Karl Rove, and Database Technologies.
People, you have to get out and vote on November 4 en masse and don't let it be close this time.
The Bush Legacy:Disenfranchisement, 9/11, Enron, Worldcom, Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG Restructuring, An Iraq War that still has not been Justified after 5+ years, $4 gasoline, Patriot Act, Record Foreclosures, Rising Unemployment, Illegal Surveillance, Tax Payer funded bailouts for Mortgage Companies, Patriot Act. By the way, I have not heard of any bailouts for taxpayers struggling to pay their mortgages.
It's time to say Eight is Enough!We Were Robbed!
If you dig the video, please feel free to distribute freely to anyone you feel needs to get the message or post it to own your websites, emails, and blogs supporting Senator (and Future President) Obama. At the conclusion of this post I will post the embed code and URL for your personal websites, blogs and emails.
Please distribute freely if you believe in the message. I welcome your feedback.
Respectfully,
Uncle NateObama/Biden '08
Here is the embed code for your personal websites/blogs:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wFerpq2VApg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wFerpq2VApg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Here is the link for your email:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFerpq2VApg
I have become totally worried about the election. I’m convinced that the Republicans win. The Palin pick convinces me it could be a disaster. I am writing to ask your help to stem the tide.
They say,
“Those who do not remember the past are compelled to repeat it.”
Barak is saying that John McCain will be just like George Bush. Both are appealing to the center but pick a right wing pit bull as a running mate.
Remember,
George was going to the “the uniter not the divider,”
George was the “reformer with results”
Sound familiar?
One thing is different between Bush and McCain,
McCain did serve in Vietnam.
The Republican VPs candidates Cheney and Palin have similar military experience,
One difference, Palin is a crack shot.
LET’S NOT GET FOOLED AGAIN.
Please go to the donate website, https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bochangevid?source=20080904_BO_ND
I’ve donated $500. I’ll probably give more
For the first time I’m going to volunteer.
Please get your friends to help if you can.
All the best
Rick
Alright, I'm in.
http://cageyness.vox.com/library/post/i-hope-i-hope-i-hope.html
Check out my (then created) website www.BallotChad.com to find the text below and others including letters I wrote at the time of the "S"election and aftermath... Let's take our country back from these tyrants and vow to never allow it to happen again without strong resistence from WE THE PEOPLE!!!
Thanks for joining my Blog, Tom Wilson, Broward County, FL
After months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.
Huh?
Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:
She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience. (1)
Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest. (2)
She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. (3)
Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools. (4)
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change. (5)
I like McCain and supported him during the 2000 primaries; however, I feel that he's past past his political peak - and that Obama is our best choice for president.
The best way to defeat McCain (while avoiding Rove's smear tactics) is to run ads showing McCain's position on a topic back in 2000, then show Bush's opposing position, followed by McCain's current position. Couple this with ads showing Obama's forward-looking, positive message - will make Obama unstoppable.
Most moderates liked McCain's 2000 positions, but dislike how he's had to kowtow to the extreme right in order to win the GOP primary. This will demonstrate McCain's willingness to "flip-flop" and adds fuel to the argument that he would simply be running a 3rd Bush term. This approach will be effective towards liberals, independents and conservatives.
As I lay in bed watching Barack Obama's speech for A More Perfect Union, I began thinking about my childhood. I have fond memories of some presidential elections in the past, but in the last few years I have been so cynical and so negative about our countries future. I wanted to know where it all went wrong.
I remember one night sometime during 1992, I was about 4 years old, we were on vacation and I was sitting in the living room. My parents must have been watching some of the candidates debate, because I remember hearing Bush and Clinton talk. I remember thinking Bush was a funny name because it reminded me of the tail of a squirrel (ok I was an odd child). I remember thinking Bill Clinton was cool. It was superficial, but at 4 years old, I was at least paying some attention.
I remember the next election, in 1996. I remember I really wanted to actually get involved. I remember being in Spring Lake in the living room of the house we rented, watching the canditates debate. I knew nothing about what they were saying, but I listened and watched intently, acting like I knew exactly what was going on. I remember feeling excited that I was part of something so significant. I remember thinking that I couldn't wait until I could vote. Then I remember my mom telling me that I should make a list of topics that are important to me, and listen to the speeches given by Clinton and Dole, and put checks in the boxes and see which president gets the most checks, so I can see who I agree with most. Now, granted I probably put topics down like "funny, smart, experienced" etc. down, because lets face it, I was only 8, I do remember putting X in the boxes for the candidates. I remember that I wanted to like Dole because I liked Dole canned peaches, but Clinton ended up having many more X's, and my mom like Clinton, so I figured it was ok. I remember how exciting it was to be a part of something like that. I thought it was so cool to be able to choose our president. In this huge country of ours, my opinion mattered. I felt like somehow, getting to vote and having a say tied our whole country together.
Then came 2000. And it turned out, that was the year I lost my excitment. In 2000, I was 12 now, and able to understand much more about the presidential elections. I was also in a US history class where we were learning about how elections actually work, with delegates and everything. I remember listening to the speeches. I remember wanting Gore to win. I remember the "fights" between my mom who liked Gore and my dad who liked Bush. I remember waiting up in my room with the TV on waiting for the election results. I remember that at one point the news stations (which we have learned are often wrong) had said that Gore had won Florida. I was so excited. I was getting ready to go to sleep when I heard my mom and I turned back on the TV. They retracted that Gore had won Florida, and it was still undecided. I was disappointed, so I decided I was determined to stay up all night and wait for a final answer. I tried, but I eventually fell asleep before any annoucements. When I woke up though I had so much faith that Gore won, because why would the news have said it if it wasn't likely to happen? That's the mind of a 12 year old. I remember waking up and hearing that Gore had conceded. I was so disappointed. Then I went to school and heard that Gore had retracted his concession. I began to gain hope again. Throughout the next few weeks I heard chatter about hanging chads, unfair voting practices, etc. I began to get so confused. When Bush was declared the winner I was devastated. I knew that Gore had won the popular vote. I knew how the electoral process worked, but I couldn't accept that even though Gore won the popular vote, somehow Bush was president. I became bitter at the process. As I got older I looked into the 2000 election more. I did a project on it in 8th grade for example. I recently watched the movie Recount, and it just reminded me how angry I actually am at the whole thing. I grew up (at least till the age of 12) loving that I could vote and that my vote counted. I was so excited to turn 18 and vote. And then, with one election, I began to doubt if my vote counted at all.
The 2004 election was of less interest to me. I was 16 then. I knew I didn't want Bush to be president. Not again. I didn't particularly like Kerry either, but I had decided he was the lesser of 2 evils. I didn't really watch the debates, I just listened to my parents and friends and tried to determine which candidate I wanted. Then I thought about it, and realized that I didn't want another 4 years of what we had. My interest level decreased so much.
For the longest time I thought when I turned 18 the first thing I should do is register to vote. When my 18 birthday came I got my licensed changed so it was not the provisional license, I bought cigarettes even though I don't smoke just to get carded. Then I went home. I thought "YES I CAN FINALLY VOTE." Then I thought "But does it matter? Does my vote matter? Probably not." And guess what, I didn't register. Not until I got to college. And the only reason I registered when I got to college was because someone came to my door, gave me a sheet that I could fill out, and told me if I filled it out right then they'd mail it for me and everything. I was lazy, and didn't care, but figured hey, why not, I should register.
When I heard that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might be running for president, I began to pay slightly more attention. A woman and a black man? I was so excited. I felt like even if I can't believe that my vote counts, I can believe that our nation is moving forward in terms of race and gender. On a college campus, especially one as democratic as mine, you tend to get swept up in things. I began to listen to more and more speeches, began to look stuff up, etc. When I came home for the summer I talked to my parents and started getting into more heavy duty conversations. I started listening to Barack Obama's speeches. My mothers enthusiam for Obama most certainly has contributed to my enthusiam. And both my father and mothers ability to hold meaningful conversations with me about this election has helped get me excited. However, as I listened to Barack Obama talk, for the first time since I was 12, I felt hope.
For the first time I felt like if I voted, I might be able to make that difference. That by contributing to this campaign I was getting a chance to be a part of something bigger than myself. That I was making a difference in this world. I began to think that if Obama is president, we might be able to have the America I so niavely believed in when I was younger- a better America. Not just one where votes matter, but one where we as people matter, regardless of our race, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status.
I finally believe that one person can make a difference. That I can make a difference.
Thank you Barack Obama, for giving me a chance to hope, and for giving me a reason to want to vote once again.
In recent past ...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/09/22/oil.2.t_4.php
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604260016
... sounds familiar?
mirrored from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~smonti/wqex/media/bglobe010500.html
McCain pressed FCC in case involving major contributor By Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff, 1/5/2000 Days before Senator John McCain joined hands with Senator Bill Bradley last month to decry the noxious influence of special interest campaign donors, McCain pressured the Federal Communications Commission to vote on an issue that cleared the way for a major contributor to his presidential campaign to buy a Pittsburgh television station. McCain, in his bluntly worded Dec. 10 letter to the FCC, did not urge a vote favoring the contributor, Paxson Communications. But he acted at the request of the company's lobbyist, during a period when he used Paxson's corporate jet four times to travel to campaign events - where he almost always attacks monied special interests. McCain's intervention in the case drew a speedy, scolding response from William E. Kennard, the FCC chairman, who deemed the Senator's letter ''highly unusual'' and suggested it was inappropriate. The Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain heads, oversees the FCC. Angela J. Campbell, the attorney who represents opponents of the sale to Paxson, went much further, asserting in an interview yesterday that McCain's action was improper, unethical, violated FCC rules barring such contacts on pending FCC matters, and appeared designed to assist a major contributor. ''Senator McCain said, `Do it by December 15 or explain why,' and the commission jumped to it and did it that very day. The senator's intent was for the FCC to grant the'' transfer of the TV license, said Campbell, a Georgetown University law professor. McCain's intercession, she added, ''may well have tipped the decision.'' A spokesman for the senator, noting that McCain often sees the FCC deliberative process as molasses-like, said there was no connection between Paxson's political support for McCain - $20,000 in two concentrated doses from Paxson and its law firm - and his intercession with the FCC. But McCain's close ties to Paxson were abundantly clear on the key dates surrounding the FCC decision. The day before he sent the Dec. 10 letter, McCain used Paxson's jet for a trip from New York to Florida. The day after the letter, he took the company jet from Florida to Washington. The campaign reimbursed the company at first-class airfare rates - well below the actual cost of the charters. The Globe was told about McCain's intercession on the Paxson case in the course of preparing an article about a stinging rebuke McCain sent to Kennard of the FCC last May 12, accusing the FCC of bias toward SBC Communications and Ameritech, two regional Bell operating companies that were seeking to merge. The night before McCain sent that letter, SBC's Washington lobbyist held a fund-raising dinner for McCain that raised close to $20,000 for his campaign. On March 30, Ameritech's chairman cohosted another fund-raiser at which McCain raised $88,000. In addition, the two companies also funneled $10,000 to McCain's campaign from their political action committee. McCain was unavailable for comment on the Paxson issue. But in an interview last week about the SBC/Ameritech merger, McCain said he took no action because of the donations. ''Never, under any circumstance, was there ever a quid pro quo,'' McCain said. Speaking generally, however, McCain said, ''People give money to buy access. We're all tainted by this system.'' From time to time, he said, he has agreed to meet with major donors. ''They have access, and therefore they have influence. It corrupts the system. And I'm a victim of it too,'' said McCain, who was ensnared but later cleared in the so-called Keating Five scandal nearly a decade ago. He was one of five senators who interceded with federal banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, whose name became synonymous with the savings and loan scandal that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. To cleanse the system, McCain advocates a ban on so-called soft money, unlimited donations that can be made to the political parties for party-building activities but that are often funneled to campaigns. The senator is opposed to any limit on so-called hard money, the $1,000-and-under individual contributions that are often ''bundled.'' It is a paradox that underlies McCain's quest for the presidency: As he savages special interests from almost every podium, those interests, ever pragmatic, have lavished attention and donations on the powerful chairman of a committee that has vast reach over the rapidly evolving and often regulated commercial marketplace. If anything, many of the special interests are underwriting McCain's campaign for president - and his rhetorical war against them. But for campaign audiences who come away believing McCain has constructed a wall to keep influential donors at bay, the Paxson and Baby Bell incidents suggest that McCain remains vulnerable to special interests he says have corrupted Washington. McCain's insistent urging that the FCC vote on the Pittsburgh issue had the effect - if not the intent - of benefiting Paxson, a West Palm Beach, Fla., network of 73 family-oriented stations and the nation's largest owner of independent television stations. Through the end of September, Paxson's top officers and their family members - and even the personal assistant to the wife of the company's founder, Lowell W. Paxson - contributed $12,000 to McCain. In 1998, Paxson officials gave $9,000 to McCain. And in July, as Paxson lobbyists were asking members of Congress to exert pressure on the FCC, 13 members of Paxson's law firm, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, contributed more than $8,000 to McCain on a single day, according to campaign finance records. B. Dwight Perry, the law firm's managing partner, said yesterday that the firm's same-day donations had nothing to do with its work for Paxson, though he refused to say how or why the contributions were made. ''I'm not going to tell you why,'' Perry said. ''People made them because they wanted to contribute to John McCain.'' ''We often make contributions to officials who are sympathetic to us,'' Perry said. Such a practice, he added, ''is not uncommon, for God's sake.'' Nancy Udell, a Paxson spokeswoman, also said that contributions by company officials and their family members were unrelated to the Pittsburgh issue. Similarly, Dan Schnur, the campaign's communications director, said yesterday that there was no connection between the donations and McCain's two letters seeking an FCC vote on the Pittsburgh issue. Schnur acknowledged that Paxson's lobbyists asked McCain aides for a letter supporting the sale, but that McCain only asked the FCC take a vote. Several other members of Congress, most from Pennsylvania, wrote the FCC urging approval of the transaction. But as far as the FCC is concerned, McCain is the most influential member of Congress. Sometime between McCain's first letter on Nov. 17 and his more insistent letter on Dec. 10, Paxson made its four-engine jet available to ferry McCain and his entourage from New Hampshire to Washington on Dec. 3, a day after McCain declared in a New Hampshire appearance: ''It is very clear to all the lobbyists and the special influence people that run Washington now that if John McCain is president of the United States, things are going to be a lot different.'' Schnur said the campaign followed federal rules on each of the four occasions Paxson's jet was used, reimbursing the company for first-class airfare for everyone aboard. McCain is among many federal officeholders who fly on corporate jets for a fraction of the actual cost, a legally permissible perquisite that is widely viewed as a backdoor way for corporations to help politicians they favor. For example, first-class airfare from Manchester to Washington is $406 one-way. Though Schnur did not have the reimbursement figures available, the fare suggests that McCain's Dec. 3 entourage of 10 would have paid Paxson about $4,000 for the flight. To charter a jet of that size would have cost close to $10,000, according to estimates by charter experts. Though McCain's committee has oversight of the FCC, there is no evidence that his May criticism affected the FCC's decision to allow the mammoth SBC merger. Two weeks later, however, McCain filed legislation to strip the agency of its say in telecommunications mergers. But on the Pittsburgh issue, officials familiar with the decision said McCain's involvement was more problematic. The swing vote in the 3-2 decision was cast by Susan Ness, one of three Democrats on the five-member FCC, who joined the two Republicans in approving the sale. President Clinton last July nominated Neff for a second five-year term, but her confirmation is up to McCain's committee. The committee has yet to schedule a hearing on her nomination. Ness declined requests for an interview. The issue, which the FCC wrestled with for nearly three years, was one of its most complex involving a license transfer. WQED, the Pittsburg public broadcasting outlet, wanted to sell the license for its sister station, WQEX, to Cornerstone TeleVision, a religious broadcaster that owns Channel 40 in Pittsburgh. Cornerstone, in turn, would sell its license to Paxson, with Cornerstone and WQED splitting the $35 million Paxson had agreed to pay. Pittsburgh has been the only one of the top 20 television markets without a Paxson station. While the FCC has never turned down a local market license transfer, the Pittsburgh case was almost without precedent: It involved passing a noncommercial license held by a public television station to a commercial operator. In Pittsburgh, there was substantial local opposition. Against that backdrop, McCain noted in his Dec. 10 letter that the commission had apparently ignored his Nov. 17 request that the FCC vote on the transfer on Dec. 15. He asked that each of the five members ''advise me, in writing, no later than close of business on Tuesday, Dec. 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications. ... ''If your answer to the latter question is no, please state further whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act on these applications at the open meeting on Dec. 15. If your answer to both of the preceding questions is no, please explain why,'' McCain wrote. As he had in his earlier letter, McCain emphasized he was not suggesting how the commission vote, only that it vote. But within the agency, according to sources, his letters were widely interpreted to favor the complicated transfer. Kennard, the chairman, objected. In his Dec. 14 reply to McCain, he wrote, ''I must respectfully note that it is highly unusual for the commissioners to be asked to publicly announce their voting status on a matter that is still pending. ''I am concerned,'' Kennard continued, ''that inquiries concerning the individual deliberations of each commissioner could have procedural and substantive impacts on the Commission's deliberations and, thus, on the due process rights of the parties.'' Commissioner Gloria Tristani, who joined Kennard in refusing to vote for the transfer, wrote to McCain, saying she would not answer his query ''in order to preserve the integrity of our processes.'' Schnur, McCain's spokesman, said the senator's involvement was benign. ''What you have here is a case where a senator with a history of writing the FCC when they don't act quickly writes the FCC to ask that it act quickly,'' he said. Schnur added: ''It gets down to appearances, and there's nothing beyond the appearances.'' He said he doubts that many voters would be troubled by McCain's use of the Paxson jet even as he was urging action, at its lobbyists' request, on a matter involving the company. To others, including some who sympathize with McCain's crusade for reform, McCain has placed himself in an awkward position. Larry Makinson, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political contributions, said candidates like McCain who support reforms are likely to falter for want of campaign funds unless they tap into the system. Asked about the SBC/Ameritech donations, Makinson said: ''It's very difficult for a candidate like McCain to maintain his political independence when he is taking such large contributions from special interests. He's hoisted by his own petard: He cannot say the money influences everyone else, but it doesn't influence me.'' This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 1/5/2000. © Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company.
Obama, let me be frank. What steps are you taking to make sure the 2008 election isn't manipulated and stolen? Why isn't there enough discussion regarding these "caging" lists? We can support you all we want, but if there's another force dictating whose votes count and whose don't, how are we to deal with that?
Read More Here:
The Future of America has Been Stolen
