Last night was the 2 final primaries for the Democratic party nominee for president of the United States of America. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton split the two states, Montana for Barack Obama and South Dakota for Hillary Clinton. Now the democratic primary season is over, finally, and Barack Obama is the presumtive nominee of the democratic party. After the consensus formed around the fact that Barack Obama finally put it away, all three politicians gave speeches. That is the basics of what went on in the last 24 hours. Now, if you think the drama is over for the democrats you have another think coming. 

Barack Obama’s speech was one of the best speeches I’ve heard in a very long time. He accepted his winning of the required number of delegates and becoming the presumtive democratic nominee. He also spent a fair amount of time honoring and extolling the great impact Hillary Clinton has had on the american people, the democratic party and the election process. Praising her for her strength, intelligence and tenacity. Of course he also spent time on the offensive towards John McCain. Barack Obama’s speech was a positive and uplifting speech that worked hard to show what we have in common as a nation and as a people. He sounded like a unifying voice. A voice that was speaking for the American people. His was a speech that elicited a sense of national pride. Listening to him last night I felt proud to be an American. His speech raised within people a feeling of pride that we have someone who is truly speaking for us and will honor the values of the american people and the nation. A feeling we all have been missing for the last eight years. One that believes that everyone around the world can benefit from the United States being a respected country once again. Respected for it’s virtue, honesty and strength and not just because of our military might. 

Hillary Clinton’s speech on the other hand was none of the above. Yes, she did acknowledge Barack Obama reaching the required number of delegates. But the lion’s share of her speech was political posturing. She was still promoting her resume. She was still saying how she’s the better candidate. She was still saying she received more popular votes. She was still saying how she won the swing states and how no person could win the presidency without those states. In short she was trying to leverage herself and turn the screws on Barack Obama to force him to ask her to be his VP running mate. I found it to be very unprofessional of her to speak like that last night. She had a great opportunity to start to reunite the democratic party. Instead she chose to continue to fight. Too bad for her she’s only shadow boxing right now because she’s the only one in the room. She made herself look bad last night and actually helped to show that Barack Obama is in fact the correct choice. Read the rest of this entry »

If you don’t think John McCain is just another 4 years of the current failure we have in office now, George W. Bush, then you’ve got some learning to do. George W. Bush has screwed up this country worse than anyone in recent history. If John McCain actually wins in November things won’t change in the least. He’s just as scary as the current fiasco we are still enduring. So if you want a little eye opener about the difference, or lack there of, between John McCain and George W. Bush then click the link below and take the challenge. I think you’ll be surprised at some of the answers.

Take the Bush McCain Challenge! 

I won’t say I told you so, BUT….. 

I read this article (quoted below with a link to the original posted website) that says the Super-delegates get campaign cash from the presidential candidates coffers. I don’t know about you but I find this point to be more than a little disconcerting. I mean they are essentially “buying” someone’s vote. Something we as a nation as SUPPOSED to be against. Don’t worry, I know it happens to a much smaller degree all the time but when you have people paying out such large sums of money to people to can change the tide of elections with a SINGLE vote… that’s a problem. Also notice this quoted section of the article:

Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.   

If my memory serves me correctly, wasn’t Obama “on the fence” about running for president during that time? Now it seems like he was on the fence because he was looking to garner enough support from the super-delegates as an insurance policy against the possible close race between himself and another Democrat.  He spent an awful lot of money wooing the super-delegates long before he committed to running for president. Maybe I’m naive and this is normal practice and nothing about it is wrong. Well, it may be “normal practice” but some how it just doesn’t seem like a fair way to go about winning an election. I know that long ago the way our leaders were ‘elected’ was set in place…. the delegates and the electoral college were implemented to balance the voting between less populated states vs larger populated states as well as accounting for the “less educated” people of the interior states. Sound like a control issue to me even back then. Be that as it may, those arguments are antiquated and our systems needs to be changed to all popular voting, pure and simple. 

Superdelegates get campaign cash

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 14, 2008 03:54 PM

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.”While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000. 

Today I turned on CNN looking for updates on the current election standings. What’s happening between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and to see how much more ridiculous Senator McCain can sound every time he opens his mouth (I’m not a fan of his just in case it wasn’t obvious). CNN was showing a live broadcast of the Congressional hearing on the possible steroid use of Roger Clemens. Now, I completely understand that CNN needs to broadcast major events. They have a responsibility to show us what’s happening in our world and this trial is one thing that’s happening. My contention is not with CNN but with the general idea that Congress needs to have a hearing regarding possible steroid use in a baseball player. For the record I believe if Roger signed a piece of paper saying he won’t take steroids - and he took steroids - then he’s wrong and should be held accountable by the MLB Association. That’s as far as I go with that. I don’t give a rats ass if anyone takes steroids, smokes cigarette’s, drinks alcohol, does ecstasy or smokes pot. If they’re not hurting anyone else then who cares. My government is not here to protect me from myself. That’s what parents are for. Apparently MLB can not handle it’s own affairs so they look to the government.

I’m not an attorney so I’m sure I’ll get more than a few emails explaining some legal justification for Congress to hold the hearings. That’s not as important to me as the overall WHY. Is it really so damned important to the United States of America whether or not Clemens used steroids? The answer is emphatically NO! He’s a ball player… an athlete… an entertainer. Why on earth is it that this such an important issue and things like the economy, the North American Union, V-Chip, why we REALLY attacked Iraq, etc. are largely ignored? Are we as a society that apathetic to these issue? Do we really place more importance on knowing what celebrities do, who they marry, what drugs they take and whether or not they wear panties in public than we do on issues that directly influence us as a nation?

It would seem to be true… unfortunate but true. If we had more of a focus on other more important issue maybe our country wouldn’t be headed for a collapse. No I don’t think we’ll totally collapse, but we’re heading in the wrong direction. The wrong direction on so many issues. As a society we’re placing importance in the wrong areas. In doing so we’re allowing others to trample our rights, intrude on our privacy and erode our constitution. By others I mean George W. Bush and his neo-conservative benefactors.

The truth is out there. You just have to WANT to see it. Whether or not Roger Clemens is an issue that needs to be dealt with but it’s NOT a major issue. Our values need to change if we’re to really take this country in the right direction.

I don’t know how many times I need to say how totally screwed up the whole government is. How many times do I have to tell people they lied to us about a great many things INCLUDING 9/11. It was all part of a much larger plan. They know they can’t ask us or convince us to believe what they want us to believe. So they MANIPULATE the people with the most affective form of coercion… FEAR.   If the population feel the only way to progress is to allow the government to take control and do everything for us, then they get what they want. ABSOLUTE POWER! Those weak minded individuals who are too afraid to think for themselves, ask questions, demand answers and remind the government officials that they work for US are the very people they are targeting. Unfortunately these lemmings are a majority of society. These are very scary times we’re living in people. Believe it when I say if something isn’t done and done SOON, we’re headed to a place that we don’t want to be. The scariest part is that most people can’t see it. If their daily lives are made easier, they make more money, can buy better housing, buy better cars etc., they don’t care what else happens. STOP… look at the big picture people. We’re headed to a time that we’ve only read about in books or seen in movies. Maybe these creative people weren’t so far off as they were thought to be. The real question is… What are you prepared to do about it?

Tell everyone you know to read this blog and see this video. It’s THAT important!

A lot of things come to mind with this report. I wonder how far we should go while interrogating prisoners? Should we use harsh interrogation techniques at all? What is considered harsh? Do we really care what they do anyway? I ask the last question because I think most people in this society are apathetic when it comes to things that don’t directly affect them in their day to day lives. If society as a whole cared more about global issues and other people we wouldn’t be in such a screwed up position. Just spit balling here, what do you think? Go ahead, don’t be shy…

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Under a subpoena threat, the CIA is expected to quickly begin turning over to Congress documents related to the destruction of videotapes showing the harsh interrogation of two terror suspects.

The agency could begin producing the material as early as Thursday, according to senior intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of ongoing investigations into the destruction of the tapes in 2005.

President Bush declined to address the controversy, saying at a White House news conference he was confident that administration and congressional investigations “will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened.” He repeated his assertion that his “first recollection” of being told about the tapes and their destruction was when CIA Director Michael Hayden briefed him on it earlier this month.

At the Justice Department, investigators were combing through CIA e-mails and other documents and planning to interview former agency officials. One official familiar with the investigation said the review so far indicates that Alberto Gonzales, who served as White House counsel and then attorney general, advised against destroying the videotapes as one of four senior Bush administration attorneys discussing how to handle them. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Gonzales’ attorney, George Terwilliger, declined comment.

Another of the administration attorneys, John Bellinger, then a lawyer at the National Security Council, has told colleagues that administration lawyers came to a consensus that the tapes should not be destroyed, said a senior official familiar with Bellinger’s account of the 2003 White House discussion. Bellinger could not be reached for comment. Read the rest of this entry »

Now tell me what you think. Do you really believe that George and company just had “BAD” intel? Or do you think it was part of the bigger plan to pull another bonehead move in the middle east and this time they responded to reports that negated their “findings” by backing down and not trying to force feed another bullshit war on us? I guess I was being just a little slanted on that question, but I can’t seem to hold my tongue when it comes to these idiots in Washington.

Like Iraq, US intel on Iran faulty

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

First Iraq, now Iran. The United States has operated under a cloud of faulty intelligence in both countries.

In a bombshell intelligence assessment, the United States has backed away from its once-ironclad assertion that Tehran is intent on building nuclear bombs.

Where there once was certainty, there now is doubt. “We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons,” the new estimate said Monday.

Compare that with what then-National Intelligence Director John Negroponte told Congress in January. “Our assessment is that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons.”

Just last month, President Bush, at a news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said, “We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace.”

More ominously, Bush told a news conference Oct. 17, “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

Asked then if he definitely believed that Iran wanted to build a nuclear bomb, Bush said, “Yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon.” Read the rest of this entry »

This is an article taken from the Al Jazeera website. I know this is a heavily debated issue with lots of passionate verbiage from all sides of the argument. Well, that’s the very point of The Red Pill Society. Open conversation and debates over issues that affect our world. Don’t be so sure that your opinions are the only right answer. Different points of view can give a completely different description of events. At least be open to the fact that there may be another “truth” beyond what you think. I for one have always believed that the US presence in Iraq was driven by the desire to control oil. Are there other reasons? Of course. I’m not sitting at the table with George W. Bush to hear the real story. Do you seriously think they would tell us the REAL truth?

By Michael Schwartz

• Putting a country in your tank

Lately, even Democratic candidates for president have been weighing in on why the U.S. must maintain a long-term, powerful military presence in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton, for example, used phrases like protecting our “vital national security interests” and preventing Iraq from becoming a “petri dish for insurgents,” in a major policy statement. Barack Obama, in his most important speech on the subject, talked of “maintaining our influence” and allowing “our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda.” These arguments, like the constantly migrating justifications for invading Iraq, serially articulated by the Bush administration, manage to be vaguely plausible (with an emphasis on the “vaguely”) and also strangely inconsistent (with an emphasis on the “inconsistent”).

That these justifications for invading, or remaining, are unsatisfying is hardly surprising, given the reluctance of American politicians to mention the approximately $10-$30 trillion of oil lurking just beneath the surface of the Iraq “debate” — and not much further beneath the surface of Iraqi soil. Obama, for example, did not mention oil at all in his speech, while Clinton mentioned it twice in passing. President Bush and his top officials and spokespeople have been just as reticent on the subject.

Why then did the U.S. invade Iraq? Why is occupying Iraq so “vital” to those “national security interests” of ours? None of this makes sense if you don’t have the patience to drill a little beneath the surface – and into the past; if you don’t take into account that, as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once put it, Iraq “floats on a sea of oil”; and if you don’t consider the decades-long U.S. campaign to control, in some fashion, Middle East energy reservoirs. If not, then you can’t understand the incredible tenaciousness with which George W. Bush and his top officials have pursued their Iraqi dreams or why — now that those dreams are clearly so many nightmares — even the Democrats can’t give up the ghost. Read the rest of this entry »

Hundreds of thousands of people may not be able to vote in next year’s US presidential election because of a huge citizenship application backlog.

Hispanic leaders voiced concern over the delays at the US immigration department, which said it had not expected the paperwork mountain.

Officials said applications had surged before a July administration fee rise.

The backlog could take 18 months to resolve, leaving many applicants unable to vote in the November 2008 election.

The delays will affect those who filed citizenship applications after 1 June with the Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, said officials.

‘No political motivation’

The agency says becoming a US citizen usually takes about seven months, but the current paperwork backlog could take between 15 and 18 months to work through. Read the rest of this entry »