Hate, Politics and Moving Forward

Why has leadership lost their Imagination and the will to solve a problem like water shortage?

2009-06-03T09:56:00.000-07:00

The Daily Reckoning put out some information about investing in water that I thought provided an interesting perspective people should consider who live in areas where water is hard to come by. If water becomes a rare commodity, its price goes up and people, who hold stock in water, benefit not citizens who live in cities were they are paying continuously higher taxes and fees as water scarcity increases. By trading stock in water, the incentive is decreased to keep the price of water down and to take pragmatic steps to increase the amount of water in our reservoirs and rivers. Think about it for a moment. Stalk holders in water commodities need a return in their investment. That profit can only come from the investment federal, state, and countries make to counter the effects of water shortages. If the drought were to end and the reservoirs and rivers were back to flowing at their capacity then citizens are less likely to accept spending tax funds on water conservation projects. If citizens do not spend tax funds on water conservation projects then how will stockholders in water commodities make any money? Citizens must then be kept in perpetual fear in order to justify spending on conservation programs that fail to ease the annual ritual of fear associated with drought, taxes and fees. This is not to say that leadership has an official plan to keep citizens in fear, only that this is the inevitable result of failing to use imagination to solve a problem like water shortages.

There is a method that if used could quickly increase the water in our reservoirs, lakes and rivers and CREATE JOBS!

Press the title to read more about what leadership can do to help.

Paradigm shift anyone?

2009-05-19T12:50:00.000-07:00

The media and the Obama administration are asking the public for any idea they might have on how to turn the economy around. Apparently, all the “kings horses and all the kings men are having problems putting Humpty Dumpty together again." Therefore, call or email CNN or the federal government with those ideas. However, if a person has a good idea what incentive is there for them to reveal it to the rest of the country? Self-satisfaction, patriotism, or religious faith is apparently the prize for presenting the United States government or CNN with a way out an economic crisis.Unless a person already works for a think tank or some government agency, there is little chance of benefiting from ones ideas.

If a BA, MA, or PhD does not back the idea, the intellectual community will always discourage the concept. Once a person has the credentials, they publish their ideas and they make money because people pay to read their work: that’s just how it works. Otherwise, the ideas that people spend their time on are just scooped up by individuals already in the position to advance their careers. The one thing a person can count on is that once your ideas are scooped up by one of these individuals they will just take credit and reap the benefits. So the lesson is keep quite get a degree and then publish your concepts.

CNN is getting free reporting from their “I reporters” and the only compensation the satisfaction of having your few seconds of images aired on their channel. That kind of reward might work for day-to-day "I report" opinions and rantings but it's not motivation for a bonafide solution to the economic problems the U.S. and other countries face. If President Obama and CNN want creative solutions to the economic problems of the U.S., they should consider using real, all American incentive: Cash. In fact, CNN is predicating that the economy will start to recover in one or two years: in the meantime what to do? Talking heads have their ideas of how the U.S., and other economies, managed to lose upward economic momentum. Consider that economists live in the same subjective world that everyone else inhabit and do not sit on a privileged objective platform: no person does.

A “paradigm shift” as Thomas Kuhn would put it or a Foucault like rupture is as difficult to view as the image in an autostereogram without the proper viewing technique. Once a person has seen the image the viewer can never go back or they cannot un-see the image. So, one must be careful to guard their intellectual secrets. To deny that a “silver bullet” exists and that it can turn the economies of the world around is as ridiculous as forgetting what impact electricity had at the end of the 19th century. It reminds me of those people that laughed at the horseless carriage. Let us please remember the impact of a consumer driven economy on the former Soviet Union. The multiple “five-year” plans Stalin insisted on helped the USSR to a degree but they ultimately were not enough. The United States is embarking on its version of those five-year plans. However, are U.S. citizens as sturdy as Russians who are capable of sacrificing themselves, say, like at the Moscow “show trials” for the sake of keeping their country together on the verge of WWII? There is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. has the gumption to succeed or overcome this crisis. If the herculean attempt to fix our economic troubles does not bestow fruit, a new approach or an altered one may be in order.

Leadership might need a little assistance seeing the image in the autostereogram? In the meantime for the sake of country, I hope the Obama plan works and I will keep my ideas to myself until I am paid or they’re published: but feel free to share yours!

The Great Debate

2008-09-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

The Great Debate is on and both of the candidates are veterans in this arena. The questions well be critiqued and so will everything else including of course our two stars Obama and McCain. The two names alone sound as if they came from the creative minds of a Hollywood Production team. The following day we’ll hear every talking head this side of the Mississippi (and the other) explain why either McCain or Obama stole the night.

Both the Democrats and Republican are banking on their assumptions that they have reason and faith on their side. These two party leaders want us to follow their reasoning on issues that not only affect us first but with greater veracity and viciousness. Hunger is vicious in case somebody out there doesn’t know that. The United States is at a moment in time that if it’s leaders act with proper respect to our countries original purpose and prime directive which was and is to offer sanctuary. It is our responsibility to secure sanctuary for future generations. Each side wants to convince independents to sway their direction, remind their rank and file members hold fast and convince the other side to to jump ship or to mutiny.

The debate however comes at a time when both sides have had to rethink their campaign promises. Regardless of who wins the White House the ability for the president to tax or not tax will be limited by the impact of this 700 billion dollar bailout. Democrats are wisely blaming Republicans for this ordeal but bar or Catina conversations I’m hearing are asking “aren’t the Democrats in charge now? Didn’t they win in 2006.” It’s hard to explain to people why the Democrats did not see this bailout coming yet they can pin point exactly who to blame and what evidence there is to justify their finger pointing.

What both parties can’t afford to talk about is why they are both the two foxes that killed every chicken in the coop after being asked to be the guard. Each party is acting as if no one could have ever seen this bailout coming because had one party stood in consortium against slackening oversight this would have never happened. If American were really angry about this massive raid on our tax money they would vote both parties out of office.

Obama often criticizes McCain of having been in “Washington for twenty years” and did nothing except be part of the problem but so was everyone in both the Democrat and Republican parties. That includes everyone that currently surrounds Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. Each party has been fighting each other for years and every current member has been part of those fights even Obama. So, in regards to this 700 billion dollar bailout, both parties failed together to spot the danger the led to this bailout or else they’re both responsible for knowingly ignoring the traffic signs.

So, what is important to know about these to candidates is not how they’re a different kind of politician but how will they help us make more money. Fighting two wars is expensive so why would it be cheaper to pull out of Iraq? Using gasoline to fuel our cars is awful and too expensive so how will any of these two candidates relive our pain? If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq are we ready to enter again for humanitarian reason if matter worsen? Now that there is no money for Obama’s great give away what can Americans expect to get in exchange for giving him our vote? Since it’s more than likely that American tax payers will get nothing now that both parties gave away the cookie jar shouldn’t we stay in Iraq and suck as much oil as possible until we’re better off?

The angry, selfish questions that people ask silently of themselves are always the ones that politicians tend to want to answer. The reason is because those angry selfish questions are motivators that get people up and into the voting both or voting early.

Good luck Democrats

Rafael Buelna

A Brick In The Head

2008-09-04T15:32:00.000-07:00

Fallowing the Speech given by Gov. Palin at the Republican National Convention, the Democrats responded by giving Sen. Obama as much advice as possible on how to defend against Gov. Palin for the remainder of the election. The worrisome part was that Gov. Palin gave such a good speech that democrats ran worried to their laboratories to retool their strategies. For example, one CNN commentator advised that “Sen. Obama has to ignore Gov. Palin because the image of a Presidential candidate attacking the opposing VP candidate is not a good one.” The point is to keep the focus on the race between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. The last thing that democrats want is a race between Barack and Sarah. The best critique of Gov. Palin came from the individuals that questioned the substance of the speech or lack of it.

One of those Democrats was Sen. Biden who was firing out his response early the next day. “They don’t have an agenda, don’t offer ideas on how to make middle class America better off...” said Sen. Obama the day after Gov. Palin “melted” and “galvanized’ the republican base on the third day of the GOP convention. Sen. Obama, however, could not have done worse than to authorize an ad that belittles Gov. Palin by failing to refer to her by name but instead describes her as an object. I know, too sensitive for some of you but not for voters (like independents) that might be looking for it or sore ex-Clinton supporters.

In the ad the Obama campaign strategy was to outline the gaps in Sen. McCains understanding of issues like the economy. Towards the end of the ad an image of Sarah Palin is flashed for a few seconds while a voice says “although THIS is his running mate…” For centuries women have been considered, in terms of importance, beneath a man’s horse or dog. The point is to discribe a woman using the word like “this” is a derogatory way of referring to any person let alone a woman. That sad aspect of history has lead many people to flinch or grind their teeth a bit when a women is described as or referred to as a “this.”

My point is to remind the democrats that the microscope is focused on sexism and the democrats are choosing to ignore this idea rather than be sensitive to it. CNN has spent the last few days defending their questions about Gov. Palin rather than admit sexism and move on with better questions. The accusations of sexism are not a red herring but can be easily traced to their source. For example John Roberts and Dana Bash of CNN where on the air Friday and the conversation revealed the sexism within the media.

There is no doubt that issues are more important than racism and sexism but that is unless those two problems become issues themselves. It is fair to debate Gov. Palin on as many issues as possible but not being sensitive to sexism or denying that democrats are still licking their wounds after the democratic primary smelled badly of it does not help the party. It is preferrable that the democrats learn this now and not wait for a brick to fall on their heads to mark the end.

Good luck Democrats

Rafael Buelna

Political Fault lines

2008-09-02T19:28:00.000-07:00

When Sen. Obama won the democratic primary election the defeat of Sen. Clinton appeared to me to be a pyrrhic victory. The debate continues as to whose fault it was that such a victory took place. The fact remains that if the Democratic Party found the need to reinforce “unity” during their party’s national convention then “unity” must still be a problem for the DNC. The news media was ready for a rowdy crowed at the Democratic convention and had predicted that such a crowed would be indicative of a deep, long and wide fault line zigzagging around rank and file democrats separating family and friends. Many of which are finding themselves on either side of the debate over how the DNC handled their primary election. The debate is about the answers to a few questions like what happened during the democratic primary election and what are the repercussions on a general election? Time will tell and the obvious answers are that Sen. Obama won and Sen. Clinton supporters should not be “sore losers.”

Americans are Divided

Many families and friends around the country are experiencing a political divide caused by friction that emanated from the harshly fought democratic primary election. There have always been people divided by political issues and after primary elections. The difference this election season is that the rift is deep, among democrats and runs all the way up the chain of command. Party leaders are professional and so are emphasizing "party unity" but instinct warns of wounds that run deeper than first thought. Hillary and Bill Clinton did their part to excite democrats during the convention and seemed enthusiastic for the cameras. At the dinner table, however, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to think that Bill, Hillary and Chelsea do not talk about the primary as fondly as the DNC would like. This last democratic primary was fought too tough, too hard and with little and tardy oversight. The DNC threw a wonderful national convention but one effect of Sen. Obama’ pyrrhic victory over Sen. Clinton on rank and file democrats, independents and other voting citizens was to quiet political conversation. Common in many fault zones are friction caused fault lines that run just beneath the surface but are deep and worrisome nonetheless to people that live in earthquake country. That is where citizens are carrying their tension about this last democratic primary; right below the surface waiting for friction to widen the rift.

Be Optimistic

Political polls should always be questioned and the Obama/Biden ticket has begun to take a greater lead (50% Obama to 42% McCain) and that’s good news if you’re a democrat. The hope of a supporter of Sen. Obama is that an eight point or more lead continue and carry the senator to victory. If we forget about or put behind us the tension of a harshly fought primary and don’t forget to be optimistic about the future then Sen. Obama can win and the GOP is already defeated. With that in mind the reality is that citizens and mainstream media are focused on brutally attacking the character of the apposing candidate.

Everywhere people are discussing Gov. Palin for supporting abstinence when her daughter, who is seventeen, is pregnant. The radio, web and cable media outlets were asking the public this weekend “Should the family of candidates be off the table during an election season?” Sen. Obama quickly said that family or children were “off the table.” Others were not as willing to drop the issue as easy as Senator Obama. Some are asking whether the line was crossed between the political and the personal when Gov. Palin asked, as a public figure, that everyone try abstinence and emphasizes it as the best solution for an unwanted pregnancy above all other options. Gov. Palin should be asked to defend her lackadaisical support for educating the public about their full options including abortion and many other issues. Whatever side a person falls on regarding the issue of “abortion,” consider that Gov. Palin has the highest citizen approval rating among any other Governor in our federation so she must be doing something right. Gov. Palin, her daughter and the childes father have decided to take responsibility for the baby. Many citizens find themselves in this same circumstance and so attacking Gov. Palin on this issue risks creating a nasty backlash from sympathetic people that can relate.

Don’t Scratch Healing Wounds

If a woman is being publically attacked for defending her daughter’s decision not to abort a pregnancy then the issue of abortion becomes heated among the electorate. Typically (these days) during an election the issue of abortion is most heated among those debating what judge will be nominated to the Supreme Court. By attacking Gov. Palin the left risk igniting republicans and alienating independents by personalizing the issue. In other words if a woman decided to give birth instead of aborting the pregnancy then it is prudent to take into account that any individual who hints that her decision may have been a mistake risks becoming alienated. After all who wants to say “Ok, my life was a mistake and so was that child.” Other than the jokers among us, who? So, that’s why democratic leadership is trying to remind its troops to be "polite."

Burning Bridges

Consider that many of the complaints about this last democratic primary were about how sexism was not as controlled as it could have been. Making the child of Gov. Palin an issue brings sexism to the forefront and blurs the message of each candidate. While it was commendable that Sen. Obama kept on the high road many democratic foot soldiers did not. The opportunity to paint the Governor as a hypocrite was too enticing to pass up. The Bradley Effect should always be factored into any campaign strategy but this particular election seems like the perfect breeding ground for viewing its effects. The results of a pyrrhic victory are always that bridges are burnt and not much is left after the battle is won to celebrate with.

If democrats are divided and republicans ignited the decisive victory many democrats predict for November may not be as clear cut as some might think This issue further reinforces the unwillingness of many people to speak of politics after this last democratic primary. The best way to defeat this Vice presidential pick is to have the two vice presidential candidates debate as much as possible.

Good luck Democrats

Searchlight, Senator Harry Reid and NAFTA Super Highways

2008-05-29T13:33:00.000-07:00

Lou Dobbs would have loved to have been in Los Angeles Last Night. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid discussed his autobiography The Good Fight: Hard Lessons From Searchlight to Washington with filmmaker and activist Rob Reiner. At a Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles Senator Harry Reid spoke to an audience inside of the James Bridges Theater which is on the campus of UCLA. Since it’s not that often that I have a chance to meet a Senator of the United States, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, there was a pen and a notebook in my pocket at the ready.

There I learned about a story of courage behind Sen. Reid and I felt very thankful to Mr. Reiner for hosting the event. Searchlight is the name of the little town Senator Reid was raised in Nevada, which was a town in need of investment when he was a child but a town never impoverished of heart and soul. Placed at a crossroad, this little desert town of Searchlight Nevada is out between Lake Mohave and the Mojave National Preserve. It may not be much of a town to many but it’s where the Senator earned his Red Badge of Courage. It was what Sen. Reid had to say about NAFTA that, had Mr. Dobbs been there, would have caused his ears to perk up.
Beside speaking about his past (a story from rags to power) Senator Reid also gave us a good look into his current Washington battles. One thing I learned was that in regards to healthcare Sen. Reid feels that “had Americans gone with the plan that Hillary Clinton proposed years ago, Americans would be much better off today.“ It’s nice to hear this a few days before the Rules and Bylaws committee meets on Saturday May 31st . Another interesting thing I learned was that Senator Reid says that there are “no plans for a NAFTA super Highway.” I asked Sen. Reid if “there exists any plan to build a NAFTA Super Highway, yes or no?“ Senator Ried said he was against such trade agrements. When I was unsure of his response I followed through by asking “…what about a highway similar to a super highway or called by another name, in some other project?” and he said “no.”

So, Mr. Dobbs if you have any other way of asking this question in any more of a straight forward way, I would really like to know. The Senator made it clear that there is no plan to build a highway that connects the Mexican border with Canada and that will carry goods efficiently from one trade partner to the other. There is no plan to slowly build a series of highways that will eventually connect in some form or another to form a “NAFTA Super Highway” by default.

At least that’s what Senator Harry Reid said tonight.

Rafael Buelna

On Saturday, What's at stake?

2008-05-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

While the DNC punished Florida and Michigan they also failed to move down the finish line to win the nomination or in other words the DNC broke their own rules. The debate is about how many delegates does it take to win the nomination for the Democratic party. The Obama camp says the number to the finish line is 2025, to the DNC its another number or 2209 and Hillary Clinton agrees with the DNC. Since the DNC failed to move down the finish line before the election process began the winner must get 2209 delegates: after all a “rule is a rule.“ The Obama camp wants to change this rule that does benefit him but wants to keep other rules that will not benefit the Senator. The DNC allowed an improperly designed nomination race to begin and punished Florida and Michigan with out modifying the rules of the game. So the game was never properly prepared or calibrated in the first place and voters should not suffer for DNC incompetence.

The Magic number should remain 2209 and Michigan delegates (All superdelegates should keep their full vote but divided Michigan deligates 55% Clinton to 45% Obama) and Florida should be fully seated if we are to stick to a “rule is a rule“. In Michigan Sen. Obama made a bold move by taking his name off of the ballot and lost. Senator Obama was not obligated to do so and now it makes life difficult because it's hard to figure out how to divide the delegates so lets not reword such tactics. In Florida, Republicans can not get away with disenfranchising our members by moving up the elections of Democrats for them in order to cause this problem. Remember Super Delegates, democrats, are mailing in their shoes as a sign that they might walk away from the party. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatens not to let this fight get to the convention Sen. Clinton supporters are not going to listen.

Speaker Pelosi understands that at a convention Sen. Obama would be drowned out by the big states and the millions that voted for Sen. Clinton. The convention is part of the nomination process but Speaker Pelosi wants to stop it; this move by the Speaker does not make political sense. Democrats are exited that the great numbers of voters signing up to vote in these primaries will fallow the Democrats into November. Many of the Democrats that signed up to vote did so motivated only to stop Sen. Obama from getting the nomination. These new sign-ups or voters, the DNC is counting on, will not necessarily tow the line come November during the general election: its more of a hope.

The Democratic leadership may learn a hard lesson November that perhaps running a candidate who won because of small state caucus victories is not enough to win the general election. Also, the new electoral collage strategy is too ambitious for the high stakes game Senator Obama is playing.

If Senator Obama wins, then great a victory for our party, but it does not look good

Rafael Buelna

Will Democrats use FEAR this fall

2008-05-27T13:32:00.000-07:00

In an interview this weekend Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst, said that party unity might be achieved by reminding voters that John McCain may stack the Supreme Court with Judges that are secretly right of center on issue that touch a raw nerve with Democrats.
"Party Unity" is a phrase tossed around these days to describe pissed-off supporters of Sen. Clinton upset about the ugly sexism she had to face this last election season. Supporters of Sen Obama do not acknowledge this sexism and so both sides continue to be angry at each other. There are other reason why Clinton and Obama supporters are upset with each other (not to mention the tension surrounding how to deal with the votes of Michigan and Florida) but the point here is the solution Mr. Toobin recommends for bringing the party together.

This is supposed to be a "new" election one of "change" but telling people to fear Sen. McCain because of a secret wish to pack the court with extreme right leaning judges is not "Change". What ever one wishes to call it, political strategy or hard fact, the truth is that by mentioning this reason to vote for Obama over McCain is using fear to achieve your goal. So, if we want to end the "politics of Fear" lets not use FEAR. Obama supporters are attacking Senator McCain because of his Physical differences and that is not a Democratic trait. I would not like it if one day voters judged a Democratic candidate because of a physical difference.

Rafael Buelna

Political Ennui

2008-05-20T15:24:00.000-07:00

The endorsement by Hamas is the last thing that Sen. Obama needed right now. This is one political hot potato flying through the media outlets right now. Much of the attention given to this issue is because of the recent reverse in Sen. Obama’s position on the subject of Hamas. The debate is about what an appropriate relationship looks and sounds like between a freely elected political party called Hamas or arakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya and the President of the United States. Hamas won the elections just ask ex-president Jimmy Carter. Nevertheless, this same group is considered a terrorist group and Sen. Obama has a long history of wanting to engage in direct negotiations without preconditions with this political party.

Sen. Obama has reversed his opinion, only recently, and has decided that Hamas must not only be “condemned” now but has also reinforced the idea that this political party is a “terrorist organization” and must comply with, you guessed it, preconditions. “…the use of military force if you need it, but to try and avoid that option if you can by engaging in robust diplomacy. That’s what Barack Obama is talking about,” Dodd told “FOX News Sunday.”

So, according to Sen. Obama Iran, Cuba or Venezuela should not have to comply with preconditions but Hamas should be the exception. This last bit of information on Sen. Obama comes from an interview the senator had with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic according to Joe Klein who writes for TIME in a section called “In the Arena.” (May 26, 2008 issue page 23) To some folks including Joe Klein, this is more than a reversal of opinions it is a failure of leadership and a “sad abandonment of principles” on the part of Sen. Obama and Senator John McCain.

Speaking of abandoning principles and misconceptions Peter Beinart (senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) titled his last work “The Trailblazers” (Time magazine May 26, 2008 page 35) and the article reveals his current state of ennui over the current popular perceptions of who the Clintons are and what they mean to our country. Read the article yourself because its well written and his thoughts describe the feeling of many voting Americans. Mr. Beinart wrote “If Bill Clinton weren’t the person they revile [Supporters of Sen. Obama], Barack couldn’t be the person they love.”

The ennui or sadness Mr. Beinart feels is more of a silent rage to many supporter of Sen. Clinton and yet others are very vocal about their anger. Only today Fox News interviewed a supporters of Sen. Clinton, that has threatened to either not vote or vote for John McCain. Another supporter, Cynthia Ruccia, co-founder of “Clinton Supporters Count, Too” says her group will campaign against Obama, or vote for McCain if her candidate is shut out. This negative reaction to the nomination of Sen. Barack Obama is growing daily and what has the DNC worried is that rank and file Democrats are not listening to the calls of mainstream media and popular web pages that the nomination process is over and Hillary should drop out or that it is useless to go on. The DNC nor Sen. Clinton can control the momentum that she has created. Sen. Clinton can call for a “healing” process to begin amongst party members but this sounds condescending to some of her supporters who consider this "healing process" to be more of a pacification process.

In other words, get in line, hold your nose, vote Democrat or for Sen. Obama and Shut-Up is what many Clinton voters are hearing. Clinton supporters reason that by abandoning the Democrats to vote for McCain they let the Republicans clean up their own mess. The second reason I here or read about is that the Democratic party has lost face with many of its members.

What I am not sure about is when did Democrats turn into Reaganites?

A. So, congratulations Sen. Clinton on winning Kentucky and holding your own in Oregon.

B. Sorry, that members of our own party Swift Boated your campaign.

C. Congratulations Sen. Obama you won because “a rule is a rule.” This reminds me of winning a game of Eight-ball because your opponent knocked the eight ball into the pocket after the break.

D. If Obama wins the Oval Office, we have to help President Obama have a good four years so that he gets a second four years in office to continue the good work. What this means is that Senator Clinton will not have her chance at becoming President of the United States in four years.

E. Hillary Clinton promised New Yorkers that she would not run for President her first term in Office in order to “honor” her promise to get things done for their state.

I respected Sen. Clinton for making and keeping that promise but now I think she should have taken her chances then because honor has no place in politics: not this election season.

Rafael Buelna

Reasons Superdelegates should start moving over faster

2008-05-11T11:23:00.000-07:00

17 Reasons for Superdelegates to move over to Obama before the May 20th Oregon Primary.

1. Barack Obama is favored to win Oregon by 6 to 8 percent.
2. The contest between both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton has activated a record number of voters to the democratic process. Not since 1992 (or when Bill Clinton won) have we seen this number and energy in the democratic party heading into a Presidential election.
3. The Clinton family all agree that regardless of the outcome for this election the “Democrats will be united" to win the Oval Office and many other important seats. Sen. Clinton pointed out that the recent poll results are indicating that white voters have been increasingly leaning towards her camp. Although true, stating the statistics has caused accusations of race baiting to surface within the party. To avoid any of this wild fire to spread any further, Sen. Clinton should step out of the race after the West Virginia primarybut before Oregon
4. Since the wishes of most voters who have supported Sen. Obama are that Sen. Clinton should drop out of this contest, it is wise to consider that it is these same voters or group that will accuse Sen. Clinton (Should Sen. Obama not win the Presidency) of wounding Sen. Obama irrevocably.
5. Should Sen. Obama not win the Presidency the party will need a leader to turn to. For that person to be Hillary Clinton she should consider stepping out of the race and make it clear to the party, her supporters, and those of Sen. Obama that it was to avoid any division within the party associated with race or gender.
6. Sen. Barack Obama would make a great President (this should have been the first reason)
7. Although Sen. Obama has negatives, those negatives are only vulnerable to voters that retain grudges stubbornly.
8. If Sen. Clinton drops out of this contest after West Virginia then she exits on a high note; always exit on a high note.
9. If Sen. Clinton were to win Oregon (on a fluke) the damage caused to Sen. Obama’s campaign would be too severe.
10. The progressive ideas that are at the heart of supporters of Sen. Clinton are not foreign to Sen. Obama.
11. A Republican president and a Republican controlled House and Senate has derailed our countries prime directive: to preserve itself by preserving its ethics.
12. Even if the only reason to enter Iraq in the first place was to arrest and hang Saddam Hussein, it’s time to leave. The exist strategy should have been to exit after Saddam Hussein was executed.
13. Not many of Sen. Clintons Supporters would blame her for stepping down after the Kuntucky primary but before Oregon.
14.The demographics indicate that the people that support Sen. Clinton are not as financially well off as those individuals that support Sen. Obama. So it is not very honorable to ask them to donate the little that they do have to help support a campaign that can not get past Oregon.
15. With some good old fashion TLC, the people of Florida and Michigan (or everyone else that will not participate in this process) will vote for Sen. Obama over John McCain.

16. He ran a good campaign and the "math" is on his side. The DNC through the RBC (rules and bylasws committee) will dilute the Florida and Michagan vote. That decision will sting Sen. Clinton supporters and add fuel to her momentum. The problem that the Democrats will face is how to redirect mommentum.

17. If Sen. Clinton finishes out the elections and on June 15th runs to embrace Sen. Obama there remains only four months to heal wounds. If Sen. Clinton drops out after Kuntucky then the extra time could make a big difference for the Democratic healing process or stratagy to take effect. Let me repeat, if Sen. Obama does not win Oregon the damage will be too severe to overcome the mommentum created by Sen. Clinton. Asking people to donate money to a campaign that can not win Oregon or this nomination is outragous and the issue may come back to hurt Sen, Clinton someday.

Rafael Buelna

Tie-Breakers

2008-05-06T22:11:00.000-07:00

I did not write the following post but I think it's worth reading so I posted part of it here for you to think about.

In April, Barack Obama called Indiana a ‘tie-breaker’ for the Democratic nominating process: "You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana."
At the time, Senator Obama’s comments seemed to be part of an elaborate plan to lower expectations for the Indiana contest. After all, roughly 20% of Indiana Democratic primary voters have been exposed to Senator Obama for years because they live within the Chicago media market. He’s never lost a state that borders his home-state of Illinois.
The fact that Indiana was an open primary - Republicans and independents can vote in the Democratic contest - also augured well for Senator Obama. He has regularly argued that he should be nominated because he “appeal[s] to Republicans and Independents in a way that none of the other nominees can."

Read The Full

A list for Superdeleates (regarding Sen. Clinton)

2008-05-06T22:06:00.000-07:00

1. Hillary Clinton has won the states that it takes to win a Presidential Election. Her election strategy is a proper strategy if it is important to count every vote and win the White House.
2. Sen. Clinton has negatives that are already known and expected while Sen. Obama has negatives yet to be tested.
3. The voters did not give the Superdelegates any cover to come out and support Hillary Clinton. This is a phrase that many political strategist are using to explain that the Superdelegates wanted Obama to lose North Carolina in order to justify their vote based on the belief that Sen. Obama is not capable of winning the General Election. The problem is that Sen. Obama did not give the Superdelegates any cover either by losing Indiana after suggesting that the state was a “tie-breaker.”
4. If it is a negative that Hillary Clinton did not win-over the black vote in North Carolina then it is a negative that Obama is hemorrhaging white votes.
5. It is a positive that Sen. Clinton has the support of middle-class America which are the same votes the GOP is after.
6. It is a negative that many Clinton voters do not want to support Sen. Obama in the event he wins the party nomination. This is not an issue that Sen. Clinton can control but can only help quell a little.
7. The Superdelegates are concerned about the tensions growing within Florida and Michigan voters. If Sen. Obama and Clinton were playing a board game then I would agree with not counting the votes of the individuals that came out to vote in both states. Since we are talking about people it is imprudent to fail and take into consideration that people may choose to punish the party out of spite and use their vote for revenge or not vote at all. Sen. Clinton may implore her supporters for unity but there is no assurance that they will forgive as easily as she can; remember Reagan Democrats are fiscally and security oriented.
8. Giving Hillary Clinton the nomination means the party takes less of a risk of losing any base support as suggested by the recent exit polls which points out that Obama supporters are willing to vote for Hillary more so than Clinton voters are williong to vote for Sen. Obama.
9. West Virginia (is this not cover?) If Hillary Clinton wins West Virginia then the Superdelegates have the cover they need to justify their vote for supporting Sen. Clinton based on their belief that Senator Obama can not win the general election considering his hemorrhaging of Reagan Democrats, white males, voters earning under 50k a year, women, independents, swing voters, etc.
10. Obama bases his appeal to the Superdelegates on the hope that he can win Florida, Colorado, Ohio and Michigan for an Electoral College victory, but he lost all four states.
11. It is very difficult to ask the people from Florida and Michigan for their support after not wanting their votes to count in the first place. Florida, Ohio or Michigan have to turn "blue" for the Democrats to win the White House, and that's our goal.
12. It is horrible to say that Hillary Clinton is “waiting for something horrible to happen to Barack Obama” which is what strategist are suggesting about Sen. Clinton. Sen. Clinton wants to win just like Sen. Obama, and does not want something horrible to happen to him anymore than he wants something horrible to happen to her. The only thing Hillary Clinton needs to happen is for the DNC to do the right thing and count the popular votes of Florida and Michigan and seat the delegates.
13. The idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket is not possible, according to many Obama supporters, while Hillary voters seem to enjoy this idea.
14. Hillary Clinton has a record of working across party lines and Sen. Obama does not.
15. If Hillary wins the upcoming primaries, it is ridiculous to deny the momentum she would have created. Too abruptly stop and then ask the voters to reactivate in support of the "real nominee" or Sen. Obama is a bit naive.

The magic number is somewhere above 270 which is part of the Electoral College process. Hillary Clinton will deliver. Sen. Obama can win but it is uncertain as to how much he can get done becaause of his short record on the Capital Hill. Hillary Clinton does not want her supporters to abandon Sen. Obama if the Superdelegates decide he is the best candidate to win the White House. Earlier today she said “If you voted for either one of us then you did not vote for ending the war in Iraq, Healthcare…”

Rafael Buelna

A win is a WIN!

2008-04-24T16:01:00.000-07:00

If the objective is the White House pick a person that middle - class Americans prefer!

Hillary Clinton

Well, are we all moving on?

2008-03-31T21:52:00.000-07:00

Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain want us to forget about “God damn America,” “there was sniper fire,” and “excuse me it’s Al-Qaeda.” There is no doubt that my fellow Americans can get past these distractive issues but the main stream media will never let it die.

Obama and His Church

2008-03-14T14:03:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's Belongs to a church in Chicago that had a minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and he is under fresh scrutiny, after an ABC News report Thursday on some of his controversial sermons. (press here)

In a sermon delivered last December, Wright argues Hillary Clinton's road to the White House is considerably easier than Barack Obama's because of his skin color. Geraldine Anne Ferraro was called a racist and her comments have been said to be "rediculous." I am not defending Ferraro but instead am asking shouldn't the Reverends words be examined too?

So after you watch the sermons for yourself there are some questions I have.

1. Why did it take so long for Obama to distance himself from the controversial comments by Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

2. What comments does Barack Obama not agree with? The statement that Senator Obama gave today in responce to this headline does not shed any light on what he does or does not agree with but only gives us generalities.

3. Is this the Church Anericans want their Leader to visit every Sunday?

4. Would any of us accept the idea of the Clintons belonging to a church that uses racially divisive language?

Rafael Buelna

Florida and Michigan?

2008-03-05T15:53:00.000-08:00

Florida and Michigan Primaries.

There are problems:

1. Voters in each respective state have died since the original primary and not counting those votes is disenfranchising citizens. People have moved away to other states or now have criminal records and can no longer vote. The point is that the process would be vary difficult.

2. The Campaigning will be ugly and can only hurt the party. Obama is the candidate that does not want the original primary to count and the idea of making every person, of both states, go through an expensive process for a second time is not too appealing. If Obama loses for a second time citizens will be more than annoyed he caused them to spend good money needlessly.

3. A Caucus disenfranchises the original primary voters.

4. Not counting the will of millions of voters which the DNC will need to overcome John McCain would be a mistake.

The plan:

It is understandable that there are individuals that want to redo the Florida and Michigan Primaries and others that do not. That an, “election redo” go smoothly, is also something I’m sure all side want.

The plan:

Split the Michigan delegates down the middle and divide the Florida delegates like the numbers fell during the original primary.

Barack Obama decided to take his name off the ballot in Michigan.That was a bad strategic move by the Obama Camp but if it will help move things along smoothly then it is worth it for our party to divide Michigan 50/50. Neither candidate campaigned in Florida so the playing field was fair to both parties. Those that participated in the Florida primary and those that did not both took the same risk that their vote would or would not count.

Since both Senators had their name on the ballot in Florida the delegates should be counted as the numbers dictate and the policies of that state mandate.

This process avoids litigation and is as close to the wishes of the people at the time of the original vote. The goal is to never disenfranchise any voter but in a case like this a proper course is to find a place or solution as close to what the will of the people was at the time the voting took place.

If a new primary is held then both Obama and Clinton need to vocalize to their supporters that the new outcomes are to be respected and each side needs to support the winner of this horse race.

Update 03/13/08

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's statement regarding the mail-in re-vote

"My first preference is to recognize the Jan. 29 primary. But a federal court ruled against Rep. Alcee Hastings and me, and said party bosses can ignore that vote. My next choice was a full-fledged revote run by the state. But officials said that would be too costly and insisted there wasn't time. In my view, at this late hour, mail-in balloting would be the most practical and fair way to let Florida voters have a full say in the selection of their Democratic nominee.
If anyone has another way of accomplishing this, or of honoring the earlier results without splitting the convention, it needs to be put on the table - and now, before it's too late. Time is short, and we need to make available for public comment a workable plan. The bottom line is: we all agree that the voters of Florida must be heard."

Rafael Buelna

It's getting "testy" out there.

2008-02-28T15:06:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton had to denounce a supporter in Texas today because of remarks about Senator Barack Obama that create unfounded generalities about African-Americans. Decide for yourself but the supporter said “when the blacks had the numbers... they did not help us…’ This is exactly the type of anger and hate that I dislike about politics. I applaud the quick response by Senator Clinton and hope that this kind of thinking is squelched by education. Here is a fact for anyone that cares to read on.

In Los Angeles, California, where I was raised Thomas J. "Tom" Bradley(December 29, 1917 – September 29, 1998) was the mayor of Los Angeles, California from 1973 to 1993 (five terms). Part of that success was a wonderful relationship with the multiple cultures that live in my city including the Latino population.

So, take it easy everyone, after all it’s only a nominee we’re selecting. Isn’t that right?
There are many other positive examples that need to be highlighted by our communities: maybe via educators.

Rafael Buelna

Confusing Fairytales

2008-02-28T08:42:00.000-08:00

CNN finally decides to look a little closer at the story about Bill
Clinton and the accusation that
The Clinton campaign was running the
“southern Republican Strategy”
according to Roland S. Martin against Barack Obama . Joe Johns is a CNN correspondent based in the network's Washington, D.C., bureau.

Joe Johns points out that while voters went to the polls to vote for Obama many said it was because of Bill Clintons remarks had “crossed a line.” Even Toni Morrison, who went so far as to call him "our first black president” wanted to retract those words because of the reporting and analysis on Bill Clinton and this remark he made.

It turns out that CNN now finds the time to clarify the issue. Joe Johns does a wonderful job at explaining how hate, anger and politics got the best of most people.

Moving Forward would have been not running the name of a President, who is a hero to the Democratic party, through the mud for nothing by the many CNN contributors day in and day out instead of clearing up the confusion. I understand it was a great political strategy to accuse Bill Clinton of using racist strategies against Senator Obama. That is, however, still playing the race card.

View the report by Joe Johns yourself by pressing here.

The title of the CNN story is “Bill Clinton takes a back seat” and you will have to scroll down to find it a little

CNN describes the story as Joe Johns reports on Bill Clinton's less visible role and whether it's helping his wife's presidential campaign but the story highlights very well the misconception that voters had about Bill Clinton and Hillary’s Campaign.

Rafael Buelna

The Clinton Campaign

2008-02-26T22:04:00.000-08:00

Like so many of you I have heard the analysis of the Clinton campaign and I have heard that the Clinton camp is worried. On the other side experts say that Obama has run a good campaign an so is resting a bit easier tonight as a result of it all.

Let me tell you a little story and why I think it relates to how the campaign is going for Hillary Clinton. Years ago in San Francisco, Ca I attended a Cinco De Mayo Fiesta on the other side of Van Ness Boulevard, outside of City Hall. The Festival was wonderful. With a beer in our hands a friend and I sang, along with the band War, “the Cisco kid was a friend of mine…” This dates me but I was surprised that War was playing there that day.

Bill Clinton was the nominee that year and decided that he would shake hands with voters at the festival. I was one of the many that shock his hand that day. I shouted as he took my hand and asked, as politely as I could while shouting, if he wouldn’t mind hearing me out on an issue. Like a gentleman he grabbed my hand and leaned towards me and said “sure!.” I asked “will you put a ramp on the White House?” He looked at me and said “I’m sure you can get in around through the Garden Room.”

What you don’t know yet is that I am a paraplegic and use a wheelchair to get around. A drunk driver and the family wagon collided when I was three years old.

Mr. Clinton moved on and I turned because Fawzi (my friend ) was excited and wanted to know what I had asked. Fawzi laughed because he thought I would’ve asked a better question. Bill Clinton thought he understood and was obviously too busy to talk any further.

I wanted Bill Clinton to put a ramp straight up the front of the White House. I wanted the world to see that Americans loved and respected their disabled. In my eyes the encouragement that this symbolic gesture would have made to the present disabled population around the world and the new disabled created every day (like Veterans at war) would have been wonderful. The back entrance to the White House is the obvious answer to my question what Mr. Clinton missed was my symbolic need to be seen and heard. I also new how important that ramp would have been for me to see back when I was a disabled child.

The Clinton Campaign is being out paced because Obama is feeding the symbolic needs of voters. By targeting symbolic needs a candidate breaks walls or psychological barriers. On the other hand not taking the time to ask a simple secondary question (Like Bill forgot to as me) can leave a wall up and impenetrable.

Another example of the Symbolic Feeding of Needs is the need to punish partners or people after they have affairs or cheated on us. Many people did not get to enjoy the symbolic sacrifice of Bill Clinton. Hillary left them with a need to see a cheater bleed because she decided to defend the marriage. While taught to forgive by many of our religions people reinforce marriage by making this a line not to cross. If society were to change this sacred cow then people would feel too vulnerable to enter into marriage.

Obama finds the symbolic need and feeds it. People complain that they do not hear hard facts on issues coming out of the Obama campaign. The reason is that the Obama campaign has found that feeding symbolic needs has a greater affect than sticking to issues and facts. It’s working now but it may not during a general election.

Rafael Buelna

The Media and its Objectivity

2008-02-26T20:21:00.000-08:00

CNN spent all day analyzing how wrong everyone is that see or sense an imbalance in election coverage. On CNN today (on Anderson Cooper) an Obama strategist, Jamal Simmons, got away with saying “I think she was kind of testy“ about Hillary Clinton.
This phrase means she has too much testosterone in her or she has balls, its low and rude to refer to a woman in this way especially a nominee of the Democratic party. It is as rude as talking about how Obama is articulate and well dressed: remember.
Can anyone get away with saying Barack Obama acted like a pussy when asked about the Palestinian issue. Instead of saying what he really feels on this issue, Obama stuffs his true feelings in order to court the Jewish-American Vote.
No, I doubt a person could get away with saying that and not get attacted in some form or another. I agree with the Senators current position regarding the Israel and the Palestinian issue but will his position change? Jamal Simmons should apologize but I know he’ll just smirk his lip and silently tell me to F@#k off.

Maybe SNL should do a spoof on how the media defended itself all week.

Rafael Buelna

Voters, McCain and Latinos

2008-02-26T14:37:00.000-08:00

During a general election the Latino vote may not hold for Obama. Obama has said that he would sit down and talk to the new leader of Cuba and that turned off many Cuban-Americans.
But it is not only the Cuban-American Latinos that may not be there for Obama. Latinos understand that McCain has the best chance at passing immigration reform. Since the McCain package and the Hillary package do not vary too much McCain is the Latinos' next pick in the event Hillary does not get the nomination. A great beginning is a quote from Lou Dobbs “Obama lets them drive to their amnesty while Clinton has them walk.”

An Obama Vs McCain election aggravates the issue of “illegal immigration” more than a McCain Vs Clinton election does. Obama is giving a Drivers License to undocumented immigrants before going through a process: this does not go down easy with independents, Democrats or Republicans.

Clinton offers a permit to drive but only while going through a process. This idea is not distasteful to the same parties.

Latinos experienced proposition 209 in California and learned. Independents, Democrats and Republicans all voted to disappoint Latinos. So, Latinos have learned to go with the candidate that offers a reasonable solution to their problems and that the far left or right solutions will only leave them with nothing.

McCain offers reasonable Immigration reform and becasue Obama has Flipped Flopped on NAFTA and unstable on the Israeli Palestinian issue the Senator does not seem like the winning horse to back after the primary.

Latinos Understand why Hillary, as a First Lady had to support Bill Clinton on NAFTA, but respect her for coming out against it. Senator Obama did not have such an excuse. Moreover, Latinos understand why Hillary voted for the war in Iraq at one point and now stands agaisnt it: she wanted to be president; it really makes no difference to the majority of them.

If Obama faces McCain, McCain will have to up-the-anti on Obama by getting tougher on undocumented immigrants as a form of throwing raw meat to his troops. As a result of having policies at such odds with each other to begin with this, election tension, will only make life harder on undocumented immigrants: it especially increases during an election.

During the tense moments of an Election between Hillary and McCain, it will be harder for McCain to distance himself from a platform he's embraced and both sides have mostly accepted.

It looks like Obama might win Texas so good luck Democrats!

I'll be a Latino, Male, Hillary supporter that will vote for Obama in the presidential election but from what I've been hearing I think I'll be alone.

According to Sam Stein Bush and Obama Agree on Preemptive Strikes

2008-02-22T19:12:00.000-08:00

Journalist that favor Obama are now giving the Senator credit for a Kill in Pakistan. Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Mr. Stein recently gave Barack Obama credit for the killing of Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan. Mr. Stein wants Democrats to think that, just maybe, the Bush administration took their queue from a statement made by Barack Obama. Stein writes:
In August, Sen. Barack Obama had made the argument that, as president, he would target Al Qaeda officials in Pakistan even without the country's acquiescence -- the type of attack that, six months later, proved to be successful.
A candidate in the Democratic Party does not need credit for any military preemptive strike. That is what happened in Pakistan when in late January U.S. forces, acting with autonomy inside Pakistan, were able to target and kill Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander. The President thought that there was a danger and reacted with a preemptive strike. Only this time it all turned out great for our military because we hit the target, unlike in Iraq. United States forces actually gave notice to Pakistan but only as the killing was about to happen. Had there been a mistake of any sort I doubt Mr. Stein would want to give any credit to Senator Obama. After all would Mr. Stein write an article that stated “an idea of Barack Obama blew up in the face of President Bush. Military strikes in Pakistan and wrong people killed?” I don't think Mr. Stein would write such a headline or post or article.

Rafael Buelna

Independents and the Undocumented Immigrant

2008-02-22T08:52:00.000-08:00

My big concern with Barack Obama is that his platform is too polarizing. While Hillary and McCain have differences between their approach to the "Immigration Issue" those differences are not as divisive as what Barack Obama offers. There is a misconception that Hillary Clinton does not want undocumented immigrants to drive to work or as Lou Dobbs insist we label them "illegal immigrants." The other misconception is that Barack Obama is going to hand out a Drivers License like membership cards to a supermarket.

A Polarizing Difference.

Hillary wants an undocumented worker to learn English, pay a fine, wait in back of a the line and then get their official documents. There is nothing in what I have read or heard of Clintons Plan that does not allow those individuals, within the proposed process, to have a temporary drivers permit while they're going through the process and waiting in the "back of the line." This idea is not distasteful to independents, democrats and some republicans during an election. However, giving out a drivers license as a promise during an election does not go down well with the same political groups. Lou Dobbs describes the difference as "Barack has them drive to get their Amnesty while Hillary has them walk." Hillary Clinton needs to explain that her process all happens simultaneously. Meaning, an immigrant would drive to the finish line of the process because after finishing an immigrant would have learned English and have established themselves as productive people worthy of citizenship.

A Great Promise.

Independents and Republicans have common ground on the issue of "illegal immigrants and a drivers license." Independents are more likely to vote republican because of this issue. The Obama Platform causes tension during a general election because it hands out a drivers license to an undocumented immigrant before a process is completed instead of a permit while going through the process which is a stricking difference. During an election to pick a nominee for our party this issue is less important because voters are under less stress and more likely than not belong to the same party.
It is true that in some states voters can vote across party lines. Consider that during a Presidential Election undecided voters and independents have to pick a side. In contrast to a primary where tactical voting occurs. An example of tactical voting is when a voter participates in a parties primary to vote for a candidate who they do not intend to vote for in the general election. The purpose is to secure a weaker opponent for their party to confront during a presidential election.

CNN posted a poll where John McCain wins a general election and this is evidence that the independents that are bloating the results of Barack Obama during a primary will abandon him in a general election. Rank and File democrats will hold for Hillary Clinton, especially since her and McCain would not have as much tension over "illegal immigration" as McCain and Obama do currently.

Rafael Buelna

Independents Abandon Barack Obama According to CNN

2008-02-21T13:37:00.000-08:00

CNN has confirmed my article titled “ A Drivers License For Illegal Immigrants.” CNN released its poll today and Texas is leaning 50% for Hillary Clinton and 48% for Barack Obama. More important CNN also posted poll results that indicate John McCain wins in a race against both Obama and Clinton.

The thinking around this issue is that Barack Obama will surpass Hillary Clinton by March 4th or take a major victory away from Clinton by at the very least making it a close race. After Obama passes Clinton and wins the nomination the hope is that he will over come John McCain who CNN reports is in the lead if a presidential race was held today.

According to conventional thought since Obama loses to McCain by less than Hillary a Democrat should lean towards Obama in order to give him a chance. Moreover, since “Democrats” are coming out in great number to vote, the party has a very good chance against John McCain.
The CNN poll that indicates that McCain will win against a match up with Obama also indicates that independent voters will abandon Obama during a presidential election. The great number of voters that have come out to vote this election season are made up of a great number of independents. While Hillary has solid support from Democrats Obama is counting on independents for victory and they are currently indicating that they will vote for McCain in a general election.

So, Barack Obama has election results bloated by votes that were cast by independents that will not be there for him in the race for the White House. Lou Dobbs will make sure of that if the issue “illegal immigration” climes the charts of importants to the U.S voter.

Rafael Buelna

2008-02-21T10:03:00.000-08:00

A Drivers License For Undocumented Immigrants?

2008-02-21T09:55:00.000-08:00

I did not hear the congratulations to Barack Obama by Hillary Clinton. If she did not give him the “good going” she should: it’s good sportsmanship. So, if she did not, I will, GOOD GOING BARACK!

Unfortunately, Obama has only pulled in front of Clinton by a few delegates. March 4th does not look good for him even with the momentum he carries with him after Tuesdays elections. If Obama does not win, overwhelmingly, then the match up either lasts until the last state votes, until the convention in Colorado or it is decided by Superdelegates. Howard Dean has commented that he does not want this contest to go past April. After that date the decision is going to be made by Superdelegates and that idea does not sit well with people.

Superdelegates will have to consider who is the better nominee who carries the winning platform that has the best chance at taking the party into the White House. While Barack Obama has an enthusiastic campaign his platform falls short of what can withstand a presidential race. The biggest problem for Obama is going to be undocumented workers or as Lou Dobbs like to call them illegal immigrants. Barack Obama has made it part of his platform to give undocumented immigrants a drivers license. In New York “facing heavy opposition in his home state, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Wednesday withdrew his plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants but lashed out at the federal government for leaving the problem of illegal immigration up to states to manage…” .

Before any reader starts defending the issue “drivers licenses for illegal immigrants” this is not an argument for or against that subject. I am pointing out election strategy or political science.

One side of the political thought is that because McCain does not score high on this issue (illegal immigration) with his party members, there will be little room for him to critique Obama. In other words, John McCain is practically a democrat when comparing his ideas on illegal immigration to other members in his party. The problem is that this same thinking did not work out very well in New York last November in a state that Hillary Clinton is the Senator of, that’s why Hillary didn’t support the Bill: it was too risky.

Independents, spurred on by Lou Dobbs, overwhelmed Gov. Eliot Spitzer and he had to abandon the idea. Rank and File Republicans and independents have common ground on this issue while Democrats and Independents do not. While this issue is being ignored now by the mainstream media, the GOP will highlight this difference between the candidates and seduce independents during the presidential race. So, Barack Obama has already lost on this issue in New York because New York has already spoken. Obama needs to deliver big states on election night and a drivers license for illegal immigrants is going to hurt his chances.

In a short poll I ran, more voters, Democrat, Independent and Republican, did not agree with giving a drivers license to illegal immigrants and agreed that it would give McCain an advantage. Why would an independent that did not agree with Obama on this issue and thinks it will give McCain an advatage vote for Obama? This may only mean that leaders of the Democrats may want to consider that the independents that are voting for Obama now will abandon him in the presidential election because of this issue.

Latino voters that feel excited about a drivers license may want to think twice about the chances of such a bill making it past Congress. That’s kind of like Obama promising guy marriage rights just to get the gay and lesbian vote and we know Obama or Hillary would not do that.

Rafael Buelna

Is an Election just a competition?

2008-02-21T09:32:00.000-08:00

Is a democratic election something as simple as just a Competition or is it more, something else? Our Constitution calls for electing a president it does not set the rules for parties to select nominees. The rules are not set in the same stone as a law. The rules of baseball, football, or any game are set by the players and owner of teams etc and the players understand that “it’s just a game.” Politics is a different animal altogether because it is not a game.

The lives of people are at stake, the future of a country and planet and that is more important than the egos of people who will be bruised if their candidate of choice does not win. The purpose of a party deciding on a nominee is to find the best horse for the race. In case any of you have forgotten that race is to the Oval Office. At the end of an election if your parties horse loses more is at stake for people than in just any competition. So, to begin with lets not denigrate an election occurring in the United States and for its president as a regular-old-run-of-the-mill, COMPETITION.

Howard Dean is a party leader and has the authority to change the rules when ever he wants: it’s our party. The party will maneuver itself anyway it can in order to survive. This is true in politics for a party the same as it is in war for an army. If counting the delegates of Florida and Michigan is for the betterment of the party then that is what the party will do. Florida and Michigan are not states that are guaranteed to light up blue on election night. The party is claiming to “punish" the people of Florida and Michigan for what their party leaders decided. Nobody likes to be punished and the people that remember who punished them will not react kindly the next time their asked to help the party.

After all, why should they, if the party decided they can do without the people of Florida and Michigan in the election for a nominee the people just might decide the party can just do with out them in the presidential race. There is plenty of evidence that highlights how voter apathy increases the more they feel ignored. Think about how you would feel if your state was being “punished” by your party. The enthusiasm of victory for Floridians and the people of Michigan was robbed by a rule not set in the foundations of law but rules set in a flexible foundation meant to meet the undulating needs of a party.

It does not matter that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama decided on these rules before the race began because this race is about more than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it is about people and keeping voters activated and feeling as if they are part of something. Barack Obama can continue to make the playground argument “don’t change the rules after the game started” but he should consider that we are not playing games. How is Barack Obama going to ask roughly over one million and a half people in Florida and others in Michigan ( that voted Hillary Clinton) to get exited about voting him into the White House when he just finished insisting that they be punished by ignoring what they had to say and calling their opinion a “beauty contest.”

I think an election for the highest office in a democracy is more than just a simple competition witch should be held to play ground rules. Wolf Blitzer thinks that both states will end up using the causus system to get past this issue. "I suspect we will see caucuses in Michigan and Florida if this race remains unresolved. That is possible. The Democratic Party big shots would prefer that to a brokered convention on the floor in Denver."

–CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer

Rafael Buelna

The Jindal strategy

2008-02-17T11:35:00.000-08:00

The consequences of Sen. Obama using the Jindal strategy against Hillary Clinton is that the Jindal strategy is meant to overcome the very party Sen. Obama is a part of, namely the Democrats.
Bobby Jindal was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer about various issues but what cought my attention was when he was asked about the nominees for the presidential elections coming up this year. In case you don’t know Bobby Jindal, he is the very effective and charismatic Governor of Louisiana that also happens to be a Republican. The election to seat Gov. Jindal was a very interesting one especially when compared with the current thrash happening between all the current nominees in both parties. Rush Limbaugh recently had an interview with Bobby Jindal.

The transcript of the interview can be read if you press the hyperlink. I want to bring attention to a few of Mr. Limbaugh words:

“..I'll tell you...Im going to give you a name that would make me jump for joy… I did an interview with Bobby Jindal. He is the next Ronald Reagan, if he doesn't change. Bobby Jindal, the new Governor of Louisiana is the next Ronald Reagan. He's young. He was just sworn in for his first term. He's the guy that beat the liberal Democrat machine throughout Louisiana. He did it on 100% conservatism…”

The Jindal strategy

Mr Limbough goes on to discuss the pros and cons of John McCain choosing Gov. Jindal as his Vice-Presidential running mate. What is important to keep in mind is how Gov. Jindal accomplished his magnificent victory. The red highlighted words are indicative of the overall final analysis of his election strategy: he did it on 100% conservatism.

The first thing a traditional Liberal will do is to disregard what Rush Limbough has to say and point to evidence that he is an irrelevant political commentator. Regardless of how you feel about Mr. Limbaugh it is not only him that has this impression about Bobby Jindal. Many conservative leaders, rank and file republicans and independents feel that he is their next “Ronald Reagan.” The interview with Wolf Blitzer revealed something interesting about Mr. Blitzer, apparently he studied the speeches, their ideas and tone, which Bobby Jindal gave during his election and concluded that they are similar to the speeches and ideas that Barack Obama is giving now during his tours around the country.

Gov. Jindal won voters in the same demographics that Barack Obama is currently enjoying. SO, make the connection, if a Reagan democrate has an effective voice in government why vote for a candidate that appears in looks and sound, the same. I am only pointing out that Barack Obama is winning voters using the strategies that brought victory to the good Governor and what consequences using such a strategy means for the future of the Democratic party

Double Edged Swords

During the Presidential Election the Govenor is going to support the Republican nominee like any good Repulican would. If Bobby Jindal is the original Barack Obama then independents will not need to vote for Barack Obama if they have Bobby Jindal claiming the ideas, tone and message for himself and proclaiming that his ideas are borrowed by Sen. Baraack Obama. Conservative are exited about Bobby Jindal and his message because he turns the tables on Senator Obama and pictures him as a Johnny-Come-Lately and part of a political machine disguised as change.

Rafael Buelna

Mac endorses Hillary Clinton!

2008-02-14T17:20:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton has been endorsed by the Mac "... she is ready to get to work out of the box, creative and can run multible platforms better than her competition..." said the award winning computer. John McCain has too much weight on his back.

Music and Animation by Rafael Buelna

Parody of Apple Mac add

A Drivers License and The Undocumented

2008-02-12T11:48:00.001-08:00

Barack Obama wants to give undocumented workers or illegal immigrants in the United Stated a drivers license to use while they are in the United States working. Voters seem to have stronge opinions on this issue.

How do you feel? Take the Poll above!

From Super Tuesday to March Madness

2008-02-11T13:30:00.000-08:00

The History Books

According to the good old dusty records the last three times the democrats were this unable to unequivocally decide on a party nominee they also lost the presidential races: 1968, 1972, 1981.
Here is my one recipe to evade disaster but first a list of things that fall under the heading

AVOYSION:

A. The Democrats need Donna Brazile, we all do, so avoid losing her.
B. Waiting until the Convention to decide who the party nominee will be: avoid this.
C. Ignoring what the people of Michigan and Florida had to say or voted for: not good
D. Not giving more attention to votes not counted in Los Angeles: fix it.
E. Losing the Presidential Race: missing the goal.

Lets all catch up

To make sure we are all on the same page everyone has to catch up to where the race is so far. CNN has great charts and graphs and pictures, etc so please go there to verify the following facts.
CNN political analyst Donna Brazile is upset because she wants the people to be given the chance to decide on their nominee and not the Superdelegates "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Brazile said, but what happens after March or April? "I think we're going to have a nominee by middle of March or April." Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said. "But if we don't, then we're gonna have to get the candidates together and make some kind of arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention. That would not be good news for either party."

On April 22 the Pennsylvania primary takes place and after that 11 states remain on the May and June calendar. This may mean that including Michigan and Florida 13 states will not have a say in who will be their parties nominee for the presidency. Howard Dean is feeling pressure to make an early decision because the republican party already has an obvious nominee in John McCain who has already turned to running a presidential race while the two leading democrats are still beating each other up.

Superdelegates are being lobbied not only by the nominees but by an array of people and the media wants to know what will those superdelegates base their decisions on. Will the Superdelegates base their decisions on personal choice or who won in their state, district, the national popular vote or all the above?

The next round of States are the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia followed by Texas, Vermont, Ohio and Rhode Island. The hope is that these six states will line up overwhelmingly, somehow, in one way or another in favor of one democratic nominee over the other. The chances of this happening is very low and that is why Howard Dean made the decision to signal that March or April marks a deadline.

The Recipe

If After March 4th or April 22nd a clear nominee is visible and is well on their way to getting the simple majority 2025 out of 4049 then the party can begin to congeal against the GOP. The rest of the primaries or caucuses will happen as scheduled and maybe one of the nominee will drop out. However, if the math does not add up in favor of one nominee over the other then the DNC may want to consider my recipe for the 08 presidential election.

1. Move up all elections (primary and Caucus) scheduled for May and June into April or March. This gives all of the States scheduled to vote after April 22nd a chance to be heard. Lets call it March Madness.

2. Unless the Obama camp wants to pay for the cost of a new election they should agree to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida. Dividing the Florida and Michigan delegates evenly among each candidate does not reflect the wishes of the people in those two states. The Obama camp is creating the appearance of holding these two states hostage unless they agree to change their voting system from a primary into a caucus, stage a different election, and pay for it themselves. Both Hillary and Obama equally did not campaign in Florida and Michigan and that fact makes the vote in Florida and Michigan a fair and even one. It was the decision of Senator Obama to take his name off the Michigan Election Ballot and not a requirement of the party so that was just a bad tactical decision on his part. Divide the delegates just like every other state has done todate and add the number of people who voted to the tally of each candidate.

3. Create a panel of ex-judges to investigate the voting issues in Los Angeles where independents feel their votes are being unjustly set aside because of a confusion on the
Ballot during February 5th. After all no one wants that kind of confusion to happen again.

The numbers indicate that many democrats came out to vote during the primaries but many independents came out too.

Relying on the enthusiasm of independents during a presidential election is not very wise. It should not be assumed that the independents that voted for a democrat in a primary will necessarily vote the same during a general presidential election.

Rafael Buelna

Michael Moore answers Barack Obama on the Larry King Live program

2008-02-07T13:45:00.000-08:00

Mr. Moore noted that he had a problem voting for Hillary during the primary because of her Senatorial record on Iraq. Mr. Moore is at odds with both candidates on this issue. Mr. Moore wants the troops brought home immediately (see bottom right of Mr. Moore's webpage for the headline "Bring Them Home Now") while Senator Obama favors an “Over-the-Horizon” approach:

Drawing down our troops in Iraq will allow us to redeploy additional troops to Northern Iraq and elsewhere in the region as an over-the-horizon force. This force could help prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, consolidate gains in Northern Iraq, reassure allies in the Gulf, allow our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda wherever it may exist, and demonstrate to international terrorist organizations that they have not driven us from the region.

Senator Obama is under the impression that moving our troops to “Northern Iraq” is the same as getting our troops out of Iraq. Hillary Clinton has consistently stood behind her idea regarding a phased withdrawal. While Barack Obama has an official position or an “Over-the-Horizon” policy stated on his webpage he is creating the impression, during his appearances, that he wishes to bring back our troops immediately. The Republicans discribe the two democratic nominees positionon on Iraq as the difference between running (Obama) and walking (hillary). In fact both candidates maintain troops in Iraq and build up our armed forces in Afganistan: the war continues no matter who we pic.The impression that Senator Obama is creating regarding removing our troops from Iraq is a false one because he planes to keep troops in Iraq and increase troops in Afganistan.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic primary, Barack Obama is uncertain that she could get the same people to vote for her who prefer him. Well, on Larry King Live, Mr. Moore said that if Hillary wins the primary he had no problem voting for her. Now, if Mr. Moore can vote for Hillary I am sure others can too.

Mr. Moore also stated that not counting the votes of Florida and Michigan was “a crime.” Why is Michael Moore holding back and not defending disenfranchised voters considering one of them is his home state? How does Mr. Moore balance accepting that millions of voters, in two states, will not have their votes counted because of a silly technicality with wanting to do the right thing for his country? That is if doing the right thing for ones country means that we all accept the idea that every ones vote should count.

Hillary Clinton is proving to be supported by mostly working class Americans and not the upper middle class. It then should be no surprise that she is raising less money over the internet than Barack Obama. All jokes aside, the internet is a luxury item and these are the first things that people stop purchasing during an economic down turn. It is not easy to spend time on the internet or have a connection if a person has lost a home to the mortgage crises.

The four millions Hillary raised on February 5th from 35,000 new supporters does not include the 5 million she lent to her campaign months ago and has paid back. That Hillary Clinton raised over four million dollars after Super Tuesday is very impressive considering that working class Americans are mostly behind her. John Edwards was having the same problem raising money because his supporters are mostly poor, working class or lower middle.

Rafael Buelna

What Will Michaell Moore Say?

2008-02-06T16:51:00.000-08:00

Michaell Moore will speak today on Larry King Live. It will be a pleasure to hear what he has to say about the issues affecting our lives to some people and to others it will be a painful experience. No matter how good his intentions are Mr. Moore seems to be a polarizing figure. CNN is advertising that he will endorse a candidate.

Mr. Moore posted on his webpage an article by the MSNBC news services where it states:

Looking aheadAlready, the Clinton and Obama campaigns were looking ahead to contests Saturday in Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska and Washington state and primaries next Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Increasingly, it looked as though the Democrats’ historic race between a woman and a black man would go into early spring, possibly longer.”

The last part of this statement says that this primary election is a “race between a woman and a black man.” It is obvious that Hillary is a woman and Barack is a black man. Unfortunately, if this election is “historic” because of those obvious distinctions then the issues are being pushed to the side and there is nothing “historic“ about that.

Mr. Moore wants this to be an election about issues, like anyone else, but the article on his website is limiting this Democratic primary as a struggle between race and gender. If this elections is just about race and gender then the democrats have no chance at winningt eh election for the oval office.

Making this election about who was first against the Iraq war does not weigh much either. Right now the top issue is the economy and this was the issue that John Edwards championed before it was hijacked by both Obama and Clinton. So, who champions an issue from the start does not seem to matter but who is smart enough to adopt that issue does matter.

Both Hillary and Obama have adopted portions of Edwards' platform, which did not vary much from the Green Party.

Although, the Obama camp and the news media are ignoring the results of the Florida and Michigan primary the DNC can not: at least not for very long. Remember that Florida is the state where a very important Presidential election had to be eventually decided by the supreme court. I’m pointing this out because it highlight just how important Florida can be during a presidential election and remember folks although these elections are to pick the nominee for your party, it’s a Presidential campaign we’re headed into. So, ignoring Florida is not smart unless part of the strategy is to deactivate over one and a half million people that voted democrat. On Election night Democrats need Florida to light up blue. If we add up all of John Edwards votes and those that Obama received during the Florida primary they were not enough to overcome the enthusiasm that Floridians have for Hillary.

Currently the people of Florida are feeling ignored and that feeling has proven to deactivate voters. Obama is now associated with not wanting the delegates of Florida to count. The wishes of the people of Florida are being set aside because of a party rule and that reality does not match up well with the message of Obama that is wanting to bring power to the peoples’ vote or wanting every ones vote to count. The Obama camp has threatened to go to court unless every vote is counted in California because Obama feels a silly technicality should not disenfranchise people.

Well, that Florida moved its primary up a few weeks is just a silly technicality (that the democratic party is in charge of deciding and not a court of law) so why shouldn’t their delegates count?

Maybe it’s because the delegates in Florida would not benefit Obama and that, Folks, is politics as usual.

So. Mr. Moore should think twice about endorsing anyone.

Rafael Buelna

Hillary can do Nothing right and Barack can only do good

2008-02-06T15:15:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is ridiculous but listening to the media how can anyone get any other impression?

The value of endorsements have been widely discussed by the legitimate media or the big honchos, like CNN, FOX etc: sometimes they’re good, sometimes they’re unwanted, unsolicited and so on.

Senator Kennedy endorced Obama but could not deliver his own state of Massachusetts nor the “Latino” vote.

Hillary Clinton is currently ahead in delegates and won impressive victories (both candidates did) but media pundits, except for Paul Begala, couldn’t give her any credit. Not one “good job Hillary,” or not even a lackluster “congratulations” was uttered by most of the media. Instead, panelist headed by Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper had no problem discussing how good Barack was performing and how he was the man of change.
Paul Begala
CNN contributor Roland S Martin said “Clinton is hugely popular in Democratic circles, but truth be told, that pales in comparison to the love and affection showered on Obama. This is a guy who brings people to tears just by speaking…”
Roland S. Martin

It is presumptuous to imply that a person that voted for Hillary Clinton did not vote out of “love and affection” but was simply manipulated by a political machine. I am sure Mr. Martin can point to a study or poll that indicates that Hillary has a “likeability” problem.
Unfortunately, a big portion of voters after February 5th , in key states, are not interested in those studies or polls. It is not very professional to disregard the idea that many people do love Hillary and have affection for her and would very much like to see her in the White House.

Statements, like the one above by Mr. Roland, are divisive because it makes presumptions about people and so serves to strangle discussion rather than creating a friendly, safe and inviting place for people to speak their mind. So, if you support Hillary don’t forget to cry at the next Hillary Clinton event because Mr. Martin is watching and unless you cry, he thinks you don’t care.
Obama stated this morning that Hillary Clinton came out on top on Super Tuesday because of her “political machine.”

After a primary all Democrats are suppose to unite to win the prize or the White House. If Obama wins the primary does his statement mean he will not need the assistance of the “machine?” Hillary Clinton is part of the Democratic party and calling her part of a political machine means that during the general election Barack Obama will be painted as a hypocrite by republicans for using that same “machine” to try and win the White House. The GOP will not help make the distinction between calling the Clinton family a political machine and calling the Democratic party a political machine.

Besides isn’t the Kennedy family a politcal machine or part of one?

Rafael Buelna

The Florida Primary

2008-01-31T16:58:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, CNN had just finished interviewing Hillary Clinton and their banner flashed "79%" of the votes had been counted or 1,534,200 people had voted for either of the three Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton had been declared a victor along with John McCain. The Media made it clear that the delegates would not count for Hillary. When the Obama campaign was asked to comment about Hillary’s win, their answer was that Florida was nothing but a “beauty contest” and that “it didn’t count.”

Voters understand that the Florida delegated might not count but dismissing the votes of over one and one half million people as “a beauty contest” is irresponsible. I’d wager my bottom dollar that in the event that Obama wins the candidacy, he will want the voters of Florida to be as electrified as they were on Tuesdays primary during the Presidential election .

Any candidate should know never to alienate voters and never make them feel like they don’t count. It’s true that Obama was talking about the delegates not counting but he just sounded upset about not winning in Florida. Instead of allowing his surrogates to release those negative press releases, he should have been busy congratulating the over half a million people that made the effort for him in Florida.

When CNN reported that 81% of the vote was counted 789,812 votes were for Clinton, 517,978 votes for Obama and 229,410 for Edwards. Adding Obama and Edwards’ votes together would not have equaled a greater number of votes to overcome Hillary Clintons Victory. This indicates that in a State where no campaigning takes place Hillary Clinton had the edge. Both candidates equally did not campaign in Florida and by now both are vary well known to the voting public.
Moreover, regardless of the fact that the delegates will or will not count for Hillary Clinton ,the Media failed to give her little if any credit.

There is a double standard when it comes to giving Hillary credit when credit is due.

Rafael Buelna

Contest (Clinton vs Obama vs Edwards)

2008-01-29T14:05:00.000-08:00

Contest Closed

CONTEST! THE PRIZE IS A FREE ANIMATED GIF

The animation above is an "animated gif." There are more all over the web but it is hard to get the one you want. Especially if you are interested in being unique. (update, Edwards is out but you may still include his plan or not)

Many programs or web pages promise to make "ANY" animated gif for you but do not really give users many options.

A person may have unique ideas and a program or websites have little or no options to express that idea visually.

Or there is just to many other important things to do, you're not artistic but have great ideas.
Some people just want to add something new and unique to their blog or .com, .org, etc.

WELL, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE!

In exchange for your opinion on the plans that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards have for Iraq, I will create an animated gif FOR YOU and FOR FREE.

The Rules are: 1. Highlight each plan, compare and contrast each of the
Candidates Solutions explaining why one plan is better than the other
for our country.
2. Use your own name or post as anonymous.
3. Send me your email at rafael.buelna@gmail.com. so that I know where to send the PRIZE

4. After I have received a few postings (in the Comments section Below) I will post a poll (here at this Blog) where people can vote on their favorite entry.

The Winner will get a customized animated gif (within reason, no sound) of their choice or what ever you can imagine we'll work together to create it into an animatied gif. I also promise not to post your customized gif animation on my blogs or claim the work, unless the new owner gives me their permission. Posting an entry means that you agree with the rules and parameters of this Contest.

Contest ends February 5Th 2008

Post your Entry HERE -- in the Comments section -- for this post below

The State Of Our Union

2008-01-26T02:10:00.000-08:00

Each of the Candidates have ideas that deserve your attention. My point is to remind us a little about who we are. Besides the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a general email asking people for their take on "The Real State Of The Union" and on video. Personally I'm tired of being told just what the issues are during these speeches. During a State of the Union adress, oral or written, a leader should always remind us of who we are, where we came from, our positive points and where we need to improve but pointing out the details of issues and proposed solutions should be left to a different forum. In the past, many Presidents refused to present this speech orally for various reasons but instead wrote it out and sent it off for Congress to read on their own.

The words Love and Unity have been the least used words in the State of the Union speeches given by our presidents so far. The most used word has been War. If you've ever felt our country a little preoccupied with war maybe it's because our leaders do not emphasize a different part of our collective personality?

With this in mind I decided to emphasize "love" and "unity" in the speech/video (above) instead of "issues" and "solutions." Not that the latter doesn't matter but if a nation is feelling divided, think about what the role of a President should enphasize.

Together or Not

2008-01-14T20:36:00.000-08:00

Much ado about nothing or something?

Who Has the Better Case: Clinton, Obama, Edwards? or The Issues?

“Bill Clinton cites “list of 80 attacks” and Senator Barack Obama wondered why Hillary would down play the role of Dr. Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights Movement. John Edwards simply echoed Senator Obama.

These were the words and images that headlined today and that took over the air waves during an important election.

By the end of the Day the three contenders where turning down the tension within their camps and the political pundits were riding on high horses reminding us about “issues.” Contributor for CNN Roland Martin discussed his interview with former President Bill Clinton with CNN’s Reggie Aqui.

Mr. Martin is asked to explain why the issue of “race” has caused tension among the Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Mr. Martin laid out his points as follows:

A. The comments where not about Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

B. Major Garrett, A Reporter for FOX NEWS, read to Hillary Clinton comments Senator Barack Obama made at a rally for him in South Carolina.

C. According to Mr. Martin the speech given by Senator Obama was “about Dr. King, about President Kennedy and it related to words and their inspiration, and of course he [Senator Obama] was responding to her criticism of him during their debate in New Hampshire.”
Mr. Martin continued, “and so she responded by saying that Dr. King had a vision but it took LBJ to make that vision a reality by signing into law what the dream was about
And so it’s a very sensitive topic in terms of any kind of criticism of Dr. King some people took that as criticizing or saying that basically he was not the one who was able to accomplish what was done that in fact it took LBJ."

At this point all of what Hillary Clinton said, that is being disputed, is finished. Instead of ending the topic and explaining that citizens should move on and pay attention to important things like issues,

Roland Martin continued by adding:

1. “It’s also interesting that Hillary Clinton was a supporter of Barry Goldwater, he was a fierce opponent to civil rights so had her choice run for president in 1964 ,trust me, non of those bills would have been signed ” [Hillary had to be about 16, 17 years old and Hillary left the Republican party because of concerns over racist undertones in the Republican Party and to fight for Civil Rights].

2. Former President Bill Clinton’s comments regarding Senator Obama stance on the Iraq war Mr. Martin explained “… the whole notion of fairytale and some people took that as meaning his [Senator Obama’s] campaign, President Clinton said “No I was talking about his position on the Iraq War.”

3. New York Attorney general Andrew Cuomo comments “…you can Shuck and jive in news conferences but you can’t do so in the living room with people” Mr. Martin explained “that was perceived because shuck and jive is a negative sort of connotation among African-Americans”

4. Bill Shaheen comments about Senator Barack Obama were about Senator Obama and drugs and of course he was forced to resign immediately along with a second campaign volunteer for sending off an email meant to smear Senator Obama. Non of the comments had been authorized or condoned according to the Hillary campaign.

5. We are reminded that On January 13th Bob Johnson in south Carolina said “…sort of with a nod and a wink by saying , you know, “well the Clintons who have been fighting these issues for Africans Americans when Obama was doing things in the neighborhood, you know, I’m not going to get into it now, but, it was in his book.” Here is what the Associated Pres said.

Instead of clarifying Hillary Clintons’ words and then dropping the issue, Mr. Martin wanted to discuss the five issues above and Andrew Cuomo with Bill Clinton. Nothing was changed or helped by contributing an angry, divisive, combative interview with former President Bill Clinton to this debate. Mr. Martin listens for “tone of voice” to pass judgment on people so I applied the same technique while listening to him interview our former president. Anyone listening would hear anger and disrespect come through his voice.

An animated Roland Martin asked Former President Bill Clinton:

“when you take the comments made by former New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo …then of course Bob Johnson…. you shouldn’t have this back and forth…what is going on here with this whole issue…this whole notion of race, is this an attempt to draw Obama out to discuss it or this just in your opinion, them saying it one way and the Clinton campaign saying another?”
Bill Clinton answers “that’s something between Bob Johnson and Barack Obama.”

Much ado about nothing or the need to have a headline?

The Obama campaign does not want to have a discussion about race, because they (The campaign strategist for Barack Obama and the Senator) are very fearful of him being a black candidate and having a national conversation about race might scare white votes away according to Roland Martin. In the same way that speaking about gender “all the time” will scare male voters away, but Hillary does not talk about gender “all the time” and Obama does not talk about “race” all the time.

Mr. Martin accuses the Clinton campaign of wanting to have that national conversation (about race) because it’s “advantageous to them,“ “a reverse southern strategy,” “exploiting race like the Republicans” “they’ll deny it” Mr. Roland says.

In the end Mr. Martin did not have a problem with Hillary Clintons’ initial words/statement because he said “it did take a president” but said what she left out was that “Johnson was pressured.” Martin wants Howard Dean to end this issue, he wants Dean to tell them to focus on issues

Roland points the finger at “black shows and blogs” for starting to heat up the issue of race and Not Hillary or Barack Obama. What surprised me was that Senator Obama has not been silent on race.

The quotes below marked A - E are part of a speech where race was an issue Obama discussed.

In a Speech made on November 2, 2007 Senator Obama said

A. “ …But I know that because they were willing to overcome their fears and reach for a larger dream, the Supreme Court overturned "separate but equal," and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.”

B. “I know that Black parents in Clarendon are still having to go to court to give their children an equal education - fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education.”

C. “Now, I've heard that some folks aren't sure America is ready for an African-American president, so let me be clear: I never would have begun this campaign if I weren't confident I could win. But you see, I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. “

D. “Just imagine what we could do as partners in an Obama administration. Imagine a President who was raised like I was by a single mom who had to work and go to school and raise her kids and accept food stamps for a while. Imagine a President who could go into Holly Courts Apartments here in Manning or Scott's Branch High School in Summerton, and give the young men and women there someone to look up to. Imagine a President who fought each day to narrow the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be.”

E. “And if you can do that - if you can overcome your doubts, cast away your fears, and believe once again that real change is possible in this country - then I truly believe we can bring about the world that Harry and Eliza Briggs dreamed of for their children.”

Read the whole speech for yourself but there is no doubt that the Senator is asking his audience to get exited about having an African-American president. So, Mr. Roland and others should really consider putting an end to saying that Senator Obama does not want to talk about race or interject it into the conversation.

Obama was quoted January 14th saying “for them to somehow to suggest that we’re interjecting race as a consequence of a statement she made that we haven’t commented on is pretty hard to figure out.” It is not hard to figure out that the Senator interjected race into this contest during his speech on November 2nd.

All Senator Obama had to do was call Hillary Clinton and comment publicly after having that conversation, explain he and the other Candidates wanted to stick to the issues and help calm things down. Instead, the Obama campaign took their time that helped fester a venomous environment until late this Afternoon, letting a week go by before helping to turn down the tension.

Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party nominee for President in 1964, would have succumbed to the same “pressure” Linden B. Johnson did, had he become president, and signed “those bills” Roland Martin said he would not have. The reason Barry Goldwater would have signed those bills is the same reason LBJ did, the pressure and the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King. Mr. Martin said LBJ didn’t sign “those bills” out of the kindness of his heart but that applies to Barry Goldwater too, so the pressure that got to one man would have gotten to the other.

The fact that Hillary Clinton started out a confused youth that eventually blossomed is as beautiful as Barack Obama becoming a wonderful man after being a confused youth.

Oh, South Carolina, please explain to the U.S.A. that “It’s the economy stupid!”

Rafael Buelna
January 14th, 2008

Change? What is That?

2008-01-07T20:20:00.000-08:00

I'll leave the attack campaign to the Republican party. Remember what they did to an American Veteran (John Kerry was the victim of the Swift Boat campaign) they'll show no mercy to their enamy. Unfortuneatley, the political arena will become mean and nasty during the presidental race.
That's just the truth folks

Election 2008, The night before Iowa

2008-01-02T20:45:00.000-08:00

For the sake of argument lets say that all three contenders, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are all more than qualified to be President of The United States. After all, it is not polite to belittle any service to our country a candidate has performed.

During the presidential race the Republican base will ignite against any opposition party candidate no matter who we decide on: this is the nature of politics. Each candidate is a Democrat and so all three candidates are connected to the struggles of their party, past, future and present. So not one of the Democratic or Republican candidates can claim a “Fresh Face.”

A candidate can claim to be a “fresh face” in a political race but this strategy is a double-edged sword. Claiming to be the, fresh face, also works to deny that same candidates relevant experience for the job. In other words, how can a person have a fresh face and have relevant experience? That’s like playing football and not getting dirty.

When we voted for the John Kerry/John Edwards presidential ticket in 2004 we were ready for John Edwards to step into the Presidential seat in the event that something happened to the President. Kerry lost, but that did not change the fact that we felt John Edwards was qualified to be president if necessary.

Yes, John Kerry decided who his running mate would be but we united behind his choice, which was made to benefit his campaign but also our country. So, why should I change my mind now, Iowa? John Edwards simply kept serving the publics’ needs after 2004.

Is the reason I should change my mind because this is a new election with new issues? Take a look at the records for your self and you’ll quickly notice similarities between 2004 and the upcoming presidential election.

A. I voted for John Edwards because I felt he could fill the role as President.

B. Both of the other Candidates have said that Edwards would be their second choice.

C. John Edwards has the best chance at winning the presidential race against any of the Republican candidates, including the current mayor of New York City and independent, Michael R. Bloomberg. While the Iowa polls fluctuate the national poll indicating that voters feel John Edwards has the best chance during the presidential race has not changed.

D. Corporations outsource jobs Americans need to other countries in order to take advantage of cheap labor, little environmental protection rules and enforcement: John Edwards fought Corporations and won. So, won’t someone from Iowa, or anywhere for that matter, give me an answer?

Why should I or anyone else change their mind, who voted for Edwards in 2004?

Rafael Buelna January 2, 2007.

CNN Polls and Mr. Lou Dobbs at odds

2007-12-11T13:39:00.000-08:00

Below is a CNN report on a Poll that indicates what voters have on their minds these days. In order of importance the Economy, Iraq, health care, Terrorism, Iran, gas prices, poverty, Taxes and Immigration are the issue that voters want their leaders to work on. Notice that immigration is the last issue and that voters separate the issue from security, the economy, jobs etc. Unlike Mr. Dobbs would like, voters are not narrowing the issue to illegal immigration but instead are wanting to discuss the broader points.

In the last two days the news is that "immigration" made it into the top five concerns for voters. Still Lou Dobbs insists that this means that the subtopic or issue "illegal immigration" has also made it onto that list. But Americans know better than to narrow down the complicated issue of immigration to a "yes or no" limited conversation about a the subtopic "illegal immigration."

November 7, 2007
Americans have economy on the brain
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The state of the economy is the number-one issue on the minds of Americans as the presidential election approaches, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning.
Eighty-two percent of Americans said the economy will be extremely or very important to their vote for president. Economic conditions edged out Iraq by two points, with 80 percent of those surveyed saying that the war is 'extremely or very important' to their vote.
Also, among the top five issues on the public's mind when contemplating their next vote for president are health care (76 percent), terrorism (76 percent), and Iran (73 percent).
The state of the overall economy weighed more heavily on the minds of voters than specific economic issues such as gas prices (67 percent), poverty (65 percent), taxes (63 percent) and immigration (61 percent).
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was conducted over the weekend and had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.
– CNN Political Assignment Editor Katy Byron
Filed under Polls
Posted 11/7/2007 11:08:47 AM Permalink

It would be much more useful for Mr. Dobbs to spend his time outing U.S. Citizens that support out sourcing jobs, the abuse of cheap labor and its consequences.

Rafael Buelna

96 Comments

Immigration and Election 2008

2007-12-02T14:03:00.000-08:00

This animation asked the Question "how long should people wait in line who are attempting to immigrate properly?" or what is a reasonable amount of time?

According to a pew center study the issue "immigration" is not among the top five concerns to most voters across the political spectrum.

Another pew center study states that 76% of those polled "want more coverage of the [candidates positions on] issues." This implies that the issues have been defined by both the candidate and the Voter. Before, debating an issue it first must be defined. The issue, immigration, varies in its importance and meaning to each individual at various points in space and time and so polls will vary. The term "illegal immigration" narrows the issue "immigration." By narrowing the issue of immigration to illegal immigration the debate has been locked into a "Yes" or "No" limited discussion. Just saying no to illegal immigration is as ridiculous as just saying no to illegal drugs. Saying no is, with out a doubt, important to solving the problems associated with illegal immigration and drugs but "understanding the problem is the first step to recovery." The problem is that immigration is causing tension in our country once again. Check the Historic records and dust off the evidence that shows stressed citizens taking their angst out on immigrants both legal and illegal.

A closer look at that historical evidence points to leadership problems that exacerbate economic problems by encouraging people to migrate and enter our country with and without the proper documents. Leadership tends to deflect citizen angst rather than deal with its cause. For example, had leadership invested in the Canadian and Mexican infrastructure before entering into free trade agreements, the United States wouldn't be feeling the pains of a bad deal. The rule is that the opportunity cost of spending a dollar on something is everything else a person could have done with that same dollar. Had U.S leadership invested in Education (30) thirty years ago with the same veracity as it is funding the current Iraq War, less U.S Citizens would be seeking Entry Level Work (ELW).

So thirteen years after signing NAFTA and poor investment in Education we find ourselves wanting to build a Big Fence along the southern border. This big fence, according to its proponents, promises to solve this issue once and for all. Somehow U.S citizens, me included, have been convinced that as soon as U.S citizens get those jobs, being unjustly held by "illegals" our financial problems will disappear. Keep in mind that many of those jobs, citizens are craving, are currently occupied by individuals holding H-1B Visas. This visa group is incouraged to migrate by our leadership. Idealy ELW is reserved for newly arrived, documented immigrants. Also, citizens, were to be given the advantage of having access to Next Generation Work (NGW) or employment with a better pay grade. Wanting the advantages of citizenship, like full access to the constitution and access to a better class of employment was suppose to be the motivation to learn English and eventually become a Citizen. Fear of discrimination, deportation and abusive work conditions were not suppose to be the motivation for wanting to become a citizen or learn English.

So, if immigration has still not made it into the top five issues for most voting Americans Red, Blue, Green, and Independent then why would CNN allow the issue to take up 35 minutes of the debate of the YouTube/CNN Republican debate?

Knowing Your Audience

CNN and FOX NEWS are in a ratings battle. Lou Dobbs brings in the viewers and the issue he focuses on defining is Immigration. Tim Rutten of the LA Times wrote "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., GE and Time Warner -- don't have convictions. They have interests, particularly in ratings. They're all mindful of what occurred in the run-up to the last election, when -- Pew found -- the reliably Republican Fox incre ased its audience by nearly half, from 17% to 25%, while audiences for CNN and MSNBC, then still nonpartisan, remained flat."

On December 3rd Lou Dobbs responded to Mr. Rutten by pointing out, among other things, that several polls indicated immigration as an issue that was indeed on the minds of Americans. To Mr. Dobbs CNN, CBS and Wall Street Journal polls are a better source of information.

So, why does Mr. Dobbs lure in so many viewers for CNN but fails to make immigration an issue that reaches the top five list of voter concerns?

The issue has been narrowed down to legal Vs. illegal immigration and amnesty Vs. mass deportation. Mr. Dobbs teaches that the motivation for illegal immigration is unpatriotic employers, a greedy corrupt Mexican Government, non enforcement of existing laws governing immigration and a porous, insecure southern border. Mr. Dobbs does not want the millions of illegal aliens deported but while they are here they are not suppose to drive to work or have the opportunity to learn about driving safely on our roads.Mr. Dobbs will not speak about what to do with 20 million people unless "broken Borders" are mended. The problem is that each issue can be handled and should be handled simultaneously and as separate issues. For example: Mr. Dobbs has asked "why don't they get International drivers permits?"

I looked up how to get an International drivers permit with the U.S Department of State and here is what I found:

To apply for an international driving permit, you must be at least age 18, and you will need to present two passport-size photographs and your valid U.S. license. The cost of an international driving permit from these U.S. State Department-authorized organizations is under $20.00.

How does a person get an international driving permit without a "valid U.S. License?" Mr. Dobbs fails to answer this question every night. A person leaving a third world country is not going to have the wherewithal to get a permit before escaping their country of origin nor be foolish enough to tip off the authorities that would want to stop them. Once an immigrant is in the United Stated, earning the wages of the undocumented, it is difficult to get a International permit. Any immigrant would fear the authorities could track them down by simply applying. Moreover, authorities would still arrest individuals on suspicion of being in the country illegally. So, when Mr. Dobbs asks the question every night "why don't they [immigrants] get the International Permits" it is nothing more than a sad hearted joke.

The current system [the one processing applications to immigrate to the United States] is chaotic and in that chaos people from around the world can end up waiting years to get properly processed through the system. Just take a look at the myriad of visa groups and the nonsensical way individuals are grouped. Studies indicate that people are waiting great amounts of time to properly immigrate. In cases where a particular person or group is important to business or government or politics, it is that chaos that is used to sneak a person or group through the gates and into the U.S.A. Conversely unwanted people are kept out of the United States by the chaos that creeps the applications process ever so slowly. That creepy, slow immigration process is what motivates people to cross the border undocumented and so break a law: it's at least among the top five motivations; if not the top. Lackadaisical congressional attempts to speed up the process have failed.

If people are given a reasonable amount of time to wait in the proverbial Lou Dobbs "Line" then people would prefer to wait. The idea is that a person would rather wait a reasonable amount of time (say a year) instead of risking losing their opportunity to immigrate properly.

Careful What You Wish For?

Lets suppose policy changes and applications for immigration to the U.S.A are being processed within a year? The influx of immigrants, wiht green cards, would become overwhelming to both the political and economics of the our country. Moreover, while the idea of current illegal immigrants using resources is distasteful to some in the current state of affairs, legally processed immigrants would not only use resources but will then insist on taking full advantage of their new constitutional rights as soon as they can exchange that green card for citizenship: who could blame them? (not that individuals holding Green Cards don't enjoy constitutional protection, they just don't have full access.) Citizens maybe willing to do the jobs of illegal immigrants (the Tom Tancredo Cry or the Tancredo Credo) but they'll also insist on health benefits, breaks, safety equipment, minimum wage, etc. I love the idea but unfortunately the countries economy can not afford that right now. U.S Citizens are concerned with getting affordable health care for themselves let alone undocumented immigrants.

The real wage for picking fruit is just around $40.00 per hour folks: would any of you do it for less? Understand that the minute Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs get their WALL, immigrants, say, farm workers are well positioned to force up their wages, since, the minute the Dobbiean wall, is finished Farm Worker become a rare commodity. The counter move employers have traditionally made, when confronted by this threat, was to threaten to pick up and move their business to The Land Of Cheap. Businesses, Corporations can also import a steady work force which is easily manipulated and who pay into the social security system but will not benefit from it "H-1b, H-2b."

So, build a great fence on the southern border and there will actually be more immigrants in the United States than before the big fence, increased labor cost and less funds into the Social Security fund. The chaotic system that motivates undocumented workers to sneak across the border would be replaced be an efficient mechanism that process immigration documents properly and in a reasonable amount of time. The incentive to pay coyotes or take a dangerous chance at crossing the border illegally would be severely lessened. All Visas holders will turn them in for Green Cards and begin the process of becoming entitled to benefits some day in the future whether or not they ever take the Pledge of Allegiance

Poor, Middle and Upper Class are Arbitrary Categories

The real people that are taking our jobs are our very own citizens. These are Citizens that are owners of companies that ship their labor needs over seas or import docile workers (H-1b and H-2b etc). America's middle class does not want to do garden work, paint, pick fruit or put up sheet rock/dry wall. Middle class and upper class citizens are simply doing what comes natural which is making money no matter what the consequences (It's not that I like it it's just the truth). It is these two groups of citizens that are both responsible for shipping jobs over seas.

Middle and upper class Americans enjoy their leisure time and do not live pay check to pay check . These two groups enjoy Capital Gains, tax loops (like the tax loop that motivated millions of U.S. citizens to purchase SUVs) and do not like interference with their life style. Poor citizens and immigrants live pay check to pay check, do not enjoy Capital Gains and have little leisure time in their lives.

Example, poor should be defined as any person or family making under one hundred and thirty thousand per year ($130,000.00). To belong to the middle class a person or family would have to earn more than 130k per year but under 1 million. A person or family earning over 1 million is part of the upper class.

If the bar or entry level to join the middle class is lowered to say 70k per year then less people are poor and more people have joined the middle class. Lowering the bar to join the middle class without increasing a persons or a families income is not the proper solution to solving poverty. Traditionally, however, it is the tool leaders have used for decades during election season.

Keeping in mind that these three class categories are arbitrary helps understand why some polls measuring voter interests are very different from others. Citizens have an odd understanding of the terms poor, middle class and upper class. Too many citizens who are poor like to live in a psychological, delusion of belonging to the "middle class." Poor Americans want to work at jobs that pay them the wages that help them keep their illusion of life in the "middle class" alive and vibrant! Rendering that middle class delusion each month keeps poor Americans living pay check to pay check.

So if the issue immigration is not among the top five concerns for voters (Pew Center report) it may be because people earning over 130k (the middle and upper class) are the vary same people that benefit the most from a chaotic immigration process and jobs being outsourced: just take a look at their investment portfolios. Employment that earns 80k to 13ok is extremely coveted and more so if it does not require professionals credentials. To earn these wages a family usually has to have both parents working. Worried about losing such a great job citizens rarely like to rock the boat. People earning 80k and below are even less likely to vote and do not have the kind of access to politicians that P.A.C's enjoy.

When Lou Dobbs mentions defending the middle class on CNN he is actually speaking to the poor. Middle class America is not listening because they and the upper class enjoy the benefits of cheap foreign labor. Poor America is tuning in to hear Mr. Dobbs tell them every day that their illusion of middle class life is slipping away or is gone. The Pew Center Polled middle and upper class Americans and the results were that health care, Iraq, the Economy, Security and jobs where among the top five concerns. Individuals polled by CNN, ABC, The Wall Street Journal or MSNBC were Poor Americans or a greater mix of classes. Remember people most likely to vote are the middle and upper class and it is this group of people that view immigration as an issue separate from, Job Loss and Security. Nevertheless, to a great number of people these issues are becoming very difficult to separate.

We all know that poor America does not exercise their vote and that their lack of funds keeps doors closed and ears plugged. Hearing that the middle class is disappearing only means that poor Americans with basic cable watch CNN, FOX and MSNBC and are worried their illusions of grandeur are becoming difficult to maintain. Classifying people or families earning 130k or less as poor would qualify them for tax breaks and assistance programs that our government could not afford. So what should we do? Lower the bar again and call anyone earning 20k and above the middle class?

But What About Our Jobs?

Citizens should be benefiting from next generation jobs by now but instead they are concerned with competing for Entry Level Work(ELW): Painting, Construction, house cleaning, hotel-motel service, gardening, food service, Farm and Ranch work etc. When a customer service representative from a credit card or company called, it was suppose to be a U.S Citizens making that call and earning a middle class pay check. Instead hundreds of thousands of these jobs are outsourced to India, and other countries: some of this work is done by prisoners here in our country instead of paying citizens.

CAFTA and NAFTA promised next generation work that would elevate Citizens into the middle class. Employment like ELW was suppose to be slotted for immigrants transitioning into Citizens. Instead Citizens, who own corporations, allowed their representative to out source work or import cheap labor in order to increase their Capital Gains. Instead of demanding Federal oversight, guarding key employment sections of our economy, citizens where all to happy to turn a blind eye and let an unfettered market move jobs away to the land of Cheaper. Middle and upper class American loved watching their portfolios grow.

Both free trade agreements were signed during a time when economies were unbalanced. The U.S and Mexican economise were unbalanced or were not Economies of Scale. While the E.U seeks balanced economies to partner with the United Stated has only entered into trade agreements with countries that do not have enough ELW for their current populations. There was neither enough ELW in Canada (CAFTA) 1988 or in Mexico (NAFTA) to keep Mexicans home in 1994: it's an old story. Combined with a lack of patriotism and Federal oversight, U.S corporations began to outsource Next Generation Work (NGW) or import H-1b and H-2b workers. This class of work includeds computer related employment that promised middle class wages to citizens who were going to be retrained to work these next middle class jobs. The only thing Corporate America needed was citizens to alow our Elected representatives to fast track and ratify NAFTA.

Instead H-1b and H-2b visas (visit the State Department for information on the various visas)and the land of cheaper have benefited while poor (130k and below) citizens have not. Individuals can use their citizenship as leverage and that is unattractive to employers. H-1b, H-2b visas are draining third world countries of their brains and brings down costs for employers. H-1b , H-2b employees are attractive because they can be bullied into working longer and cheaper than citizens. In (Guy Santiglia v. Sun Microsystems) while the court sides with Sun Microsystem it does serve as an example of the numbers of middle class jobs citizens are craving but H-1b and H-2b currently occupy.

The United States has the Qualified Citizens to fill every H-1b and H-2b job which usually pay a middle class wage. Decades of little investment in Education has created a large number of citizens that need ELW. ELW is traditionally what the our poor and lower middle class turn to during hard economic times. If these jobs are filled by immigrants at a time when citizens need them or there is not enough ELW, this lack of ELW (for citizen use) fuels tension over the issue of Immigration and this issue pops up into the political sphere. By the time citizens find themselves needing ELW their status as "middle class" has slipped away and so has access to leadership.

It is these ,new poor, that are listening to Mr. Lou Dobbs. Those that have managed to retain their status will usually not want to rock the boat. Those that have been poor for sometime now, are too busy for politics.

So. What do you do?

Watch for the next Animation.

Rafael Buelna

Iraq: a war or a bumper sticker

2007-06-04T16:04:00.000-07:00

When is a war a “bumper sticker” and when is a war just a war?

It did not slip anyone’s attention when John Edwards called the war in Iraq a “bumper sticker.” The first attack on the World Trade Center did not spill enough American blood on American soil. The attack on the U.S.S Cole was also not enough to ignite enough American anger to accept sacrificing her children and economy to war or “blood and treasure.” When angry men from Saudi Arabia attack our countries historical symbols, with planes full of people and fuel, there was little doubt our country would seek justice. When the Taliban refused to help the United States hunt down Osama Bin Laden, their fate was sealed. Politicians, regardless of their color along the political spectrum, could not stop the nation from going to war. Even citizens to the left of politics could not defend the Taliban who had only recently destroyed archaeological artifacts because of their dogmatic approach to faith and religion.

The preparation, in the United States, for the war in Afghanistan was as unstoppable as an EF5 Tornado. The country mobilized to fight a conservative religious gang (Taliban) protecting another gang, Al Qaeda. The enemy and the battlefield were defined. The fight, however, was almost over before the military and our leaders thought. Osama Bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora and before we new it the war in Iraq had turned from a war to defend against rogue nuclear bombs to war against Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda represents terror because the “shock and awe” witnessed after September 11th was terrifying and its leader threatened the United States. Moreover, the attack on symbolic buildings was taken as evidence that a crazed villan was lurking behind every tree, rock and spider hole to strike at the very heart and idea of our countries beliefs.

Fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban is being at war but war on terror is a military tactic known as propaganda. When a country points to a battle tactic as the enemy, it is as ridicules as a King unsheathing his sword to fight back an ocean. A war is fought against an enemy like the Taliban, which seeks to regain power in Afghanistan, protected a gangster that murdered civilians and attack the symbols of our country. The mission in one case is well defined and has an exit strategy. Destroy the Taliban, destroy or capture Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and go home leaving some help behind to keep order.

In Iraq the mission is against a concept or an idea “Terrorism.” An idea cannot be killed, only delayed. The powerful groups of Iraq only fight over what their cut or portion of the nations wealth will be and how to protect their cut once the United States leaves. Once Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish fighters agree on what their cut of the wealth will be and what mechanisms will protect those, ill gotten gains, there will be no need for either Iranian or Al Qaeda fighters. The three groups will turn on the outsiders and destroy the enemy for us.

Sunni and Shiite leadership do not want to share the wealth with the Kurdish people and neither do the Turks: which is a source of tension. Moreover, by training thousands of Shiite soldiers the United States forced the enemy to make an age old decision based on a very old military truism “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In the case of the Sunni of Iraq the decision was to allow Al Qaeda to run amuck in Iraq until the United States decides to leave.

The Shiite responded to the Sunni decision by seeking assistance from Iran. Iran has bought and is buying expensive satellite imagery and next generation weaponry. Weapons used after the Vietnam War are considered third generation weapons. While a portion of fourth generation weaponry has been introduced to citizens of the U.S, fifth generation weapons are still classified, even to many servicemen. Remember after WWII it took forty years or so for citizens to learn about the amazing “Secret Weapons” of World War II. Well, the amazing secret weapons of today will be introduced to you (citizens) in another forty or fifty years. When considering whether to stay in Iraq, consider the new, unknown weapons that are aimed at our soldiers.

On Monday June 4, 2007 CNN reported that amazing new Russian grenades can rip through U.S military armor. These new grenades are simply tossed in order to kill and destroy our best protection for our soldiers. The sale of these grenades could not be traced back to Russia but CNN knew that they were Russian made. Wait until they report on the suits that hide our enemies heat signature and makes night fighting as difficult as day fights or the (no need to aim) shoot and scoot rockets that the enemy was not supposed to have. I can imagine a report, headed down the turnpike of declassified, on satellite intelligence/images that China and Russia are selling Iran.

If we do not finish the war in Iraq, we are warned by Republicans or any fear peddler, that “we will be back again or fighting the war on our shores.” The Sunni and Shiite do not want to invade the United States, that is the pre-occupation of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Sunni and Shiite groups are not accustomed to respecting the Kurds and are stalling peace until the riches of Iraq are disproportionately divided in one or the others favor: a civil war. Meanwhile, United States men and women will die until these groups finish building their power and money grubbing mechanism.

Calling for a war and defining the enemy as “terror” just sounds as simplistic, as say, a “bumper sticker.” So should we let the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish fight out their civil war and if we need to mop up later? War strategists call it an "over the horizon" tactic and Senator Obama has agreed with it. Apparently the strategy keeps troops nearby to react to any out of bounds behavior while they brutalize each other.

Saddam Hussein has swung from the gallows and a dictator was removed from power - that was victory.

The place is Afghanistan; the enemy is Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The exit strategy is to help develop a country and not fail them the way we did after Russia or the former Soviet Union left behind their mess. The United States used the Mujahideen to defeat our enemy, we told them that the USSR was "godless," and when the fighting was done we left them behind battle scared and impoverished.

Shouldn't our military put a stop to the opium trade of Afghanistan and wouldn't that make a great victory?

Rafael Buelna June 4, 2007.

© June 4, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved. Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Federal Tax! State tax!

2007-05-23T22:19:00.000-07:00

Gang Tax? Art by Rafael Buelna

Why do film producers have to pay a “gang tax” to make a movie in Los Angeles, California?

Actor Michael Chiklis in an interview with Terry Gross, host of the NPR radio show Fresh Air, described having to negotiate with Los Angeles, gangsters in order to continue filming. Michael Chiklis is the Award-winning actor who plays Vic Mackey in the TV series The Shield. The program has run on the FX cable channel for six seasons and is the recipient of the Peabody Award. Mr. Chiklis mentioned many aspects about filming The Shield and one memory he recalled was of negotiations with gangsters in order to continue filming. The economy of Los Angeles is pretty resilient but this can harm one of this cities greatest assets: the film industry.

Many producers have chose to use Toronto, Canada in order to avoid the cost of filming in New York City. While great for keeping cost down, New York City and the United States lost opportunities. Other than losing financial opportunities there was the chance to document and archive images of New York City. We all know that it takes plenty of investment, talent and permits to create a film/movie but who knew about paying a gangster tax? I am not going to describe or school anyone on the importance of the film industry to Los Angeles or to California. Just lets remember that small film production studios and students are particularly vulnerable to this “Gangsta Tax.”

The investment in education and economic opportunity is insufficient or just not happening in areas of our country where individuals are trying to escape poverty and or gang life. Ex-gangs members are being found dead for trying to escape the life: making it nearly impossible. Nobody expects the issues Poverty and Gangs to be completely fixed but some level of civility and standard of living should be maintained.

Unfortunately, under economic pressure history points to citizens turning to violence to solve their problems and Los Angeles in no exception. Just take a look at pictures of Chinatown, Los Angeles, California in 1871 when rioters killed more than 20 people and injured many others.

Art by Rafael Buelna
People, Chinese immigrants, citizens of Chinese descent and born in the U.S.A, were all attacked and in the morning were found hanging up and down Los Angeles Street previously named Calle de los Negros (Street of the Blacks). The underlying cause of the motivation for five hundred (500) European-Americans to attack, rape, dismember, hang and kill people was economic stress.

The death of one European-American ignited a night of violence against innocent people. Just like present day Los Angeles, there were gangs back then and a European-American was killed after being caught in the cross-fire between two gangs. Economic tension coupled with fear of gang violence, ignorance, bigotry, unemployment and Good-Old-Fashioned Alcohol, Laudanum, Absinthe, Opium, Heroin…(not an exhaustive list) mixed together one night into a deadly fury: the rest is history.

Robert J. Shiller, Professor of Economics at Yale University, (the Professor that fore casted the dot.com bust) has fore casted more economic stress on the horizon for the United States. The last thing Los Angeles or any city needs is for the film industry, or any industry for that matter, to decide our city is too dangerous to work in. Industries that leave Los Angeles leave in their wake unemployment, which leads to infrastructure decay, which leads to civilian stress…this has proven to be an excellent recipe for violence. A recent commercial put out by the State of California calls out “California, Find Yourself Here” in an attempt to attract people and industry to the State because like every other state in the Federation California is economically stressed. Having to pay a “gansta tax” is not exactly a worm welcome to investment.

The warning is that every month more citizens/people feel their standards of living dwindling. Civilians are also noticing gangsters living life high-on-the-hog. For example, gangsters benefit from free gas and generally they’re getting away with living comfortable lives they do not deserve while hard working families struggle to keep up. What I am concerned about, is that when the tension levels reach the breaking point, innocent people will suffer like back in 1871 and the violence will be ignited with the excuse of controlling gang violence. While gangster life appeals to some people other civilians feel resentment. Resentment is dangerous, especially during times of an economic downturn, war and high levels of unemployment.

The records indicate that during economic stress vigilantes and/or death squads begin to pop-up and take the law into their own hands. When the standard of living is at unacceptable levels, citizens historically have reacted with violence. What that level or breaking point is in the United States has always been debated in academic, social and political circles. While those debates continue riots seem to erupt each decade.

In our short history, when under economic stress, the vigilantes and/or death squads did not stop to ask if a person was in a gang or not, they traditionally raped, brutalize, hung and killed anyone they saw who fit their current image of the enemy. The message these mobs generally wanted to send was that they were frustrated. Our leadership failed to derail the atmosphere, from forming, that gave frustrated civilians the motivation to kill any Chinese immigrants and citizens they got their hands on one night in Chinatown 1871.

Every decade Leadership exclaims “I would like to think we, as a people, have become better at dealing with each others problems than these alarmist and pessimist declare of us.” Yet, every decade since 1871 Leadership has been unable to control violence between ethnicity's during economic hardship. Instead, leadership has pitted one group against the other to escape having to invest the proper amount of resources to alleviate the stress and bring down the divisiveness. One decade it’s Henry Ford and the National Guard firing machine guns at citizens scrounging to feed their families. In other decades, dogs and water hoses are aimed at people seeking civil rights.

Actor Michael Chiklis commented that he was amazed to see parts of Los Angeles appeared as if he had stepped into the “third world.” Mr. Chiklis did not mean to say that the area looked “third world” because Latino or African-Americans, etc lived there but because he noticed the infrastructure neglected and crumbling. Other parts of the United States are slipping into the third world status as well such as the Gulf State Regions after Hurricane Katrina.

Remember that after the recent Israeli and Hezbollah conflict or the July War in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah gave out thousands of dollars to compensate people for their loss. While a kind gesture, the handout was also a war tactic, propaganda by default, that alternatively was aimed at demoralizing Israel and United States citizens. It is sad to see the enemy bounce back before we do and they (any enemy) would know that. Hezbollah understands that the United States is having difficulty modernizing our infrastructure let alone maintaining it in working order. The longer it takes our leadership to modernize the infrastructure in the areas Mr. Chiklis described as “third world" the easier it is for zealot, dogmatic, fanatical groups to recruit members to their cause. Recruiters point to the decay of our infrastructure as evidence of the collapse of the great American experiment Democracy and a free market.

Giving our troops the hazzah, the supplies and time to deal with our enemy in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere for that matter, is not the only way to support our troops. Modernize the poor slums (Black, White, Latino, Asian, etc) of our country and do it quickly. Take a lesson from the “Marshall plan” or the “New Deal” and begin projects that require plenty of labor. These are the places many of our soldiers and their families live. Send a message to, Al-Qaeda Hezbollah and the Taliban, that the United States is awake, caring, viable and that the Democratic, free market experiment is alive and kicking! Show our enemy that their $8,000 per family handout is a poor substitute for Good-Old-Fashioned American Can-Do!

The War on terror only continues if the enemy can recruit warriors to their cause. People will not join a cause that does not benefit their lives. Whether or when we bring back the troops from Iraq or not, the ghettos, barrios, and slums are still here: the infrastructure is crumbling, people and the environment are suffering. This time lets do the right thing instead of letting the tension reach the level of riots and/or death squads. Reach deep into your pockets and help me defeat our enemy’s ability to recruit!

The best weapon against any enemy is a civilian population living well with little tension.

Rafael Buelna

May 23, 2007

© May23, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved. Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Jewish people and the Mind of Mencia?

2007-04-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

By Rafael Buelna April,29, 2007

The Honduran-born comic dropped out of school to pursue a career in comedy. Joe Rogan referred to him as "Carlos Menstealia." Mr. Rogan and others are upset that Carlos Mencia (not his original name) is taking credit for work that does not belong to him. Carlos Mencia is a playground, politics comedian. His next show will ask the question "would you get upset if you were called a nappy headed ho's or whore"referring to the Don Imus issue: Sunday 29, April.

Carlos' MIND does not understand the concept of platforms. Don Imus and Mencia function on two different platforms. Don Imus was given prestige by the honored guests, national leaders and respected people that visited him. Mencia, on the other hand, is a curbside jester that lurks and giggles about to amuse pedestrians. The modern court jesters would be Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Howard Stern, and Rush Limbaugh (not an exhausted list). Court jesters, long ago, were simply killed when they offended the court now a comedian can find closed doors and turned backs.

It Is Hard To Be Original

Carlos, or Ned, can say what ever he wants to say because he is a comedian, a curbside jester. I’ll turn my back to his performances and make a list of products not to buy advertised during his program or commercial breaks. This is the best way to send a message to bigot humor...and besides too many comics are accusing him of being a thief.

Mencia is known for his signature "Dee-Dee-Dee" and twists his face and body to indicate that ignorance is equal to a physical disability or speech impediment. This is the typical, bigot humor tailored to fit the ignorance that incipiently finds its way into each new generation. Mencia has recently altered his twisted face and body before saying "Dee-Dee-Dee": his agent may be feeling the pressure. Mencia is not the only Curbside Jester that peddles in this toxin, he's just popular these days.

Mr. Rogan found a recording where George Lopez explains his frustration with Carlos, or Ned Holness, using his hard work and that of others for (Neds) his financial gain.
http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/category/roganblog/

Mencia, announced on his program, that he speaks for European-Americans that long or yearn to insult other people but are too worried to do it themselves. To Carlos/Ned it's a euphoric feeling to finally give European Americans a voice. The episode aired Thursday April 26, 2007

Jewish people and the Mind of Mencia

Mencia also insists that Jewish people are not funny enough or don't have the talent to create original material.

Watch the at video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nEH8H5BqWg and hear Carlos or "Ned" deny a Jewish person could have written a joke he used.

This is the Mind of Mencia?

Carlos also confuses the term "Political Correctness." To Carlos the term means calling a person anything you want and when ever you want. For example, the phrase, "Mencia is married to a whore he has grown bored of looking at", is not nice to say and is rude. Society may ask a person to behave with a little honor and that is different than asking them to be "politically correct." If a person is told that an issue can not be discussed then that issue has been fettered by political correctness. The term does not mean a person can go around insulting people because they feel like it: like calling his wife a whore. Society is not stopping a person from using their favorite insult, society asks of its citizens to try and have a little respect. So, if Carlos or Imus or any other person are yearning to call people names or use words to simply hurt them then go right ahead: the constitution protects you.

For example, here is a question: Why does a Honduran-German have to pretend he is Mexican and not American? So what that Carlos/Ned is not a Chicano, Mexican-American or American-Mexican but hiding his background simply makes him appear to be ashamed of his Honduran and German ancestry: that's sad because the Honduran people are wonderful, like all cultures. Political correctness would be not talking about his (Ned's) shame.

Press the title above to link to where Mr. Joe Rogan explains in detail more of the issue

Art, Don Imus and the Market

2007-04-23T14:32:00.000-07:00

By Rafael Buelna April, 16 2007
1:14 AM

The Rutgers team couch and the players have accepted the apology of Mr. Don Imus and his wife is asking for the hate mail, people are sending the team members, to be rerouted to their home instead of being sent to the team players. It is a relief that we don’t have to boycott products advertised on MSNBC and CBS. I remember boycotting grapes when Mr. César Chávez asked us years ago to support people that were being mistreated. During the summer months I especially missed grapes and tried growing some myself as a substitute but that did not work out.

Missing grapes was a small sacrifice for a child to make compared to the daily hard living of the farm workers. Boycotting a bus company was hard too, according to the history books, but it had to be done since the message that racism is a deadly poison was not getting through to our country. Racism, anger and hate must always be yanked at the root. Currently we are at war and that makes it uncomfortable to make a decision to be part of a movement to destabilize a corporation. Since it is also uncomfortable to destabilize the social bonds of a country during war, it was the proper decision to put and end to the current Don Imus and give him an opportunity to heal.

Don Imus might appear on another show soon. A wave of support might come to save the hero of playground politics and instead of healing he may decide to stay the course. ABC and MSNBC decided that Don Imus was not the image that best portrayed their corporations and I am very proud of them for doing so. Political and religious zealots are using the firing of Don Imus as an opportunity to attack art in order to attract attention to themselves and their causes. Amy Holmes, a Republican strategist said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, April 15, 2007, that she agreed that rappers had a “greater platform” than Don Imus. To the GOP strategist music is a synonym for politics.

The logic this strategist wants us to follow is that, but for rappers and their lyrics, men (of all races) would respect women. Moreover, rappers are the individuals that taught men the deprecating language some use to describe women. To Amy Holmes, the world is hard enough as it is and so rappers or Hip-hop adding to the problem does not help. The images and the lyrics of rappers are, for Amy Holmes, an addition to our world problems. Amy Holmes did not point out any rappers she found acceptable. Religious and political zealots have always had conflicts with artists that put a mirror up to society. Take Galileo, religious zealots ruined his life because the idea that the universe did not revolve around planet earth was too much for them to accept. There are to this day people that insist that planet earth is flat. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)

The various religions that undulate throughout our federation draw the morality or “what is art” line at different intervals. In order to keep each religion safe from being overtaken by the next the state decided to separate itself from all religions: separation of church and state. Buildings that belong to the State are symbols of our federal union. Christian extremists take each Christmas as an opportunity to insult other religions, atheist, pagans, citizens etc, by decorating buildings that belong to our federation. Christian zealots insist that because our forefathers were Christian our country is a Christian nation. Our forefathers modeled our country using the logic borrowed from humans born long before monotheism. Our country was forged by people that believed in God but also who believed in protecting the playing field for everyone else to enjoy. While a Christmas tree is beautiful to see my compatriots feel that common grounds should remain natural or should involve everyone. For the sake of our forefathers please put up the Christmas decorations next year but please seek out and celebrate the holidays of other faiths with the same enthusiasm: especially if a public institution is involved.

The Constitution is the referee for our country and the Supreme Court gives it a voice and forum. “In God we Trust” belongs on our money or as part of our national pledge out of respect for the courage’s leap of faith our forefathers took when they decided to protect each individual from the tyranny of extremist thinking and behavior: putting ethics over their religious bias. So the idea is that they were Christians with open arms and minds not zealots taking every opportunity to cross the line our Constitution and Stare Decisis has drawn for us all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

Neither Mr. Imus nor rappers began the disrespect women deal with around the world. Rappers are musicians (African, Black, women, men, Latinos, Asians, Europeans, White etc) and some of them reflect images of our country that good, hearted people like Amy Holmes, want to spare our youth from. Boycotting allows a person to put their money where their mouth is or walk your talk. Letting the market talk allows adults the opportunity to make a choice and state a point instead of censoring art for them or calling for the “what is art” line to be redrawn. If the message that certain rap music sends is insulting, then don’t by the music.

There was once an art show in New York that had a crucifix in a glass filled with urine. The work was created by Andres Serrano and caused a controversy in 1989. As offensive as it was to me what was inspiring was living in a country that protected an individual who wanted to express his thoughts. I once heard a veteran say “we gotta protect liberals too.” Mayor Giuliani threatened denial of taxpayer funding but public polls denied him his political victory. (http://newsbusters.org/node/3918)

Art is not always what we want it to be but sometimes it’s just what we needed. One rap artist might inspire disgust while another inspires a vision. Certain rap may leave as bitter a taste in your mouth as Jesus Christ in a glass of piss left in mine but that does not justify redrawing the art line. To the Taliban the statutes of Buddha were as distasteful to them as the crucifix in urine was to many people. The Taliban destroyed the historic artifacts because humans are not supposed to draw or represent humans in any format. Only God can create humans and their souls so drawing them is viewed as an affront to God according to the Taliban. The Taliban do not translate or wish to consider a painting, sculpture or a film as a celebration of Gods creations. In the United States our society drew the line at snuff films, child pornography and even set limits for porn: not an exhausted list. Nevertheless, the same group of individuals that do not want one group to admire Buddhist sculptures or art forced us to watch a beheading on the Internet and televised (moving pictures) around the world.

Beheading in the name of God is a method used by one group to scare the hell out of the other side.What has occurred is that narcotic dealers are now using this tactic to scare the hell out of their narcotic dealing competition. Recently, YouTube pulled the beheading of one gangster by another gangster filmed and posted to frighten the world. So what began as a tactic to defend the children of God from infidels has turned into a weapon for dealers of drugs meant and aimed at all children. The “worriers of God” unleashed a battle tactic that is now serving drug dealers. I’m told, however, that suffering justifies atrocities. This is not the first time we see battle tactics find their way into everyday society.

The Serbian army captured French soldiers and tied them to polls outside of a military position they couldn't protect other than to use the French prisoners as “human shields.” The battle tactic became popular and used by individuals in stand off situations around the world. The term “human shields” became part of our civilian vernacular like “collateral damage” did after Timothy McVay bombed his way into history. My point is that suffering does not justify atrocities.

The battle tactics inspired by war have caused more harm than rap music has to civilians. We are a country that is based on being a sanctuary for our faiths and ideas. Before anyone of my fellow Americans calls for rappers to stop singing because the lyrics offend them remember where the Taliban draw their “what is art line” first. Mr. Don Imus was legitimized as a voice of reason by the powerful members of society that honored him by visiting his studio to speak on subjects from A to Z. The respect that our leadership gave Mr. Don Imus posed a greater threat to society than offensive rap lyrics because his words can inspire violence from listeners who consider him as speaking with national authority. People can dismiss any ludicrous remarks heard in rap music because it is exactly that: music.

Rafael Buelna

© April 16, 2007 EU and US all rights reserved. Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Hate, Politics and Don Imus

2007-04-23T11:01:00.000-07:00

By Rafael Buelna April 10, 2007

Should Don Imus be fired for calling a team of basketball players from Rutgers University “nappy headed ho’s” or “whores”?

This last Easter weekend echoed with conversation about this question. The team includes other ethnicities but is mostly African-American. A teammate chosen by the others to speak for the Rutgers team remarked on Tuesday morning, with sadness, that she and her team were feeling hurt, disgusted and that their time to celebrate accomplishments was replaced by the hate Mr. Don Imus ignited. The speakers, coach, and school officials pointed out that these students represented positive examples for all of us but especially our young: no doubt. While Mr. Imus apologized for his remarks, it did not seem to be enough to overcome the wave of hurt he caused across the country. The hurt Imus ignited comes during a time when too much hurt is blurring the heart of my country, the United States of America. It is foolish to believe that hateful hearts do not take any opportunity to weaken the bond between Americans in order to attack our national union.

Mr. Don Imus did more than call the basketball players names that hurt, he painted a much more cynical picture of these young hero’s. “Hardcore, tattooed, grizzly, nappy headed raptors (dinosaurs)” were some of the words he and his crew used to describe the Rutgers team players. Some defenders of Mr. Imus contend that his apology was enough and go further by blaming rappers for spreading the hate that we heard come from Imus and his crew. If a person does not like the lyrics of rap music then they have the option to not buy the music, change the channel, or rate the music XXX. Similarly a person can change the channel when Imus comes on the air. Hip-hop and Rapping evolved from the African-American community and is an art form that has crossed gender and racial boundaries. To blame Rap Music is to blame African-Americans and so is in effect blaming the victims of this situation; if one sees Black people as the only victims of this situation. There is no doubt that the media objectifies women but singling out Rappers is a little shortsighted. Rappers do not have presidential hopefuls appear with them on live programs. Bill Maher and Jeff Greenfield (CBS News) are among the men defending Mr. Imus’ apology. http://gayorbit.net/?p=6869

Bill Maher is an example of the kind of person that believes insulting one culture in our country is not an insult to all of us as Americans. On the MSNBC website Bill Maher was quoted as saying, “Yeah it was a bad joke, it was real creepy but after that people move on. You know? Don't listen to you any more. You will lose some black listeners and that should be your punishment." At age nine I was told a joke that I was too young to understand. The young, European-American said to me “Hey, how is a Jew unlike a pizza?” I answered that I did not know and he said “A pizza does not scream when you put it into an oven.” At nine years of age I was not quick enough to respond and defend my Jewish cousins because I did not understand just how horrible this joke was until I asked my father. In fact, only an anti-Semitic person would be amused by the “joke.” Many of these hurtful “jokes” targeted the hair of Black women by describing their hair as Brillo pads, pubic hair or Velcro. For example, how do you keep black kids from jumping on the bed? The answer is you put Velcro on the ceiling. If you drop a white person and a Mexican from a tall building and at the same time, who will hit the ground first? The answer is that the white person will hit the ground first because the Mexican will spend time writing graffiti on the way down. Carlos Mencia makes a living off of using these playground jokes that do not even belong on the playground.
http://www.carlosmencia.com/content/

The comedy central comedian on the “Mind of Mencia” uses his signature “Dee-Dee-Dee” and twists his face and body to indicate that ignorance is equivalent to having a speech impediment or mental and physical disabilities. A teacher pointed out other jokes that floated around the playground which were hurtful and were aimed at homosexuals, women, the disabled, etc. The lesson my father and teacher left me with was that violence is being nurtured where hate and anger are given the Bully Pulpit. My father and teacher could not stop the playground jokes no matter how bad they wanted to, nor can anybody. What they did do, however, was counter the ignorance with education, teaching that violence begins by first demonizing people. (follow the link to view Carlos Mencia) http://www.carlosmencia.com/content/

The hurtful words Mr. Imus and crew said, according to Mr. Maher, will only cause some black people to stop listening to his program. This implies that Latinos, Europeans, Asians, etc. will continue to tune-in to listen to Mr. Imus because our hearts do not hurt when our brethren are attacked and injured. This limitation or “creepy” aspect of our American heart was pointed out by more than just Bill Maher. Paul Begala said to Wolf Blitzer on April 10, 2007 that Imus offended “more than half of America” meaning a little less than half of our country was not offended. Lets put aside for a moment that polls or studies may or may not point out that half of all the individuals living in our country are racist. The rule is that one-hundred-percent of the Nation’s heart is always offended when racism hurts one person. Racism, hate and violence are all by-products of pain that humans feel from ignorant reactions to each other’s problems. Our Constitution is not an individual but a collective heart.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3226997 or http://gayorbit.net/?p=6869

To Jeff Greenfield it was simply an opportunity to call Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson hypocrites. To Mr. Greenfield, unless Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed or God comes down to point out the wrongness of this behavior everyone should just let the issue die. Mr. Greenfield, however, does not let Barack Obama, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson off the hock for anything off color they’ve ever said or have done: isn’t that hypocritical in itself? According to Mr. Imus and Greenfield we are to honor the fact that Mr. Imus is a good man that donates to various important causes. This is, in effect, a threat to the public because it pits ethics against any further assistance to the causes Mr. Imus and many people find important. Whether outwardly said or not the phrase implies, within context, that the children will suffer unless the public drops the issue.

The question that is planted in our minds is that if Mr. Imus is fired then how will he get the money to continue the great work he does for needy people? Here the innocent, the needy people that are assisted by Imus, are pitted against ethics. On Easter Sunday this situation reminded me of the technique that Pontius Pilate used centuries ago. Mr. Greenfield did condemn the hurtful words that Don Imus used but insisted on reminding the audience that we cannot toss stones because of our sins. (The following link leads to MSNBC where Bill Maher and Jeff Greenfield are quoted)
http://gayorbit.net/?p=6869

Mr. Don Imus defends himself by saying that his show was trying to be funny like any comedy program. Mr. Imus did not say or do anything to be “mean.” This is equivalent to a man that beats his wife and insists that he loves her while she bleeds from the wounds caused by his ignorance. Over and over the wife suffers assaults and time after time the same excuse is given by the man “I didn’t mean it, you know I love you, I didn’t do it because I am mean, you know that baby.” Any man or woman who wants to save their relationship after hurting their partner would need to show honest change. Unless, the woman confronts the problem the beatings will continue and so will the insults our brethren suffer.

A two week suspension from appearing on a nationally, syndicated program is a vacation. Veterans fought fascist, book burners in WWII and our constitution protects the freedom of speech so I will stop short of calling for him to be fired. That does not mean that we have to buy any product advertised on MSNBC or CBS radio. So, my fellow Americans, lets show Mr. Imus and friends that American hearts have no limitations and boycott any and all products advertised by these two corporations. Unlike Chris Mathews of MSNBC, I feel that we cannot allow hatred to sneak into our lives - not even a little.

The following link will send you to a YouTube site where Chris Mathews indicates that “a little fascism” is what our country needs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrJ731EZNI

Rafael Buelna April 10, 2007