The Birthers will be excluded from the real Presidential hopefuls soon! UPDATE

Much has been made about the latest assertions of Donald Trump and his pushing the "birther" claims that President Obama was not born in the US. He has risen to the top of the Republican Presidential hopefuls with these assertions as it has played well to a minority, a loud minority, within the Republican Party. In my view, the 'birther claim is code for we never will recognize any black man as our President. But soon this "birther" gauntlet will be abandoned by the extreme Republicans in favor of more moderate ones within the party.

You see right now it is a litmus test to show if you are conservative enough. Soon it will revert in the other direction, as a test to separate out the extreme candidates from the more serious Republicans, and it will happen in the blink of an eye. Several respectable candidates have stood up and renounced there idea that the President wasn't born here, like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. Mayor Bloomberg did this week. These are the adults out there. People will be reminded by the media of their position on this issue as time carries on and those who sided with the birther thinking will be left out of the running. That will include Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence and Michele Bachmann. You just watch!

UPDATE: Wednesday, April 27th
Well today President Obama through his complete Birth Certificate on the web dashing the Carnival Barker, Donald Trump, under the bus in as classy a way as our President has behaved since his Presidency. For his part, Trump claimed how great he was that he was able to force the issue on President Obama to finally present his birth certificate, but he said he had to see it first and go over it carefully before he was willing to proclaim it valid. What nonsense by Trump. He is a fool and a racist. I would never watch his TV show and I hope you give it up too!

The loss of decorum in Congress: Does it matter?

Yesterday's historic culmination of Healthcare legislation was also historic for other reasons as well. It brings all the rancor and bitterness in the House of Representatives to the forefront of the 24/7 media cycle we are becoming used to. I thought about the comment "Baby Killer" while Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak was giving his support to the Bill as the last remaining holdouts because the Hyde amendment was still going to be the law of the land. Confessing today, Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer admitted he was the one yelling that comment and apologized for the comment. Remember it was during the President's State of the Union, that another Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled, "You Lie! while the president was speaking.

So what's the point here? Well, first it violates the Rules of Congress. If you don't uphold the Rules, then you have no Rules in reality. They can't be enforced if not enforced when they are violated. But more importantly, did you ever hear on the floor of Congress the Democrats shouting down President George W. Bush while he was speaking giving his State of the Union. They had a just cause since by Bush's decision to invade Iraq many "babies" and innocents were killed in a war of choice. Did they yell, "You Lie" when he said that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. No they didn't as elected officials. The place for that kind of stuff is outside the Congress where people have feelings and have grievances. But those issues need to be settled in the Ballot box, next time you get the chance, not inside the Congress. These Republicans have shown themselves to act like spoiled children who have had their toys taken away. I give you this warning and prediction, keep up the lack of civility and you will be responsible for destroying the Republican Party as well. Democrats don't like it, Independents don't like it and many Republicans don't like it as well.

So does it matter to you whether the Congress losses its decorum? It does to me, as it shows men acting as children and that contributes to the lack of respect of all public servants. I am glad people are still willing to do this job as MOST SANE PEOPLE AVOID BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AT ALL COSTS!

State data comparisons: California Budget crisis did not need to happen. Is your State next?

Everyone has heard of how California has been locked in gridlock over its budget mess for the past 5 months until getting it approved this past week. Much of the debate was centered around the Republicans wanting not to increase taxes and instead to cut spending, postulating that our State government has grown out of control and fiscally irresponsible. No real data has been published to validate this fact except for the fact we have had a $41 Billion dollar shortfall, so of course the Republicans blame this on too much spending. So I decided to do a little fact checking myself and see for example, does California have too big a government compared to other States around the country and what I found out was truly surprising. I looked at the number of State Employees we have versus the size of our population to see what was the percent of employees of our total population. I then did this for every State in the country. I then ranked them by the lowest percentage to the highest percentage. Before I show the data, where would you guess California ranked, one of the best, one of the worst or about in the middle? Here's the data. Look for your State's data here as well.

State % of State Employees as a % of Total population

Illinois 0.82% (President Obama's home State)
Arizona 0.89%
California 0.91%
Florida 0.93%
Nevada 0.97%
Wisconsin 0.97%
Ohio 1.04%
Texas 1.07%
Colorado 1.07%
Pennsylvania 1.14%
Georgia 1.15%
Michigan 1.19%
Indiana 1.20%
Idaho 1.21%
New York 1.21%
Tennessee 1.22%
New Hampshire 1.22%
Minnesota 1.24%
Massachusetts 1.30%
Missouri 1.35%
Virginia 1.37%
North Carolina 1.38%
Oregon 1.39%
Iowa 1.39%
Kansas 1.41%
Maryland 1.48%
South Dakota 1.51%
Connecticut 1.52%
Nebraska 1.52%
Washington 1.54%
Utah 1.54%
South Carolina 1.57%
Maine 1.57%
New Jersey 1.65%
Alabama 1.69%
Kentucky 1.70%
Oklahoma 1.71%
Mississippi 1.72%
Montana 1.76%
Louisiana 1.76%
Rhode Island 1.76%
West Virginia 1.90%
Arkansas 1.91%
Vermont 2.20%
Wyoming 2.22%
North Dakota 2.28%
New Mexico 2.28%
Delaware 2.61%
Alaska 3.45%
Hawaii 3.98%

One could make a good argument that the problem California has is that it HASN"T raised enough money from taxes to support itself, contrary to what has been the Republican position. However, without including the spending part of the equation, this would be irresponsible. I will look to see if I can also get that information and post it here. But let's be clear about one thing, California needed to pass a budget and what the Democrats were trying to do for the past 5 months was very reasonable and what the Republicans were doing in preventing passage of the current Bill was irresponsible. California voters should remember this stance next time they vote. California is not irresponsible nor are its citizens. The irresponsibility comes from ideological Republicans who, as a national Party, are doing everything they can to see President Obama fail. Shame on you all!

Sources of this data comes from the Government Census Bureau.

California Budget Gridlock: Here are the Senators responsible for Gridlock.

First a little brief background. California is unlike the Federal government in that it must balance its budget but in order to do that it takes a 2/3rd approval rate, not the usual 50% majority other States have as a requirement. California has 40 State Senators. Currently, there are 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans. That would mean in order to pass the proposed budget we need 27 votes. Now with the Democrats holding only 24 seats, they need 3 Republicans to approve the Budget. They can get only 2 Republicans to vote for the proposed budget, which is a mix of Cuts in spending and tax increases. The Senate has been working on this problem a good 6 months to a year.

So here we are with a few stubborn Republicans who have helped create this mess in the first place, blocking all action to get the measure passed. The Republicans don't want a single tax increased and that is their position period. Here is a list of the Republican Senators who have caused this mess:

Name

Walters
Hollingsworth
Denham
Benoit
Huff
Ashburn
Aanestad
Strickland
Maldonado
Runner
Wyland
Cox
Harman
Dutton
COGDILL

Now the Republican leader Sen. Dave Cogdill had voted for the budget in the spirit of compromise, but now faces his own party as the Republicans ousted him from his leadership position for voting in favor of the proposed budget. Sen Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria), voted against the taxes this morning but has stated publicly that he might support them if various government reforms were added to the package. He was sharply critical of his caucus for removing Cogdill. GOP Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield has agreed to vote for the package, according to legislative officials.

The GOP's only Latino senator, Maldonado, like Adams, represents a swing district and voted for the state budget in 2007.

On Monday, Maldonado said he would "take a look at" voting for the budget package if it included financial penalties for future legislators who fail to pass state budgets on time or drive the state into deficit. And Maldonado, who lost a 2006 bid for state controller to a more conservative challenger, said he wants future California primary elections to be "open," allowing voters to cross party lines to cast a ballot.

So we are in a mess and only some reasonable Republican Senators hold the key to getting us out of this mess. California is a beautiful state to live in from nature's perspective, but from some of the people that live here it is one of the worst states. And I say that having lived in Massachusetts for 25 years or should I call it Taxachusetts like the locals do.

Many want to blame Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger but I think he has done his best to get his Party to join the Democrats. It's just that they are all stubborn and in my view should resign as they are failing to keep their oath to the people of the State. They have done everything they can to be obstructionists and don't deserve the seats they occupy.

UPDATE: Feb. 19th
I corrected the list of names above to reflect the State Senators instead of what I had listed, the Assembly. Thanks to the comments from those making them.

What was the first warning shot fired in the financial crisis?

The first warning shot in the financial crisis of 2008 happened actually in the late 1990's and while there was an initial reaction to the event, little if anything really changed on Wall Street. What was that precipitous event? It was the failure of the Hedge Fund, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) which lead to a massive bailout by other major banks and investment houses.

LTCM was founded in 1994 by John Meriwether, the former vice-chairman and head of bond trading at Salomon Brothers. Board of directors members included Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, who shared the 1997 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. The company had developed complex mathematical models it used to make investment decisions. Initially enormously successful with annualized returns of over 40% in its first years, in 1998 it lost $4.6 billion in less than four months and became a prominent example of the risk potential in the hedge fund industry. The fund folded in early 2000.

But do you think Congress or Wall Street learned anything back then? Nope! That was when Congress was controlled by the Republican Party and occurred during the post Lewinsky investigation, by then rabid Special Prosecutor Ken Starr. So to say the impeachment attempt by the Republican led Congress was a distraction to events surrounding Long Term Capital Management, is an understatement. It was a casualty from a divided country where Congress was consumed over a sexual matter, where a President who was embarrassed by it, lied about it to the Public. I don't blame just Republicans, I also blame the Democrats and the American people including me, who did not press our elected officials to investigate this matter more fully at the time and even years later.

The cost to our Nation is just starting to be understood. Think what might have been prevented in the current Financial crisis had Congress and Wall Street done a complete investigation as to what caused the financial meltdown of Long Term Capital Management. We have only recently come to understand the interconnection to many of the worlds problems.

Stock Market and political outlook for today for the 3rd debate

Stock Market Outlook today: Today the markets should pull back. How much is anyones guess. But there isn't any good news out there in reality. Expect about a 300 point drop today on the Dow and for it to go below the 9,000 level, but with Options Expiring this week for October on Friday, it could get very erratic, both to the upside and downside. It will feel like you are in a boat and riding the waves. I am expecting the moves in the market, over the next week or so, to make a double bottom and that means another test of the 8000 level. I have a sell order in for my TWM Short on the market at $140 if it should get there while I am away most of the day. I don't believe it will trade at that level but it is good to get an order in for the day, in the event that it does.

Those with exceptional skills can make money trading frequently on the swings but they must be watching the market continuously. I can't today, and that's a good thing. I need a break from these swings too.

Politics: We still will have 2 days left this week for Options to expire on Friday, and tonight the last debate will be held. From all expectations it sounds as though Senator McCain is going to focus on Obama's "character issues". I can hear the politics of the past going full force tonight from McCain, but I am hoping Obama will make short work of them and point out most Americans want them to talk about the economy and what they are going to do to get it back on track. It is the politic of deregulation that got us into this mess and that has been McCain's mantra most of his political career.

Americans don't need divisiveness now, they need someone who can heal this country and who can also gain respect from other world powers. As the son of William F. Buckley said yesterday, Barack, he believes, is that man. Buckley, a Republican and owner/writer of the National Review, tendered his resignation yesterday, as many Republicans were offended he switched to Obama, and they wanted him out of the National Review, as they felt they were betrayed. His father always allowed others to express their views openly as long as they were logical and had an explanation. He is probably turning in his grave over how the Republican Party lost its way and in the process destroyed the financial system in this country. He was one of the best type of Republicans, tolerant of others views, smart and articulate and wouldn't stoop to inflame crowds with racial slurs or innuendoes. He was like many of my fine Republican friends, who now lament over what has happened to their Party.

There was a scene in the Godfather, where Clamenza said, and I paraphrase, "every few years there has to be a cleaning of the bad blood between the Families and it was time now to do that." Same is true for the Republican Party.

How can Republican voters win while Republican candidates lose?

This is an appeal to Republican voters. Back in 2000, Democratic voters felt very angry after that election between Gore and Bush, especially with the Supreme Court involved in the decision. Since that election a long eight years has passed. The Bush Administration took care of their supporters after that election when it came to awarding government contracts and any other perks allowed under law. All new Administrations do that. How do they tell? They look at election results by the voters and try to help those States when needed.

I live in California and we have had some bad financial times with unemployment as high as 7.3% while Nationally the unemployment rate is 6.1%. But it is not as bad a some States like Michigan. California went for Kerry in 2000 and even though we have a Republican Gov, Arnold, the Terminator, we didn't get any help from the Bush Administration.

After the election, which it looks now like Barack Obama is going to win and may win in a landslide, Obama is going to start a new beginning for this Country. He has to as things are bad. But where he starts that beginning will be based upon what States voted for him and which didn't.

So here's my pitch, if it continues to look like Barack Obama is going to win, do yourself and your State a favor and vote for him, and while you're at it, encourage your friends and family as well. If it is a truly one sided mandate, as I believe he will win in a landslide due to the financial mess we are in, we have a good chance of ending several problems all at once. First, it could help change the state of race relations for the better in this country. Secondly, with the financial crisis upon us and expected to get much, much worse, it can help bring us together, as Americans without Party labels as attributes. We have a chance to finally unite the country, as Obama, I believe, will lead from the Center, not the Left. We don't need more wars which is where McCain feels most comfortable dealing with, not the economy as his answer is more deregulation, which is what caused the problem. When things get tough for you, as they surely will, wouldn't it be nice to get a helping hand in solving these problems for ALL Americans, not just a few at the top. Hope you do too.

McCain/Obama first Presidential debate: Who won?

That seemed on everyone's mind last night and this morning. I have received a few emails asking for my opinion and them giving me theirs. What's my analysis? Well, the fact that everyone is asking, including the media, it seems to me that the media is calling it a draw. I was a boxer in my youth and using that metaphor, there was not a knockout punch, nor was there a clear victor on points. I was disappointed in both of them but for different reasons. I'll comment on those disappointments in a moment, and I how would rate the outcome, but first, comments on what was good.

The first thing that was good was that the debate was actually held. Everyone who has been keeping up on my views know I am a Barack Obama supporter in this race, after having initially supported Joe Biden for President in the Primary. McCain had threatened not to debate, as he wanted to go "save the country" by stopping his campaign and going back to Washington to help get something passed with bipartisan support for the governments $700 Billion rescue plan of the Banking industry and ensure that credit was available for business to borrow needed cash. I was angry McCain said he wasn't going to debate, but then I thought, if he could truly do something to help, then he should. I thought he could do both, but who am I to criticize, as I have a hard time just putting on socks in the morning and remembering to take my morning pills. (Multitasking is more difficult as one gets older. :) So I said let's see what McCain actually does. Well I got my answer, NOTHING! Most at the meeting said McCain spoke last at the meeting with the President and when he did speak, they say no one understood what he said, as it was garbled.

So, in retrospect, since the deal was not done, and he had stated he would not debate unless it was done, I am left feeling it was purely political theater by McCain. That is unspeakable during this crisis in our economy. Nevertheless, he did debate and was knowledgeable about facts and his historical recollections were good as well, although his comment about Eisenhower writing 2 letters, one with his resignation, was not true. But he passed the exam by most.

Now for my major disappointment. McCain would not look at Barack Obama the entire debate. His language and body language appeared to disdain Obama and his wise guy comments and humor did nothing but make me angry. In my local San Francisco Chronicle newspaper front page today, there was a picture from the end of the debate with Obama and McCain shaking hands. Guess what? McCain isn't looking at him while shaking his hand, either!

When you treat a Presidential candidate with disrespect, which is what McCain did to Obama, (someone who has earned their Party's nomination after a hard fought Primary race against a very competent candidate as Hillary Clinton,) then you disrespect all Americans. If you are going to disrespect your opponent, who is equally a patriotic American, how can we trust you to talk to the Russians, whom you despise, the Chinese, the Syrians, the North Koreans, the Venezuelan's and other leaders we must engage with. It was contempt of the lowest form and not becoming a Presidential candidate like John McCain. You will notice that I have not made one negative comment on Sarah Palin as a person. I criticized her politic, thought she gave a good speech at the Republican Convention but I did not disrespect her. I did defend her against supposed negative attacks. I would expect McCain to respect Barack Obama not just in words, but in deeds. Let's see if that is possible in the next debate Senator Mccain.

Barack was Presidential, gracious and respectful. Some say he was too respectful, but I don't think so. What disappointed me with Barack was that on several occasions he could have answered McCain with facts that could have made their differences clearer and he chose not to, or forgot the points at the moment. Barack never made the point that, for example, it is the Iraqi's now that want us to leave and that McCain acts like Iraqi's concerns don't matter to him. He could have more clearly stated that it is the Republican Party's mantra for deregulation these past 20 plus years, that got us into this financial mess. And it is the very Lobbyists that are part of McCain's senior staff that had major contracts with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

When I think about the debate, I saw Barack being Presidential, respectful and a clear distinction from the failed policies of the Bush Administration AND McCain. McCain is tied to the failed policies of Bush /Cheney Administration and voted for those policies 90% of the time. The choice is clear with Obama, but the challenge is whether the American people can put their country and their real needs first and vote for him and Joe Biden. Or will they let any Party loyalty or racial prejudice creep into their decision. For the good of the country I hope they can rise to the occasion.

What will be the message contrast between the Republican and Democrats Convention?

The week of the Democratic Party Convention is coming to a close. What take aways did people get from the Convention and how will they differ from what comes out of the Republican Party Convention? Well I for one saw the Democratic party Convention focus is all about "people", specifically the Middle Class and their struggles during the past 8 years of the Bush Administration and their down right focus on the wealthy few, to receive the benefits from their policies.

What do I expect to hear from the Republicans next week? Honestly, I am not sure. But if they follow the previous Republican Party Convention goers and their TV audience, they will put the focus on Barack and attacking everything they can think of about him. They will talk about "money", because that is what is important to them; how much they have, how much they want, less government in our lives and to promote the security of our country from the "evil" ones, through the fears they will conjure up, stating that the Country will be at risk under a Barack Obama Presidency. They will use fear in every form and contrast that to the "hope" of the Obama message.

I might be wrong here but I don't think by much. It is obvious that the Democrats are for uniting people at this historic moment and anniversary of both Martin Luther King speech "I have a dream!" and the three year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the abysmal response of the Bush Administration in the aftermath even to this day.

Will Americans take that next step- maturity?

We are about to be bombarded with news from the Democratic Party Convention this week and the following week by the Republican Party Convention. But will we mature and listen for ourselves what the messages are from these conventions, our Presidential Candidates and their VP choices, or will we just listen to the media synopsis and the sound bites televised to make up our minds about the issues and the proposed solutions? It is time, my fellow Americans, for us to do our own due diligence and hear for ourselves, firsthand, what the candidates are saying and draw our own conclusions. It is time to make the election of our President a priority in our lives and put other matters on the back burner.

If you want to stop complaining about our President, Vice President and their policies, it is time YOU and YOUR FAMILY took the matter of deciding who will best restore America's greatness and put our fiscal house back in order. I know it's easy to complain and to blame someone else for the state of this country, but now its future is in your hands. It's time to grow up, take responsibility for learning about the real issues our country faces, not the ones the media likes to hype (like whether John McCain knows how many houses he has or whether Barack really believes what Rev. Wright, his former pastor was preaching). It is time to demand more concreteness in defining the issues and what remedies each candidate proposes to solve them.

You must make the time to educate yourself. The reasoning that you're too busy is a lame excuse. Any President can make one decision that will dramatically affect your life and that of your family members in an instant. God only knows the one we have now has made decisions which have affected the entire world.

And finally, you must make sure you are registered to vote! All the time spent educating yourself about the issues is meaningless, unless you vote. So, as we approach these 2 full weeks of politics, pay attention, get the news direct for yourself by listening to as much as you can to the Conventions and especially the VP and Presidential Candidates speeches and come away ready to ask tough questions of each of them, in preparation of your vote in only a little more than 2 months from now.

"Values Voters" for Pro Life but also for the Iraq War. Is this hypocrisy?

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, said in a CNN interview this morning that Value Voters, presumably of the Christian Right of the Republican Party, can't support a candidate that isn't Pro Life. Well Mr. Perkins, can't you see the hypocrisy of your stand when you and others of the Christian Right are also Pro War by supporting this Iraq war and this President. It's time to take a look at your standards under the light of day. The media has given all of you a free ride, just as they did with President Bush and the Administration in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

The media is afraid of you and your power. But when you or your supporters come out as being Pro Life, someone needs to challenge you and the hypocrisy of your position. If you were people of peace, I wouldn't be so alarmed. There's no free ride here. I call it like I see it.

Cheney Urged Wiretaps over objections of Justice Dept

This from the Washington Post today, June 7th, 2007

"Stand-In for Ashcroft Alleges Interference
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 7, 2007

Vice President Cheney told Justice Department officials that he disagreed with their objections to a secret surveillance program during a high-level White House meeting in March 2004, a former senior Justice official told senators yesterday.

The meeting came one day before White House officials tried to get approval for the same program from then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who lay recovering from surgery in a hospital, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey.

Comey's disclosures, made in response to written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicate that Cheney and his aides were more closely involved than previously known in a fierce internal battle over the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. The program allowed the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas.

Comey said that Cheney's office later blocked the promotion of a senior Justice Department lawyer, Patrick Philbin, because of his role in raising concerns about the surveillance.

The disclosures also provide further details about the role played by then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. He visited Ashcroft in his hospital room and wrote an internal memorandum on the surveillance program shortly afterward, according to Comey's responses. Gonzales is now the attorney general. He faces possible congressional votes of no-confidence because of his handling of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

"How are you, General?" Gonzales asked Ashcroft at the hospital, according to Comey.

"Not well," replied Ashcroft, who had just undergone gallbladder surgery and was battling pancreatitis.

The new details follow Comey's gripping testimony last month about the visit by Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then President Bush's chief of staff, to Ashcroft's hospital bed on the night of March 10, 2004. The two Bush aides tried to persuade Ashcroft to renew the authorization of the NSA surveillance program, after Comey and other Justice Department officials had said they would not certify the legality of the effort, according to the testimony and other officials.

Ashcroft refused, noting that Comey had been designated as acting attorney general during his illness.

The episode prompted sharp criticism from Democrats and some Republicans, who questioned whether Gonzales and Card were attempting to take advantage of a sick man to get around legal objections from government lawyers. It is unclear who directed the two Bush aides to make the visit.

Democrats said yesterday that the new details from Comey raise further questions about the role of Cheney and other White House officials in the episode.

"Mr. Comey has confirmed what we suspected for a while -- that White House hands guided Justice Department business," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The vice president's fingerprints are all over the effort to strong-arm Justice on the NSA program, and the obvious next question is: Exactly what role did the president play?" To read the rest of the article click on the words, "Washington Post", at the top of this article.

VP Dick Cheney, or Darth Vada as he is usually called by his friends, has been the power behind the throne in so many ways for this Administration, which now becomes more clear with every day. He was the one pushing the claim of a Nuclear threat by Saddam Hussein, the leaking of Valerie Plame's name for which Scooter Libbey, the fall guy and Cheney's close friend and aid, received a 2 1/2 year sentence this week for a crime of perjury in the Patrick Fitzgerald, Special Prosecuter, investigation. And now the revelation that he was behind this story and pushing the illegal Wiretaps against Justice Dept. objections.

Cheney should have been fired in 2004 by President Bush, who has not been served well by this VP. But it's not too late Mr. President to save your legacy and get rid of Cheney. Think about all the positive effect this would have with the Republican party. We could blame Cheney for almost everything wrong in the past 6 plus years and give you a fresh start with the Country.