Howard, I hope you post this as a poll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

My first thought when I heard that Putin had written us was the song from Blues Clues...."We just got a letter, we just got a letter, we just got a letter, I wonder who it's from?"  Then a low monotone voice with a Russian accent says..." A transmission from Vladimir"

http://thoughts-of-an-average-man.blogspot.com/

Only the last paragraph has been changed

As I watch the Republican Presidential primaries play out I can't help but be disturbed by it's course. At the time of this writing, Newt Gingrich pulled a rather surprising upset in South Carolina and now stands to gain more momentum towards the nomination. He is not only surging in most polls, he is surging among evangelicals. This is where it gets puzzling. The mainstream media has successfully convinced America and now apparently Americans of faith, that the personal lives of our leaders are inconsequential to their overall ability to lead.
I am of course speaking of Gingrich's marital past. Are we now saying that marital infidelity and political fidelity are mutually exclusive? I don't buy it and here is why. Marriage is a contract and more importantly, a covenant made with another person before God. In the covenant of marriage, you make a commitment to a person that you esteem above all others, that you put before yourself in all matters, and that when the time comes to choose between him or her and personal gain, you forsake the personal gain. That is the marriage covenant. To treat that covenant so lightly that on TWO occasions, with TWO different spouses, you choose the pleasures of adultery over the commitment to your wife speaks greatly of ones character.
Now apply that same thought process to political decisions. When elected to office, you enter in to a contract with your constituents. It is not a lifetime commitment and the only "skin" you have in the game is that of getting re-elected. If you have treated the covenant to a spouse made before God with such glib disdain, then what loyalty to a mere voter will you have when the tough decisions place you between your constituent and personal gain?
The mainstream media has convinced America that we all make mistakes and that we can all relate to the shortcomings of a Newt Gingrich. I'm sorry, I cannot relate to tossing aside the commitment that I have made to my wife for the pleasures of another woman. I don't think that most Americans can either.
We are at a crossroads in American values. President Obama has damaged this country and if re-elected will release Obama 2.0 and an aggressive version of left wing politics the likes of which our country has not seen. As evidenced in 2008, after the nomination of John McCain, American conservatives seem ready to accept the lesser candidate either in conservative credentials or character in order to secure the election. They appear poised to do so again with either Gingrich or Romney. I for one am not willing to, and American conservatives should not be willing to either. I am all for forgiving repentant people for their transgressions, that does not mean I want them as my President.
Should Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney secure the Republican nomination, I will be leaving the party after 27 years.  Given Newts personal failures and Mitt's wavering on issues most important to family values conservatives, the Republican Party will be asking one of these two to look the American public in the eye and say "Trust me, I have your best interests at heart and not my own."  I don't believe either one of them.

Yet, despite having similar populations, Presidential campaigns spend well into the millions of dollars to win over crucial enclaves in Northeastern Ohio and Western Pennslyvania while completely ignoring our region.  The reason for this?  The Electoral College, a ridiculous and antiquated system put into place hundreds of years ago that has now outgrown it’s purpose, the nation is now spread out in terms of regional balance, and the constant attention paid to swing states over non-swing states does a disservice to the voters in those non-swing states and the smaller swing states.  Here’s an excellent and jaw dropping example, in the State of New Hampshire, which has 4 electoral votes, the Obama and McCain campaign spent roughly 15 million dollars to contest the state while in New York, which had 33 electoral votes, they both spent less than 500 thousand dollars.  If a state with less than ten percent of the total electoral votes of another has campaign expenditures well exceeding 500% of the larger state isn’t ridiculous, I’m not sure what is.

This damages the critical notion that Presidential elections give the President a mandate to govern the entire country.  One could easily argue that the President really only has a mandate from the states of Ohio, Pennslyvania and Florida, since winning 2 out of those 3 states is seen as being absolutely essential to winning for a nominee of either party, while the votes of tens of millions of people from places like Batavia across the country aren’t really that relevant.

The best known example of the failure of our electoral college system in the modern era is Al Gore defeating George W. Bush in the popular vote but losing the electoral college, which makes this argument seem like it is a partisan one for the Democrats…..but several near misses and arguments should give Republicans pause about the current system.  George W. Bush almost lost his re-election, despite winning a majority (over 50%) of the popular vote because of around 250,000 votes in the state of Ohio that were left to be counted as the day after the election began.  Also, Republicans in a state like New York, really have no real reason to vote in the Presidential election despite to express their own individual feelings because in reality, their vote does not count for much.  The same holds true for Democrats in a state like Texas.  Why should they bother with the system as is?  Barring Nelson Rockefeller and Lyndon Johnson returning from the grave, the Democrats are going to win New York and the Republicans are going to win Texas, neither are swing states nor will they be for the foreseeable future.

The answer is bypassing the electoral college.  It may have been necessary hundreds of years ago but damages the basic principal of 'one-man, one-vote' that defines a democratic-republic (lower case) today.  The prevalence of swing states makes repeal almost impossible, so another solution is at hand.  The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in state legislatures across the country.  Instead of a constitutional amendment, this bill assigns the electoral votes of each state to the winner of the national popular vote total, but only kicks in when states composing the majority of the electoral college (270 electoral votes) have enacted the bill as law.  It has been introduced in New York and has pervasively stalled in the State Legislature.

Tom Golisano, the Paychex CEO, former Buffalo Sabres owner and Western New York philanthropist has taken over the organization and is renewing it’s push in the State Legislature.  Having worked there myself for the only Democrat to vote against Sheldon Silver, former Assemblyman and now City of Buffalo Comptroller Mark Schroeder, I know that a reform package can only pass in Albany if it’s given a strong shove by the voters.  Calling your state legislators frequently and in a large volume with others makes does actually make a difference, I have seen it happen.  Had it not been for voter fury I personally think that State government probably would have had a shutdown last year and Governor Cuomo would not have been able to pass a state budget on time this year.

We need to unleash that passion again, this time on our state legislators to tell them that the National Popular Vote bill needs to be passed to guarantee the basic principal of ‘one man, one vote’ and make sure that all of our votes for President, regardless of party, are actually meaningful.

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2011/01/and-finally.html

Making this the last item ... because that's where I put it in importance.  For now.  It's just that something rather curious has become even curiouser.  I'm talking about the Barack Obama birth certificate stuff. 

No ... I'm not a birther ... but there are some things that have happened lately that you really just cannot ignore. 

In December some character named Neil Abercrombie is sworn in as Governor of Hawaii.  Now I'm sure that Hawaii, like most other states, has a few problems that need to be addressed.  But Governor Abercrombie seemed to think that the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate was near the top ... not because he had any doubts about whether or not Obama was actually born in Hawaii ... but because he wanted to take that birth certificate and essentially shove it down the throats of those pesky birthers out there. 

Birthers?  OK .. here's the deal.  These are people who say that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen of the United States and is thus serving as President illegally.  They say he was either born in Kenya or Indonesia.  They say that the certificate of live birth that has been shown as proof of Obama's citizenship is actually proof of nothing more than the fact that someone brought the infant Obama to a hospital in Hawaii claiming that he had been born at home, and the hospital issued a certificate essentially saying "yup ... it's a baby all right, and here it is in our hospital in Hawaii!"  The claim is that the certificate of live birth only proves that Obama was born, not where he was born.

OK ... so here we have Governor Abercromcie.  He's on the spot because he volunteered to "..do what I can do" to publicly verify that records show Obama was born in Hawaii and is a citizen of the United States.  He wanted to put this thing to rest so that it wouldn't be an issue in 2012.

So ... how's that going for the governor?  The Honolulu Star Advertiser asked Abercrombie "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate.  How is that coming?"  The only answer the media gets from Abercrombie is that an investigation has "unearthed papers" proving Obama is a citizen.  Those papers haven't been produced. He says "it's written in the archives, written down."  But nothing produced.

The London Daily Mail has now weighed in, saying that "It became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate."  The Daily Mail says that Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate may not, in fact, exist. 

Why bring this up?  If you listen to me you know that my position is that we should forget this birther stuff and just concentrate on defeating this dangerous man in 2012 and continuing to undo the damage he has done in his ongoing efforts to "radically transform" our Republic.  But the Hawaii governor stepped up to say he was going to put the controversy to rest.  It's time to perform.  If he doesn't .... Then the controversy grows.

From http://www.crossactionnews.com/articles/view/how-crazy-are-those-birthers

Natural Born Citizen

Article II-Section I-Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that ONLY a "natural born citizen" hold the office of President. It's no secret what they meant or why that clause exists. It is a matter of national security.

Lets not play any games here, too many games have been played with this phrase already. It's a very simple term that anyone with a dictionary can figure out.

Not just any ole "citizen,"

Not Native "belonging to a particular place by birth"

Not Naturalized - "to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship" (as with an immigrant)

But NATURAL - "Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power."

The US Senate got it exactly right in 2008 in their unanimous resolution proclaiming John McCain a "natural born citizen" of the Unites States of America, based upon the well-known fact that BOTH of his parents were indeed legal citizens of the United States at the time of John's birth. In other words, by "divine power" and the "laws of growth," "produced by nature" of the fact that his parents were US citizens, so was John McCain, by birth right via natural ancestry.

However, no such Senate resolution concerning Barack Obama exists, and the standard applied to John McCain is NOT being applied to Barack Obama.

The Birth Certificate

Obama supporters like Snopes and FactCheck claim to have a copy of Obama's birth certificate, but they do NOT. I challenge any reader of this column to send me a certified copy of Obama's actual birth certificate and I will gladly disclose it to the public along with a retraction of this statement.

I won't get one, because no such document has ever been released by Obama. End of story!

Officials in Hawaii have issued their "opinion" that Obama is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. But they have thus far refused to make public the documents used to arrive at that opinion, and until they do so, their "opinion" is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay from a third party NOT present at the time of Obama's birth, and they are therefore, unable to support such a claim.

Not one, but THREE different COLBs, (Certification of Live Birth, not to be confused with an actual birth certificate) have been posted online by Team Obama, Snopes and FactCheck. But none of the three contain any verifiable information necessary to vet the documents and since three have been offered, all must be treated as forgeries until one of them can be authenticated.

Some "birthers" believe Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii. That's because Obama's Kenyan relatives have stated under oath, that they were present at Obama's birth in Kenya.

But where he was born isn't so important. The fact that he was born to a father who was at no time a citizen of the United States, is the problem. On this basis alone, Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen" of the United States and that makes him an "unconstitutional president" at best!

Proof of Constitutional Standing

Other than the three different COLBs posted online by Obama, Snopes and FactCheck, Obama has offered NO other proof of legal US citizenship, much less "natural born" status as required by Article II of the Constitution. NONE! If you think I'm wrong, send me the proof you have!

We know that he traveled to Pakistan, among other places in the Middle East, during his college years, and that he did NOT hold a US passport at that time. We know that he received his first US passport as a "diplomat," while he was a state senator in Illinois, which also allowed him to bypass the normal process of getting a US passport.

But because he will not open up his records, we do NOT know what passport he traveled on during those college trips to the Middle East.

We know he attended three of the most expensive colleges in the United States. But we do NOT know how he was able to pay his tuition without any job, why he changed schools, or why former Black Panther Godfather Dr. Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden, Saudi Royal Family front man) and New York Panther Percy Sutton, helped him into Harvard.

Bottom line, Obama is one great big secret mystery!

The Ugly Truth about 9/12: It’s all about Racism.

The moron convention converged on Washington today . Talk about thick headed asshats. You can tell me the debate going on in this country right now is not seeded in racism and hate all you want. After seeing some of these pictures, I just won't believe you. http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225019439/show/

http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/marcodien/2009/09/the-ugly-truth-about-912-its-all-about-racism/

The President's Plan for Health Reform

“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance.
It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care
for our families, our businesses, and our government."
– PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

 
If You Have Health Insurance,
the President's Plan:
•Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
•Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age.
•Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most.
•Caps out-of-pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick.
•Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money.
•Protects Medicare for seniors.
•Eliminates the “donut-hole” gap in coverage for prescription drugs. 
 If You Don’t Have Insurance,
the President's Plan:
•Creates a new insurance marketplace — the Exchange — that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices.
•Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance.
•Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees.
•Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.
•Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national “high risk” pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. 
 For All Americans,
the President's Plan:
•Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront.
•Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized.
•Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality.
•Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system.
•Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine.
•Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform.