Today I received a survey from the Democratic National committee. On the last page of the survey they ask for a donation.

I replied I will not donate anything until I find out who they Pick as the nominee here is my letter:

To any one with a brain I address this letter.

If you choose Obama as the nominee I will, after a lifetime of voting Democratic I will change parties and vote for McCain.

I will not give any money to the Democratic Party at this time until I find out who will be the nominee.

You will lose my vote and that of my 5 children and my husband.

Obama is wrong for the country and I must vote for the person that will do the least damage to our Country sadly it is McCain if Hillary is not the nominee.

Go to www.obamatruth.org and check out all the disgraceful things he has done for money and his own self interests and that of his wife.

.The Republicans will find lots of “swift-boat” material there.

Nominate Hillary Clinton or that loud noise you hear will be thousands of Hillary supporters leaving the Dem Party.

We do not care how much she tells us not to leave we will.
No Obama now! No Obama ever!

If by some stupid chance the Democrat Party think the voters will fall in line once the nomination is set. They are sadly mistaken.
The Super Delegates need to read this.
Vote for the good of the Party

The choice is be a sheep and follow the Dems insane mandate or chooses some one less destructive to the United State? I will vote for the good of the Country. Obama is not good for the USA Hillary is. Our second choice will be McCain No Obama ever!

Obama has the audacity to assume Bush was talking about him.

Bush touched off the firestorm with his address to the Israel Knesset on Thursday, when, without mentioning Obama by name, he criticized politicians who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals. He called such positions a “foolish delusion” and the “false comfort of appeasement.”

The White House said Bush was referring to Carter not Obama but Obama and other Democrats took it as an affront to him, and immediately lashed out at Bush and McCain.

Very egotistical and presumptuous of Obama I say. Is that the way to unite the country? I got news for you Obama the world does not orbit around you. Obama and his minions have got to stop jumping to conclusions everytime someone makes a speech. That is how we got in the war with Iraq. Bush jumped to the conclusions Iraq was behind 911 and when he found out they were not it was too late we were already invading their country. Oops! My bad.

It seemed Obama was just spoiling for a fight with Bush and McCain. He reminds me of a schoolyard bully who drags his buddies (the Dems) into a fight to later find out the other guys were not even talking about them.

Even if they were, was this the time to call them out on it? There is lots of time between now and November for a confrontation.

What harm would it of done to just let it go. A wise man picks his battles but who said Obama was a wise man? and the Dems are just lambs led to the slaughter following the tinkle of the Judas bell around Obama’s neck. Have some more mind numbing Kool-Aid why don’t cha?

Wake Up Dems! Obama is bad for the country he will get us in a war before you can say, “why didn’t we nominate Hillary?”

I do know the thundering sound you hear are hordes of Clinton supporters stampeding to the Republicans to vote for McCain if the Dems dump her.

Do they like McCain? Probably not but he is the lessor of two evils.

I need to find a new party to join the Dems are just to dumb and self-destructive for me. Their theme song is “IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN” from the wizard of Oz of all the viable candidates that were running how did we end up with Obama?

Your comments are welcome but remember my "reply" button does not work so I will have to answer you up her. Fef is working on it I hope.

Super delegates for sale
Candidates are paying Superdelegates: Current and former elected officials received campaign contributions from either Obama or Clinton or both in the 2006 and/or 2008 election cycle
For a list of the superdelegates and who received what and then who they choose to support. Here is the link. http://www.capitaleye.org/superdelegates.asp

Obama has contributed $710,926 to the superdelegates
Hillary has contributed $236,080.
Obama has contributed 3 times the amount Hillary has contributed.

Some of these hypercritics took large sums of money from Clinton and being the double-crossing stab-you-in-the-back Traitors they are choose Obama to support which is OK but why did they take her money If they were not going to support her?

Inquiring minds want to know are the superdelegates for sale? Can this be a fair election where the one with the most money wins? Like a game of Monopoly?

Should this despicable practice of buying votes be stopped?

All is fair in politics may the most devious, crafty, hypocritical one win



Some of these hypercritics like Kennedy and Bill Richardson took large sums of money from Clinton and being the double-crossing stab-you-in-the-back Traitors they are choose Obama to support which is OK but why did they take her money If they were not going to support her?

They took her money because they felt once elected Obama will be easier to control than Clinton? Obama is very naïve and new to the game. Some of the Democrats don’t want Clinton because Clinton knows all the tricks of the trade and maybe invented a few. She knows the ropes and few will be able to pull the wool over her eyes.

Texas brainless man

A Japanese doctor says, 'Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks.'

A German doctor says, 'That is nothing, we can take a lung out of one
person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in three weeks.

A British doctor says, 'In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half of a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks.'

The Texas doctor not to be outdone, 'You guys are way behind...
We took a man with no brains out of Texas, put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work'

Can you finish this with something about Obama or Clinton?

The Audacity of Rhetoric http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/26/th...
By Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Posted by Janet

It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.



It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.

Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.

In Shelby Steele's brilliantly insightful book about Barack Obama -- "A Bound Man" -- it is painfully clear that Obama was one of those people seeking a racial identity that he had never really experienced in growing up in a white world. He was trying to become a convert to blackness, as it were -- and, like many converts, he went overboard.

Nor has Obama changed in recent years. His voting record in the U.S. Senate is the furthest left of any Senator. There is a remarkable consistency in what Barack Obama has done over the years, despite inconsistencies in what he says.

The irony is that Obama's sudden rise politically to the level of being the leading contender for his party's presidential nomination has required him to project an entirely different persona, that of a post-racial leader who can heal divisiveness and bring us all together.

The ease with which he has accomplished this chameleon-like change, and entranced both white and black Democrats, is a tribute to the man's talent and a warning about his reliability.

There is no evidence that Obama ever sought to educate himself on the views of people on the other end of the political spectrum, much less reach out to them. He reached out from the left to the far left. That's bringing us all together?

Is "divisiveness" defined as disagreeing with the agenda of the left? Who on the left was ever called divisive by Obama before that became politically necessary in order to respond to revelations about Jeremiah Wright?

One sign of Obama's verbal virtuosity was his equating a passing comment by his grandmother -- "a typical white person," he says -- with an organized campaign of public vilification of America in general and white America in particular, by Jeremiah Wright.

Since all things are the same, except for the differences, and different except for the similarities, it is always possible to make things look similar verbally, however different they are in the real world.

Among the many desperate gambits by defenders of Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright is to say that Wright's words have a "resonance" in the black community.

There was a time when the Ku Klux Klan's words had a resonance among whites, not only in the South but in other states. Some people joined the KKK in order to advance their political careers. Did that make it OK? Is it all just a matter of whose ox is gored?

While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.


Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.
Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.
Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.
Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and pr omises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and Sa n Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandon ing any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Sociopath
from www.stop-obama.com
Ijane

Barack Obama is a sociopath. There’s no other explanation after looking at his political record for this man to believe that he’s qualified to lead our country.

Barack Obama’s campaign and election history:

1996-Obama decides he wants to run for the state Senate in Illinois.
He hires a Harvard election law expert to rid the ticket of all his Democratic opponents running for the same position. His attorney was successful and Obama literally won the seat by default! He didn’t even have to campaign.

1999-Obama, having no accomplishments as a state Senator, decides he’s qualified to run for US congress. Being the nobody he was, he lost by 30 points!

2003-Obama, still a nobody as a result of never taking any positions on any important issues, decides he’s qualified to run for US Senator. Even though his state didn’t know who he was, his opponent’s campaign exploded at the last minute when his nasty divorce papers were made public and Obama wins once again by default!

2007- Obama, a step above a nobody at this point, and still with no accomplishments to call his own, decides he’s qualified to be the President of the United States. David Axelrod was brought in and he crafted a campaign for Obama identical to the campaign he crafted for Deval Patrick when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. The state of Massachusetts is hurting thanks to voting for an inexperienced person which is why Massachusetts wasn’t about to repeat the same mistake and didn’t vote for Obama during their primary contest.
Despite his campaign claims, his quick rise in status as an old school dirty politician rivals the oldest and dirtiest. Obama has a 100% record of answering to Illinois politicians before the citizens. As state senator, when the city of Chicago wanted to tear down historical landmarks important to the black community, Senator Obama never took a stand out of fear of making political enemies despite the hundreds of activists fighting to save the landmarks. The same way as he recently declined to take a stand on the Sean Bell verdict-of course Senator Clinton did.
As a favor to Mayor Daley, he endorsed the disgusting Dorothy Tillman whose ward she represented for 22 years had the highest property vacancies in the whole city. She was accused of tax law violations and years of doing favors for other politicians rather then serving the people. Thank god she finally lost her election.
Obama secured $300 million worth of earmarks for Illinois and awarded Emil Jones (and his district) tens of millions of that money for giving him his farce legislative record during his final year as state Senator.

Obama secured a mansion with a bonus garden at the expense of hundreds of low income South siders thanks to his dark dealings with Rezko the slumlord.
His Legislative record while in the state Senate for 6 years was zero, however he spent his time getting his corrupt self in the circles of people like Rezko and Ayres to financially benefit his future in politics. It wasn’t until Obama asked Emil Jones to make him a federal Senator that Obama showed an aggressive record…but what a fricking farce!
Emil Jones, President of the Illinois state Senate, who is as corrupt as they come, deliberately appointed Obama the head of literally EVERY piece of high-profile legislation to pad his resume. Jones pushed to the side all the senior state senators who had been working on bills for years and literally took their bills out of their hands and named Obama as sponsor. In his 7th and final year as a state Senator, his record went from zero accomplishments to being falsely credited for the sponsorship of 26 passed bills…None of which he worked on or fought for!
Barack Obama’s history of the backstopping and self-serving shit he pulled in Chicago has left him very unpopular with the local community leaders, activists, and politicians. The idea that if Obama doesn’t win the nomination, he won’t have a political career left in the state of Illinois because they don’t like him or want him!
Axelrod had no choice but to run a race baiter campaign. There was no other way to distract America from Barack’s inexperience and pathetic dirty politics.
Oh my god, what if he does win the nomination? We’re going to have four more years of a Republican leading the country. Barack Obama can’t win. He doesn’t have a coalition, he’s run such a vicious campaign that he’s alienated 40% to 50% of Senator Clinton’s supporters to the point they won’t vote for him, and he’s got no record of experience to run on in a GE campaign. He sure as hell already proved that he’s a great divider and not a great uniter so he won’t even have his stupid “Hope” crap to use as a tool . Dean and the DNC and all the superdels are going to be in for a rude awakening when the dems don’t follow their agenda and back Barack! I can’t wait until they’re all in the unemployment line!

I tried to post this in Politics but it wouldn't let me. It put it in Enertainment TV Sodahead is very flustrating.

What do you think about
DNC Superdelegate Puts His Vote Up For Sale
Steven Ybarra Wants $20 Million For His Vote?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CBS13) ― In this tight battle for the Democratic nomination we've heard a lot about the candidates courting superdelegates.

But, one superdelegate is courting the candidates. He says he'll sell his vote for a price. A very high price: $20 million.

Steven Ybarra of Sacramento says that eight-figure price is peanuts for the presidency.

http://www.cbs13.com/video/?id=33250@kovr.dayport.comRaw Video Of Interview: Part 1
Raw Video Of Interview: Part 2
http://www.cbs13.com/video/?id=33252@kovr.dayport.comRaw Video Of Interview: Part 3

When asked whether it was right to offer what is clearly a quid pro quo, he responded, "yeah, absolutely. People do it all the time," answered Ybarra.

But not like this. Not in public and not for such big bucks. It begs the question: Is he crazy?

"Nobody's said I'm crazy," said Ybarra.

Ybarra wants every cent of the $20 million to go towards registering and educating eligible Mexican-American voters, who he calls the key to the White House.

"And I keep asking the question of the DNC: 'why won't you earmark money for these voters?' And their answer is, 'oh, we can't do that' Which is a lie," said Ybarra.

With the Democratic National Committee saying 'no,' Ybarra waits for a 'yes' from already cash-strapped Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Would he accept less? How about $5 million?

"No, $5 million is nothing," said Ybarra.

It might be a moot point as neither campaign has come calling.

"No, I think most people right now are looking at this as some crazy guy in California because after all I'm from California," said Ybarra.

He thinks his own party is crazy for not aggressively pursuing the Mexican-American vote especially with such a large Mexican-American population in the southwest.

"We should kick John McCain's a** in his own hometown," said Ybarra.

This superdelegate thinks his vote would be the best $20 million a candidate could ever spend. After all, he says, in 2004 John Kerry spent $1 billion to lose.
What are your thoughts about this?