Macdonald's Animal Farm

The Republican push for Sharia Law continues...

2011-02-28T15:26:00.000-08:00

The State of Tennessee is home to the latest group of Republicans seeking to impose their particular brand of Sharia law in the United States of America and the members of the right-wing pundit-ocracy remain vigilant in the silence.

According to media reports, Republicans are proposing legislation that would prohibit Tennessee school teachers from mentioning or discussion homosexuality in classrooms across the state.

In what appears to be a wild turn from the preventing the teaching of human sexuality in classrooms, the Republicans in the state are now in favor of having teachers and educators from Kindergarden to middle school preach the gospel of heterosexual sexual relationships while refraining from mentioning the existence of homosexual sexual relationships.

This is another example of how the Republicans are interested in oppressing gay/homosexuals with the same zeal and vigor to bring the Republican party's idea of Sharia law to the United States.

The Republican Party supports Sharia Law

2011-02-18T21:51:00.000-08:00

During the last election it wasn't odd to hear the worrisome cries of Tea Party Republicans about the pending threat of Sharia Law being forced upon Americans. In fact, in a couple states, the Republican legislative bodies in Oklahoma, Georgia, Nebraska and Wyoming (to name a few) passed anti-Sharia law statues. Arizona went as far as to outlaw Karma.

Well, it turns out that people like Frank Gaffney and Sarah Palin were right about Sharia Law coming to the US. Unfortunately the real impact of Sharia Law is being seen in the United States, and it isn't through the actions of Muslim extremists or liberals. Nope, Sharia Law is a live and well thanks to the actions of the Republican party. And I don't hear a word of fear or criticism coming from conservatives.

Since the beginning of the new year Republican in South Dakota have proposed legislation that would justify honor killings and sanction the killing of abortion providers.

In the US House of Representatives, Republicans seek to oppress women by eliminating tax deductions for private insurance plans that cover abortions.

Then the Republicans decided that it was in their best interest to alter the legal definition of rape in an effort to prevent women from obtaining an abortion.

And most recently the Republicans voted on legislation designed to prevent women from receiving medical assistance from birth control to pap smears by prohibiting the federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

Sharia Law is all about controlling the lives of women and making them second class citizens. And through these legislative actions, the Republicans are seeking to control women and subjugate them as second class citizens by denying them their legal rights.

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans are against big government and it's reach into our everyday lives. Except when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights and a woman's right to chose. When it comes to women, Republicans support big government reaching into a woman's private life to grab hold of her uterus in ways they would never allow when it comes to the government grabbing 30 round magazines from guns like that used by Jarrod Laughtner.

And Republicans hold homosexuals in the same regard as Sharia law and point to their bible as evidence and justification for their oppression of gay people and by denying them the right to marry.

Yes, Sharia Law has come to the United States. And it is being introduced by the very people who warned us that it was coming to our nation. Looks like the Republican party wasn't warning us about outside influences, they were warning us about the enemy from within.

The Aftermath.

2011-01-09T11:50:00.000-08:00

The extreme political rhetoric of the last 2 years comes in large part from the "right" side of the political spectrum. There is serious consequences to be had when it comes to political discourse in this country following the shooting in Arizona.

I see why conservatives are in large part pushing the "he is crazy/insane" defense. As I see their argument, if the shooter is crazy/insane, no one is responsible for his actions. Except the shooter. Well if the shooter is crazy/insane, then by the very definition of the word means that the shooter is not responsible for his actions and was influenced to act by an outside force.

If I were a conservative, I would hope like hell that this kid is sane, because with a sane individual it is easier to ascribe personal responsibility too their motives and actions. If he is insane, it looks like this shooter's motivations can be attributed to whomever he listened to, or followed.

It is being reported that the shooter has an affiliation to a group known as the American Renaissance.

As it pertains to Palin, and the other merchants of right wing misinformation and extreme political vitriol, I can only hope that this is a moment of reflection and a chance to change the tone and tenor of politics. But I fear that this just a chance for them to "reload" and take aim at the "bulls-eye" on their political enemies.

Propaganda at it's finest.

2011-01-02T13:58:00.001-08:00

I have been getting SPAM email from two websites that are fronts for getting out the propaganda of World Net Daily. One of them is Vision to America. It is birther central there. It is all birther, all the time! The second is The Patriot Update. It is another birthers unite site!

Since I started posting to these sites I have learned:

Conservatives/Republicans are by in large John Kerry flip floppers. They are fond of posting that Obama should adhere to poll results. Of course, back in 2006 and 2008 when the electorate gave majorities to the Democratic Party in the house and senate, these folks weren't crying that Bush should adhere to the will of the electorate. Quite the opposite in fact. That makes them flip flopper. Whether they realize it or not.

These same folks would brag about how Bush is a real leader, who doesn't lead according to poll results. Of course to validate their point they would follow it up with a reference to Clinton leading according to poll results. And now, these same individuals are demanding that Obama do what they never asked of Bush, and what they criticized Clinton for doing. Clearly there is a whole lot of flip flopping going on.

Now, regarding the birthers and their beliefs; if they are going to call for the impeachment of a sitting president, they should understand how the process works. If they want Obama to be tried for treason, they really can't believe that he is Kenyan born. Of course, it is most likely that they are oblivious as to who can and cannot be tried for treason. They are also under the delusion that just because you impeach a president, or find one guilty of treason, it magically undoes the actions taken by the congress and the president.

One other thing I have learned from the posters in these forums is that many(most) of them are completely unaware of the legislative process involved in repealing health insurance reform. They seem to believe that if the House of Representatives repeals Obama's health insurance reform, it's repealed. No other actions are required.

It is sad that these people who like to think of themselves as strict constructionists are so uninformed when it comes to the US Constitution, and the legislative process.

Oh the irony of it all.

I watched this...

2010-12-07T19:51:00.000-08:00

and responded HERE with THIS

Can you explain what exactly the Republicans settled for as a part of this "bipartisan agreement?" You actually believe that they would not vote to extend unemployment benefits? (They realized that you and the Democratic Party's fear of tax increases exceeded their fear of not extending unemployment benefits.)

Sorry, but this is yet another example of you caving to the Republicans rather than fighting for what you believe in. Why didn't you demand that the members of your party take a vote on extending tax cuts for those making $250,000.00 or less before the November election? It is rather strange that you put more time and energy motivating the Republicans to not vote than you do the members of the party that you lead.

And quite frankly I have to wonder just how much damage would be done to the economy by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Everyone keeps talking about how tax cuts are the only way to create jobs. Really? If tax cuts were the end all be all that you and the Republicans keep saying, why then did the Bush tax cuts fail to create jobs? And why aren't those very tax cuts creating jobs in this economy?

Yeah, I notice that you don't want to respond to what I consider the weakness of the tax cuts create jobs canard. Of course, the tax increases that took place under Clinton's tenure seems to indicate that in an economic downturn raising taxes creates jobs and wealth. Oh wait this is the worst recession since the depression, how could I forget.

According to Bernanke, even with tax cuts the unemployment rate won't decrease, and it won't create jobs for 4 or 5 years. So explain how the alternative of letting the tax cuts expire will slow down any recovery that will take another 5 years?

You bailed out the banks, promising that this would turn around the economy. You promised that the Recovery Act would create jobs, and it didn't. Now you say that this deal with Republicans will create jobs. Really? Or is it more of the same. Every legislative action taken to create jobs has failed to create jobs, and has only empowered the banks and the financial industry. Just like when Bush was president, and just like when you are the president, the divide between the rich and the middle class has grown ever wider. (And they call you a liberal, a socialist!

Sorry President Obama, you made promises that you have repeatedly caved on, from the public option, to DADT, to not extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.00. If you gave up fighting this year, why should anyone believe that you will fight any harder for repeal in 2012?

Well I guess this "bipartisan agreement" is your last best chance at winning re-election.

My first presidential election was back in 1984. This will be the first presidential election where I will not be voting for a president in 2012 if my options are between you and any Republican.

Change, you President Barack Obama, can believe in.

Look what the SPAM Filter dragged in

2010-11-15T18:13:00.000-08:00

Let Your Voice Be Heard!

We want to get a sense of your thoughts on the results of the Mid-term election. Please fill out the survey below. By providing us your email, we will be able to send you the results once they are tallied. In 6 months, we will ask for your input again to see how you think the new Congress is doing.

Now, with a Republican majority in the house:

Do you believe the newly elected members will try to repeal the Obamacare bill?

Yes
No
Don't Care

What's your most important item you want Congress to address?

Cut Taxes
Cut Spending
Get the Economy Going

Do you think the Republicans will pay attention to the legislative processes and procedures of the House of Representatives (Read the Bill, 72-hour rule):

Yes
No
Unsure

Do you foresee the Republicans compromising with the Democrats?

Yes
No
Undecided

Do you think the newly elected members will keep their campaign promises?

Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Very Unlikely

Do you believe President Obama will shift to the center?

Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Very Unlikely

In regard to the Stimulus Law, do you want the Republicans to:

Work to Repeal the Law
Cooperate with Democrats on Revising the Law
Leave the Law as it is

In regard to the bailouts, do you want the Republicans to:

Defund the Bailouts
Repeal the Bailouts
Leave the Bailouts as they are

Should the Tea Party work to become a viable 3rd party if the Republicans fail to push for the things the Tea Party patriots want?

Yes
No
I hope not

Who would you like to see run on the 2012 Presidential ballot?

Newt Gingrich
Sarah Palin
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Other

If you answered "other", please provide their name below:

This unscientific poll was brought to you by: The Patriot Update.

I hope they send me the results so I can post those as well.

Campaign 2010

2010-11-03T00:46:00.001-07:00

I was really not surprised that the Democratic Party lost the majority in the house and saw their majority shrink in the senate. It was inevitable when you consider that the very people that elected Obama to office and provided him with majorities to enact the change that they could believe in found themselves on the receiving end of political hyperbole, with little change, and less to believe in.

Of course, the president didn't do himself any favors when he blamed liberals for holding him to his "hope and change" promises which included a public option as a part of health care reform. To use a baseball metaphor, Obama swings, and that is strike one!

Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them.

If they wonder about the voter turnout among the Obama coalition of 2008, they should start here. Of course, the White House decided that the best way to ensure that they would get out the vote was to chastise liberals for daring to hold Obama to his campaign promises, like the aforementioned health care.

When I hear Democrats griping and groaning and saying ... 'the health care plan didn't have a public option', and ... 'the financial reform -- there was a provision here that I think we should have gotten better', or, 'you know what, yes, you ended the war in Iraq, the combat mission there, but you haven't completely finished the Afghan war yet', this or that or the other, I say 'folks, wake up'.

Yeah, nothing fires up the base like blaming them for your political cowardice. And nothing fires up the base more than having the VP repeat the same attack against the very people whose support you will need in the fall election cycle.

Obama and his administration revealed that they were more worried about the concerns of the Tea Party Republicans, than they were of their own supporters. In the national media Tea Party Republicans where being hailed for their anger against the establishment, while the liberals are pushed to the back of the bus because for being angry with the president and his unfulfilled campaign promises. And this is another swing and a miss by Obama, strike two.

The last point I would like to make is about getting out the message. Obama was said to have used the internets to his advantage in his run for the White House. And yet in the subsequent election cycle he appears to have forgotten all that they knew, or whomever was working for them joined the Republicans in 2010.

Allow me to explain. I like to think of myself as an average voter, I actually read ballot propositions before I vote on them as opposed to relying upon commercial propaganda to secure my vote. I like to know something about candidates before I vote for them. When I created my Google email account I found myself the recipient of what I can only describe as political SPAM. In my estimation, (based upon my email SPAM filter) the Republicans and their surrogates completely overwhelmed President Obama and his Democratic party allies.

The two attached screen captures are of just the first 50 of 116 emails I received going back to October 4th, 2010. You can do the math if you like, but at a quick glance it is easy to see that for every one email notice I received from the Democratic Party and their surrogates, I received 4 emails from the Republicans and their surrogates promoting fear.

And with that pitch, we catch Obama looking at strike three. The election is over and from the looks of things, we might not have to wait for his presidency to come to an end in 2012.

Juan Williams and NPR

2010-10-22T15:30:00.001-07:00

There is something missing in the recent furor of the firing of Juan Williams comments that he made to Bill O'Reilly. People are quick to condemn NPR for their actions. Williams of course doesn't see anything wrong with his comments. I see something very wrong with what Williams said as he echoed the spin of Bill O'Reilly.

Let's look at what Williams said.

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Excuse me Juan Williams, but you are in fact a bigot. What makes Williams comments the bigoted speech I have come to expect from hosts and guest of Fox News programs is the fact that the Muslim extremists who attacked the US on 9/11 didn't wear traditional Muslim attire, or Muslim garb.

Funny, you'd think that a credible newsman like Williams would be aware of the facts about terrorist attacks in this country. I would love for him to cite when an extremist Muslim terrorist was wearing Muslim garb? According to every act of terrorism that I have heard about in the past 10 years, the perpetrators were dressed in traditional western style clothes and not what the bigoted Juan Williams refers to as Muslim garb.

Juan Williams is a "liberal" apologist on Fox News. His appearance on O'Reilly's show only cements his role as Fox commentator. And now he is being rewarded for his loyalty to News Corp. and his own bigotry.

From my perspective Williams should be thanking NPR for firing him. Had they not fired him he would not have signed his contract for $2 Million dollars.

What I have learned from O'Donnell and Angle

2010-10-15T23:13:00.000-07:00

Debates can be amazing for what they reveal about the cognitive machinations of political candidates.

I first watched the debate between Delaware senate candidates Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell. I learned that when Coon's is offered the chance to take a swipe at his opponent he opted against it. Of course, O'Donnell was swinging for the fences as she took ill formed thoughts and tried to turn them into the "gotcha" moments her mentor Sarah Palin warned her about.

And Wolf Bliter hit her with that "gotcha" moment when she was asked whether she believed evolution is a myth.

"What I believe is irrelevant, because what I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms."

Her beliefs are irrelevant? If her beliefs are irrelevant, why is she running for office?

But for me the quote that deserves a jaundice eye came as she tried to avoid being accountable for her beliefs about evolution.

"So when you look at his position on things like raising taxes, which is one of the tenets of Marxism, not supporting eliminating the death tax, which is a tenet of Marxism -- I would argue that there are more people who support my Catholic faith than his Marxist beliefs."

When she spoke about taxes being a tenet of Marxism, I had to laugh. Clearly O'Donnell isn't as familiar with Marx. If we follow O'Donnell's point to it's logical conclusion that raising taxes "is one of the tenets of Marxism" the United States of America was a "marxist" nation long before Marx was ever born, or had written the Communist Manifesto.

But perhaps the disturbing response of the night came when O'Donnell responded to a question about foreign policy and the war in Afghanistan.

When we were fighting the Soviets over there in Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s, we did not finish the job, so now we have a responsibility to finish the job and if you are gonna make these politically correct statements that it's costing us too much money, you are threatening the security of our homeland.

Oh no she didn't? The US was not fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan "in the 80's and 90's." The Soviet's left Afghanistan in 1989. And what job was she referring to that wasn't finished? It appears that O'Donnell doesn't know her Afghanistan from her Iraq.

Now there is Sharron Angle. Boy talk about a boring debate between her and Reid. After watching the debate it was clear that I am glad that I don't live in Nevada. As I watched the debate I kept wondering how in the hell did Reid become the Senate Majority Leader? His lack of preparedness was both alarming and disconcerting to watch.

But alas, what I learned from Angle supersedes that of the unprepared of Harry Reid. When asked about whether a senator creates jobs, the loss of jobs.

Once again, Harry Reid, it’s not your job to create jobs, it’s your job to create policies that create the confidence for the private sector to create those jobs. And they have lost confidence because of things like Obamacare. There’s a, a business in Reno, where he wanted to hire twenty-four – five – more employees but instead laid of five, just because of the provisions in Obamacare.

We’re seeing those kinds of policies actually crush our economy over the last 20 months.

Is Angle at all aware that what she is calling Obamacare was signed into law in March of this year, and that various provisions have only been in effect since September of this year. How is it that policies of Obamacare have been crushing our economy for 20 months?

Of course, her repeated denials of verbatim quotes by the moderator were expected. Angle refused to acknowledge her prior previous statements about phasing out Social Security, eliminating the Dept of Education, and her motivation for telling Tea Party candidate Scott Ashjian she "got juice" in Washington DC. (Geeze, I thought that Harry Reid was the only career politician in the race.)

The most telling moment of the evening came when Angle tried to attack Reid on immigration. Angle's false allegation about Reid voting for Social Security benefits for "illegal immigrants" was the opportune moment to point out the absurdity of Angle's point, such that it was. She said;

Harry Reid has voted to give Social Security to illegal aliens, not only before they were citizens but after they were citizens.

So, Reid voted to give Social Security benefits to "illegal aliens," not only "before they were citizens but after they were citizens" too? Reid missed a golden opportunity to ask Angle why is she be opposed to giving Social Security benefits to immigrants who became citizens.

Ah, the joy of debates. If Reid loses to Angle it will be of his own doing. Should he retain his seat, I hope to hell that the Senate Democrats are smart enough to remove Reid from any majority or minority leadership roles.

Killing in the name of Glenn Beck.

2010-10-11T12:39:00.000-07:00

By Byron Williams own words, he credits Glenn Beck for providing him with his motivation to kill. Williams completely undermines the claim of Glenn Beck that "you have to get them young" in order to believe propaganda. Williams clearly believes the propaganda espoused by Beck. To the point of explaining away Beck's role in his own conspiracy to kill innocent civilians for his terrorist ideology.

Glenn Beck is promoting or inciting terrorism and hiding behind the First Amendment. Byron Williams makes it clear who he gets his marching orders from.

UPDATE:
More Byron Williams in his own WORDS.(.pdf)

In this corner...

2010-09-15T23:00:00.001-07:00

Well now that the primary season has come to an end and the general elections on the horizon, the true impact of Tea Party Republicans (TPR) will be measured. To listen to some pundits and members of the pundit-ocracy merely winning primary races equates to a political revolution the likes the nation hasn't witnessed since the...since the Revolutionary War.

Personally, I am waiting for someone to ask the question: What if any impact will Tea Party Republicans have in the general election should they actually win seats in the house and senate?

Let's for a moment take a look at the total number of TPR that will be seeking office this November.

US House of Representatives: (12)
Jesse Kelly Az., Raul Labrador, Id., Robert Dold, Il., Brad Zaun, Ia., Todd Lally, Ky., Andrew Raczkowski, Mi., Dan Banishek, Mi., Vicky Hartzler, Mo., Anna Little, NJ., Keith Rothfus, Pa., Tim Scott, SC., Bob Inglis, SC.(sitting Republican that ran with TPR backing).

US Senate: (6)
Joe Miller, Ak., Ken Buck, Co., Rand Paul, Ky., Sharron Angle, Nv., Pat Toomey, Pa., Mike Lee, Ut.

If we are to project the Republicans having majorities in both the house (218) and senate (51) I can't help wonder where in the pecking order will the TPR fall within the whole of the Republican party? Except for Bob Inglis of SC., it seems to me that TPR freshmen will have little seniority or voice within the party.

Do the TPR actually think that the election of their own will actually change the power structure of the Republican Party in either the house or the senate? If the TPR were wise, they would realize that as the minority voice in their party, with their low on the totem pole committee assignments, the opportunity to change the power dynamics in Washington DC will go by the wayside.

I see the TPR candidates becoming the very politicians that they pretend that they are so against. The TPR candidates if elected will march in lock step with the agenda as set forth by senior Republicans like Lamar Smith and Darrell Issa who plan on impeaching Obama.

The only revolution members like Lynn Westmoreland of the Republican party are interested in consists of shutting down the government as they did back in 1994.

As far as I can tell, the supporters of TPR have been duped in the worst way. And they the only way they will ever truly grasp how they have been fooled is only after the TPR are sworn into office in 2011.

Health Insurance Reform

2010-03-25T21:56:00.000-07:00

The teabaggers were out in force protesting the pending vote last weekend. The carried their signs, they hurled their insults and they said that the congressional Democrats should vote to support their positions.

Well the proverbial smoke has cleared and the only people left standing are the president and the members of his party as the house passed the senate's version, not once but twice.

And in the aftermath of the vote on Sunday in the house of representatives, the teabaggers revealed the disdain for democracy and civil discourse by hurling bricks and cutting gas lines. The teabaggers and their Republican allies have an ever morphing idea of what true presidential leadership is.

Under George Bush, the invasion of Iraq was carried out against the will of the people who did not support the war. To hear the Republicans in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, real presidential leadership was to stay the course despite opposition and the protests across the nation. Protests that far surpassed the attendance of any teabagger protest.

How the times change. With Barack Obama as president those very Republicans who cheered on George Bush's leadership and his willingness to ignore the will of the people dare to impugn Obama for not following the will of the teabaggers. Ironically enough, those Republicans said that Bush didn't lead by poll results are angry with Obama for not leading according to the polls.

Another case of Republican hypocrisy. What a surprise.

During the public debate the Republicans made an issue of not being able to read the bill. They complained about the size and scope of the health insurance reform, The Republicans complained that they could not read the bill and therefore they could not vote to support it.

Where were these Republican principles back when they voted for the PATRIOT ACT? Seems rather strange to complain about a bill that would provide protections to the people (but more importantly the insurance industry) as opposed to voting for a bill that would restrict the freedoms we take for granted, and yet hold so dear to our hearts.

The Republican party believed that the failure to pass the health insurance reform bill would be Obama's "Waterloo." Republicans wanted to make Obama a lame duck president in his first and only term as president. They were looking to win back majorities in the house and senate. With the passage of health insurance reform this will be even more difficult for the party of "No."

The Republicans reasons for wanting to take back the house is all about the census. Yep, the census. The party in power will be the one responsible for redistricting and the creation of districts that are favorable to their party winning reelection.

With Barack Obama's signature on health care reform the Republicans find themselves in a place they never expected to find themselves in the run up to the 2010 election. They find themselves between Barack and a tea spot.

What 60 vote majority?

2010-01-22T12:22:00.000-08:00

There has been talk in the media about how the election of Brown cost Obama his 60 vote majority in the US senate. Sorry, the 60 vote majority that the Democrats "held" was as shallow as the rain puddle on my front walk. Those purported 60 votes held by the Democrats were in fact 59 because Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Caucus in name only. After Lieberman, the list of "blue-dog" Democrats includes Evan Bayh, and Ben Nelson. 58, 57, yeah, Obama's 60 vote majority in the senate never existed.

I don't much admire George Bush for his policies (which oddly enough Obama supports, but I digress) he was able to get his legislation through the house and the senate without the daily threats of the filibuster. Yes, he used reconciliation, but that was because he didn't have the magical 60 votes. Which brings me to my point about just how jack-boot lock step the Republican party was at passing legislation. The Republicans in the house and senate were consistent in pushing their presidents agenda forward. The Democrats not so much.

And speaking of the filibuster. The Republicans oft criticized Democrats for contemplating using the filibuster against Bush's agenda. And hypocrites that all politicians are, the Republican strategy of just say no, is to say yes to the filibuster. And if the Republicans want to filibuster, I say make them get on the senate floor and actually filibuster whatever legislation they plan on voting against.

The Democrats and Obama are afraid of their own shadow. There is no leadership in always trying to seek a bi-partisan solution to the problems that ail the nation. There comes a time where proclaiming yourself the leader means you actually need to lead. And Obama isn't leading. Obama never had a 60 vote majority in the senate, and until he drops the pretense of passing bi-partisan legislation he will never bring change (he talked so much about) that I am many others can believe in.

The FBI Phishing SCAM!

2009-12-01T23:22:00.001-08:00

I love spam. Well, not really.

From time to time I get some crazy emails telling me that there are oodles and oodles of cash just waiting for me from some bank in Africa, or a former nation of the Soviet Republic with a really important sounding name. All they need from me (and everyone else) is their personal information.

Sadly, there are those that are swept up by these scams and end up getting taken for whatever money they are asked for, or worse they provide private account information and find themselves victims of fraud.

So in my email I find this important notice from the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller. The perpetrators of the fraud even provide a link to the bio page of Mr Mueller. So, surely the email must be real, right? Sadly the perps in question made a huge mistake. Well it is a huge mistake if you have any common sense and pay attention to the details. It seems that the head of the FBI doesn't have a government email address ending with the .gov suffix. All correspondence is to be sent to a Gmail address. And the fact that every word begins with a capital letter.

So here it is, the letter I received.

ANTI-TERRORIST AND MONEY LAUNDRY CRIMES DIVISION
FBI HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
J. EDGAR HOOVER BUILDING 935
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20535-0001
Website: www.fbi.gov
Email: rbrtmuell3@gmail.com
ATTENTION FUND BENEFICIARY.
This Is An Official Advice From The FBI, Foreign Remittance/Telegraphic Dept.(FRTD), It Has Come To Our Notice That The ADB (African Development Bank) And C.B.N (Central Bank Of Nigeria) Africa Has Released Your Part Of Inheritance/Contract Payment Of 10,500,000.00 U.S Dollars Into Bank Of America In Your Name As The Beneficiary.
The Bank In Africa Knowing Fully Well That They Do Not Have Enough Facilities To Effect This Payment From Europe To Your Account, Used What We Know As A Secret Diplomatic Transit Payment S.T.D.P To Pay This Fund Through Wire Transfer. They Are Still Waiting For Final Confirmation From You On The Already Transferred Funds, To Enable Them Crediting Into Your Account Accordingly. Secret Diplomatic Transfer Payment Are Normally Funds Related To Drug/Terrorist And Money Laundry System Of Payment, Why Must Your Payment Be Made In Such Secret Transfer, If Your Transaction Is Legitimate And Not Related To Drug/Terrorist And Money Laundry, Why Can't The Bank In Africa Via Europe Effect Direct Transfer Into Your Account Than Secret Diplomatic Payment Transfer.
Due To The Increased Difficulties And Unnecessary Scrutiny By The American Authorities When Funds Come From Through Such Payment Process From Europe, Africa And Middle East, Based On The Records We Had In The Past Always Identified Such Method Of Payment As Drug/ Terrorist/Money Laundry Funds, To Avoid Problem With The Us Government As Soon As These Funds Reflect In Your Account In The U.S.A, It Is Our Mandatory Obligations To Ascertain The Documentation And Certification Of This Funds Before The Final Crediting Into Your Account.
We Advice You Contact Us Immediately, As The Funds Have Been Stopped And Held In Our Custody Pending When You Were Able To Provide Us With A Diplomatic Immunity Seal Of Transfer (Dist) Within 3 Days From The United Nation International Fund Monitory Unit (UNIFMU) That Authorize The Transfer And Certified That The Funds Originated From Africa And Middle East Is Free From Terrorist/Drug And Money Laundry Or We Shall Confiscate The Payment. We Will Allow The Funds To Be Release Into Your Account Immediately You Make Provision The Required Document.Kindly get back to this office..
FBI Director ROBERT S. MUELLER III
Email: rbrtmuell3@gmail.com
You Will Be Directed Where And How To Get The Document If It Is Not In Your Possession.
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
FBI Director ROBERT S. MUELLER III
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/directmain.htm

Maybe everyone should send an email to the wannabe Director of the FBI. Rather than responding that you want to aid in the fight against terrorism, that you are part of a sleeper cell.

The Revolution will be Televized!

2009-06-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

Well, sort of. The fledgling revolution in Iran is being played on YouTube. And it has a companion blog.

How come we don't hear Republicans decrying that we are all Iranians now? It appears that interjecting in the affairs of others is the party's message. Clearly the Republicans have no sense of history and what took place in 1953 and 1979. (The Republicans have learned nothing of the belligerence of the Bush administration and what that cost the nation.)

Perhaps we are witnessing the next phase in the growth of Iran. We can only hope that the nation will grow more open and less repressive as a result of these protests.

Eating your own to survive after only 100 days in the wilderness

2009-05-13T22:01:00.000-07:00

Not long after the "Republican Revolution" in the 1990's it was the refrain of Republicans and the supporters to talk of the demise of the DNC. The DNC loss of majorities in the house and senate were hailed as milestones for the RNC and the beginning of the end of the DNC.

Well, two decades later, there has been a shift. The DNC once again holds majorities in the house and the senate, there is a black man in the White House and the Republicans are in apoplectic shock. And in what I would consider knee-jerk fashion, the Republicans elected a black man to head their national party and summarily took away his ability to spend money as if he was Marion Barry looking for a crack fix.

We have seen over promoted and under attended "tea-bagging" parties promoted (sponsored) by Fox News. A sure sign of a grass roots movement if there ever was. After Obama's first 100 days in office we have all borne witness to the fratracide within the Republican party. And I ain't talking about Arlen Specter leaving party in hopes of running unopposed as a major party candidate. (I think Specter and the DNC is in for some Pennsylvania primary fireworks in 2010.)

We have the former VP trouncing members of his party while promoting radio hosts over a combat veteran of a war that neither the former VP or the radio host had the temerity to fight. And the same VP appears more interested in his reputation than that of his party. Yeah, defend the VP as if he has some sterling reputation. I wonder how the the former VP would withstand being waterboarded by a former Navy Seal turned wrestler, turned governor? The VP would probably confess to killing Sharon Tate?

And speaking of waterboarding, I believe that Charles Grodin may have found the man to waterboard a certain loudmouth of Fox News all in the name of a good charity! Can't wait to see what happens the next time he visits. Something tells me that the subject of waterboarding and a certain charity will be off limits.

So, the "party of no" is finding that slowly their members are starting to vote yea against the party dogma. And in what can only be described as shear idiocy, the party of no is looking to reinforce their name, their particular branding by jumping in with both feet to relabel the DNC. Rather than looking inward, the RNC looks outward and tries to create their own alternative reality where Fox News is fair and balanced and that moderates within the RNC are nothing more than donkeys in elephant costumes. Because to be a real Republican is to hold the ideals of conservatives from the south, regardless of where one lives.

While I don't think that the RNC is dead as once was prescribed of the DNC, I do believe that it would be most ironic to watch the party that replaced the Whig party found themselves going the way of the Whigs.

If there was no crying in baseball, would there be no irony in politics?

Charles Freeman on his withdrawal and the "Likud Lobby"

2009-03-16T22:45:00.000-07:00

I can't help but think of Raymond Burr of the old television series, Ironside when I hear Charles Freeman speak. That said, I am disappointed that Obama did not fight for Freeman's nomination as the Director of National Intelligence as he fought for Tom Daschle's nomination as Director of Health and Human Services. If Freeman's withdrawal from consideration as the DIA is a precursor of the impact of the "Likud Lobby" it will serve as an example of how much hasn't changed under President Obama.

Watch the video.

HUDSON RIVER PLANE CRASH - UPDATE‏

2009-01-28T22:22:00.000-08:00

I received an email from a former professor regarding the plane crash in the Hudson River. It reveals what REALLY brought the airplane down!

Here's what REALLY brought the airplane down!

The Fascist Israeli Government

2009-01-27T00:33:00.001-08:00

This report is the first time I have ever watched on a US news broadcast a serious and compelling view of the Israeli government. Israel has recreated the 21st century equivalent of a Warsaw ghetto. And the US government is in collusion with the Israeli governments actions to oppress, and to kill-off the inhabitants living within the ghetto. (Please allow for the commercial to run.)

What'dya call that thing?

2009-01-15T01:12:00.001-08:00

I have always referred to my pedicab as that, a pedicab. Of course there are others who have called my cab a rickshaw. Which is not, in my humble opinion a pedicab. (Many an old veteran of former military endeavors regaled me with tales of catching a ride on the rickshaw somewhere in Asia.) Still others call it a bike taxi, pedal taxi and the pedal cab.

Well, I was recently re-reading a book that some may or may not be familiar with titled, The Quiet American(see pg 11) by Graham Green. (It was made into a movie in 1958 and 2002.) The story takes place in Vietnam. Well, it turns out that in this book, The Quiet American mentions on more than one occasion our favorite human powered three wheel machine of human conveyance, the trishaw.

So the next that I am asked what I call my pedicab, I will reply, "This is my trishaw."

Happy trishaw riding!

Yes We Can

2008-11-04T21:31:00.000-08:00

Text of Obama's Election Night speech

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics – you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to – it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing – Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons – because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America – the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Call me when it's Wednesday.

2008-11-02T15:23:00.000-08:00

I vote by absentee ballot. And I sent my ballot in nearly 2 weeks ago. For the first couple of days after sending of my ballot I watched some news where members of the pundit-ocracy talked about the election; where they play a clip of this candidate or that and then spend the next five minutes trying to explain what was just said. I guess the pundit-ocracy doesn't believe that the viewing public has the ability to understand first hand what a candidate says and thinks.

For the last three days I have avoided watching any of the news shows. I can't take anymore of the pundit-ocracy telling me what I should think about what they think about what a candidate thinks.

And I can't take listening to John McCain for one more minute. When I see John McCain I can't help think of the goblin bankers in the first Harry Potter movie.

I voted for Barack Obama. And against a slew of ballot propositions. I am hopeful that Obama will cement the legacy of John McCain the maverick, for having lost to the first African American president of the United States of America.

After the election maybe the country can finally do away with the antiquated electoral college.

Waiting to exhale, after the Vice Presidential Debate

2008-09-30T00:01:00.000-07:00

When I was a child the anticipation of Christmas morning was almost unbearable. I can only imagine the frustration of my mother who waited for me to fall asleep so she could play Santa Clause. I had that same anticipation preceding my first kiss. It was there on that day that I gave away my virginity.

And now, this Thursday at 6 pm Pacific Standard Time, I wait with that same anticipation for the pending Vice Presidential debate between Democratic party nominee Joseph Biden and Republican Party nominee Sarah Palin. And in all honesty, I almost feel a little dirty because my anticipation, my motivation for watching is as prurient as watching the Indy 500 waiting for a traffic accident.

I know, it is horrible of me. I want to watch because I can't wait to see if Sarah Palin will crash going into the third turn. I wonder will she be able to overcome the intense pressure and media spotlight on every word that she speaks. Think about this: every word she utters holds the potential of being comic fodder for the caustic comedic wit of Tina Fey.

How many times can you watch the Saturday Night Live skits about Palin before they are no longer funny? I know that I should not look, but I just can't help myself. I feel like I am rubber necking on the highway slowing traffic hoping that the traffic jam up ahead is something more ghastly than a driver getting a speeding ticket.

I confess that in those moments, where I look hoping to see the carnage on the side of the road that I don't really want to see the aftermath of death and destruction. And in all fairness to Palin, I don't really want to see her look like an accident victim on the stage with Joe Biden looking like a moose in the headlights about to be struck down.

Of course, I will watch...it is a guilty pleasure...and the anticipation is once again almost unbearable!

A Layman's reading of the $700 Billion Bail Out Bill

2008-09-28T23:55:00.000-07:00

I am of average intelligence, and have always thought it important to read and understand what I am getting myself into. And while I am not a member of the house or the senate I think that it is important to read the language contained in the Bail Out legislation pending before congress. I can only hope that those elected officials (including the would be presidential candidates) voting in support or against of this legislation actually read the language, parse the language, before casting their vote.

When it comes to politics I am pretty cynical. It is why I read the propositions on my voter's ballot in their entirety. I don't care much for the spin of 30 second commercials designed to convince the voter who doesn't think for themselves, but waits for the right sound bite to determine their vote.

Of course, the politicians sitting in DC and across the country aren't any better at reading through the legislation that they are to vote for or against. Some recent examples that come to mind, the passage of the PATRIOT Act. The rush to invade Iraq, and now this Wall Street Bail Out. Funny, whatever happened to letting the market decide the fate of business?

Well, I started reading the language contained in the Wall Street Bail Out pending before congress, and by the time I got to the ninth page (of 110) I already found the first reason to not support the legislation.

(d) PROGRAM GUIDELINES.—Before the earlier of the end of the 2-business-day period beginning on the date of the first purchase of troubled assets pursuant to the authority under this section or the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish program guidelines, including the following:
(1) Mechanisms for purchasing troubled assets.
(2) Methods for pricing and valuing troubled assets.
(3) Procedures for selecting asset managers.
(4) Criteria for identifying troubled assets for purchase.(p 9)

Sorry, but I don't think Paulson is in a position to determine the "mechanism for purchasing troubled assets." Nor do I think him capable of determining the "methods for pricing and valuing troubled assets." In senate testimony Bernanke argued,

"If we keep the range of participants too narrow, only failing institutions, for example, then we won't have a robust, competitive auction. The more participants we have, the more people who are involved in offering these assets, (then) we'll have a competition."

According to a Bloomberg article, Paulson's former company, Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley "may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid," according to Bank of America. (Yeah, I wonder if I should really trust B of A.) In reading the language of the pending legislation, there appears to be a provision that would benefit Paulson's former company Goldman Sachs under the section titled PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT (p.9).

In making purchases under the authority of this Act, the Secretary
shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent unjust enrichment of financial institutions participating in a program established under this section, including by preventing the sale of a troubled asset to the Secretary at a higher price than what the seller paid to purchase the asset. This subsection does not apply to troubled assets acquired in a merger or acquisition, or a purchase of assets from a financial institution in conservatorship or receivership, or that has initiated bankruptcy proceedings under title 11, United States Code.

The following section titled, SEC. 102. INSURANCE OF TROUBLED ASSETS.(p10) Under the heading of "(a) AUTHORITY.—" Paulson basically has the same authority he wrote into the original 2 and 1/2 pages initially presented to congress. I guess all the talk about Paulson getting down on one knee was to thank Pelosi for giving him everything that he and Bush were looking for.

I confess that I had to laugh at the "protections" placed in this legislation for the taxpayers. While Paulson writes the rules as he thinks of them, he is supposed to remember

The premiums referred to in paragraph (1) shall be set by the Secretary at a level necessary to create reserves sufficient to meet anticipated claims, based on an actuarial analysis, and to ensure that taxpayers are fully protected. p11

Under SEC. 104. FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT BOARD (p14) We learn that the foxes will be stewards of the hen house.

MEMBERSHIP.—The Financial Stability Over24
sight Board shall be comprised of—
(1) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
(2) the Secretary;
(3) the Director of the Federal Home Finance Agency;
(4) the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission; and
(5) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

I feel so much better having only read the first 16 pages. Now if I could only overcome the sick to my stomach feeling I am currently experiencing. I should take solace in noting that the last of the "additional duties" of the Oversight Board is "protecting taxpayers, in accordance with section 112(a)" (p16).

I am pleased to learn that The Financial Stability Oversight Board

shall terminate on the expiration of the 15-day period beginning upon the later of—
(1) the date that the last troubled asset acquired by the Secretary under section 101 has been sold or transferred out of the ownership or control of the Federal Government; or
(2) the date of expiration of the last insurance contract issued under section 102.

As it stands, I'd be voting against this legislation if my vote mattered. I can only hope that Kucinich is correct and that the Republicans can stave off this legislation. I haven't even gotten a quarter of the way through the bill and it sickens me to see that the only benefactors of this legislation is that of big business. If this legislation passes, it will be Bush's final act in completely gutting the nation. And Obama can kiss his chances at getting elected good-bye.

UPDATE: I thought I'd have fun and check my site meter. And while I was away I was visited by someone from NASA and the USDA. I hope that they liked what I penned. Hey government employees, leave a comment or something. It appears that my government visitors found me by searching with the words "layman," "700" and "bailout" in no particular order.

Obama agreed with McCain? Well Sort of.

2008-09-27T14:19:00.000-07:00

There is an effort to make more of the number of times (I keep hearing the number 11 tossed about) Obama agreed with McCain during their first debate. So I thought, why not just have a look at what was said by Obama with regard to his agreeing with McCain. Let's look at each time Obama "agreed" with McCain. This list will not go into the number of times Obama disagreed with McCain, or stated outright that he believed McCain to be wrong.

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis.

So, Obama agrees that responsibility is a good thing. So this is agreeing with McCain's policies? No. Obama offered up a salient caveat to McCain's comment. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.

Obama agrees that earmarks have been abused. This is yet another one of those moments where Obama hardly endorses the McCain agenda. It would be illogical to disagree with the point on earmarks particularly after watching the news coverage of the "bridge to nowhere." Advantage no one.

OBAMA: John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform...But the fact is that eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we're going to get the middle class back on track.

Obama agrees again about earmarks (aka pork barrel spending) but Obama then takes McCain's point and makes it his own, by pointing out that ridding the budget of earmarks won't help the middle class. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

Once again Obama agrees about the point about tax rates, and not McCain policy and then goes on to explain that whole McCain might be right, but McCain is also misleading the public because there are loopholes that benefit corporations and they don't pay the highest rates in the world as McCain asserts. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

This is probably the closest Obama gets to agreeing with a McCain policy. Of course, Obama takes the agreement on the "surge" and ties it into his central point about the mismanagement of the Bush administration policy in Iraq which McCain supported, despite his criticisms. Advantage Obama.

Obama missed out on a prime opportunity to hit McCain with what I think would have been the knock out punch every pundit said was missing from the debate. Obama should have brought up a comment made by McCain about getting out of Iraq if the Iraqi government wanted the US out and then Obama should have reminded everyone about how Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Obama's 16 month time table for withdraw.

OBAMA: And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

So, he agrees with McCain not on policy, but on principle. Then Obama provides a salient response to just how imprudent McCain has been. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

Again, agreement in principle, of the conditions on the ground, but it is not on any endorsement of any policy of McCain. In fact, Obama takes where they agree on principle and turns it against McCain pointing out a choice to be made and the problem with McCain's strategy and legitimacy. Advantage Obama.

OBAMA: Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer.

Again, this is hardly Obama endorsing McCain's foreign policy. This position has been enunciated by both parties for years.

On another note, I can't help but disagree with Obama when it comes to Israel and Iran. He is just as belligerent as Bush and McCain.

OBAMA: No, actually, I think Senator McCain and I agree for the most part on these issues. Obviously, I disagree with this notion that somehow we did not forcefully object to Russians going into Georgia.

Yes, they agree again in a failed principle. Sadly, both candidates are wrong about Russia's involvement with Georgia. Advantage McCain.

OBAMA: The second point I want to make is -- is the issue of energy. Russia is in part resurgent and Putin is feeling powerful because of petro-dollars, as Senator McCain mentioned.

That means that we, as one of the biggest consumers of oil -- 25 percent of the world's oil -- have to have an energy strategy not just to deal with Russia, but to deal with many of the rogue states we've talked about, Iran, Venezuela.

So, Obama agrees not with McCain's policies on Russia, just the notion about Russia benefiting from petro-dollars. He then makes a valid point about the futility of thinking that the US can drill our way free of our dependency on foreign oil.

I don't think I missed any of the times Obama agreed with McCain. I did leave out the times Obama agreed with Jim Lehrer. So, these are those moments where Obama agreed with McCain, and the pundit-ocracy thinks that it is important. And maybe they are, but for an entirely different reason. It is important because it shows the difference in how either man views the world and how each would lead if president.