Left and Right: A few of the Difference’s I see

By: David Phillips

November 24, 2008

During the 2000 Presidential election between Bush and Gore, votes in the State of Florida were muddled as I am sure most everyone remembers. Both sides called for recounts in some Florida districts while trying to stop recounts in other districts. It was a mess, but without going into greater detail, the point I am trying to make, is that the US Supreme Court was asked to intervene and intervene they did.

By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that George W. Bush would be the President of the United States. Over 100 million people voted in that election, but it came down to 9 people, and those nine, said that the more than 100 million people who voted will not decide who will be president, we will.

As a Democrat this Supreme Court decision pissed me off, not because they anointed Bush President, but because they ruled that the 100 million who did vote, no longer count.

This decision by the Supreme Court did not ruffle the feathers of Republicans, maybe because they anointed Bush. But I would have liked to have seen Republicans as concerned by the nullifications of their votes as I was with mine, but that never happened.

Another difference between Republicans and Democrats are the Bush War’s, Afghanistan, Iraq and the US Economy.

On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by al-Qaeda, after that tragic day, Bush not only had our entire countries support to go after those that attacked us, Bush also had the support of much of the world’s nations. For a short time we were a united nation, not a divided nation. This is sad, because it took an attack to bring us all together. And it took an invasion of Iraq who had nothing to do with 911 to divide us again.

America’s domestic war, the Economy, should never have happened, but it did, because of deregulation brought about by Bush and a complicit Republican controlled congress whose motto is “A Free Market”. A free market does not exist, it’s a lie, smoke and mirrors. Just about every industry is controlled by mega corporations, energy, health, food; pick any industry and you will find that it is not controlled by a free market, but controlled by mega-corporations, who if they do feel threatened by some start up in their industry will soon be bought out by the mega-corps.

Below is a short list of differences between the Left and Right as I see it over the last eight years:

·         Bush and Cheney’s secret Energy meetings.

·         The Valerie Plame CIA Leak.

·         The failed Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

·         Dick Cheney’s release of Classified Information to the press, via Scooter Libby, because he was pissed off at former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

·         The investigation into illegal NSA wiretaps of American citizens.

·         No Bid Contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiaries.

·         The Whitehouse saying that they know where the WMD’s are, and their failure to find the WMD’s in Iraq.

·         The Jack Abramoff Corruption scandals.

·         China manufacturing Missile components for the Defense Department.

·         The Mexican Army escorting Drug Cartels into the United States.

·         The Abu Ghraib Torture cover-ups.

·         The Guantanamo Bay Prison Torture cover-ups.

·         Tax breaks for only the richest people in America, and Subsidies and Tax breaks to his buddies at the Oil Companies.

·         The lies of the cost of Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan, Bush said it would cost $320 Billion, when in reality; it’s going to cost $860 Billion.

·         Bush eliminating Overtime Pay to over 6 Million American workers.

·         Bush making it very difficult to declare Bankruptcy, even if you lose your job due to Health reasons, or if your company outsourced your job to a foreign company.

·         Bush giving Tax Breaks to companies who outsource jobs to foreign Nations.

·         Bush spending $2.3 Billion on propaganda stories right here in the United States.

·         Bush not attending any Funerals of the more than 4000 dead Americans from his Wars.

All of these seem to be OK and supported by the Republican Party, at least to the extent of not asking to stop them or sitting on their hands as they became known to the public. As a Democrat I could not disagree more.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Prop 8: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

By: David Phillips

November 17, 2008

Proposition 8 defines a marriage as between one man and one woman only. The proposed change to the California Constitution is meant to deprive those that wish to marry who are of the same sex. A Yes vote on Proposition 8 means that same sex marriages will not be allowed.

Back in March of 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.

Proposition 8, passed with 52 percent of the vote.

The exit polls showed that the group that voted in favor of Prop 8 more than any other group was African-Americans. 70 percent were in favor of Prop 8. You would think that this particular segment of voters, who went to the polls in droves to vote for Barack Obama, would have a strong sense of what it’s like to have your civil liberties stifled. Just in case you are curious, 51 percent of whites voted against prop 8.

A rose by any other name, what is the big hang up with the word marriage? The majority of California’s don’t care if gays and lesbians have a “Civil Union” which would give the same marriage rights to gays and lesbians as a marriage, they just don’t want the word “Marriage” included.

Marriage is defined by the 'Lectric Law Library as a "contract made in due form of law" and it goes on to describe the requirements of the contract (www.lectlaw.com). The religious definition of marriage, whether it is in the Bible, the Koran or the Torah dictates that marriage is between a man and a woman, and homosexuality is a sin.

A civil union is extremely different than a marriage in that it affects the legal aspect of a couple's relationship, which should be the real argument behind gay and lesbian unions. On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples. This means that the law grants "the same state benefits, civil rights, and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples"

The biggest voice of opposition comes from religious leaders, Christian leaders who use Bible passages as foundations for their case against same sex marriage. The passage that is most commonly cited in the bible is Leviticus 20:13 which says "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon Church based in Salt Lake City, Utah, dumped more than $20 million dollars into the passage of Proposition 8.  I see this as both disingenuous and ironic of the LDS Church who views marriage as between a man and as many teenagers as the man can afford. Yes I know that the main body of the LDS Church no longer practices polygamy, but the Book of Mormon does allow and calls for multiple wives. And some of the off-shoots of the LDS Church to this day practice polygamy.

Until someone can explain to me how same sex marriage diminishes the sanctity of a marriage between a man and women, I will continue to speak out in favor of same sex marriage. Gays and Lesbians should have the exact same rights as others. They should be allowed to live their lives as they wish, and not as how someone else wishes they should live.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

Is There Media Bias?

By: David Phillips

November 3, 2008

Is the media bias? As Sarah “Barracuda” Palin would say, “You Betcha.” But who does the media favor, the left or the right?

Well, if you were to ask any Republican he would tell you that the media favors the left and that the media is mostly liberal. If you were to ask a Democrat the same question he would tell you that the media is bias and favors the right and is more conservative.

The Democrat would be correct. I am not saying that just because I am a Democrat, but because it is true.

President Bush is a Conservative, for the first six years of Bush’s Presidency he had a Conservative controlled Congress and now has a Supreme Court that also leans Conservative by a 5 to 4 count. Now granted they are not the media but without the right wing control of the media Bush would never been elected, nor would the right wing have controlled Congress for Bush’s first six years.

The U.S. media is rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The FCC has consistently increased the market shares that these corporations can control, such as Newspapers, Radio and TV under the Bush regime.

Surveys of journalists from the 1980’s showed that the mainstream media was for the most part liberal, but that was more than twenty years ago, today’s media for the most are not. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of “pundits” who do engage in noisy editorializing leans heavily to the right and it is their voice’s that are heard the loudest.

Right wingers even have their own media channel, Fox News as well as control of Talk Radio, which for the most part is also controlled by Fox News Even numerous print publications such as the Wall Street Journal are controlled by conservatives.

But I’ve been told over and over again that it’s the Liberals who dominate the media in the United States. Rush Limbaugh, Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, Rich Lowry, and Bill O'Reilly have all informed me of this fact.

Even William Safire, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley Jr, George Will, John Gibson., Michelle Malkin, David Brooks, Tony Blankley, Fred Barnes, Britt Hume, Larry Kudlow, and even Sean Hannity, have all told me that the media is bias towards the left.

And there is even more media type people who say the same thing, David Horowitz, William Kristol, Hugh Hewitt, Oliver North, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Cal Thomas, Joe Klein, James Kilpatrick, Tucker Carlson, Deroy Murdock, Michael Savage, Charles Krauthammer, and Stephen Moore, have also told me that Liberals dominate our Media.

I feel so lucky to have all of these clear thinking, levelheaded, bipartisan media types looking out for my best interest by pointing out who is bias and who is not.

They have made my life a whole lot easier when it comes time for me to spot a Liberal Media person, you see it turns out that whoever disagrees with any of the Whitehouse policies or the GOP is a Liberal Media person, and it’s that easy.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Barack Obama: The Facts, The Truth

By: David Phillips

October 13, 2008

Bio and Background

Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961; in Honolulu, Hawaii. Obama is the junior United States Senator from Illinois and the first African American to be nominated for any major party as their presidential nominee.

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School (Harvard - Juris Doctor, or Doctor of Jurisprudence and graduated Magna Cum Laude), where he also served as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before entering into any elected office.

Elected Office’s

Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70% of the vote from the State of Illinois.

Legislation

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama was the cosponsor for the Lugar-Nunn Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006 and the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.

Obama’s legislation for accountability of funds also created a web site where anyone can see where their dollars are being spent and by who, here is the web site: http://usaspending.gov/

From January 2005 to the present, Senator Obama was the sponsor, co-sponsor or signee of more than 1200 pieces of legislation or amendments of legislation which can be found at the Library of Congress web site: http://Thomas.loc.gov

During the 110^th Congress Senator Obama has made trips to the Middle-East, Africa, Europe and Eastern Europe. He helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

Guilt by Association

Senator Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim, Senator Obama is an American, not an African, Senator Obama is smart and well spoken, not an elitist. Senator Obama does not pal around with terrorists, and he’s against terrorism.

The GOP and the McCain-Palin ticket are spreading all of those lies and more; they are saying that Obama “Pals around with terrorists” regarding Bill Ayers a former 60’s radical and leader of the Weathermen Underground. Obama’s only association with Ayers was that both shared a seat on the Board of the Annenberg Foundation which has eight other board members both democrat and republican, the foundation was set up and funded by a republican, Walter H. Annenberg whom Richard Nixon appointed as the Ambassador of the United States of America to the Court of St. James's in England.

The only other commonalities between Obama and Ayers: both taught at the University of Chicago Law School, and Ayers hosted a fund raiser for Obama when he first entered the political arena. Oh and Ayers donated $200 dollars to Obama’s campaign at the time.

Obama has said of Ayers that when he first met him he was not aware of his background and why should he, Obama was eight years old when Ayers was committing his terrorism and Obama has said that Ayers terrorist acts were deplorable. Obama has also said of Ayers that he just another guy in the neighborhood. That is true as well, and there are more than 10,000 people living in that neighborhood.

And after eight years of President Bush and his lack of judgment and intellect, Intelligence will soon return to the Oval office when Barack Obama is elected President.

With as much damage as Bush has done to our country and the world, Obama is our only chance of setting things back on track. And Obama will have his hands full.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

John McCain, the Maverick, the Myth

By: David Phillips

October 6, 2008

Senator John Sidney McCain III was born August 29, 1936 and celebrated his 72^nd birthday last month, if elected he would become the oldest person ever elected as President. McCain was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982; he served two terms, and was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election easily in 1992, 1998, and 2004.

Senator McCain, whose nick name is “The Maverick” had ruffled many feathers over the years by not voting in lock step with his Republican congressional caucus in Washington.

Over the past 26 years that Senator McCain has been in Washington there have been many others who also have not voted in lock step with the GOP, but somewhere along the way, it was McCain who was tagged the Maverick by the media for differing with the Republican Party on some key issues.

Well the Maverick is gone, dead, buried, it is no more, the only thing left of the maverick nickname that McCain was once famous for is now a myth of a man that once was.

McCain is a man who now votes in lock step with his GOP brethren, McCain is now a follower and no longer a leader. In 2006 Senator McCain voted with Bush and the GOP 90 percent of the time, in 2007 95 percent of the time and 2008 100 percent of the time on the few times he came off the campaign trail and back to Washington to cast a vote.

John McCain has been campaigning on two personal notes; one is that he is a maverick, and two, that he is a former POW.

As I said, the maverick is no longer, it is his past, as is his POW status.

McCain in every campaign from his past to the present has used his history as a POW as if it qualifies him for whatever office he was and is seeking. This is not to belittle his history as a POW, McCain endured torture that only others who themselves have been tortured can truly understand. But in no way does being captured and tortured qualify him or entitle him to be President of the United States.

In an interview with Katie Couric a couple of months back McCain was asked to clear up the flap he created in a previous interview with Politico, when McCain was asked how many homes he owns and said “I think — I’ll have my staff get to you.” McCain’s answer to Couric was, "I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair." McCain was referring to his time spent as a POW as to the reason why he did not know how many homes he owns.

McCain’s aide Brian Rogers said to the Washington Post, while in full damage-control mode, said his boss had “some investment properties and stuff,” then added: “This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years — in prison.”

Another of McCain’s POW entitlement happened when he was making a comment about Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards, when she ridiculed McCain's health care policy. A McCain aide said that the Senator knows what it’s like to get inadequate care "from another government.”

And then there have been the countless ads showing McCain in a bed at the Hanoi Hilton, the opening video at the Republican convention were McCain’s POW history along with film of the 911attack which were used as the intro to McCain’s speech.

Senator McCain you were a POW, we get it, but that does not entitle you or lend qualifications to you, to be President of the United States.

And finally, last week the Senate approved a bailout bill, and then sent it to the House which also approved the Bill, then Bush signed it into law. The Senate version included $150 billion in pork that the original House Bill that was first voted down did not contain. Senator McCain whose has campaigned on “no pork”, voted yes on the Senate version that was ultimately signed by Bush.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

What would happen if there was No Bailout?

By: David Phillips

September 29, 2008

As I am sure by now you are aware of what’s going on with financial institutions and the proposed $700 billion tax payer bailout, last week President Bush made a prime time speech to the nation to help explain what is being proposed and why.

The President’s speech was pretty general in its description of how we got to where we are today, Bush said, “Easy credit combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise, led to excesses and bad decisions.”

“Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on.”

Then Bush proceeded to panic the nation with the following:

“The government's top economic experts warn that, without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold.”

“More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically.”

“And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs.”

President Bush painted a gloom and doom picture, my guess for this, was to push the voting public to contact their congressional representatives to get a deal signed.

Bush says we must have a deal as soon as possible; the consequences are just too great, Wall Street must receive a check soon..

But why should anyone believe him since he has been wrong on so many issues and policies. Both President Bush and Congress have said that there will be time down the road to find out exactly what cause this meltdown.

Normally when Congress considers a spending bill this large there would be months of committee meetings before any vote would take place, but Bush expects us to take him at his word that the sky is falling and it’s falling now.

Former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was critical of President Bush's handling of the crisis. He said to lay the $700 billion obligation on the nation "in 24 hours" amounts to "holding the country hostage."

"I just think the American people ought to be screaming their lungs out, saying to Congress, not so fast. That's our money you're giving away," Huckabee said.

I honestly don’t know if a $700 billion bailout would make one bit of difference to the current situation these financial institutions are currently experiencing. I do know that nearly two million homes are currently facing an increase in their mortgage rates or soon will be in the coming months. But maybe a shake up on Wall St is what’s needed to prevent similar situations from arising in the future.

I do know that financial institutions on Wall St will see this as a message that if they are on the verge of a collapse, Uncle Sam will come to their rescue, and that is not a message that we should be sending to them.

Greed and deregulation on oversight is what brought this on, this is their own making, and maybe it is Wall St who should be sleeping in the beds that they themselves made and not the tax payer.

At the time of my writing this story Congress was still working on a bailout and both parties said that a deal was near, that is until John McCain road in on his White Jet to save the day. Now the GOP leadership who hours earlier said a deal was near, are now saying just the opposite.

McCain is flying out to Mississippi today for the first of three presidential debates, McCain wanted to cancel this debate, but has decided to go...Maybe with him gone Congress can come to some sort of a compromise, or maybe they can come to a decision that a deal could wait until cooler heads can prevail..

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Corporate Welfare: Tax Payers Left Holding the Bag

By: David Phillips

September 22, 2008

What is Corporate Welfare: Corporate welfare is a term describing a government's bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment on corporations or select corporations. The term was coined by Ralph Nader in 1966, and compares corporate subsidies and welfare payments to the poor, and implies that corporations are much less needy of such treatment than the poor. (Source: Wikipedia)

Now on with the show

While Senator John McCain tour’s our country stumping and saying, “The Fundamentals of our Economy are Strong”, the rest of us have been bending over while our government dole’s out our tax dollars for corporate bailouts.

Last week in the wake of the collapse of American International Group (AIG) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, President Bush from the White house Rose Garden made public, measures to bailout banks from billions of dollars in bad debts with our tax dollars.

Bush said that the recent failures of banking institutions will require "unprecedented action" that would bring the US government deeper into a variety of financial markets.

The actions that are being planned include emergency lending to banking institutions and a temporary freeze on short selling of stocks to fight downward pressure on share prices.

The plan will also try to unfreeze the credit markets by finding a way to take billions of dollars of bad mortgage-backed assets off the books of financial institutions and into the control of our government. That’s right Uncle Sam may soon become your mortgage holder.

President Bush called the moves "decisive" and necessary to "get our financial system moving again." Bush went on to say, "This is a pivotal moment for America's economy,". . . There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem. Now is the time to solve it." Meaning right after he leaves office will be the time to find out the cause of the collapse of our financial institutions.

Meanwhile over at the Treasury Department, Secretary Paulson told reporters, "I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative: a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion."

Paulson was asked what the costs to the American tax payers will be for this "bold" action, his answer:  We're talking hundreds of billions (of tax dollars). This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get at the heart of the problem."

So how did all of this come about?

Deregulation under the Bush administration of financial and lending institutions and no government oversight of those who offered up sub-prime loans to people who could not afford them, which cause the collapse of the housing market, which led to the devaluation of properties, even those properties that were not involved in sub-prime loans and who are current on payments have suffered a loss in the value of their properties. Then all those loans were sold off to other financial institutions, who then resold them…A domino effect.

So now, you and I as well as every other tax payer are on the hook again for another bailout and according to the Treasury Dept. 126 other banks and financial institutions are currently on the edge of a collapse, which is why when Paulson was asked how much the bailouts will cost, he could only say hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street talking heads say it will cost at least a half a trillion to shore up these financial institutions.

All of these lending institutions brought this upon themselves, they wanted the government out of their business with the deregulation, and now it is the tax payer who is left holding the bag.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Abortion: Why it should remain a Women’s Choice

By: David Phillips

September 15, 2008

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark case Roe v. Wade in 1973 that made abortion legal, has been under attack ever since. The court’s ruling does allow individual states to restrict abortions to varying degrees, but it does not allow any state to ban abortions completely.

Some of the limitations put on abortion in various states have included Parent notification if the woman is a minor, restrictions on late term abortions, and risk information to patients prior to the procedure.

Abortion is a hot subject that provokes strong feelings on both sides of the issue, on one side you have those that want the decision to be made by the individual and on the other side you have those that want the decision to be made by a law that would prevent abortion in any case.

Recent polling shows that 60 percent of the country wants to keep abortion legal; this number is the lowest in seven years when more than 80 percent wanted to keep abortion legal. This shows that the countries thinking on the subject is moving in the direction of changing the laws on abortion to where they were before 1973. This swing coincides with the rise of the right wing evangelical base that propelled Bush into office in 2000 and 2004.

But recent polls of women only still show that more than 80 percent still favor keeping abortion legal.

Pro-Choice and Democrats:

First let’s set this record straight, Democrats are not in favor of abortions; in fact most democrats are just as much against abortion as Republicans are, the difference between the two sides is choice.

Choice for women to regulate their own body, the decision for any women to carry a fetus to full term or to abort the fetus, this decision is something that all women will have to deal with their entire life. The choice is theirs, not our Governments.

What Democrats favor is educating women which will lower the number of abortions, support for women so they can make a sound decision. Support from family, religious leaders, from friends, from reading material, someone to talk to about the challenges that go with either decision of aborting the fetus or carrying the fetus to full term.

Education is the key to lowering the numbers of abortions, not creating laws to ban abortions, because that will only drive women back to the days before Roe v. Wade. Back to a time when women were either forced to leave the country to get an abortion, or to go to a back alley where someone who is not qualified to do abortions puts the life of the women at risk.

But if the laws were changed to make it illegal, what would be the penalty for the women?  Would she be put in prison? What about the Doctor, would you put him in prison?

Making abortions illegal is not going to stop abortions, but it will get more women killed or sent to a hospital because of some infection that was brought about by someone not qualified and with instruments that are not sanitary.

There will always be abortions, no matter what laws are put in place; the best solution is to educate women as I described earlier and lower the numbers of abortions that take place.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Biden and Palin, Are they ready to step up if needed?

By: David Phillips

September 8, 2008

The Vice President choices are in, Senator Biden and Governor Palin have both given their parties acceptance speeches, one of these two politicians will be a heartbeat away from the Oval office if something were to happen to the President, but are they ready?

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has been a US Senator since January 1973, he is currently the fourth longest serving US Senator in Washington. Sen. Biden is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he is the former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has years of experience in both Foreign and Domestic policies. Sen. Biden’s experience will be a great sounding board for President Obama as he attempts to change the way Washington works.

Senator Biden is well known for his gift of gab and off the cuff remarks, this gift of gab, is a strength as well as a weakness for him, because sometimes he puts his own foot in his mouth, but more often than not, he is putting his foot in his opponent’s mouth. Sen. Biden’s years in Washington are an open book and there are very few skeleton’s in his closet that can come back to hurt him or Obama.

Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) is very new to politics and to the American people, outside of Alaska until recently know one really knew who she is and what her political beliefs encompass.

Gov. Palin was the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and now Governor the last 18 months

Unfortunately for both Gov. Palin and Senator John McCain much has come out over the last several days about her ability to step in as President if Sen. McCain who is 72 and a four time cancer survivor should not be able to do his job. And what has been learned about Gov. Palin has many wondering if the McCain campaign did its due diligence in vetting Gov. Palin.

The McCain campaign in recent interviews has said that they vetted Gov. Palin but the truth is, they did not.

The Washington Post reported last week that “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.”

McCain only met Gov. Palin one time before he asked her to be his running mate, and that was several months ago in Alaska for about five minutes.

McCain has said over and over that a Vice President must have the qualifications and the experience to step in as President if needed. The fact that she was not vetted properly and the fact that she has very little experience to speak of, and no experience at all in foreign policy, should have been enough to disqualify her. But McCain did not pick her because of her experience even though he says he did, he picked her because she is young, a women and might garner some of the disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

But one only has to look at her ideology and those of Hillary’s supporters to see that they are totally opposite. The only thing the two have in common is that they are women. I must conclude that McCain is playing identity sexist politics with his pick of Gov. Palin.

Gov. Palin is against stem cell research, against Gay/Lesbian marriages and even civil unions, she is against choice for women to make decisions over their own bodies, she wants Creationism taught as a science in all schools, she opposes sex education, she wants to be allowed to ban books that she herself disagrees with. There is plenty more that separates her from the Democrats who were Hillary supporters, but you get the idea.

She recently said, “What does the Vice President do? She says that she has not been paying any attention to the War in Iraq, and she is currently being investigated for abuse of power as Governor of Alaska.

There is plenty more about Gov. Palin that has come out in recent days and from what we have learned she should have no place on McCain’s ticket.

Any chances that McCain may have had before his naming of Palin on his ticket are now slowing and methodically blowing in the wind all because he and his campaign were too lazy to properly vet Gov. Sarah Palin.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

.

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Obama and McCain on Health Care
By: David Phillips
September 1, 2008

Presidential hopefuls Obama and McCain have both talked about health care while stumping across America. I will try and point out the central themes of both candidates on this issue so you can decide which one is better for you and your family. 

There are currently 47 million Americans who do not have any health care right now, and in 2007 according to our government, 89 million Americans went without health care for all or part of that year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that by 2012, 150 million Americans will no longer be able to afford the costs of health care.

Both candidates agree that rising health care costs must be reigned in, but how. The difference between Obama’s plan and McCain’s plan are like Night and Day, so which plan is best?

Obama wants to provide health care for every American citizen

Universal Health care is currently given in every western industrialized nation on earth, except one nation, the United States of America.

Senator Obama’s health plan will NOT require you, your family or anyone else to change the health plans that you currently have. In fact if you are happy with your plans nothing will change for you or your families.

Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.

Senator Obama’s plan will include:

Guaranteed eligibility: No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

Comprehensive benefits: The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

Easy enrollment: The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.

Portability and choice: Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

Support for Small Businesses: Barack Obama will create a Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. This new credit will provide a strong incentive to small businesses to offer high quality health care to their workers and help improve the competitiveness of America’s small businesses.

McCain wants the Free Market to control health care costs

McCain wants to keep the so-called free market in health care as it is an offer up a health care tax break for every American citizen. McCain says he will give a family of four up to a $5000.00 tax credit, and allow employees to shop for their own health care. McCain will remove employers cost of health care which will increase profits for business’s.

But, the average cost in 2008 to insure a family of four is approx. $15,000 dollars a year, which McCain says he will give back a $5000.00 dollar tax credit. This is a $10,000.00 dollar a year out of pocket increase, for a family of four.

McCain says that a free market will create competition and lower health care costs for everyone. But it is the current free market that runs health care, and it is the same free market that has driven up the costs of health care.

Senator McCain’s plan will include:

Cheaper Drugs: Lowering Drug Prices. John McCain will look to bring greater competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.

Greater access and Convenience: Expanding Access to Health Care. Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.

Information Technology: Greater Use of Information Technology to Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.

Both candidates have their health plans listed on their web sites, I urge everyone to read what each has to say.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Which Candidate does the Media Favor More?

By: David Phillips

August 25, 2008

There is a slogan that says any Press coverage is good Press coverage, even if the coverage is negative. The Washington Post a couple of weeks ago wrote that their own paper has a large disparity between the press cover for McCain vs. Obama. The article said that Obama has been in their paper three times as much as McCain. The article also said that it looked bad for the paper and it should change the public’s perspective of this imbalance by covering McCain in their paper more often.

McCain and his campaign have been complaining about the difference in press coverage for several months now. But you may not always like what you are wishing for, because Senator McCain’s gaffes, flip flops and outright lies have been greatly over looked by the Main Stream Media (MSM).

Positive Press vs. Negative Press

The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) released a report July 28, 2008 that showed the following results:

Study Finds Obama Faring Worse On TV News Than McCain

Barack Obama is getting more negative coverage than John McCain on TV network evening news shows, reversing Obama’s lead in good press during the primaries, according to a new study by CMPA. The study also finds that a majority of both candidates’ coverage is unfavorable for the first time this year.  According to CMPA President Dr. S. Robert Lichter, “Obama replaced McCain as the media’s favorite candidate after New Hampshire.  But now the networks are voting no on both candidates.”

These results are from the CMPA 2008 Election News Watch Project. They are based on a scientific content analysis of 249 election news stories (7 hours 38 minutes of airtime) that aired on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and Fox Special Report (first half hour) from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2008. Previously we analyzed 2144 stories (43 hrs 30 min airtime) during the primary campaign from December 16, 2007 through June 7, 2008.  We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns about each other.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

Since the primaries ended, on-air evaluations of Barack Obama have been 72% negative (vs. 28% positive).  That’s worse than John McCain’s coverage, which has been 57% negative (vs. 43% positive) during the same time period.

Obama ran even farther behind McCain on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with 79% negative comments (v. 21% positive), compared to 61% negative comments (v. 39% positive) for McCain since June 8.  During the primaries Obama had a slight lead in good press on Fox, with 52% favorable comments (v. 48 % unfavorable), compared to 48% favorable (v. 52% unfavorable) for McCain. 

Another poll this month from the Pew Research Center (PEW) found that 48 percent of Americans feel they’re “hearing too much” about Obama. Pew found that only 26 percent feel that way about McCain, and that nearly 4 in 10 Americans feel they hear too little about McCain.

Did You Know

 McCain slammed President Bush for his lack of help and support for Katrina. But on the day hurricane Katrina hit, McCain and Bush were cutting a birthday cake for McCain in Arizona having a good time while people were dying. McCain’s first appearance in New Orleans came six months after Katrina. And McCain never publicly denounced Bush’s handling of Katrina, until this past April. The Media never said a word about this.

McCain railed against Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and the influence peddling they brought to congress. McCain has spouted how proud he is for never asking for one dime in earmarks or any special favors from lobbyists. McCain’s campaign is being run by these same influence peddlers that he supposedly was against. McCain currently has 104 lobbyists on his campaign staff. But the Media barely says a word about this.

McCain once called the Evangelical right wing of his party, “agents of intolerance”. Since his flip he had embraced the support of Revs. John Hagee and Rod Parsley, both of these men are even more controversial than Obama’s Rev. Wright. But the Media barely said a word about Hagee and Parsley.  

There are just too many flip flops and lies from McCain to write in this story, but you can read a list of 74 McCain Flip Flops at this web address: http://yodasworld.org/id353.html

McCain should keep quit on the press coverage because it’s the only thing that is keeping this race close.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

War Profiteers are Stealing our Tax Dollars

By: David Phillips

August 18, 2008

According to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) by the end of this year the Bush administration will have spent more than $100 Billion dollars on private firms working in Iraq since the invasion started in 2003. This total does not include corporations who have received billions of our tax dollars who are not in Iraq.

The United States has relied more heavily on contractors in Iraq than in any other war to provide services ranging from food service to guarding diplomats. About 20 percent of funding for operations in Iraq has gone to contractors, the report said.

Currently, there are at least 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries, a ratio of about one contractor per U.S. service member, the report says.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Budget Committee, which requested the CBO review, said the use of contractors "restricts accountability and oversight; opens the door to corruption and abuse; and, in some instances, may significantly increase the cost to American taxpayers."

In May, an internal audit from the Defense Department's inspector general showed about $8 billion paid to U.S. and Iraqi contractors, found that nearly every transaction failed to comply with federal laws or regulations aimed at preventing fraud.

Below is a short list, a very short list, of companies who are fleecing American tax dollars:

·         Halliburton-The first name that comes to everyone’s mind here is Halliburton. According to MSN Money, Halliburton’s KBR, Inc. division bilked government agencies to the tune of $17.2 billion in Iraq war-related revenue from 2003-2006 alone.

·         Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp-At first blush, a private equity fund (and not, say, Exxon-Mobil) being the number 2 profiteer in the Iraq war might sound strange. However, the cleverly run fund has raked in $1.44 billion through its DynCorp subsidiary.

·         Washington Group International- The Washington Group International has parlayed its expertise the repair, restore, and maintenance of high-output oil fields into $931 million in Iraq-related revenue from 2003-2006.

·         Fluor-Fluor scored a monster $1.1 billion contract in 2004 to build, service, and manage water/sewage systems in Iraq.

·         Parsons-Few Iraq contractors have come under fire as much as Parsons, who reportedly mismanaged the construction a police academy so poorly that human waste dripped from its ceilings. Far from being an isolated incident, reports from federal government auditor’s revealed lackluster work on 13 of the 14 Iraq projects entrusted to Parsons. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the Pasadena-based firm from making off with $540 million in U.S. government funds for the poorly executed reconstruction projects at Iraq’s healthcare centers and fire stations.

·         L3 Communications-L3 Communications has carved out a neat $359 million slice of Iraq’s security screening needs as of fiscal 2006. The New York-based company has been charged with overseeing the screening and training of law enforcement personnel for the growing all-Iraqi security force, as well as replacing equipment in the field. Linguistics is another one of L3’s specialties, one that is heavily relied upon to interface with native speaking Sunni and Shia forces.

·         L3 Communications has also purchased Titan, a corporate intelligence company with a $1 billion Iraq contract. Prior to being acquired by L3, Titan plead guilty to international bribery charges (a felony) and paid a record-breaking $28.5 million under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

·         HSBC Bank-Already the third largest financial institution on the planet, HSBC has seen its fortunes brighten beyond its wildest dreams since the start of combat. It has purchased a controlling stake (70%) of the newly created Iraqi national bank, Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, which, though small, has already amassed assets of $91 million.

The above list of war profiteers are not supplying the goods that they have been contracted to provide. According to numerous reports by both our government and independent watch dog groups these companies and many others are promising one thing and delivering another.

The Pentagon and those that have awarded the contracts (many no-bid contracts) have had carte blanche because Bush and the Republican controlled congress that Bush enjoyed, removed almost all oversight. In fact the latest Pentagon Inspector General had recently quit after only a few months on the job because he did not have adequate personnel to oversee the voluminous task that was before him.

This corruption must stop; most of the problems Americans are now confronted with are directly related to the failed War policies installed by Bush and the GOP.

Bush and the GOP have created a tax dollar siphoning machine with almost zero oversight and McCain wants to continue these policies.

Americans must demand oversight on every tax dollar spent on any program, period.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

WalMart Warns Employees about Voting for Obama

By: David Phillips

August 11, 2008

Wal-Mart, America’s largest discount retail chain recently held meetings run by its Human Resources department warning it’s employee’s that if Obama is elected Democrats would likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

According to a recent front page Wall Street News article, thousands of Wal-Mart managers and department heads have been attending meetings where the retail giant warned that a Democrat in the White House would be bad for business and would lead to more unions.

Several Wal-Mart employees who attended meetings in seven states said, Wal-Mart executives claimed that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

David Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman, told the WSJ, “If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression we were telling associates how to vote, they were wrong and acting without approval.” Tovar added, however, that Wal-Mart feels a responsibility to “educate” employees about the dangers of unionization.

It’s quite clear that Wal-Mart is pressuring its employees on who they should vote for, which should be illegal. Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders and salaried managers, but not to hourly employees. While store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly workers.

At the heart of Wal-Marts worries is a piece of legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) pushed by unions and most Democratic lawmakers, which would likely boost union membership through a “card check” system.

The EFCA was put together by Labor Unions and Democrats in response to Corporate America’s hostile opposition to Unions. The AFL-CIO and other Unions in the United States have said that the EFCA will be their number one agenda after this Novembers election should Obama win.

The Bill came to a vote until last year where it sailed through the House, but Senate Republicans filibustered the Bill and it has since been taken off the agenda for the time being. President Bush said last year that he would have vetoed the bill had it reached his desk. Supporters of the Bill said they would reintroduce it when the new congress convenes.

Democrats and Union members are hoping for large gains in both the House and Senate this November to extend their control of congress which would make the passage of the EFCA much easier.

Sen. Obama who co-sponsored the EFCA, which is also known as “card check,” has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.

Wal-Mart was stretching the envelope when they spoke to their employees about who they should vote for, but that’s about all, unless you want to consider how unethical it was for them to do so. But ethics and corporations are seldom synonymous. 

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Drilling in ANWR and Offshore: What You Don’t Know.

By: David Phillips

August 4, 2008

The Republican Party in Washington is saying that with the costs of gas so high, we must now drill offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in order to lower the costs at the pumps.

This will NOT do anything to lower the prices at the pumps until at least the year 2018 if at all. The ten year estimate is from President Bush.

Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Administration recently said, "It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on." Caruso went on to say, "lifting the offshore drilling moratorium would have a minor impact on production and prices: The projections in the (Outer Continental Shelf) indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

That’s right 2030, before more offshore drilling would have any “significant impact” on oil prices.

Bush has said ten years the EIA has said at least twenty years, even McCain himself before his flip flop for more offshore drilling said that it would be years before there would be any help at the pumps, but McCain did say that it would give “Psychological” help at the pumps.

Now McCain says he is being told by the experts that it would only be six months to two years. Why is McCain saying this lie over and over again? Maybe this will answer my question for you, in the month of July of this year, McCain received $1.1 million dollars in campaign donations from oil corporations and their employees, McCain made his flip flop for offshore drilling at the beginning of July. The prior month, the month of June, McCain received less than $200,000 from oil corporations and their employees.

Republicans in Washington do NOT want the prices to drop at the pumps. The Republicans in Washington want to turn America’s high prices on oil into an issue to campaign on at the expense of you, me and every other working stiff in our country.

Republicans voted against a bill that would force Oil corps to drill the oil from the 68 million acres of leased land they now hold. Many of those leases contain oil.

Republicans voted against the release of the Strategic Oil Reserves that would have a short term effect of lowering the prices by as much as 20 cents.

Republicans voted against closing the Enron loophole (Oil Speculation. To put back regulation) again. Closing the Enron Loophole would drop the cost of crude by as much as 50 percent.

All of the above were shot down by the Republicans in the last three weeks. The Democrats in Washington have now made three different moves to help you, me and everyone else in our country, and the Republicans in Washington stopped all the attempts by Democrats to lower prices.

The following week the Republican Party in Washington voted against everything that was on the agenda and said that they would not consider anything else until they get an up or down vote on offshore drilling and more drilling in Alaska.

Well, now Congress is on their five week vacation, and the prices at the pumps will be higher because Republicans wanted to hold their breath and stomp their feet like children while everyone else suffers through high prices.

The 68 million acres of public land that oil corporations now hold include 33 million acres of offshore leases and 20 million acres of leases in Alaska.

Critics of the offshore drilling plan noted that the recently released data by the Energy Department shows that U.S. EXPORTS of finished petroleum products, including gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel, soared to 1.592 million barrels per day in May. The exports set a record for the month and were up 31 percent from a year ago. In May, U.S. oil companies shipped 183,000 barrels of gasoline a day out of the country, even as Americans saw prices at the pump steadily rise.

I’ll leave you with three questions to ask yourself:

1)    Why does the cost of oil that we drill here, cost the same as the oil that we buy from the Saudi’s and import here to the US?

2)    Why is it that much of the oil we drill here, we sell to other countries and not keep it for American consumers and lower the prices at the pumps?

3)    Why should we expect any change on this Fleecing of America, if Exxon could drill offshore even more than they do now?

Feel free to send your answers to the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or drop me an e-mail with your answers or thoughts.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Timetable for Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

By: David Phillips

July 28, 2008

As you may have seen in the News recently a timetable for removing our troops from Iraq has gained support not just from the majority of the American public, but from the Iraqi Government as well, and begrudgingly to some extent, from Bush.

Two weeks ago in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is quoted as saying he wanted the United States to leave "As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned."

Maliki called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." He went on to say, "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes," al-Maliki was quoted as saying. "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems."

Within minutes of the release of the magazine story the Bush administration was on the phone to the Iraqi government after which an Iraqi government spokesman released a statement saying Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s  remarks in Der Spiegel were "misinterpreted and mistranslated.”

But that turned out to be wrong, first, two independent News organizations, CNN and the NY Times were offered to verify the translation and both said that it was translated correctly. And on top of that Maliki’s office personally reviewed the translation and signed off on it prior to the publication.

So Bush was caught between Iraq and a hard place, so after having a video teleconference with Maliki, President Bush announced that he and the Iraqi government had reached an agreement on the withdrawal of our troops which  Bush called a “Time Horizon”, which is PC for nonsense.

A “Time Horizon”, I’ll tell you what, step outside of your home and look out onto the horizon and start walking towards it for as long as you want, then stop, and the horizon will be as far away as when you started.

In May of 2007 President Bush said, “We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.” So why is Bush not following through with his promise? Why has Bush come out with the rhetoric of a “Time Horizon” for bringing our troops home?

Senator McCain said after learning of Maliki’s timetable, "It will be directly related to the situation on the ground -- just as they have always said. And since we are succeeding, I am convinced, as I have said before; we will withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable."

McCain still won’t accept the fact that Maliki has called for a timetable for our withdrawal.

Everyone on the Right has been saying that “The Surge” has worked, in fact McCain said last week the surge in not succeeding, but has succeeded.

Great, if everyone is saying the surge has worked, what is the problem?

When Bush announced his plans for “The Surge”, he said the surge was meant to quell the violence and give the Iraqi government time to gel so that Iraq can take over running their own country and so that we can bring our troops home.

So here is a thought, Americans want us to leave Iraq, and Iraqis want us to leave Iraq, so let’s leave Iraq.

Mission Accomplished.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Presidential Nominees Issue: Free Trade Agreements

By: David Phillips

July 21, 2008

Last week Mr. Sherline (my counterpart on the next page of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal) and I wrote about outsourcing and where the two presidential nominees stand on the subject.

We both felt that a follow up was needed about Free Trade Agreements.

What do Free Trade Agreements do for American manufactures?

Free trade agreements (FTAs) have proved to be one of the best ways to open up foreign markets to U.S. exporters. Today, the United States has FTAs with 14 countries. In 2006, six new FTAs were implemented: with Bahrain, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Morocco, Peru, and Nicaragua. Last year, trade with countries that the United States has FTAs was significantly greater than their relative share of the global economy. Although comprising 7.5 percent of global GDP (not including the United States), those FTA countries accounted for over 42 percent of U.S. exports. (Source: The United States International Trade Administration)

Many of the above trade agreements were made by President Bush without any Congressional oversight or approval. Last Year Congress passed legislation that requires any Trade Agreements worked out by President Bush must first be approved by our Congressional body before they can be enacted.

Trade agreements with S. Korea, Columbia and Panama are currently pending and waiting the approval of Congress.

In the world that we now live in, Global Trading Agreements are part of this natural development, but these trade agreements that help to provide some cheap goods are not always equal trade agreements.

Not all Free Trade Agreements are equal. The trade agreement with China for example has the US imposing a two percent tariff on goods China exports to the United States, but China charges a twenty percent tariff on goods that they import from the United States. This is common in most of the trade agreements the United States has made, while the import-export tariffs may differ slightly when compared to our trade with China, they are all slanted against US manufacturers.

Last week I told you that since 2001, 40,000 US manufacturing companies have closed their doors and that 3.5 million Americans lost their jobs in the process.

And a majority of U.S. Democrats have opposed most bilateral free trade agreements in recent years, contending the deals negotiated by the Bush administration are weak in requiring trading partners to address such issues as child labor, workplace discrimination and environmental degradation.

The Free Trade Agreements the United States enter into are often good for consumers here because we get cheap good that line the shelves at places such as WalMart, but if you’re a manufacturer or an employee for a manufacturer here in the United States, then your company or job is often in jeopardy.

Many trade agreements such as the recent Peru agreement will help supply our country with cheap produce, but Peru has an unemployment rate of thirty eight percent so the goods that they import from the United States will not have a very large market except for items that relate heavily on farming.

Senator McCain has said many times that “I am the biggest free trader you’ll ever see.” This coming from a man who has also said on many occasions that “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”

Senator McCain has said that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is working well. I guess he thinks that jobs being shipped out of the US and manufacturing companies closing are a good thing.

Senator Obama has at least acknowledged that NAFTA has not worked out the way it was intended and has said that he would redress NAFTA and all other Free Trade Agreements so that they are more Equal Trade Agreements.

The economy of our country is in bad shape right now, and the last thing we need is someone like Senator McCain in the White House who admittedly acknowledges that he is weak on economics.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Presidential Nominees Issue: Outsourcing

By: David Phillips

July 14, 2008

What is outsourcing?

The outsourcing of U.S. jobs, often referred to as “offshoring”, while not new, has become prolific since the advent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by the Clinton Administration. The NAFTA agreement integrated Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Job outsourcing has moved from telemarketing jobs and manual labor jobs (The jobs Bush says Americans don’t want) to highly-skilled and managerial positions. Multinational Corporate America has been relocating the very jobs that NAFTA and the WTO announced would replace low-paying manufacturing jobs. The newest wave of job outsourcing is being exercised in accounting and financial services, computer and IT services along with telecommunications (more jobs Bush says Americans don’t want).

The outsourcing of jobs has affected salaries here in America by lowing wages and benefits. A 30 year old man today makes $5,000.00 dollars less (adjusted for inflation) than men made in the 1970’s.

From the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

·         40,000 Manufacturing Plants Have Closed Since 2000

·         One-Fifth of Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since 2000

·         3.6 Million Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since January 2001

Senator John McCain said: "I know NAFTA was a good idea. It has created millions of jobs and it has helped the economies of all three of these nations. All you have to do is go to Detroit and see the trucks lined up every day or go to our southern border." (Des Moines Register 11/27/07)

At a White House press conference on 9/20/07 Bush said: "The fundamentals of our nation's economy are strong."

Senator John McCain said in an interview with Bloomberg TV on 4/17/08: "The fundamentals of America’s economy are strong."

There can be no doubt that these statements were made by men who are delusional and out of touch with the realities of American citizens.

One of the selling points for outsourcing American jobs to other countries besides the cheap labor is the fact that American corporations get a tax credit for each job that they take away from American citizens and recreate it in another country. 

Here’s how the tax credit works:

At issue is the U.S. tax code's treatment of profits earned by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. Profits earned in the United States are subject to the 35% corporate tax. But multinational corporations can defer paying U.S. taxes on their overseas profits until they return them to the United States, these transfers of profits often don't happen for years or at all.

According to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings; General Electric has $62 billion parked offshore, the Drug giant Pfizer $60 billion, and ExxonMobil has $56 billion.

Economist Jason Furman, director of The Hamilton Project in Washington, D.C."The problem is the company gets to deduct the cost of doing business right away, but they don't have to pay tax on the profits until they bring them back," says

So as long as the money stays out of the United States these corporations don’t have to pay one cent of tax on these earnings but get to deduct the costs immediately. So it pays to take American jobs out of the United States.

How could anyone embrace a tax credit that is so slanted against American workers, and still say that they support American workers is incredible.

Senator Barack Obama has co-sponsored legislation that would give "Patriot Employers" a tax credit equal to 1% of their taxable income if they maintain or increase the ratio of their U.S. workforce to the number of workers abroad, keep their headquarters in the USA and meet other wage, health care and pension requirements. "We can end tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those breaks to companies that create good jobs with decent wages here in America."

John McCain has said that he supports NAFTA and the Tax credits that have created the problems Americans now face with jobs, and he recently said, “I’m the biggest free trader you’ll ever see”.

There is so much more that needs to be said, but I am limited to space, but I will end this by saying that Free Trade agreements should all be scraped and redressed as Equal Trade agreements.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Presidential Nominees, Issue: Crime

By: David Phillips

July 7, 2008

Crime in America has seen a small decline according to the FBI preliminary crime stats for 2007.

 A short recap shows that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 1.4 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in 2007 when compared with figures reported for 2006. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to December of 2007 decreased 2.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2006. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2007 indicate that arson decreased 7.0 percent in 2007 when compared to 2006 figures. (Source: The FBI)

So where do the Presidential nominee’s stand on the issue of Crime?

Senator McCain talks the talk, but he certainly doesn’t walk the walk.

Senator McCain voted against the 1994 Crime Bill that provided funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and interoperable communications equipment for first responders.

The 1994 Crime Bill still passed in both the Senate and the House and was signed by former President Bill Clinton.

The COPS program provided local law enforcement funding for: hiring and training law enforcement officers; procuring equipment and support systems paying officers to perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties; and developing new technologies, including inter-operable communications, and forensic technology. The COPS program was meant to provide an additional 100,000 police officers on the streets of America. Since 1995, COPS has put more than 118,500 new law enforcement officers on the streets.

2007: McCain voted to support an amendment that eliminated $1 billion for the Commerce Departments interoperability grant program and transferred the funds to the Department of Homeland Security for an uncreated interoperability grant program; and eliminates a $100 million fund for strategic reserves of communications equipment designed for deployment in event of major disaster.

2005: McCain voted against providing $1 billion for the COPS program, offset by closing corporate tax loopholes.

2003: McCain voted against providing $500 million for local law enforcement grants that provided money to rural law enforcement agencies to fight violent and drug-related crime.

Senator Obama as a State Senator for Illinois helped pass more than 150 pieces of legislation to fight crime. Most notable of those, was his legislative battles against the death penalty and against the criminal justice system in Illinois. His legislation was brought about because there were a string of exonerations of innocent people who were on death row and whose confessions were garnered through the use of torture by Chicago police. His legislation required the video taping of police interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

While Obama is opposed to the Death Penalty in most cases, he is on record saying that he does support the Death Penalty in certain circumstances such as when a Police officer is killed.

Senator Obama in the US Senate has also been a strong supporter of efforts to increase funding and support for local law enforcement. Obama supported the reauthorization of the COPS program in the 109th Congress and also supports efforts to increase COPS funding. The COPS program added 5,800 additional police officers and sheriff’s deputies in Illinois and over $45 million in crime fighting technology assistance.

Bush’s FY 2005 budget proposed cutting funding for the COPS program for the fourth consecutive year, including eliminating all funding for hiring. For FY 2007, Bush proposed cutting the COPS program by another 76 percent.

McCain’s actions speak louder than his words, he has voted against most of the crime bills put in front of him, where as Obama, thinks more police officers on the streets would better protect the citizens.

It’s obvious which of these two nominee’s is stronger on crime.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

The Women behind the Presidential Nominee’s

By David Phillips

June 30, 2008

Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are two very different women with very dissimilar backgrounds.

First I thought I would give you a little biographical background on each of these two women.

Michelle Obama was raised on Chicago’s South Side, her father, Frasier Robinson, was a city pump operator and a Democratic precinct captain. Her mother, Marian, was a Spiegel's secretary.

Michelle Obama graduated from Whitney M. Young Magnet High School in Chicago’s West Loop. After high school, she attended Princeton University, graduating cum laude in 1985 with a B.A. in Sociology. She went on to earn a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1988.

Following law school, Michelle Obama worked as an associate in the Chicago branch of the law firm Sidley Austin in the area of marketing and intellectual property. There in 1989, she met her future husband, a summer intern, whom she was assigned as an adviser. They married on October 18, 1992.

Michelle Obama soon launched a career in public service, serving as an assistant to the mayor and then as the assistant commissioner of planning and development for the City of Chicago.

Cindy Lou Hensley McCain as an only child was raised in Arizona; she earned a B.A. in education and a M.A. in special education from the University of Southern California. She taught at Agua Fria High School in Avondale, Arizona.

She met John McCain in 1979 while she was on vacation with her parents in Hawaii. He was still married, but separated, from his first wife. John and Cindy McCain were married May 17, 1980 in Phoenix.

Cindy McCain founded the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT) in 1988, leading several medical missions to developing and war-torn nations during the Team’s seven-year existence.

She made news in 1994 when she admitted to a painkiller addiction and said she had stolen drugs from AVMT. She was not charged with a crime, but agreed to repay the AVMT and attend a drug treatment facility.

Cindy Lou McCain has served as chairperson of Hensley & Company, the Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship founded by her father in 1955. By 2007, Cindy had an estimated net worth of $100 million.

Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are very supportive of their husbands and both are out on the campaign trail and both have seen attacks by their opponents spin machines.

Michelle Obama remarked, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." But fear mongers such as Sean Hannity and his ilk all seized upon the comment and started in unison saying that she hated America, when they all knew that she was speaking of the ground swell of grassroots support to the audience and to everyone else in America that has come out to support her husband.

Michelle Obama the very next day even made a statement to clarify her comment to those who spun her words. But to this day Sean Hannity keeps saying that Michelle Obama hates America, even though Hannity knows what he is saying is a lie.

Cindy McCain has been harassed by the left for refusing to release her Tax returns for 2007. Cindy McCain when asked by Today co-host Ann Curry about her returns said: "My husband and I have been married 28 years, and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate."

Curry responded by asking, "So you'll never release, you're saying? Even if you're first lady? After McCain said, "No," Curry added, "Because that is -- even though not an elected position, you would be in a very public role." McCain replied, "I'm not the candidate."

Cindy McCain has also been attacked by the left for her plagiarism on food recipes that she copied word for word from the Food Network.

Both women come from very different backgrounds and both seem to complement their husbands. Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain provide a strength that anyone running for any elected office would need during these times of “gotcha” politics.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Supreme Court Ruling Restores Habeas Corpus

By David Phillips

June 23, 2008

A couple of weeks ago the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to Habeas Corpus.

Habeas Corpus is a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge.

The Supreme Court ruling merely says that inmates held at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay had a right to challenge their detentions in US courts.

Many of the 270 prisoners being held have been there for years without seeing any court or judge.

President Bush, Republicans, right wing talking heads, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) have all said that this is a bad ruling that will make our country less safe.

Some of these same people have also said that because the detainees are not Americans they are not entitled to the same protection under the Constitution because it only applies to American citizens.

Well that’s just not true. There are many laws that have come from the Constitution that do apply to non-Americans, and one of those laws is Habeas Corpus.

Bush knows this because he is the one who pushed through the Military Commissions Act of 2006, part of which suspended the right of Habeas Corpus for the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court ruling said Bush was wrong and he could not suspend Habeas Corpus because the detainees were being held at a U.S. military base and for that reason they are covered by the Constitution.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the Supreme Court ruling and said it is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

One of the four dissenting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has been attacked by Sen. McCain (R-AZ) and his spin machine because of what he said;

“Confidence that our system of justice and that our traditions of rule of law are strong enough to deal with terrorists. Senator McCain does not.  That is not the same as suggesting that we should give detainees the full privileges that afforded American citizens.  I never said that, the Supreme Court never said that and I would never do that as president of the United States.”

Sen. Obama (D-IL) went on to say: “So, either Senator McCain‘s campaign doesn‘t understand what the court decided or they are distorting my position, which is that we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism.  We need not choose between our deeply held values and keeping this nation safe.”

So where does that leave us, what will happen to the detainees now that the Supreme Court ruling has granted them the right of Habeas Corpus?

United States attorney general Michael Mukasey said of the ruling, "I think it bears emphasis that the court's decision does not concern military commission trials, which will continue to proceed," regardless of the ruling by the US Supreme Court.

For almost eight years now, the Bush administration has whittled away at the Constitution, not only with the suspension of Habeas Corpus, but with other rights such as warrants being required for wiretaps on telephone calls, e-mails, financial records, education records, and search and seizures of both business and homes, etc.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.  

But on this one day, the Supreme Court said no, and upheld our Constitution.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Afghanistan: The Forgotten War

By: David Phillips

June 16, 2008

A few days after the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers in New York, President Bush said that al-Qaida led by Osama Bin Laden and sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan were responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.

In an address to a joint session of Congress n September 20, 2001, President Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban to:

·         Deliver al-Qaeda leaders located in Afghanistan to the United States

·         Release all imprisoned foreign nationals, including American citizens

·         Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in Afghanistan

·         Close terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and "hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities"

·         Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps to verify their closure

The Taliban refused and adding insult to injury, the Taliban said that they refuse to speak with Bush because he was a non-Muslim leader, and on October 7, 2001. America went to war with Afghanistan.

Soon our forces had the Taliban and al-Qaida on the run. The enemy retreated to a mountainous region called Tora Bora which bordered Pakistan where it seemed that the enemy was to make their last stand.

Just as it seemed we had Osama Bin Laden cornered and on the verge of being captured or killed, President Bush stopped our advance and started to redeploy our forces to Kuwait because Bush wanted to invade Iraq.

So far 517 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan and 322 coalition forced have been killed. (Source: iCasualties.org)

According to a recent Pentagon report the Taliban who are now based in the Waziristan tribal areas across the border in Pakistan have gained strength in numbers as well as weapons and money.

The Pakistan government led by President Pervez Musharraf has made a few attempts at capturing or killing the Taliban and al-Qaida in the lawless tribal region in Waziristan. In fact he found it to be politically advantageous for him to call a truce with our enemies. But every now and then Musharraf makes a half hearted attempt at going after the enemy to appease Bush and the billions that Bush has been giving Musharraf to appease him.

The Afghanistan war is now in the hands of NATO forces of about 40,000 strong with half of those forces being American. The NATO forces have not been able to contain the Taliban partly because of the lack equipment and forces that will actually fight.

Many of the NATO forces do NOT do any fighting because their nations would only send them if they were used as support such as supply and security.

Last month the Pentagon said that another 3,000 Americans (Marines) will be deployed.

President Barack Obama (I’m getting a little ahead of myself) said that many of the troops that he would bring home from Iraq would be deployed to Afghanistan to finish what Bush promised (Dead or Alive), to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and those who attacked us on September 11, 2001.

Afghanistan is rarely mentioned in the news which seems to suit Bush just fine. Bush has done everything he could to keep Americans detached from the realities of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that he started and said that he will not finish. Bush said the next President will have to decide what course to take after he leaves office.

This year so far, forty two Americans have been killed in Afghanistan and for Bush and his administration, that’s a win. And for the press it seems to be a non-story.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Are we winning in Iraq?

By: David Phillips

June 9, 2008

Are we winning In Iraq? As long as we stay in Iraq we can never lose, so, if we do leave, we have won.

As you know Republicans say that if we leave we will lose, in fact the Republicans take it even further, if we leave as Sen. Obama wants to do, its surrender.  Well that’s just a bunch of hogwash and right wing rhetoric.

Republicans have been politicizing the War and using our troops for political gains and to create political divides among the American voter.

When Bush first misled America to War in Iraq, he spoke of regime change, removing Iraq’s WMD’s, and installing a democratically led government.

People in the Bush administration said things like six weeks, six months (regarding how long the war will last), we will be greeted as liberators, and the cost for the reconstruction will cost about $1.5 billion and that Iraq’s oil will pay for the reconstruction.

The Bush administration told the American people many things, most of which we have learned have been dead wrong.

What the Bush administration never said was what winning would be, or when we would ever leave.

I say we have already won, and the only reason we are now staying is so Bush can continue awarding defense contracts to his supporters as well as to our enemies.

Last week we learned that the US military has awarded an $80 million contract to a prominent Saudi financier who has been indicted by the US Justice Department.

Gaith Pharaon, whose company Attock Refinery Ltd which supplies jet fuel and is based in Pakistan, has been indicted by the Department of Justice and is wanted by the FBI in connection with his alleged role at the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the CenTrust savings and loan scandal, which cost US tax payers $1.7 billion.

This is just one example of how Bush is wasting American tax dollars. I could point to dozens of other companies that Bush has squandered tax dollars on in the name of War, but I don’t have the space. But this one example is part of the reason why Bush has not left Iraq and declared the United States as winning the War.

Every reason that Bush gave leading up to his invasion has been either fulfilled or proven wrong. In fact about every six months since the Iraq invasion Bush has changed the reason for staying.

Fast forward to Bush’s last reason for staying, when the Iraqi government can stand up, we will stand down. Remember that line, Bush said once the Iraqi’s have enough trained security forces we would stand down. Bush can and has used that as the reason for us staying for the last eighteen months. This reason and this reason alone is now the only reason Bush has given to stay.

The United States has fulfilled every one of Bush’s reasons for going:

·         WMD’s, they had none

·         Regime Change, done

·         Formation of a new government, done

·         A new Constitution, done

·         Elections, done twice

·         Build up of new security forces, done

All of the reasons for staying have been met, there is no reason to stay, as long as we do stay, we will lose and Iraqi’s will lose. The only winners as long as we do stay are defense contractors and War Profiteers.

Last December Vice President Cheney said that by the middle of January 2009, it will be clear that “we have in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future.”

So, according to Cheney, we will win, when he and Bush leave office.

On that I agree.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Can America Accept a Black President?

By David Phillips

June 2, 2008

Can a black man become President of the United States in the 21^st century? Has the American voting public evolved enough to see past color and elect a man, any man, purely on whether he is qualified to do the job?

I would like to think that the answer to both questions is yes. But deep down inside I sometimes wonder.

From 1861-1865 America was at War with itself; Northern States who were against slavery and Southern States that were for it. In the end, the North led by President Lincoln prevailed and on December 18, 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution passed and ended slavery everywhere in the United States.

But traditions and feeling towards black Americans did not end there, just because slavery was abolished, many Americans mostly in the Southern States were slow to come around.

100 years after the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, schools were still segregated by color; places where blacks could eat or drink were separate from white eating and drinking establishments. In fact everything was segregated in the south for black and white Americans, because blacks were still perceived as second class citizens.

That all started to change in the South, first with the landmark case Brown v. The Board of Education in 1954, which was intended to end segregation in schools.

Then came the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status. It also provided protection for civil rights workers.

One of the greatest black Americans in our countries short history, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement in the 60’s that led the Civil Rights Act of 1968. To this day we celebrate the words and achievements of Dr. King. In fact our Government set aside a day of remembrance to honor Dr. Kings legacy.

But still the South was slow on change and still set in the ways of the past. In fact up until the year 2000 in the State of Alabama, it was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. That law is no longer on their books.

Now here we are in 2008 and along comes a black man by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, a Christian and a US Senator from Illinois who has taken this nation by storm with the promise of change on the way Washington conducts its business.

Sen. Obama throughout his campaign has been attacked by Sen. Clinton and her surrogates because he is black. And Sen. Clinton herself insinuated blue collar Americans would not vote for him because he is black.

The Republican Party and their spin machine have not attacked Obama because he is black, but they have attacked his Christian Pastors and their views and saying that the views of his pastors are his.

If that were true, then the Republican Party would also think that Sen. McCain is a racist because of his Pastor’s, Hagee and Paisley whose racist remarks have been denounced by McCain, but not their endorsements. Or maybe they wouldn’t because of the “R” next to McCain’s name.

The Republican Party is attacking Sen. Obama with vague associations with others who have checkered pasts. Guilt by Association is how Republicans are trying to smear his name and qualifications. And as always, their spin machine thinks that if they repeat lies or misdirection’s often enough, it will stick.

So can a black man become President of the United States and has the voting public evolved enough to see past color?

The answer to both questions is a resounding yes. While there are some in the country who will not vote for him because of his color, the majority of our nation would because they can see past color. And if Sen. Obama’s message resonates loud enough with these voters, come this January, for the first time in our nation’s history a black man will be moving into the Whitehouse.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Same Sex Marriage

By: David Phillips

May 27, 2008

As you know California’s Supreme Court on a 4 to 3 vote, have removed the ban on same sex marriages. The court said, sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

The Court wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

How dare these liberal judges legislate from the bench, these activist liberal judges should be removed from the bench and replaced with strict constructionists who are more in line with today’s conservative party. Oh, but that can’t be right, because six of the seven judges who ruled, were appointed by Republicans.

I know, these Republican appointed judges should be replaced with judges who are even more conservative, yeah, that’s the ticket, that’s what should be done.

President Bush once said to a group of Evangelicals just before the 2004 election that “The number one Threat to the American Way of Life is same sex marriage.”

Yes, I know, Bush has said the number one threat to the American way of life is terrorists. But on that particular day and speaking to that particular group, it was not the terrorists, it was same sex marriage. In politics the message should speak to one’s audience.

It doesn’t matter that about fifty percent of marriage’s between a man and a women end in divorce, or that studies have shown that children raised in a single parent home are at a disadvantage from those who are raised by two parents.

What matters is that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, and children who are raised by two parents of the same sex are unnatural. And one shudders at the thought of neighbors living next door who are gay or lesbian. How will these parents explain to their children, that little Johnny next door has two daddies or two mommies, the disgust of it all. How could anyone expect any parent to sit down with their kids and explain that one?

When Bush spoke before that Evangelical group in 2004, same sex marriage was a hot political issue that Republicans and their Moral (Tim Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, etc) superiority over Democrats fought hard over and managed to place the issue on the ballots of eleven States.

Thank god for their morality and foresight to nip this issue in the bud, before Gays and Lesbians destroyed Marriages across the country, because what you did not hear were that Gay and Lesbians gangs were roaming the streets waiting to invade the homes of god fearing, law abiding Americans.

These Gay Gangs roam the streets at night in their vans, watching and waiting...Peering through the windows of innocent families as they sit down in their living rooms to watch some TV...Then without any warning, these Gay Gangs will burst into the homes of these unsuspecting families, and force the families to watch the Gay Gangs have Gay Sex...The Horror, can you imagine the destruction this would have on the American Family?

OK, back to a reality, “Same Sex Marriage” is not a threat to the so-called “Sanctity of Marriage”. If your marriage is falling apart because your neighbors are a same sex couple, then you should not be married, because you are not mature enough to be married in the first place, or maybe you just have another issue altogether regarding your own sexual orientation.

Is that a Van parked in front of your house?

 David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Food Shortages and Rising Costs

By David Phillips

May 19, 2008

Rising costs for food around the world and shortages of food in several nations have many worried how they will feed their families.

Food riots have broken out in Bangladesh, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal. Rising prices have hit poor countries like Peru (and even developed countries like Italy and the United States).

Why is this happening?

Several problems have come together all at the same time, or as some might say, “a perfect Storm.” They include soaring petroleum prices, which increase the cost of fertilizers, transport and food processing; rising demand for meat and dairy in China and India, resulting in increased costs for grain, used for cattle feed; and the ever-rising demand for raw materials to make biofuels.

The global market has driven the growing demand for grains and a shortage of supply. Wheat inventories, for example, have reached a 30-year low. In one year inventories in the European Union have plummeted from 14 million to one million tons. The fact is that arable land cannot be increased at will. Over the past three decades, the amount of arable land worldwide has stagnated at about 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) while the world’s population has increased.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said, "While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs and it is getting more and more difficult every day.”

The United States uses corn to make ethanol and as we increase the amount of ethanol requirements less corn is available for consumption. 

A couple of years ago the United States Congress passed The Energy Policy Act of 2005 which requires that increasing amounts of ethanol be used in the United States to dilute gasoline. The law called for 4 billion gallons of ethanol to be used in 2006, 6.1 billion gallons in 2009, and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.

Global inventories of grains are nearing historic lows, while twenty percent of the U.S. corn crop this coming year will be used for ethanol production.

Meanwhile wheat, rice and soybean prices have reached all-time highs and corn prices have jumped to a 12-year high.

"Congress needs to revisit these food-for-fuel policies. We really shouldn't be pitting our fuel needs against hunger and the environment," said Scott Faber, vice president of foreign affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "I don't think any member of Congress would have voted for this legislation if they had known that the prices of corn would jump like this."

How long will these shortages last?

Michael Schmitz, an agricultural economist and professor, used databases to forecast how far trends would last when global conditions change like they have recently. The professor says that the current shortages and price hikes are not a phenomenon that will end in a few months -- or even in a few years. Schmitz predicts: "This could continue for two or three decades."

There are many contributing factors that come into play in this “perfect Storm”, droughts caused by Global Climate Change, a growing world population, energy costs, Wars. More land is being used for residential and industrial uses around the world and less is being used for agriculture and there is a lack of cooperation and some denial among many of the world’s leaders.

Riots have already broken out in parts of the world because of food shortages, these shortages will be getting worse before they get better according to most experts. We will see many more riots in the months and years to come if our world leaders do not start to take this crisis seriously.

If you think going to war for oil like we have is bad, wait until millions of people start rioting because they are hungry.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

The Mortgage Crisis, what should be done?

By: David Phillips

May 12, 2008

As you all know by now there is a housing crisis in the United States that revolves around shady lending practices by financial institutions, borrowers who should never have been qualified for a home loan and speculation by some who were looking for a quick turnover on their purchases.

Over a very short period of time the average medium price of new homes skyrocketed and a home that would have sold for $165,000 was selling for $500,000. Then the bottom fell out and homes that were bought for top dollar were depreciating almost as fast as they rose.

New home buyers were being qualified without verifying income, speculators were buying homes and reselling them within a few weeks of purchase for large profits, and mortgage lenders were being creative in their financing and then reselling the mortgage paper to other financial institutions.

Hundreds of thousands of new homeowners who would never have qualified under a standard 30 year fixed mortgage, were being offered what are called Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM) that allowed them to enter into an agreement with very little or no money down and at very low interest rates.

But those interest rates increased in a very short time and within a couple of years people saw their mortgage payments increase so sharply they could no longer afford the home and the bank or lending institution who owned the mortgage were forced to foreclose on the home.

Now millions of homes are being foreclosed on which is having a ripple effect on our economy. New home building has greatly slowed, the construction industry is taking a beating, and lenders have been forced to tighten up their credit lending practices.

So what has our government done, or what can they do?

First the good news, a few weeks back Bear Stearns Co. a major financial institution on Wall St. was about to go under when JP Morgan another financial institution on Wall St. offered to buy Bear Stearns, their competitor at rock bottom prices and backed by $30 billion in US tax dollars.

That was a sweetheart deal for JP Morgan, because they face zero financial risk. The 30 billion in US tax dollars was provided to cover any future loss.

The Bush administration is strong on what is called a free market, but if that market is tanking, instead of letting it go out of business like it should have in a free market, Americans were forced to pony up $30 billion so its competitor could buy them out.

But what about the home owners who were being put out on the street because of shady lending practices and poor decision making on their parts, shouldn’t our government look to bail them out, like they did with Bear Stearns? Surly Bush and Congress don’t want to see millions of more Americans become homeless, right?

A few days ago the House passed a Bill to provide aide to millions of homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure. The Bill would allow homeowners to get rid of the Adjustable Rate Mortgage and replace it with a federally backed loan that would be much more affordable.

The Bill would strengthen the Federal Housing Administrations (FHA) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants. The Bill would also create a $7500.00 tax credit for first time homebuyers.

This Bill received bi-partisan support in congress, 34 Republicans voted in favor of the Bill.

But, Bush said he would veto the Bill.

$30 billion in US tax dollars to Wall Street, but nothing for Main Street. At least Bush is consistent.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Is The United States Getting Closer To Invading Iran?

By: David Phillips

May 5, 2008

If the subject of Iran and the United States is starting to give you a sense of Déjà vu, it’s understandable because Bush and the Pentagon continue to thump their chests and bang their War drums for the world to see and hear.

A couple of weeks ago, the Pentagon announced for the entire world to know, that they have a “Plan” to attack more than 1200 targets in Iran. First, wow, the Pentagon has a “plan”, it’s good to hear that the Pentagon has a “plan”, because if we were to look at their past planning, specifically at what they did in Iraq, after Bush announced Mission Accomplished, you now know that the planning was not done, or if it was, it was just poor planning. And we have also learned that going into the sixth year of the Iraq war, the Pentagon has not even started a plan, to plan our exit, from Iraq.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government’s "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.

Adm. Mullen said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing specifically to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.

"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said at a Pentagon news conference.

So Adm. Mullen said going to War with Iran would be "extremely stressing", I guess it takes an Admiral to realize that. But he also says that we can, we can bomb them back to the Stone Age, but we really can’t do anything with ground forces, because they are currently being wasted in Iraq (his plan, my words).

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is preparing a briefing soon to lay out detailed evidence of increased Iranian involvement in Iraq despite a promise to end that activity, Mullen said. The briefing will detail, for example, the discovery in Iraq of weapons that were very recently manufactured in Iran, he said.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a speech at West Point a couple of weeks ago said, Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons."  Gates went on to say, a war with Iran would be "disastrous on a number of levels. But the military option must be kept on the table given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."

So here we are, we have Adm. Mullen the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff saying he has a plan, and we have Sect. Gates saying, that it would be "disastrous on a number of levels.”

But everyone is first saying that we must first use all diplomatic avenues that we can, before jumping off into the deep end of another quagmire. Which, I am in favor of, the diplomacy that is, not the jumping.

But we have heard these words before, we heard them leading up to Bush’s folly that is Iraq. Bush used the UN, weapons inspections, received sanctions against Saddam, etc, etc, etc.

Well, I am guessing that you know what Bush would do; Bush is ready to jump into his cowboy truck, let out  a “Yee Haw”, and say, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead into Iran.

If Bush thinks that we can attack Iran even with our military stretched he will.

And you know I’m right.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

The Army and Marines now accepting Felons

By: David Phillips

April 28, 2008

Both the US Army and US Marines are now allowing felons to join the ranks of our military. Over the past few years they both have lowered the minimum requirements to join by accepting those with a history of misdemeanors.

But now with the pressure to meet and maintain the troop levels of the Army and Marines, both have lowered their standards again, and are new accepting people who have been convicted of burglary, homicide, arson and rape.

The Army and the Marine Corps recruited considerably more felons into their ranks in 2007 than in 2006, according to data released two weeks ago by a House committee.

The number of waivers issued to active-duty Army recruits with felony convictions jumped to 511 in 2007, from 249 in 2006. Marine recruits with felony convictions rose to 350 from 208.

Overall, the numbers represent less than 1 percent of the 115,000 new enlistments last year in the active-duty Army and Marine Corps.

While our all volunteer military has only allowed the best of the best to join in the past, the military is now faced with the reality of two wars, a fighting force that is stretched to the breaking point and absolutely no end in sight. In fact, the future may hold even more war fronts to be opened such as Iran.

While the number of felons being accepted is low in comparison to the overall number, this trend raises questions about the military’s ability to attract quality recruits at a time when it’s trying to increase enlistment.

The Army, which has suffered more dead and wounded than any other branch of the military, faces an especially difficult challenge in attracting qualified men and women.

“It raises concerns,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which requested the information on felony waivers from the Department of Defense. “An increase in the recruitment of individuals with criminal records is a result of the strains put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining our military readiness.”

A Defense Dept. spokesman’s Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder of the Air Force said, dispensations are granted only after a careful review of any applicant’s record and the circumstances surrounding the charge or conviction. The charges often occurred when the recruits were juveniles and were less serious than they appeared initially.

Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said, "low unemployment, a protracted War on Terror, a decline in propensity to serve," and the growing reluctance of parents, teachers and other adults to recommend that young people go into the military have made recruiting a challenge.

According to the Army, 18 percent of its recruits needed conduct waivers in the fiscal year ending last Sept. 30, compared with 15 percent in the previous 12-month period.

"We are growing the Army fast, and there are some waivers; we know that," said Army Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, deputy chief of staff for operations. "It hasn't alarmed us yet."

With the Army and Marines scraping the bottom of the barrel for recruits, and with Bush’s two wars, and a third possible front in Iran, it is very possible that in the foreseeable future, we will see the Selective Service system, the agency responsible for a military draft, put back into action.

Bush has broken the Military, and like all the other things that Bush has broken in our country, it will be the next President who has to fix everything, because the Buck has never stopped at Bush’s desk.

You’ve done a heck of a job Bushy.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Should Bush Boycott the China Olympics?

By: David Phillips

April 21, 2008

Well, should President Bush boycott the Olympics in China this summer?

Because of China’s treatment of Tibetan monks, and China’s support of the Sudanese government, there have been calls for our nation and others, to boycott the Chinese Olympics.

The message the boycott is intended to send is, your human rights policies need to change, stop killing monks and stop supporting the Sudanese government because people are dying in Darfur.

What is to be gained by not going? Is Bush scared China would stop giving $2 billion everyday to the United States to pay for his Wars if he offended them? Is Bush afraid that by not going, the Chinese would call in their markers and deteriorate our economy even more?

Back in February of this year Bush was asked if he was going to boycott the Chinese Olympics this summer and here is his response: "I'm going to the Olympics. I view the Olympics as a sporting event."

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will not attend the opening ceremonies. And there is a call for all European leaders to boycott the opening ceremonies.

Senators, Clinton, Obama, and McCain have all called for President Bush to boycott the Olympics.

Stephan Hadley, Bush’s security advisor recently said, "We have a lot of leverage on the Chinese. We are using it in a constructive, diplomatic way. And it's a lot greater leverage than just the issue of whether he goes to an opening ceremony or not," Hadley said. "The whole international community has leverage. They ought to be using it now, not letting themselves off the hook by simply saying, 'Well, we won't go to the opening ceremonies.'"

Exactly what leverage do we have over the Chinese, and if we do have leverage, why hasn’t it worked in the past?

We can tell the Chinese that we will no longer allow them to ship tainted toys and food to the United States. We can tell them that they must stop undervaluing the Chinese Yuan to the US Dollar. We can tell the Chinese to stop killing and beating Monks, and we can tell them to stop supporting Sudanese government and their genocide in Darfur.

Well, we have told the Chinese to stop sending tainted food and toys, and they still do. We have told the Chinese to stop undervaluing their currency, they have not.  We have asked the Chinese government to stop killing and beating monks, they have not. We have asked the Chinese to stop supporting the Sudanese government and they still do.

But we have not asked the Chinese to stop paying for Bush’s wars.

So, exactly what leverage do we have over the Chinese to get them to change the way they treat people? Not much.

So, should Bush boycott the Chinese summer Olympics?

If Bush really wanted to send a message to the Chinese that they soon won't forget, here is what Bush should do...Bush should lead the American athlete's into China's Olympic Stadium for the Opening Ceremony carrying the American flag...Then lead them right out of the Stadium.

That is how Bush should boycott the Olympics and that would send a message that the Chinese would not soon forget.

Otherwise he should just go because...He's Bush.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Petraeus and Crocker go to Washington

By: David Phillips

April 14, 2008

This past week General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker paid homage with their biannual hearing before Congress on the progress of Bush’s War in Iraq.

If you recall back in January of 2007 President Bush announced that he was sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq, which turned into more than 30,000 troops, in what Bush called “The Surge”.

Bush said the surge was intended to quell the violence to allow the Iraqi government “breathing room” to govern and enact legislation that Bush outlined as benchmarks. Bush set eighteen benchmarks for the surge, at last Septembers hearings only three of the eighteen benchmarks had been reached.

In March of 2007 Gen. Petraeus said that at the end of July of that year there would be a 45 day period to re-evaluate where things stand, which would be followed up by a September 2007 congressional hearings by Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker.

Fast forward to April 2008, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker again go before Congress with updates on how things are going in Iraq.

An excerpt from Gen. Petraeus’s testimony last week:

“Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago, there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaida-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.”

“Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible. Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.”

When Gen. Petraeus was questioned about when we might actually be able to withdraw troops beyond the 20,000 troops that Bush just announced, he said “that at the end of July of 2008, this year, there would have a 45 day waiting period to re-evaluate where we stand.”

I have a strong sense of Déjà vu.

A couple of things that were notably missing from these hearings: there was no longer any talk of benchmarks, and when Gen. Petraeus was question about eventually leaving Iraq, we learned that he doesn’t even have a plan, to start the plan, that would be used for a withdrawal at anytime in the future.

After the hearings Bush made a speech and announced that troop deployments would change from fifteen month deployments to twelve month deployments starting August 1, 2008. Those that are there now or who will be deployed up to that date will have fifteen month deployments.

Bush also announced that on the advice of Gen. Petraeus, no more troops will leave Iraq after July of this year, which will leave at least 140,000 troops in Iraq when the next President takes office in 276 days.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Yucca Mountain and Nuclear Waste

By: David Phillips

April 7, 2008

Yucca Mountain, located 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was picked as the repository to hold the nation's nuclear waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 had three western States under consideration and in 1987 with Congress being pressed to pick a site, they decide on Yucca Mountain.

''The politics won out,'' said Allison Macfarlane of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yucca Mountain Project. ''The weakest state, politically, that was under consideration, got stuck with it.''

Well, twenty years later and with more than $9 billion of our tax dollars spent, it is still not open and may never be open. And in my opinion it never should.

Several facts have come to light in recent years, such as the Mountain sits on a fault line, underground water, and falsified reports by the Department of Energy (DOE) scientists who work at the site.

Yucca Mountain was originally designed to hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. Currently, nuclear waste is stored on site at the various nuclear power plants throughout the United States. According to the DOE, by the time Yucca Mountain opens there will be more than 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in the United States, so the DOE has asked to increase the storage capacity.

Last year the Bush administration’s DOE made public its proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This program pushed by Bush is offering to take other countries’ commercial high-level radioactive wastes for permanent disposal in the U.S.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) Nuclear Waste Specialist Kevin Kamps said of Bush’s GNEP, “It would bury the U.S. under a mountain of radioactive garbage”.

In 2005 the public was made aware of the fact that possible dangers exist because Yucca Mountain either sits directly atop or near 33 known fault lines, the largest of which, the Ghost Dance Fault, which runs directly through the site. But that did not appear as cause to stop the program. Seeing how Yucca Mountain is only 100 miles from Las Vegas, Bush and the DOE must have figured that it was a good bet that no earthquakes would happen while they were in charge.

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, using computer modeling based on geological data, historical quakes and results from about 20 test wells, they showed that a magnitude 5 or 6 earthquake could raise the water table between 450-750 feet at the storage site. Because the repository would be only 600 to 800 feet above the present water table, "flooding could be expected to occur," they write.

The water table below the Yucca Mountain site is unusually deep, about 1,500 feet below the surface, Davies said. But within a six-mile area north of the proposed storage facility the groundwater level rapidly rises to a more normal depth of about 600 feet. (Source: NIRS)

The containers the waste will be stored in, if exposed to the ground water, could cause leakage and contaminate water tables throughout Nevada. Imagine if the water made it into the Colorado River that feeds most of Southern Nevada and Southern California. Again another gamble Bush and the DOE are willing to take.

According to the DOE, a hydrologist at the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was studying how water flowed through the mountain, faked documentation on the times and dates at which certain geological samples were taken from the site.

Yucca Mountain in not just a boondoggle, but has the potential of creating one of the most deadly environmental disasters ever seen on the planet.

Oh, did I mention that Yucca Mountain, which is thousands of years old, is an extinct Volcano.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Shock & Awe: 5 Years Later

By David Phillips

March 31, 2008

On March 19, 2003 President Bush started his invasion of Iraq with aerial bombardments that was euphemistically called Shock and Awe. Then on May 1, 2003 President Bush landed on board the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared Mission Accomplished.

Five years later, the fighting goes on, the Pentagon puts the number of American soldiers killed over 4000, and close to 30,000 wounded.

So far Bush has spent nearly $600 billion, and several economists have said that the war in Iraq will cost around $3 trillion because of the healthcare that will be required for many of the wounded for the rest of their lives as well as the cost of replacing all the military equipment.

To mark the 5^th anniversary of the Iraq war, President Bush in a speech at the Pentagon, said the war's legacy is absolute: "The world is better, and the United States of America is safer." Bush went on to say, "No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure, but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

Bush offers no end to the War, and if Sen. McCain is elected as President he too has vowed to continue on with the fighting.

Vice President Dick Cheney was out fishing with the Sultan of Oman on the 5^th anniversary. But in a recent interview Vice President Dick Cheney was told that two thirds of Americans want to end the War now and bring the troops home, and VP Cheney said, “So.”

His response is typical and shows his lack of respect for the American people.

Maybe it was best that he went fishing, I’m guessing that the Sultan has turned down any hunting trips with the Vice President.

January of 2007 President Bush announced his plan for the surge; he added an additional 30,000 troops that he said would be deployed for about six months which has now turned into a year.

January 2008 in Bush last State of the Union address, he said that some troops would start to come home this year. Only, a few thousand troops have returned and only because their 18 month deployment forced their return.

A couple of weeks ago Bush said that no more troops would be coming back because they are still needed in Iraq, because everything is going so well.

Currently in Afghanistan there are about 40,000 US and NATO troops, NATO and the Pentagon are calling for more troops because things are worse than  ever before, so any troops that leave Iraq could very well end up in Afghanistan.

President Bush has always tried to link Saddam to al-Qaeda to 911, even though our Intel agencies have said that Saddam never had anything to do with al-Qaeda and that Saddam despised al-Qaeda. Bush even once said that Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

Well, now there is a group in Iraq who calls themselves al-Qaeda which was never there before the War, there are Shiite’s, Sunni’s and other foreign fighters who are trying to kill Americans, but al-Qaeda is the group that gets blamed for most of the violence even though the Pentagon said less than two percent of those we are fighting are al-Qaeda. But, Bush seems happy with his self fulfilling prophecy, and there are no plans to end his War.

Bush has been wondering a lot lately about his Legacy, there are many choices that those in the future will have to look back upon, and I am guessing that Bush’s Legacy will not be seen as something positive.

Happy anniversary

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Spiritual Advisors: Guilt By Association?

By: David Phillips

March 24, 2008

President George W. Bush talked to his spiritual leader Reverend Ted Haggard every week while in the Whitehouse, either by telephone or on rare occasions in person. His spiritual advisor had an audience of Evangelicals in the millions. Ted Haggard spoke of Morals and Family Values anti Gay and Lesbian issues, both to President Bush and to those he preached to from his pulpit. But that all came to an abrupt end when it was discovered that he was secretly Gay and addicted to Meth. 

President Bush never mentioned what had happened to his spiritual advisor, nor did he ever denounce his actions.

Senator John McCain who is the Republican nominee for President also has a spiritual advisor; his name is Pastor John Hagee. Pastor Hagee has been McCain’s friend and advisor for more than 30 years. In one of John Hagee's books, titled "Jerusalem Countdown", he says that Hitler and the Nazis were sent by God, as agents of “God's boundless love... for the Jewish People". Hagee smears the Catholic Church, and calls them a "Cult" and he is connected to various White Supremacist groups.

Referring to Hagee as a "bigot", the conservative Catholic League called for McCain to denounce and reject his endorsement, as did the progressive Catholic group, Catholics United.

Senator John McCain said he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.” Sen. McCain the would-be presidential hopeful also called Hagee “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement.”

McCain issued a statement saying that he would not renounce the endorsement, but that he also does not agree with everything Hagee has said.

Senator Barack Obama’s spiritual leader Jeremiah Wright has been accused of promoting black separatism in speech’s to his congregation. He has been called out for his friendship with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who spouts anti-Semitic views.

In a 2003 sermon Jeremiah Wright said to his congregation: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright continued on and said: "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Excerpt of Senator Barack Obama’s response in a Fox News Interview:

“The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.”

“Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.”

“Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.”

The statement by Sen. McCain in regards to his racist Pastor seems to be good enough to quiet the extreme right wing talking heads such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but a more detailed statement by Sen. Obama does not. Sounds a lot like reverse racism coming from the extreme right wing of the Republican Party.

Politician throughout the ages have sought the approval and endorsements of religious leaders for the votes of their congregation. Win over the Religious leader and you will certainly win over the many of the voters they preach too.

In the United States we have seen Republicans kissing the feet of people such as Jerry Falwell now deceased, and Pat Robertson for years, regardless if they agree with their religious ideology.

Holding our politicians accountable for the words of their spiritual advisors is nothing more than guilt by association.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton

By: David Phillips

March 17, 2008

Are you better off today than you were seven years ago?

John McCain is the Republican nominee for President, at the moment; the Democrats are still battling it out between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For the purpose of this article I am going to write as if Hillary Clinton has the Democratic nomination.

There are several issues that the two are on the opposite side, but I will cover the three biggest that are on the minds of the American people, Iraq, the Economy and Healthcare.

Iraq

John McCain wants to continue on with the War in Iraq, in fact he is very proud of the fact that he was the only one calling for more troops it what President Bush calls “The Surge”. The surge or as I like to call it, the escalation has quieted things down in Iraq with regards to the violence, but it still hasn’t produced the political restoration and the coming together of the three factions, the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shiite’s. But John McCain has been campaigning as though it is a success.

Hillary Clinton has said that she will start bringing the troops home within the first sixty days of her presidency. She has also said that some troops will still remain in order to protect our embassy, to continue the training of Iraqi security forces and to continue the fight against al-Qaeda. She has said that it would take at least two years to bring home the majority of our troops that are there now.

The Economy

Another hot topic in the news is our failing economy, the dollar has sunk to new lows, oil prices have risen to new highs, the housing market is in a dive and food, gas and most other daily necessities cost more as each day goes by.

John McCain while admitting that Congress for the last seven years have been spending like drunken sailors, does realize that we cannot continue spending billions for war and cut taxes at the same time. While McCain says that the Bush tax cuts that he first voted against need to remain, he also says that we must cut back on spending. He has also said that he cannot promise that he would not raise taxes. His biggest campaign promise is that he would veto any bill that contained any earmarks.

Hillary Clinton has said that she would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and give more tax breaks to the middle class and to the working poor. Clinton has said that she would have a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and freeze interest rates at whatever the current rate maybe for the home owner. She has also said that she would readdress the Bankruptcy laws that were but in place by Bush and the banks that are slanted in favor of lending institutions. She says that people should not have to lose everything they own because of some terrible illness.

Healthcare

John McCain wants to continue on the course we have now with healthcare, he says the free market is better suited in bringing the costs of healthcare and insurance down. But it is the free market that has caused the prices to go up every year.

Hillary Clinton wants to offer Universal Healthcare to all Americans who are currently uninsured now. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), there are 48 million Americans without any coverage.

The CBO has said that in the year 2006, 89 million Americans went without any health insurance during part or all of that year. The CBO also said that by the year 2012, 150 million Americans will no longer be able to afford the cost of healthcare. So something’s got to give. Either the cost must come down as John McCain says with the free market, or another system must be put in place such as Universal Healthcare.

Are you better off today than you were seven years ago?

If you are OK with the direction America is currently moving, then you should vote for the “Stay the Course” candidate, John McCain, if you are not, then Hillary Clinton should be your choice.

There are no easy answers for these issues; the next President will be saddled with many hard problems that will certainly require great sacrifices.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Should Schools be Gun Free Zones?

By: David Phillips

March 10, 2008

Over the last several months some of the Colleges in our nation have been in the news, but not for any academic achievement or sporting event, but because of massacres by gun wheeling nut jobs.

In 1994 Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act which established a policy that prohibits the possession of guns in schools and within a set distance of any school building in order curb gun violence in schools.

But as I mentioned there have been several shootings at various colleges across the country. The two that first come to mind are the shootings at Northern Illinois University last month were five students were killed and the shooting last year at Virginia Tech were thirty two students were killed. In both incidents the gunmen killed themselves.

But because of these two recent acts of violence, there is a strong push to change the Gun Free School Zones Act. There is now a call to allow those who are licensed to own and carry a gun, to be allowed to bring them to our school campuses.

Those against Gun Free School Zones want to allow students and teachers and anyone else who has a reason to be at a school, to carry a gun as long as they have a license, and to me this just sounds insane. More guns in school would just mean more killings in school.

Those that want to do away with the Gun Free Zone policy at school say that if the teachers and students had the right to carry a gun on campus they wouldn’t have been sitting ducks. But they don’t mention that not everyone wants to carry a gun, even if they had the option. So even if the policy was changed there would be no guarantee that someone in the classroom would be armed to protect him or herself.

Gun advocates cry out that the 2^nd Amendment allows them to own and carry a gun where ever they want, but don’t realize that it’s not just schools that prohibit those with a license to carry. Government buildings, National Parks, and most employers prohibit guns in the work place.

There is a very good reason why the Gun Free School Zone Act was implemented, it came about because there were too many people being killed in schools by people who were or were not licensed to carry guns.

I am reminded of an old TV show from the 70’s called “All in the Family”, I am sure that most of you know the show, but the character Archie Bunker once said that he knew how to stop any further hi-jacking of airplanes. He said as all the passengers are getting on the plane, give each one of them a gun.

Now we have gun advocates who are saying arm the teachers and arm the students. I am truly amazed that there are so many people who really think that more guns in schools will keep people safer.

Many gun fanatics like to say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I got some news for those who say that, Guns do kill people.

On a closing note, you should know that I am a gun owner; I do not advocate taking guns away from people, but I do think that there are places that should be Gun Free Zones.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Third Party Presidential Candidates for 2008

By: David Phillips

March 3, 2008

Last week Ralph Nader who is viewed as the curse of the 2000 election by Democrats, and who is hailed as the nail in the coffin by Republicans, has announced that he will be running for President, for the fifth time.

So Mr. Sherline (my counterpart at the Journal) and I thought that this would be a good time to write about the various third parties in our country and some of the influences they have had on previous presidential elections.

Obviously the biggest name that comes to mind for most people is Ralph Nader; he is person most responsible for Bush, the worst President in the history of the United States (My Opinion, not the Journals) being in the White house.

Can a Third Party candidate ever win?

I have found only three ways that a Third Party candidate could ever become President, but there may be other ways that I may have missed.

The first way is to obtain the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win. In a 3-way race with the billions of dollars the Democrats and Republicans receive from corporations, a Third Party candidate would have to have a big bankroll.

Someone like Michael Bloomberg has the money to run, but who knows how many of the 270 electors would actually vote for him to be President? There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States.

The second way would be for all Third Parties to unite as one Party. Then, by working together they could gain the majority of seats over several years, (146 out of 435 assuming there are 3 Parties) in the House of Representatives. Then if the House had to vote in a 3-way race where no one obtained the 270 (out of 538) elector votes, they could possibly win.

The third way would be to do away with the electoral college system and have our Presidents elected by the popular vote, if this system were in place in the 2000 election, Gore, who won the popular vote, would have been President.

For the record there has only been one Third Party President in the history of the United States. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln won with a Party that was only 8 years old, the Republican Party. He also was the only President elected while receiving less than 40% of the popular vote -- he received 39.82%. The Republican Party has unquestionably gone downhill since then.

Here is a rundown of some of the Third Parties have I come across:

Constitution Party

Green Party

Libertarian Party

Prohibition Party

Socialist Party USA

Socialism and Liberation Party

Socialist Equality Party

Socialist Workers Party

Workers World Party

Then there are the Independents and write-ins who represent a few other parties:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Independent-New York)

Former US Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia)

Terry "Tee" Barkdull (New American Party-Nevada)

John Taylor Bowles (National Socialist Order of America-South Carolina)

Orion Karl Daley (Balanced Party-New York)

Cris Ericson (Marijuana Party-Vermont)

Quay Fortuna (Ward Republic Party-Iowa)

Jack Grimes (United Fascist Union-Pennsylvania)

Charles Maxham (Give Me Back America Party-New Jersey)

Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey (Vampire, Witches & Pagan Party-New Jersey)

Da Vid (Light Party-California)

There are at least another two dozen names that are running as Independents, but I thought you might enjoy some of the party names from the list above.

I like the Vampire, Witches & Pagan Party, they sound very unique.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

Clean and Renewable Energy Sources

By David Phillips

February 25, 2008

Currently our country uses several sources to produce the energy requirements to keep everything running. We use some much more than others, such as oil, coal and natural gas, which are neither clean nor renewable. We also use Nuclear (renewable but not clean), Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Hydro-Electric.

In Bush’s last State of the Union Speech he said, “To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil.”

But, in Bush’s FY 2009 budget proposals for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency programs, there are cuts in vital areas including climate protection, solar energy, and tribal energy, while funding for fossil and nuclear energy was increased. And some programs, such as Weatherization Assistance Grants, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, were cut out entirely.

Here is a partial breakdown from Bush’s FY 2009 budget proposal: (Source: Center for American Progress)

·   $1.26 billion: Total fiscal year 2009 budget request for Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs.

·   27 percent: Decrease in funding from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.

·   $385.5 million: Increase in nuclear energy funding, which amounts to 37 percent increase from FY 08 appropriations.

·   $222.7 million: Increase in fossil energy funding, which amounts to a 25 percent increase over FY 08 appropriations.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

·   $570 million: Proposed cut to The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which assists low income households in meeting their immediate home energy needs. This is a 22 percent cut from FY 08, even before adjusting for changes in energy prices. The new energy law authorizes $5.1 billion for this program.

·   65 percent: The percentage increase in home energy prices since 2001.

·   0 percent: The percentage increase in this year's LIHEAP budget since 2001.

Weatherization Assistance

·   $0: Proposed budget for Weatherization Assistance Grants, which increase the energy efficiency of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans, thus directly reducing their energy costs, electricity use, and global warming emissions. This is a 100 percent cut from the $227 million allocated in fiscal year 2008.

Renewable Energy

·   $0: Proposed budget for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program, which provides financial incentive payments for electricity produced and sold by new qualifying renewable energy generation facilities. This is a 100 percent cut from the $5.0 million allocated in fiscal year 2008.

·   $6.9 million: Proposed cut to the hydropower program, whose purpose is to develop, conduct, and coordinate research and development with industry and other federal agencies to improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits of hydropower, which includes wave, tidal, and traditional dam hydropower. This is a 70 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.

·   $12.3 million: Proposed cut to the solar energy program, which works to accelerate the development of solar technologies as energy sources for the nation and the world, as well as educate the public about the value of solar power as an energy choice. This is a 7 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.

·   $26.8 million: Increase in biomass and bio-refinery systems R&D. This is a 13 percent increase from FY08 appropriations and should be commended as an investment in low-carbon alternatives.

·   $10.2 million: Increase in geothermal technology. This is a 51 percent increase from FY08 appropriations and should also be commended as an investment in low-carbon alternatives.

Tribal Energy

·   $4.9 million: Proposed cut to tribal activities such as the Tribal Energy Program, which provides financial and technical assistance to Native American tribes for feasibility studies of renewable energy development on tribal lands, and offers assistance to tribes for the initial steps toward renewable energy and energy efficiency development. This is an 83 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.

As I started to write this column, I decided that because of space limitations I would just point out some of the proposals by the Bush administration so you could see for yourself how little the effort is to wean us off of fossil fuels.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Should The Telecom’s Get Immunity For Laws They Broke?

By: David Phillips

February 11, 2007

In Congress there is a bill titled “The Protect America Act” which is mostly about wiretapping phone calls and e-mail intercepts of every American citizen and weakening the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts powers to insist on a Warrant.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a federal law that set procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers" on territory under United States control. In short, the act created a court which meets in secret, and approves or denies requests for search warrants.

In 2007 Bush overhauled the FISA act with the Protect America Act, because he said he didn’t have time to get a warrant from the FISA court, even though FISA allows wiretapping without a warrant for the first 72 hours so our agencies could react immediately, and in the 30 years of the FISA courts they have only denied five warrants.

So, after 911 Bush asked the telephone companies to turn over their customer lists as well as copies of all phone calls and e-mails, which they did. But they capitulated to Bush without any Warrants. The Only telecom not to bend to Bush’s force was Quest Communications.

The CEO of Quest Communications has since been brought up on charges of insider trading, which was really Bush’s way of saying to all the other telecom’s to play ball, or else.

Oh, and the CEO of Quest said in his court hearing that Bush and the NSA asked for his customer calls and e-mails seven months prior to 911. But that’s another story.

The Protect America Act, which should be renamed, The Wiretapping of America Act was set to expire on February 1, 2008, but two days before the expiration date the Senate passed a 15 day extension.

Inside the Protect America Act, is a provision that would give all the telecoms immunity against all the current lawsuits that are pending, because they turned over millions and millions of calls and e-mails without any Warrants.

Bush wants the renewal of the Protect America Act to include the immunity retroactive back to the time they all handed over the information on you, me and every other American. Bush has said that the telecoms did nothing wrong and were only doing the patriotic thing when they were asked.

But, Bush still continues to lie and mislead the American public on who he wiretaps. The day Bush signed the 15 day extension he said, "If these terrorists and extremists are making phone calls into our country, we need to know why they're calling, what they're thinking and what they're planning." He has been saying these exact words from the beginning, which is a true statement, but omits everything else.

All Americans agree that terrorist’s phone calls coming into the United States should be monitored, but Bush has gone way beyond all the legal programs and is monitoring every American phone call and e-mail inside the United States, without any warrants or legal foothold. This is why he wants to weaken the FISA courts with the telecom immunity tucked into the Protect America Act.

A recent poll by the Melman Group shows that 57 percent of likely voters opposed immunity for the telecommunications carriers who participated in the government's warrantless surveillance program, while only a third supported letting the telecoms off the hook.

In December of last year, the Protect America Act was being debated in the Senate, and one true American, Senator Chris Dodd left the campaign trail where he was running for President and returned to Washington to Filibuster the Act and to keep it from being voted on.

This Bill will be back in the Senate floor soon and the Democrats or at least most of them will not back the Bill unless the Telecom Immunity is removed, and of course Bush has threatened to veto the bill if he doesn’t get his way.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

The FDA and Cloned Cows

By: David Phillips

February 3, 2008

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), about a week ago announced that the milk and meat from Cloned animals is safe to eat and drink. The FDA said that the milk and the meat are “indistinguishable” from animals that are bred and raised in conventional methods. The decision removes the last big U.S. regulatory hurdle to marketing products from cloned livestock such as Cow and Pigs.

So why has the FDA rushed the approval?

The FDA in their normal haste to appease manufacturers so they can get their products to market has again favored another industry over the concerns of the consumer.

Companies like ViaGen, a subsidiary of Exeter Life Sciences in Austin, Texas, and Cyagra, which offer livestock-cloning services to ranchers for replicating their most elite sires and dams, have been waiting several years for a final say from the FDA.

In 2001, the FDA put a voluntary suspension on the sale of these items, so they could begin their study of the risks that may be associated with food from Cloned animals.

The findings by the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine will be published and made available, and states that none of their studies show,”any remarkable nutritionally or toxicologically important differences” in the meat and milk from Cloned animals. The only problem with that is that the industry is new and no long term studies have been made, because they can’t.

I'll have a Clone Burger with Fries to Go

Coming to you soon (a couple of years until they get the costs down) you may be eating a clone burger with your fries, and you won’t even know it, because the FDA will not require any labels that say, “From Cloned Animals.”

The FDA is saying that a glass of milk and a hamburger from a Cloned animal, will taste exactly the same as those from naturally bred animals, and that there are no differences.

But there are differences, big differences; a Clone is created in a lab, to be an exact duplicate of an existing conventionally bred animal.

With cloning also come ethical concerns that are not found in the conventional process of breeding. The process itself has a very high risk of birth defects, and the mere fact that it is created in a lab, would make many wonder if this is morally acceptable.

Many soon will be faced with a choice, do I want to eat and drink products from Cloned animals, or just avoid them altogether because of ethical reasons, or some other personal reason.

The FDA says that you the consumer will not have the option of knowing whether your meat and milk are from Cloned animals. The FDA said that they have NO plans, for the requirement of labels. The FDA is saying that, if you, the consumer have an ethical or moral problem with Clones, they also don’t care.

As a consumer of meat and milk by-products, I personally want to know what kind of food I am putting in my mouth, and where it comes from, or at least I want the option of being able to know, and I think that there are millions of people that feel that same as I do.

I urge everyone who cares about what they eat or that may have an ethical or moral problem with Cloned milk and meats, to contact their elected officials, and tell them to have the FDA require Labels.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Voter ID, What Is It, And Do We Need It?

By: David Phillips

January 21, 2007

In October of 2002 the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in part because of the punch card debacle in Florida, remember the hanging chads?

The Voter ID portion of the HAVA calls for any voter who has registered to vote by mail and who has not previously voted in a Federal election to show a current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. Voters who submit any of these forms of identification during registration are exempt.

The HAVA allows each State to implement Voter ID as they see fit based on minimum guide lines in the act. As you see from this list, not all States follow the same path.

23 states and the District of Columbia currently have the minimum HAVA ID requirements - first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide ID verification with their registration must show ID before voting. Photo and non-photo ID accepted in these states. (CA, DC, ID, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OK, OR, RI, UT, VT, WV, WI, WY)

18 states require ID for all voters. Photo and non-photo ID accepted in these states. (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, KY, MO*, MT, NM, ND, OH, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA)

3 states require all voters to show photo ID. Voters without the proper ID will be offered provisional ballots. (FL, GA, IN)

4 states request all voters show photo ID. Voters without the proper ID can sign affidavits and cast regular (non-provisional) ballots. (HI, LA, MI, SD)

2 states require ID of all first-time voters. Photo and non-photo ID accepted in these states. (KS, PA)

The Democratic Party see’s voter identification requirements as an obstruction that unjustly affects the poor, minorities and elderly voters, who often lack the required forms of identification and who also are inclined to vote Democratic.

Another reason why voter ID runs into obstacles is because it can and most likely will, lead to a National ID card for every American which is Un-American in my opinion.

The Republican Party says that Voter ID should be a prerequisite because it will help stop voter fraud, and since the various groups that would be most affected vote predominantly Democratic, Republicans feel that it makes sense to demand voter ID.

OK, so you have heard some of the pros and cons to voter ID, so, do we need it? I don’t think so, while the HAVA calls for States to implement the mandate, it allows each State to implement ID verifications as they see fit based upon the guide lines of the HAVA. And any program that would call for standardized identifications would lead to National ID cards which are Un-American.

I believe that it’s the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution that deals with individual State Rights, and each State for more than 200 years have been dealing with elections and while our election process is far, very far, from perfect, it has suited our nation well.

Almost every State and National election has produced some talk of voter fraud, and on a regular basis voter fraud is found, and it has been our courts of law that have dealt with it, let’s keep it that way.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

MEDIA BIAS: IS IT LEFT OR RIGHT?
By: David Phillips
January 7, 2008

Is the media bias? The short answer is yes, while a reporter is suppose to just report the facts and allow the audience to form their own conclusions, most of the news we get is no longer given in that format. News for the most part is now doled out by talking heads who give personal opinions to that day’s News and Events, but each media source does have some exceptions.

Does the Media bias lean left or right? We need to look closer at each media source to answer this question.

The four main media sources today are Newspapers, Television, Radio and Cable News shows.

Let’s start with Radio, a format that is a right wing power-house. Right wing talk radio has the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Mike Savage. These men command audiences that are in the millions. These men are heard on hundreds of stations every day. The closest competition from the left is Air America, which is only heard on about 65 stations across the country. Their big name talk host is Al Franken, but he is no longer on the Air because he is running for the Senate in the State of Minnesota against Norm Coleman (R-MN). Other name’s that some may have heard of are Rachel Maddow and Randi Rhodes.

Now let’s look at Cable News channels, we have CNN, MSNBC and FOX News Channel.

The main shows on CNN are Lou Dobbs, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, AC 360 with Anderson Cooper, and the Glenn Beck Show.

The main shows on MSNBC are Hardball with Chris Matthews, Tucker with Tucker Carlson, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

And on Fox the main shows are: Special Report with Brit Hume, Hannity and Colmes with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, and The Factor with Bill O’Reilly.

Of these ten shows, six are hosted by men with right wing stands on the majority of issues. So, while there is a much better chance of hearing news from someone who is more moderate or liberal, the majority of shows are again right wing. Fox News Channel also has a much larger audience that CNN and MSNBC.

The next Media format we will look at is off air TV channels (non-cable or satellite) such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox.

This media source hands down leans left when compared to Talk Radio or Cable News. But that does not mean that its left wing, it merely means that its left of the other formats, and when you compare most other media sources to Talk Radio, everything is going to appear to the left, because Talk Radio leans about as fair right as you can go.