Spare Change?

"you been had. you been took. you been hoodwinked. bamboozeled. led astry. run amuck." -malcolm x. oba told congress in feb, "we import more oil today than ever before." that's untrue. imports peaked in 2005 and are lower now. oba claimed his mortgage aid plan would help 'responsible' buyers but not those borrowing beyond their means. but foolish borrowers are aided as well. oba claimed in march that high school dropout rate has 'trippled in the past 30 years." but according to the dept. of education, it has actually declined by a third. and, lol, the economy has been losing an average of 22,000 jobs per day since the oba took office.  oba lives in a paralle universe in a room full of mirrors.

I suppose this article implying we need to "give" Obama a mandate is trying to put him and the country on track, not off track.  It is a no can do with Obama in office as a railroaded hyped incompetent president.  He did not win on his platforms.  He won on his lies and hyped hypocrisy, and the media pretends the confusion that is not confusion.  It is the media's pretense that Obama offered CHANGE DUE and they knew he did not.  The upcoming media review of his coverage while in office is being done by the worst railroaders of an election ever seen.  When Nader was a MAJOR candidate and viewed as an intruder against corruption as if the public didn't want that, I SAY THE MEDIA DID NOT WANT HONEST POLITICS TO HAPPEN.  "Mandate" is supposed to be when the agenda of the candidate matches the will of the nation and nets the "mandate" of a MAJORITY of votes, not just slightly over 50% by a media two party system that does NOT exist.  We are NOT a majority registered in the two parties and the LIES that we did not need to support the BALLOT BOX DEMOCRACY OF THE PEOPLE is the reason the people's mandate is not showing.  Peace?  Obama says WAR and HE SAID THAT ALL ALONG.

Sorry everyone, multiple postings because nothing happened when I hit "post".  First time posting on the Phoenix.  Next time, such as this, I will hit Post once and consider it done.  BUT, as long as I am posting a new item, I will offer some news:  I think even Ralph Nader believes this country wanted Obama and I say they did not have proper choice and are now mad at the lies that are not producing the mandate they thought they voted for-Obama did not offer to cut the military and bring home the troops, if he snuck that in, it was to net those voters, while his main intention is to do the opposite, and the campaign booklet is the grossest horror of insanity possible, red ink military global dominance as if we love him as if a god, and yes, I am sure you noticed the media thinks you supported that, and they have lied to keep you in the suspense of confusion while throwing every word in the book into the platform offerings, "full of sound and fury and signifying ...." instead of nothing, which would have been the proper voting result for him, an F not an A.  The editor of TruthDig said after a big speech in January or early February, where the media kept spoonfeeding him and pretending "he's learning" was ok, when they knew what he was relying on, ugly america military and it was as if he was their puppet, but he wanted to do the insanity as much as them, and the BIG TIME IS THE PEOPLE did not want what was happening, and the media ignored the protests, and not surprisingly the Congress is ignoring the OBVIOUS requirement of upholding the U.S. Constitution which does not permit a budget in red ink trillion for military increases already done by Bush, which Congress allowed, and is as bad as him, they are supposed to say NO and uphold the U.S. Constitution, a budget in the black is FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION to stand as good government.  Red ink in the trillion of military offensives is NOT how to govern and is an offense to EVERYONE.  Obama is ugly war criminal intention stated with media's eagerness as if wanted by the public as if a mandate.  NO, the media is entirely war prone as if bad news is money and nets the audience.  It is horror in action and must stop.  We have 167 million voters and the next Presidential election could have A-Real Democracy Debates where the citizens own the debates, and require the candidates on the ballot to challenge the incumbent party candidates, for the right change to be voted on as wanted change, and B- IRV - Instant Runoff Voting can make the rating of candidates prove who the majority BACKS as BEST and the idea that the worst can win, will be eliminated.   We need to fix the rating so that when, say there are three candidates, each candidate gets a numerical total of ranking that is properly showing who is most favored by the majority.  Very likely if any tie exists, then there would be a real runoff.  Honest and true voting would happen, because the first choice of each voter would get represented.  The current IRV is to get voters to rank all the candidates.  We do not yet have the IRV and people have been voting as if there are only two choices as valid, and that is invalid voting.  We need everyone to vote their honest first choice to net honest majority rule.  All the candidates on the ballot must be known to the voters to net informed results.  The media refused the honest presentation of all six candidates.  I believe the results would be the two front runners of the two parties touted by the media as if we wanted them, would be the losers at a complete level, and the four challengers who were on a majority of state ballots would net the top ranking.  Obviously if we keep the "winner take all" the IRV can work even if a candidate is not on all state ballots, it would still net the state truth and then the electoral college truth.  I believe the states which did not allow a candidate on the ballot, should have the option of choosing as of the final deadline for all states ballot access to choose to add the other candidates to theirs to net an honest voting result by the nation as a whole.  If Nader, for example was a 45 state ballot access success for 2008 and a write-in in four states, the four who did not put him on the ballot, could choose to at the last minute.  Oklahoma did not allow even the write in.  Go figure.  Maybe they do not support national political agendas and want no change and no democracy to happen.  To be totally fair, they should be allowed to include Nader along with the states' who put him as a write in, but I feel as if they should have to have the voters put him on the ballot as a write in as a valid thing to protest the faulty officials in elections for their state.  A young man saw my chart of voter registration and ballot access for Nader in the Harvard Square T station a few days before the General Election.  He said, "I didn't know Nader was on the ballot!?"  I said, "What state are you in?"  He replied Georgia.  I looked at my alphabetical list on the chart and said, "write-in" that is why you didn't know.  He said, "I would have voted for him."  And, yes, he would have written him in if he knew Nader was running. But, some people in MA also said that AFTERWARD and Nader was on the ballot in MA.  In MA we had Nader on the ballot through the petitioning and signature process and validation for access and proper printing of the challenger candidates names to appear on the ballot for voters to vote change wanted.  SOME people never saw the Name for Nader on the ballot.  WHY?  Because they knew who they were going to vote for and did not look at the others, of which there were six.  The media offered ONLY TWO as if that was all that was valid.  The media's presentation is illegal slanting of egregious "no change" as if the people did it.  THEY DID NOT.  The people believed the media lie that the people did it, but THEY DID NOT.  The polls did not even try to get the people's opinions and the media did not even try to present the challengers on the ballot.  Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, and Obama.  If you ranked them, and knew what they offered what would happen to the votes for the "Democrats"?  I believe Obama would be the bottom.  Of six, I would rank him 6 and not worth voting for, but having to in order to net the honest bad grade due. If number one and all votes counted nets the lowest total is the top winner, then number one is showing as the most wanted.  167 million voters voting for number one, nets a majority favoring the wanted AGENDA not party, and CANDIDATE who can deliver the AGENDA at an obvious track record, and credibility record. Nader was accomplished to a legendary level, and his candidacy was MAJOR and the media refused the proper view!  I say the election results and pretense of Obama as having won a contest is a lie, and the contest is due and overdue.  Ballot box power comes from the incumbents being held accountable and offering a platform and agenda that becomes "HONEST" mandate.  Certainly the truth was NOT war and NOT red ink, and OH YES, that is who and what Obama is.  Bailouts?  That is throwing money at failure at those who think they are "too big to fail!"  Try that on for a forecast!  I say get Obama out of office and declare the truth.  We do not have two party system we have a democracy in place but not upheld.  It is not the system, it is the people, and due to their refusal to admit it is not two parties, INSTANT RUNOFF RANKING to net majority rule is a good idea. To prove a winner, all that is required is to stop talking two parties, and talk agenda and candidates and get people to think honest politics delivers honest candidates who represent the majority.  Incumbents only as if ok, is NOT.  Cheaters and anti-Democracy candidates were the ones who took the villains trophy for the ugly american profile we have had in office three times so far.  Obama is not change, he is the worst yet.  He is a Hitler of violence as if that is merit, it is UGLY and NOT government.  He is a nobody. No mandate showing.  Of course not.