ARTICLES and ANSWERS 2007

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Why did Hillary Clinton win Indiana by such a small margin? 

Senator Clinton had to come from behind in order to win by any margin in Indiana.  Senator Obama had a substantial lead there a few weeks before the primary.  He got almost all of the black voters and did better than usual among white voters.  In the area near Chicago (Lake County, IN) he did especially well. 

The media would have you believe that Clinton failed with such a narrow win in Indiana.  As recently as the day before the primary, the Financial Times reported it was Obama that had to win both Indiana and North Carolina in order to claim the nomination.  He didn't do it.  No matter how they slice and dice it, neither candidate has enough to win the nomination and until someone does get the necessary delegates, it's an open race.

What is interesting about the Indiana results is the fact the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 favorable decision on Indiana's requirement that a photo ID is necessary before a person is eligible to vote.  The SC decision was made on April 28, 2008.

On that same date, Indiana's Secretary of State sent a letter to all candidates appearing on the May 6, 2008  ballots.  Included in this letter was the statement that although the photo ID requirement was necessary for voters who voted in-person, it was not necessary for absentee voters.

http://www.in.gov/sos/press/2008/2008Primary_LetterToCandidates.pdf

"The photo ID requirement applies to voters who vote in-person, either at their polling location or the designated locations for absentee in person.  Voters who quality to vote absentee by mail, or absentee by traveling board will not be required to show photo ID."

There were 317,979 new voter registration applications since the 2006 General Election, and a total of 173,525 Indiana voters voted by absentee ballot on May 6, 2008.

How many of the 173,525 absentee voter were legal?

John McCain 2008 www.JohnMcCain.com

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

Whether you’re a Republican, Democrat or Independent it‘s difficult to criticize John S. McCain’s military record. While on a bombing mission during the Vietnam War, McCain’s plane was shot down, he suffered injuries, and was held as a prisoner of war for a period exceeding 5 years by the North Vietnamese.

When you add to the mix the fact McCain’s grandfather and father were both Four-Star admirals in the U.S. Navy, it’s difficult to challenge the right of this particular candidate to run for the highest office in the land, but the challenge must be made and the issue resolved.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution has three requirements that must be met by any person running for President of the United States. The person must be a natural born citizen, they must be at least 35 years of age and they must have lived within the United States for a period of 14-years.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Wikipedia indicates John S. McCain III was born on "August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama within the then-American-controlled Panama Canal Zone to Navy officer John S. McCain, Jr. (1911-1981) and Roberta (Wright) McCain (1912)".

Although there was a U.S. Navy submarine base at Coco Solo, the hospital at Coco Solo was not built until the summer of 1941, after Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8981, expanding the Panama Canal Zone to include Coco Solo. 

It is reported McCain's certificate of birth indicates he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama, which is the closest city to Coco Solo, but Colon has never been included as part of the Panama Canal Zone.

However, McCain's citizenship status is covered by the following section of U.S. Code - Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > Section 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on after February 26, 1904

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

That still leaves the determination as to whether or not McCain is "natural born". 

Over the years the question has been asked time and time again but there is no clear answer. According to the New York Times, the McCain campaign has “recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain to prepare a detailed legal analysis” on the subject.</ span></ span> </ span>

Since there is not a legal precedent for the term the question of what our forefathers meant by natural born can be twisted and turned and the question kept on the table for years without a real answer. There are now two works in progress that may finally answer this question – perhaps not to everyone’s satisfaction, but well enough to serve as the legal precedent.

On February 28, 2008 Senator Claire McCaskill [D-MO] introduced S. 2678 - Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act - which declares that any person born to a U.S. citizen while serving in the U.S. armed services will be considered a "natural born citizen' and is therefore eligible to become President.  On February 28, 2008 this bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. What is refreshing to note is the fact both Democratic Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have signed on as cosponsors.

On March 6, 2008 Case Number ED CV 08 - 00304 was filed in the United States District Court Central District of California requesting a declaratory judgment from the court stating whether or not John S. McCain III would be allowed to serve, per the U.S. Constitution, if elected President of the United States.

This is obviously an issue that needs to be settled before the election. What could/would they do about it after he is elected, assuming he won the election? Would he be able to stay in office while the issue was decided by the courts, or would his Vice Presidential choice immediately become President?

Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath are co-owners of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites Articles and Answers 2007 and Articles and Answers

Technorati Tags: U.S. Constitution,U.S. Code,President of the United States,Election 2008,John S. McCain III,Executive Order 8981,Panama Canal,S. 2678,Case Number ED DV 08-00304

By Patricia L Johnson

I turned on the news today to find out that Ashley Alexandra Dupre' has now had over a million downloads on her MySpace page by people downloading her music, she's been offered a nice cool million by Larry Flindt, she's been offered jobs in the various girly magazines for big bucks and a few book deals.

Prostitution is illegal - it is illegal to sell your body for sex, yet this young woman does it, makes enough to keep up a $3,000.00 a month apartment and is now being offered the kind of money that it takes most people a lifetime to earn?

More than likely she will be charged with nothing, in exchange for providing the sex snoops, a.k.a. the U.S. Department of Justice with her testimony regarding all the dirty little secrets of her tryst with former Governor Elliott Spitzer.

What message are we sending to the young girls growing up in this country?

Here's the message we're sending - don't stay in school - instead get yourself a boob job and bone up on the latest in erotica and if you're real lucky you can catch yourself a politician and spend the rest of your days sitting in your $3,000 a month apartment eating chocolate covered strawberries and counting your money.  Or wait a minute, you didn't finish school so you probably can't count that high - Not to worry - you can always hire an accountant.

We have 17-year olds fighting with their parents every day of the week trying to decide whether or not they should run away from home - well, now they don't have to wonder any more - they can run away just like their new idol "Kristin".

A good man's reputation is now in shred's and a woman that sells her body for a living is put on a pedestal.

Only in America!

By Richard E Walrath

Nothing good in the world of news.  Prices going up on food, oil, and gold.  There is a food shortage coming unless something is
done right away.  Half of the world needs to go on a diet and that would make more food for the other half that is starving.  If
my numbers are a little off, maybe there are 20% that are just right, making the split 40% and 40%.

Global warming is causing the insect population to explode.  Other than frogs and woodpeckers, insects have few natural
enemies.  They need an unnatural enemy like man to decrease the bug population.

Start with those things in your four food groups and work your way to chocolate-covered ants.

That's a dessert, of course.  But someone will come up with soya-covered insects and then you have a health food.

I'm excited about the possibilities.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

When you allow yourself to be backed into a corner you suffer the consequences in the form of higher prices, and that is basically what has happened to the price of gasoline in the United States.

The retail price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States is split as follows:

• 13% - Taxes
• 11% - Distribution and Marketing
• 8%  - Refining
• 68% - Crude Oil

Source:  United States Department of Energy

The United States only produces 5.1 million barrels of crude oil per day, while our petroleum consumption exceeds 20.6 million barrels per day.

By using considerably more oil than we produce, the U.S. has to import oil in order to meet our daily needs.  At one time the majority of our oil imports came from the various  OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries)  but, we only import 5,517,000 barrels of crude per day from OPEC.  Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Venezuela are all members of OPEC.

The top three suppliers to the U.S. from the OPEC group are:

• Saudi Arabia - 1,463,000 bpd (barrels per day)
• Venezuela - 1,419,000 bpd
• Nigeria - 1,114,000 bpd

The top U.S. crude oil supplier is Canada  at 2,353,000 bpd and Mexico comes in second with 1,705,000 bpd.  Non-Opec suppliers result in U.S. imports of  8,190,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

The largest commodity market in the world is crude oil and the leading exchanges for crude oil futures are the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange) and the IPE (International Petroleum Exchange in London).  Unless you've been on another planet, you know that oil futures hit a record high of $105.10 on March 6, 2008.  There are a couple reasons why oil futures continue to rise and hit a new high.

First is the increased world demand for oil - to that end, the United States, who uses 25% of the world oil supply, requested OPEC to increase production quotas at their Meeting of the Conference of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on March 5, 2008 in Vienna.  The conference decided to maintain current production levels and not increase OPEC production as had been requested.  Current commercial oil stocks are above their five year average, so they did not see the need for the increase, especially with the economic slowdown in the U.S.  

Second is the fall of the U.S. Dollar compared to other currencies.  Investors are able to purchase more oil futures with their currency than we are with the U.S. dollar.  We'll use the Euro as an example - As of this morning, the Euro has one and a half times the buying power of the USD.  1 USD = 0.648638 EUR - 1 EUR = 1.54169 USD (Live rates at 2008.03.08 17:34:30 UTC)

Since crude oil represents 68% of the price of a gallon of gasoline, the key to understanding fluctuating gasoline prices, is to understand the impact various global/national events have on the price.  For an example, we'll use changes in the past 7 years - the period of time that President Bush has been in office.

The first year President Bush was in office was 2001 and at the end of the year the average spot price for an imported barrel of crude oil was $15.86 (December 2001).  By December of 2007 the average spot price for an imported barrel had grown to $73.33 (December 2007).There are many factors that influence the price of crude oil and we'll use 2002 as an example because in 2002 the price of crude oil almost doubled, going from $18 per barrel in January to $34 per barrel in December.  

In April of 2002 Saddam Hussein suspended Iraqi oil exports for a period of one month.  The U.S. was importing 795,000,000 barrels per day from Iraq and the suspension, along with the Venezuela labor strikes in late 2002, created a shortage of crude oil that virtually shut down crude oil production and exports to the U.S. 

At the same time, the administration changed the policy on Department of Energy scheduled deliveries to the SPR, Strategic Petroleum Reserves.  Prior to 2002 oil companies were allowed to defer deliveries to the SPR when short term oil prices were high compared to long term prices. 

The oil companies were allowed to deposit extra oil to the reserves at a later date, to make up for shortages.  When the oil companies are forced by the government to fill the SPR with higher priced oil, instead of being able to use federally-owned oil from offshore oil leases, and selling the higher priced oil on the open market, it ends up costing taxpayers more.  Over the three months in 2002, filling the SPR with the higher priced oil, ended up costing consumers an additional $100 million dollars.

In December of 2002 Saddam Hussein refused to renew the U.S. oil company contracts and the rest is history, by the end of 2006 Iraq oil exports to the United States had dropped to 553 million bpd.  We invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and have yet been able to get crude oil exports from this country up to pre-war levels of 795 million bpd.  Anytime there is a pipeline explosion in Iraq, it effects the amount of oil the country is able to export. 

Nigeria has been another problem area with unrest and sabotaged pipelines.  Anytime there is an oil disruption it will go towards reducing the amount of oil available; thereby increasing the price.  Even minor interruptions, such as a fire in a refinery within the U.S. that stops production for a day or two has the ability to affect the price of gasoline, depending upon the location of the refinery. 

How much gasoline do we waste every day?  In the colder states, it is not unusual to see cars running in the parking lot of the local grocery store with men sitting there waiting, probably for their wives to do the shopping.  That happens now, even with gasoline headed for $4.00.  When it hits $5.00 a gallon maybe we can figure out a way to cut down. 

Following are some suggestions:

1.  Let the wife go grocery shopping by herself if she can drive.

2.  Let the husband do the shopping - obviously he can drive himself.

3.  Get out of the car and go into the store together -- turn the engine off.

4.  Make fewer trips.

5.  Turn in the Hummer.

This country has known for decades that we either need an alternate energy source, or we need to build more refineries to increase production, yet here we are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Source:  United States Department of Energy - 2006 data

And Report dated March 5, 2003 - U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

By Patricia L Johnson

Senator Obama has repeatedly attempted to put Senator Clinton on the defensive by bringing up her vote on H.J. Res. 114, the Joint Resolution providing President Bush with authorization for the use of Military Force Against Iraq.  In much the same manner as a Monday morning quarterback, Senator Obama has criticized the "yea" vote by Senator Clinton.

The problem with his criticism is there aren't too many people that don't feel we should not have attacked the Republic of Iraq.  Unfortunately, these same individuals were not  behind closed doors when confidential security data was being presented to Senators. 

In retrospect, Senator Obama has even been published as stating had he been privy to the intelligence the Senators were provided,  at the time, he may very well have voted 'yea' on the bill. 

If you recall correctly, this vote was taken in October of 2002, barely a year after the 9/11 attack on U.S. soil.  At the time, Senator Obama was NOT a member of the United States Senate.  How he would've, could've or should've voted on this bill is virtually meaningless because 'outsiders' simply do not have access to confidential intelligence reports prepared for members of the United States Senate.

Was Senator Clinton the only U.S. Senator to favor this bill?  Of course not, the vote on the bill was 77-23 which means a full 77 percent of U.S. Senators, after being exposed to the intelligence supplied by our agencies, felt the bill should  be passed.  In addition to Senator Clinton, the following U.S. Senators voted in favor of the bill and their names are listed at the end of this piece.

President George W. Bush had only been in office for barely over a year when this bill was brought before Congress.  He had not been in office long enough, at that time, for anyone to question motives as this country was still in a state of shock over the attacks of September 11, 2001.

H.J. Res. 114 was introduced into the House by, then Speaker of the House, Dennis J. Hastert on October 2, 2002 and was passed by the House and Senate in record breaking time with PL 107-243 being signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

In a nine-day  period of time this bill was introduced, went to the House Committee on International Relations, went through amendments, was placed on the House calendar for a vote, went to the Senate, was amended, went to the Senate floor for a vote and passed the Senate on October 11, 2002, without amendment.

Five days later it was signed into law by President Bush.

On October 4, 2002 the CBO released their cost estimate of this bill and their narrative begins with the following statement [emphasis added]:

"H. J. Res 114 would authorize the President to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate to defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

By itself, the resolution would not authorize any funding for the use of force, nor would it affect direct spending or receipts. While the resolution is a step toward building consensus for the use of force, it also might improve the chances of a diplomatic settlement without the use of force. The resolution would leave the decision to use force to the discretion of the President." Nevertheless, if the President should use the resolution to initiate a war against Iraq, the budgetary effects would be significant.

It is an absolute disgrace that Senator Obama would criticize Senator Clinton, or any of the other 77 Senators that voted to pass this joint resolution.  When you add in the 296 House votes you're talking about a total of 373 members of the United States Congress that voted 'yea' to giving President George W. Bush the authority to use military force, if needed.  They didn't authorize him to attack, they authorized him to use military force if necessary to protect U.S. interests.

President George W. Bush chose to attack Iraq.

To  have a Junior Senator criticize actions of other members of Congress, when he wasn't even involved in the discussions, for the sole purpose of benefiting his political aspirations,  is disgraceful and Senator Obama should be ashamed.

The voters in this country are sick of war.  We've seen our country literally fall to pieces, while we're spending $12 billion dollars a month on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We want something better for ourselves and our children.

Our members of Congress have to go to sleep every night and remember how their vote indirectly caused thousands of U.S. casualties and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.

What they don't need is the Junior Senator from the state of Illinois throwing in his two cents.  If Senator Obama really had the interests of this country at heart, he would make a formal apology to Senator Clinton and to every other Senator listed below.

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Re:  Hillary's Math Problem  - Jonathan Alter - March 4, 2008

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

WE hope Jonathan won't mind if we Alter some of his math assumptions regarding the remaining primaries.

The Slate Delegate Calculator is indicating a fixed percentage of votes for Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.   They're giving Obama 44% to Clinton's, 54% for Ohio,  Obama 40% to Clinton's 58% for Rhode Island, Obama 47% to Clinton's 51% for Texas and Obama 60% to Clinton's 38% for Vermont.

The following states will have upcoming elections, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Caroline, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon.

The article is basically stating  if Clinton won 60% in each of the above states she still would not be able to hit the magical number necessary for the nomination.

Well, let's go one step further with that calculation - let us be very generous to our up-and-coming political rock star and provide him with 80% of the vote in all remaining primaries.

We can be well assured that no matter how popular, charming or charismatic Senator Obama is he will not win 80% of the remaining votes, but even if he did, he still would not have enough pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination.

Unpledged delegates (superdelegates) are going to a play a predominate role in this election.  Unpledged delegates will hold the key to the nomination, as will the final determination on Florida and Michigan.  If you recall correctly Senator Clinton did win both states.

What is the role of the unpledged delegates'?  According to Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean,

"Their role is to exercise their best judgement in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party"

Based on the following statement in the article "Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people" Mr. Alter doesn't seem to understand the role of the unpledged delegate. 

The Obama camp has consistently stated the unpledged delegate vote should follow the popular vote.  Looks like that would mean superdelegate votes for Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, Governor Deval Patrick, and Governor Janet Napolitano would then go to Senator Clinton wouldn't they?

Why are unpledged delegates even given a vote?   First you have to look at who the unpledged delegates are; they are Democratic Members of Congress, Democratic Governors, former party leaders, former presidents, etc.  In other words they are people that are well versed in politics and completely understand the issues that this country will face in the future.

What they are not is the young followers of  Senator Obama.  The fact that Barack Obama has been able to get our youngsters to the polls in droves is incredible and our hats are off to him.  According to federal election law, if a youngster is going to be 18 years old on the date of the general election, they are eligible to vote in their state's primary. 

Do you really think that 17 and 18 year old students are more qualified to nominate the Democratic candidate or should that decision  be left to the unpledged experts in a race this close?

Something that must also be taken into consideration is the fact the unpledged delegate or superdelegates vote is not set in stone - the number of superdelegate votes may change at any time if delegates leave office, leave the party, or for whatever reason cannot cast a vote at the Democratic National Convention. 

At this point in time the race for the Democratic nominee is not any different than the Super Bowl game with the Giants as a two touchdown underdog.  The Patriots were sure to win except they didn't. 

The game's not over until it's over. That's why they play the game to the finish.

By Patricia L Johnson

Data Source:  Federal Reserve Board

The percentage of household debt dropped from 10.2% in 2006 to 6.8% in 2007.  The decrease in household debt was due to slow growth of home mortgage debt.  Even though household credit card debt increased an an annual rate of 4.0%, slow growth in home mortgage debt resulted in a percentage decrease.

Non-Financial Debt outstanding, end of 4th quarter 2007:  $31.2 trillion broken down as follows: 

• $13.8 trillion - Household debt
• $10.1 trillion - Non-financial business debt
• $ 7.3 trillion - Total government debt (State and Federal)

By Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson

Which will come first?  Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment or a woman president?  Both look a long way off.  The question that must be asked is if the U.S. can ever have a woman president without first having equal rights for women?

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was written in 1923 by Alice Paul.  It consists of the following three sentences:

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

In 1971 the ERA bill was approved by the U.S. House by a vote of 354-24, and on March 22, 1972  U.S. Senate passed the bill by a vote of 84-8.  http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/history.html

There are two separate ways a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution may be made, one has never been used, so the most common is for the bill to be sent to the individual state legislatures for ratification, or approval.  Generally there is a time limit placed on the bill and was originally set at 7 years.  Since the ERA amendment was not ratified within the original 7 year period, a bill has been reintroduced into Congress each year. 

The ERA bill now has 35 of the 38 states necessary for ratification.  Once three more states ratify the bill, it will become the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The following states have failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA. 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

What is interesting about the listing of states that have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment is the fact all, with the exception of Illinois, are considered "Red" states as apposed to "Blue". 

Red States vote Republican--doesn't matter who is running.  Since the Civil Rights bill was passed under LBJ, the Solid South turned Solid Red.  Missouri is a swing state.  It votes with the winner.  As you can see from the map, Bush took all the non-ratifying states except Illinois, in 2004.

Barack Obama claims to be a civil rights advocate and is from the State of Illinois, the only blue state NOT to ratify the ERA.  Not only is Illinois the home state of the U.S. Senator, it's also a state where he served in the legislature, and considered himself "a leader in the Illinois State Senate".

ERA was big news back in the 70's.  It was ancient history by the time Obama was old enough to think about it. 

Obama is 46 years old.  In the almost twenty years since he got out of school (Harvard Law School), he's written two auto-biographies, worked as a community organizer (not quite sure exactly what that entails).  He served in the state legislature and, since 2005 has been in the U. S. Senate.  Oh, yes, and he spent some time in a corporate law office.

The ERA amendment not only has not been ratified by the State of Illinois, the State of Illinois changed the rules on how many votes were required for ratification: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

"Illinois changed its rules to require a three-fifths majority to ratify an amendment, thereby ensuring that their repeated simple majority votes in favor of the ERA did not count."

Why is it that no one in the media has ever questioned Obama on this subject or any other subject of merit?

If ever anybody got a free ride from the media, Obama is it.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

"Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006" was released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August of 2007. [1]

The publication states "The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 in 2006 was not statistically different from the 2005 ratio..."  In other words working women, on average, only earn 77% of what their male counterparts are paid.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an “unlawful employment practice” to discriminate “against any individual with respect to compensation..." [2]

"Employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."

43 years later women are still being discriminated against in the workplace as can be determined by the $3.1 million in monetary benefits paid out in 2006 for claims filed against employers. [3]

When the women in this country cannot receive equal pay, based on the law, should it come as any surprise that women are not treated equally in other areas?

The current election is a prime example - the two Democratic contenders should be provided equal time by the media,  but inequality on the cable networks is running rampant.  We're not sure how many times CNN has mentioned the name Obama, but it should be clear to everyone by now that CNN believes there is no one else in the race except Obama.

Remember the Harry and Louise ads when Hillary was trying to get universal health care passed in the 90's?  "I don't want the government sticking its noise in my medicine cabinet." 

Funny thing, the same people responsible for the Harry and Louise ads now want to stick their noses into every room of your house and follow you around wherever you go.  But people don't seem to mind.

NBC Universal pulled the original video claiming patent rights, but our own interpretation is that the video showed how unfair and unbalanced the media are and have been.  http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/77752

As we know from the media coverage of the primaries, Hillary has to do twice as well as Obama to get half as much praise. 

But - what can you expect in a country that still hasn't managed to get enough states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment?

The ERA in Congress

ERA bills reintroduced in Congress on March 27, 2007:

SJRes 10
HJRes 40
HRes 757

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution. 

The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states.  When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment. 

The politicians that are running around concerned about being fair and wanting to replace our current Internal Revenue Service with the Fair Tax should take a step back in time and replace our current election system with one that treats all candidates fair and equally.

Even those that can't pee standing up!

Are men afraid of women?  Are they afraid Hillary will succeed?  Can it be possible that the men of this country are so chauvinistic they would rather vote for a candidate that is not qualified to be President of the United States than to vote for a woman?

Is that why women are still considered second class citizens in this country?

There is no excuse for the women in this country not voting for Hillary.  There is no way you can look at the credentials of the two candidates, look at what plans they have for our future, and choose Obama over Hillary. 

It's easy to sit back and say 'she voted for the Iraq war'.  Excuse us, but Hillary did not vote to attack Iraq.  Her vote, along with everyone else's was to give Bush the power to use military force, IN THE EVENT IT WAS NECESSARY.

It was not necessary, but Bush chose to go to war.

It's easy for Obama to sit back and say "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning'.  It's easy for him to say anything because he wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time; therefore he was not privy to the confidential data that was supplied to the U.S. Senators prior to the vote giving President Bush the authority to use military force in the event it was necessary.

Actually, if Obama had been a U.S. Senator at the time of the vote he probably wouldn't have voted to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq.  After all as the Jr. Senator from Illinois he doesn't find it necessary to make an appearance in the Senate more than 67% of the time.

[1]  http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

[2]  http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

[3]  http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/epa.html

By Patricia L Johnson

The DJIA closed at 12,266.39 today for a loss of 315.79 points.  Instead of asking why the Dow dropped, the question that should be asked is why did the market increase this week at all with such bleak economic reports?

Wake up out there - February is the fourth straight month that the Dow has closed lower.

If this administration thinks a $168 billion dollar stimulus package is going to help this economy, they'd better go back to the drawing board.  This country is in deep doo doo.

The U.S. National Debt on January 20, 1993 when Bill Clinton took office was 4,188,092,107,183.60 the national debt on February 26, 2008 was 9,326,682,518,402.00 the difference is $5,138,590,041,000 or an increase of 5.1 trillion.  Source:  U.S. Treasury

This administration has added 5.1 TRILLION dollars to the national debt over the past 85 months and we have nothing to show for it, yet they think a $168 stimulus package is going to keep the country from going down the tubes?

Instead of printing everything in both English and Spanish, we'd better forget about those two languages and start printing everything in Chinese.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

"Stand Up for a New Kind of Politics" is a page on Barack Obama's site where you can take 'take action'. 

At first it appeared to be similar to other Web sites where you can send a letter to your Senators and Member of Congress, all at one time, in the event you come across a problem that needs attention.  Examples - The kid that lives down the street has been back from Afghanistan for six months, but still hasn't been able to get an appointment at the speciality clinic in your local VA.  The single parent across the street cannot find. or afford, adequate after school care for his/her children, the elderly person on the corner cannot afford to pay the rising costs of both medication and energy.

Well, Obama definitely stands for a new kind of politics as you can readily see by his priorities for action.

 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/factcheckactioncenter

If you encounter an attack on Barack's church:

If you encounter an attack on Barack's faith:

If you encounter an attack on Barack's patriotism:

Senator Clinton has accused Obama of using plays out of Karl Rove's playbook, that that's not the way we see it.  His entire campaign has been a repeat of the student movement organized by Cesar Chavez founder of the United Farm Workers, UFW back in 1965, right down to their slogan.  The following link is to the organizer tool kit - if you're an Obama supporter, it's worth a read.  http://www.ufw.org/pdf/2007CCDOrganizersToolkit%20v.2.pdf

The slogan is shown in the organizer tool kit, as well as in the Library of Congress http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/aug22.html

Source:  Mexican Americans and United Farm Workers of America 

¡SÍ SE PUEDE!
(Yes We Can!)

Slogan used by Cesar Chavez,
First president of the United Farm Workers

Library of Congress http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/aug22.html

Obama consistently has all the right words yet continues to say nothing.  He is quite simply a salesman, and every salesman knows that people buy on emotion.  You have to get the car buyer inside the car, behind the wheel, where he can see and feel himself as an owner.  It's all about feeling, not about thinking.

People aren't very good at thinking about anything, anyway.  According to the 2006 Election Day Advent Calendar Educator's Guide  During the 1956 presidential campaign against David Eisenhower, a woman supporter called out to Adlai E. Stevenson,

“Governor, you have the vote of every thinking person!”   Stevenson called back “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”

The following excerpt is a perfect example of Obama talking yet not saying anything. 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH   "Democrats turn up heat in flurry of Ohio stops" Monday,  February 25, 2008 11:05 PM

But when panelist Karen Roettele asked whether any of the policies that Obama has been touting will be implemented in time to help her if he's elected, it prompted this convoluted response:   "I think it's going to take…my goal is in my first term to get us on the right track. Now, how that plays out for people individually, is I want to provide them relief as quickly as we can but the only way we're going to do that is by you guys sharing your stories. I mean, I hope members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are listening."

Sounds like his plan for getting anything done in this country is for every citizen to stand before Congress and tell their tales of woe.

Obama often touts what he has done for both the State of Illinois, and for veterans, but as Hillary Clinton states on a regular basis - actions speak louder than words.  20 new VA vet centers are now open, and three will open by the end of this year.  FOUR of the 23 vet centers are in the State of New York and Senator Clinton can certainly claim a victory for her veterans.  On the other hand, the State of Illinois is not opening any new vet centers and I can assure you it's not because they're not needed.

Words mean nothing to citizens of this country that need assistance, actions mean everything. 

With Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development Jaime Serra Puche and President Carlos Salinas of Mexico, U.S. Trade Representative Carla A. Hills, and Minister of International Trade Michael Wilson and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada at the initialing ceremony for the North American Free Trade Agreement in San Antonio, TX, October 7 [1992].   Source:  National Archives and Records Administration - Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States George H.W. Bush: 1992-93, Book II, Photographic Portfolio

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

When we think about NAFTA, most of us automatically think about two things, Bill Clinton and lost jobs.  Most people when they hear the word NAFTA, think NAFTA, CAFTA, or SHAFTA (as in shafted), but that's because they don't know the history.  Bill Clinton has consistently received both praise and criticism for the North American Free Trade Agreement and little credit for job creation.

The fact is there were 23.1 million jobs created during Bill Clinton's eight years in office, but the increases in payrolls during his tenure have been offset by the loss of jobs in the George W. Bush [Bush 43] presidency due to foreign trade.

Is Bill Clinton responsible for these job losses?  The answer is absolutely not - for two reasons. 

The losses we are experiencing in labor markets are losses due to cheap labor rates in India, China and other overseas countries, not due to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Second, the North American Free Trade Agreement was a twinkle in the eye of Ronald Reagan as can be determined by the following statement made during his speech announcing his candidacy for President in 1979.

"It may take the next 100 years but we can dare to dream that at some future date a map of the world might show the North American continent as one in which the people's commerce of its three strong countries flow more freely across their present borders than they do today."

The Canada-United States free trade agreement, CFTA, went into effect on January 1, 1989 and was eventually incorporated into NAFTA during negotiations by the George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) administration.

Following is an excerpt made by President George H.W. Bush during the initialing ceremony for NAFTA.  This speech was made October 7, 1992 - a month before Bill Clinton was elected to office and three months before he took office.

...Today the United States, Mexico, and Canada embark together on an extraordinary enterprise. We are creating the largest, richest, and most productive market in the entire world, a trillion market of 360 million people that stretches 5,000 miles from Alaska and the Yukon to the Yucatan Peninsula. NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, is an achievement of three strong and proud nations. This accord expresses our confidence in economic freedom and personal freedom, in our peoples' energy and enterprise. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have already seen the powerful and beneficial impact of freer trade and more open markets. Over the past 5 years, as President Salinas reduced trade barriers under his bold reform program and as Prime Minister Mulroney and I implemented the United States-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, trade between our three countries has soared. In 1992 alone, that trade will reach an estimated 3 billion, up billion just since 1987...

His full speech may be read at the following link at the George Bush Presidential Library.

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?&year=1992&m

The Clinton administration promoted the free trade agreement between Mexico and Canada and NAFTA would never have been passed without the overwhelming support of the Republican members of Congress.

Clinton was for free trade between the three countries, and NAFTA would be good for the US if the price of crude oil hadn't skyrocketed over the past seven years. 

The U.S. International Trade report released February 14, 2008 indicated a 2007 trade deficit with Canada of $64.2 billion, The increase in imports from Canada was primarily due to crude oil and pharmaceuticals. 

We're also running a 2007 trade deficit with Mexico of $74.3 billion, for probably the same reason.  Mexico and Canada are our two biggest non-OPEC oil suppliers.

However, neither of the countries in NAFTA can even begin to compare with the $256.3 billion trade deficit with China for 2007.  No crude oil was imported from China during 2007.

The question that should  be asked on NAFTA is who would benefit the most from the North American Trade Agreement IF the United States was not so dependent upon crude oil as an energy source? 

Three Presidents, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and William J. Clinton promoted the idea over a period of almost thirty years. 

What has not been taken into consideration is the devastating effect the increased price of oil would have on trade balances between the three countries.  Just over the past 12-month period of time, imported petroleum prices have increased 66.9%.  NAFTA is good, crude oil dependence isn't.

When Bush [43] was interviewed by Lee Hochberg, PBS, he was asked if better coordination and synchronization of immigration policies between Canada and the U.S. were necessary.  President Bush replied "Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better".  Although the comment was obviously not what he meant, it does provide us with more of an understanding as to why trade agreements signed during the George W. Bush administration have been such dismal failures.

Richard E Walrath and Patricia L Johnson are co-owners of the Articles and Answers News and Information sites. You may read more by these authors at Articles and Answers or Articles and Answers 2007

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=119581&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1106328&highlight=

Chattem Issues URGENT Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Icy Hot(R) Heat Therapy(TM) Products

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 8, 2008--Chattem, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHTT) announced today that it is initiating a voluntary Nationwide recall of its Icy Hot Heat Therapy products, including consumer "samples" that were included on a limited promotional basis in cartons of its 3 oz. Aspercreme(R) product. This recall is being conducted to the consumer level.

Chattem is recalling these products because it has received some consumer reports of first, second and third degree burns as well as skin irritation resulting from consumer use or possible misuse of these products.

All lots and all sizes of the following Icy Hot Heat Therapy products are affected by this recall:

1. Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat- Back

2. Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat- Arm, Neck, and Leg

3. Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat- Arm, Neck, and Leg single consumer use "samples" included on a limited promotional basis i cartons of 3 oz. Aspercreme Pain Relieving Creme.

NOTE: if products have been removed from their holding cartons the recalled products are packaged in a red colored plastic pouch which states Icy Hot Heat Therapy and either Back or Arm/Neck and Leg. Single consumer use "samples" of Icy Hot Heat Therapy- Arm, Neck and Leg were included on a limited promotional basis in yellow and red cartons of 3 oz. Aspercreme Pain Relieving Creme. The samples were distinct and stand-alone products, clearly labeled as "Icy Hot Heat Therapy Air Activated Heat," with their own internal labeling.

These products are sold over the counter through food, drug and mass merchandisers.

Consumers who have the Icy Hot Heat Therapy products under recall should immediately stop using the products, discard them, and/or return them to Chattem, Inc.

Product may be returned for a full refund (average retail price) by calling Chattem's Consumer Affairs Department at 1-877-742-6275 (M-F from 8am to 4pm EST) or via our website at www.Chattem.com.

Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of the Icy Hot Heat Therapy products should also be reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting Program, either online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm, or by fax at 800-FDA-0178, and to Chattem at the below toll-free number.

Chattem is notifying its customers, including distributors and retailers, about this recall, and is arranging for immediate return of all recalled products to Chattem.

This recall only involves the above listed Icy Hot Heat Therapy products including single consumer use "samples" that were included in cartons of 3 oz. Aspercreme Pain Relieving Creme and does not involve any other Icy Hot or Aspercreme products.

Chattem is committed to the integrity and safety of its products and is undertaking this voluntary recall with the full knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers with questions or concerns about this product may contact Chattem's Consumer Affairs Department at 1-888-442-4464 (M-F 8am to 4pm EST).

CONTACT: Chattem, Inc.
David W. Grob, MS, RAC
Director, Regulatory Affairs & Safety
888-442-4464
SOURCE: Chattem, Inc.

By Patricia L Johnson and Richard E Walrath

The $150 billion dollar economic growth package was announced by President Bush on January 24, 2008 after a bipartisan agreement was reached with the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The plan consists of $100 billion in temporary relief for families, and $50 billion in business incentives.

The plan calls for taxpayers to receive rebates of "up to" $600 for individuals, and "up to" $1,200 for couples.  Anyone eligible for the above, would also be eligible for an additional $300 per child, which sort of gives you the impression that if you're married and have two kids you're about to receive "up to" $1,800 from Uncle Sam.

Don't rush out and spend the money yet!

Whenever this administration uses the words "up to" you can bet your booties you're going to get less, so how much less?  Department of the Treasury examples follow:

Married with children:

1) Married couple with two children*, earned income of $4,000, no federal income tax paid.

Individual rebate = $600

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,200

2) Married couple with two children, earned income in excess of $3,000, AGI = $45,000, federal income tax is $323.

Individual rebate = $600

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,200

3) Married couple with two children, AGI = $48,000, federal income tax is $773.

Individual rebate = $773

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,373

4) Married couple with two children, AGI = $80,000, federal income tax paid in excess of $1,200.

Individual rebate = $1,200

Child tax credit = $600

TOTAL = $1,800

5) Married couple with two children, AGI = $160,000, federal income tax paid in excess of $1,200.

Individual rebate = $1,200

Child tax credit = $600

Phaseout reduction = ($500) [5% x ($160,000 - $150,000) = $500]

TOTAL = $1,300

*All children referenced in the examples are qualifying children for purposes of the child tax credit.

Looks like you won't be pulling in $1,800 unless your adjusted gross income is more than $80,000 and you have paid in more than $1,200 in federal income tax.

The current agreement also provides a temporary tax cut for businesses providing them with the opportunity to purchase equipment this year and deduct an additional 50% of the cost in 2008.

Treasury Secretary Paulson says that he hopes the Senate doesn't meddle with the stimulus package.  He's afraid that the Senate might put some stimulus into it--like money for food stamps as well as extended unemployment compensation.

The package does not provide assistance in the form of extended unemployment insurance benefits, food stamp money, or spending on infrastructure, but it does provide some assistance for homeowners who are struggling to keep their homes in the current mortgage crisis. 

Will it be enough?

Of course not!

How much worse are economic conditions today than they were when the first Bush tax-cuts went into effect? 

Is there anyone who would disagree that they are much worse today than they were then?

So, why are we talking about a $150 billion stimulus, maybe, when hundreds of billions in tax-cuts were put into effect then?  Granted, most of those Bush tax cuts went to the rich and business, and we see how much benefit they provided to the economy. 

The purpose of the Jobs and Growth Plan of 2003 was to stimulate the economy with the influx of $350 billion dollars.  On a temporary basis it succeeded in providing some stimulus, but in 2003 we weren't looking at 1.8 million subprime loans getting ready to reset with higher rates over the next two years.

If the situation is far worse today--as it is--how is $150 billion going to solve the problem?

By:  Author and Photographer Unknown

Lessons on Life

There was an Indian Chief who had four sons. He wanted his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So he sent them each on a quest.., in turn.., to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away.

 The first son went in the Winter, the second in the Spring, the third in Summer and the youngest son in the Fall. 
When they had all gone and come back, he called them together to describe what they had seen.

 The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted.
The second son said "no" it was covered with green buds and full of promise.
The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that smelled so beautiful.  It was the most graceful thing he had ever seen.
The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment.

The man then explained to his sons that they were all right, because they had each seen but only one season in the tree's life.

He told them that you cannot judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the essence of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that come from that life can only be measured at the end