www.jimbyrd.com

New York Governor Eliot Spencer was caught in a Federal IRS investigation involving clandestine money transfers to a prostitution ring known as the Emperor’s Club. Spitzer has apparently spent approximately $80,000 over the past ten years on prostitutes. This is the same type of crime that he prosecuted with fervor as New York’s Attorney General. His crimes, if indicted, run deeper than just engaging in paid sex.

As the federal investigation continues to unfold, there are indications that he was also involved in offering illegal immigrant women New York drives licenses for sex. The FBI believes he was trying to setup a statewide network of sexual surrogates. There was a separate covert investigation called “drive for sex” being operating by the FBI. The New York Division of Motor Vehicles was also running a parallel investigation into the Spitzer sex for licenses operation. The two investigations have subsequently merged.

In the wake of the two investigations, Eliot Spitzer has resigned from office. He gave as sincere of an apology as could be expected from a liberal Democrat during an afternoon press conference. With his wife by his side, he stated, “I deeply regret being the center piece of these investigations, and most importantly I apologize for getting caught.” Spitzer went on to state that he was only resigning because of pressure and the threat of impeachment, and did not believe his behavior warranted his vacating the Governorship. “Of all the things I did as Attorney General and Governor, and they were all very public, mind you, this insignificant incident does not make the top ten,” he said.

Immediately following the press conference, his wife was asked by a reporter how she was holding up and her only response was, “I have to get home. All I know is that our two housekeepers, who are immigrants, were riding the bus because they could not drive and now they are driving around in new cars. Sorry, I have to get home.”

As more pieces of the investigation are being put together, the prostitute at the center of this is a 23 year old known as Kristen who goes by the name of Ashley Alexandra Dupre whose real name is Ashley Youmans. It is now known that Spitzer was referred to as client #9. As parts of the transcript from the wiretaps are becoming available and are being analyzed, Spitzer apparently had an appetite for risky and kinky sexual behavior. client 9 is heard in the wiretap requesting “dangerous” sex from Kristin. He wanted to engage in sex without the use of a condom. According to a sworn affidavit by Kristen, aka Ashley Alexandra Dupre, aka Ashley Youmans, he insisted on even more risky and deviant sex once they had met.

According to testimony by Kristen, aka Ashley Alexandra Dupre, aka Ashley Youmans, client 9 wanted to fulfill one of his sexual fantasies. Client 9 wanted to drive to a day labor camp with her and pick up an illegal day laborer that did not speak English, take them to get a driver’s license, then proceed to have unprotected sex in the back seat while the immigrant, with their newly acquired license, negotiated the streets of New York.

Kristin, aka Ashley Alexandra Dupre, aka Ashley Youmans issued a short press release pleading with the press to respect her privacy and leave her alone until she is ready to use her 15 minutes. She said that, …”with all this attention I haven’t slept in a week…and as you know, being paid to sleep in various places and with different people is how I make a living.”

There is an unsubstantiated report that Client 42 on the Emperor’s Club client list may be Bill Clinton. There seems to be a pattern of text messages from Spitzer’s phone and Clinton’s alleged phone number usually around 3:00 a.m. After the news of Spitzer’s involvement in the prostitute and driver’s license racket became public, there was a 3:00 a.m. text message from Client 42 to Client 9 mentioning something about there is always the Vice-Presidency to fall back on.

It would only take a rudimentary knowledge of recent history or a basic search to substantiate the fact that she has never endeavored in a high executive capacity; she has never managed anything of any consequence; she has very little aggregate experience in the Senate. She actually has less practical experience than most of her rivals that would qualify her as Commander-in-Chief.

The experiences she was involved in during high-level politics were disastrous. One of the first disasters she created after moving into the White House was the Travel-Gate scandal. She tried her hand at health care reform with the monumental failure of Hillary-Care. The only documented experience she has was either an absolute failure or tainted with corruption or both. Dating back to the days as partner in the Rose law firm and its involvement, along with her husband, Susan and James McDougal and Vince Foster, et al in the Whitewater real estate scandal to her present day scandals relating to taking millions of dollars of dirty campaign money, there has been nothing but a trail of failure and corruption.

She, also as the “smartest woman in the world and foreign policy genius”, was ”duped, tricked, and misled” into voting for the Iraq war by George Bush. According to the left, Bush’s cerebral capacity is suspect–so where does that leave the “smartest woman in the world?

Clinton stated to CNN, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” The negotiators for John Hume, Social Democratic and Labour Party, and Sinn Fien, IRA, who helped broker the deal for both parties with a Good Friday Agreement in 1998 said she played no part and there was no contact with Hillary Clinton.

Clinton elaborated further on her single handed peace brokering prowess with a meeting she spearheaded in the Belfast City Hall, “I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other because they don’t go to school together, they don’t live together and it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.

As customary with Clinton’s faux foreign policy experience, there is no record of the meeting in the Belfast City Hall. The only record of a meeting on the day she referenced, was a short luncheon that was arraigned to meet with single parents and youth workers

For Clinton to claim that she brought peace to Northern Ireland, would be as ludicrous as Bess Truman stating that if she had only been given the chance to have tea with German and Japanese women’s groups, she could have ended WW ll without the dropping “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively.

Clinton has spoken about how she risked her life performing foreign policy work for her husband’s administration. She spoke of one terrifying and life threatening trip she took to Bosnia in 1995. The landing was in a “corkscrew” fashion to avoid sniper fire. Then the takeoff from the tarmac was an all out race to dodge sniper fire. She also added that,” if a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady.”

This is the kind of foreign policy experience the other candidates are lacking. Who accompanied her on this, in her words, “life threatening mission”? The Marines? The Navy Seals? The Army Rangers? Perhaps a squadron of Air Force fighter jets? No! She was accompanied by an invincible platoon consisting of Sinbad the pajama wearing comedian, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton’s 15 year old daughter, Chelsea, on a goodwill mission. Is this the type of crew anyone would choose if they were really going into a life threatening situation? Is there a modicum of plausibility that this trip would have any more danger attached to it than a routine trip to Boise, Idaho?

In finality she has absolutely no redeemable record of political, professional or personal experience that would make her the most qualified person running for the presidency.

Which leads us to this past weekend’s interviews she had with Wolf Blitzer and George Stephanopoulos concerning U.S. foreign policy with Pakistan. Hillary Clinton demonstrated her foreign policy acumen with flair.

The ensuing is one question and answer from her interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. The entire interview transcript can be read here.

Blitzer: This is a damning indictment of President Pervez Musharraf. Some are calling on him to step down, do you believe he should step down?

Clinton: What I believe is that he should meet certain conditions and quickly. We should immediately move to free and fair elections. Obviously, it’s going to take some time for Benazir Bhutto’s party to choose a successor. Nawaz Sharif has said that he won’t participate at this time. I believe again some kind of international support for free and fair elections in a timely manner would be incredibly important. If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow. We also want to see a resumption of the move toward an independent judiciary. I think that was a terrible mistake. This is an odd situation, Wolf. The people in the streets are wearing suits and ties, they are lawyers, they are professionals, they are the middle class of Pakistan, which really offers the very best hope for a stable, democratic country and that is in America’s interest, but more importantly, it is in the interest of the Pakistani people.

Here is an excerpt from an interview Hillary Clinton did with George Stephanopoulos this past Friday.

Speaking about the possible delay in the Pakistani elections after the assassination of Bhutto, Sen. Clinton said: “I think it will be very difficult to have a real election. You know, Nawaz Sharif has said he’s not going to compete. The PPP is in disarray with Benazir’s assassination. President Pervez Musharraf could be the only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.”

Hillary Clinton, who is running on her foreign policy experience, believes she is the only one able to lead from the first day because of her extensive experience–especially in foreign policy. She feels she is the only one able to address the issues with Pakistan, a country with a nuclear arsenal, a suspended constitution, a handpicked Supreme Court, the Taliban and Al Qaeda vying for some percentage of control in the country–and potentially has the capability to become one of the most dangerous countries in the world.

There is just one problem with her analysis of Pakistan’s political state–she doesn’t know one thing about the country or its political infrastructure and apparently neither does her staff.

Per her answers, she states that after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, her party, the PPP, is in disarray. She said Sharif has decided not to run. She then added that Musharraf will be the only one on the ballot. One problem with that answer–Musharraf was elected in a democratically held election this past October for a term of 5 years. He is also not running in the January elections, which have been moved to February, because the election is for seats in the Pakistan parliament.

The Pakistani People’s Party (PPP) headed by Bhutto is a hereditary party. Her son is the leader now because it was willed to him by his mother. Bhutto inherited her seat from her mother who inherited it after the death of her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Not only did Clinton state that the party is in disarray, but she also stated that Benazir Bhutto inherited her seat after the murder of her father. Her father was prosecuted, convicted then executed. Then it went to his wife. There was never a choice of who the leader would be. The PPP is not a democratically run party.

She also stated that Sharif decided not to run. He did not decide not to run, he can’t. He is barred from running because he is a felon. Bhutto could have run for Prime Minister because Musharraf pardoned her, but he has yet to pardon Sharif.

Clinton actually believes that there would be a three way race in Pakistan between Musharraf, Bhutto and Sharif.

Former President Bill Clinton has stated that the country would be taking a chance if voters nominated someone with less experience in Washington. He also said that her experience in Washington better prepares her to “deal with the unexpected.” This is true because the first unexpected thing she would have to deal with, after being enlightened about Pakistan, would be the fact that her knowledge about Pakistan was on the same level of her knowledge of the Constitutional limitations on government in this country–which is not smarter than a 5th grader.

The interesting thing about experience is that just because you have it, that does not mean you learned anything from it. If everyone learned from experience on the same level then everyone would be at the top–and there is usually only room for one.

As in a system when a relationship is arranged, the benefactor of the arrangement has two antagonistic approaches in their cultivation of the relationship. The first approach would be to have a supercilious and dispassionate affiliation with said partner, because out of arrogance, they can. The second approach would be to reach a conciliatory relationship with said partner by maintaining your core beliefs and staying true to your values so as to not become a hypocrite just for the sake of conciliation, while simultaneously respecting said partner’s ideological differences and forging a mutually beneficial congress between the two for the sake of the greater cause.

John McCain seems arrogantly comfortable taking the first approach of continuing to cultivate an inflexible and tumultuous relationship with the Republican conservative base.

Whatever juxtaposition one would choose to view McCain’s current relationship with the conservative base of the Republican Party, it irrefutably parallels an anxious arraigned marriage with remarkable replication. He is the probable nominee and, at this particular point in the process, has settled into his position without the full consent of the Republican Party due to the arbitrarily undemocratic nominating process that always begs the question: Would he be here if the caucuses and primaries were held in the same week?

This past week, at a rally in Cincinnati, conservative radio host Bill Cunningham was hired by, and specifically told, to “fire up the crowd” by the organizers before McCain took the stage. Cunningham did not deviate from his intolerant and grandiloquence rhetoric against the Democrat party and their brand of liberalism, which is the defining characteristic of his program.

Cunningham repeatedly used Obama’s full name, Barack Hussein Obama, during his warm-up speech for McCain. Cunningham had the crowd on its feet and fired up.

When McCain took the stage, he immediately denounced Cunningham’s enthusiastic tautology. This immediately drew the ire of Cunningham, who was not a McCain backer until left with no viable Republican choice. Cunningham is an influential conservative voice on the radio. Cunningham says McCain has now lost his support. He had the following to say about McCain: “I’m gonna follow the lead of Ann Coulter. I’ve had it with John McCain.”I’m going to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president because she would do a better job in the Oval Office, I think, than the liberal John McCain. I’m done with him.” Cunningham has since created a moniker for McCain, “John Juan Pablo McCain.” This would be a direct reference to the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. The McCain-Kennedy immigration bill is the most ominous palisade that separates McCain from the Republican conservative base.

Cunningham is not the first Republican to attack the Democrat opposition in this fashion and will not be the last. McCain has vowed to control these types of messages. If McCain continues with this counter productive approach, he will be allocating a disproportionate amount of his energy, resources and focus on this battle rather than focusing on winning the war in the general election.

As the Republican conservative base tries to adjust, adapt and accept McCain as their nominee and bequeath the obligatory support that customarily comes from within one’s own party affiliation, it would bode well for McCain to reciprocate the support for his arranged and, at this point in time, unstable supporters in hopes of creating a united force in the general election— for better or worse.

There are many organized and individual strategies manifesting themselves on the eve of the Ohio and Texas primaries. The two primaries that could very well decide the end of Clinton’s presidential campaign. In the Texas primary, a registered Republican voter can vote in the Democrat primary and in Ohio a Republican voter can do the same if that is how they voted in the last primary, but this is a historically loosely enforced rule.

The emerging strategy of Republicans and conservatives is to cast a vote for Clinton in the primaries in hopes of keeping her campaign a viable ongoing concern. There are several compelling reasons for this methodology.

If Clinton can win either Ohio or Texas, or both, it will extend her campaign and give her hope of building momentum for the later primaries which could possibly propel her into the Democrat convention. It is at the convention that the playing ground becomes equal again and thus bolsters her chances of capturing the nomination. The Republican strategist believes this is a winning situation for their party because, with statistical and polling confirmation, she is the most beatable candidate in the general election.

If Clinton and Obama both make it to the convention, and if they are very close in delegate count, the Super Delegates come into play as the deciding factor. If it does come down to the convention to decide the nominee, it will most likely have a splitting effect on the party and if the candidate is selected by the Super Delegate vote, it will most assuredly split the party. The Democrat party will try to avoid this at all costs and will push aggressively for a brokered candidate deal before the convention. The Republicans prefer this outcome because of its capability to split the Democrat party if the Super Delegates are the deciding factor.

The Republican Party will benefit bountifully if the Democrat nominating process can be as scandalously protracted as long as possible. As the Republican candidates are playing a benign game of political Old Maid, the Democrats are playing a nasty game of political strip poker. Every negative word, comment or accusation is highlighted in the media. And every word, comment, accusation, and quote in the media by either candidate about the other rips another parcel of fabric from their opponent to expose another piece of unsavory flesh that the candidate would rather the masses not be witness to.

By the time the Ohio and Texas primaries are completed and if Clinton is still in the game, both candidates will be reduced to their under garments and shoes. If a deal is not brokered and they both make it to the convention, by the time they get to the convention, they will be standing stark naked for the world to see every conceivable flaw, blemish, shortcoming, lack of ethos that they have exposed about each other. All this while the Republican candidate will be fully clothed, relaxed and prepared with their play book for the general election written all over the naked body of their opponent before the truly ugly process heads into the final stretch.

Presidential spouses generally fall into two categories: The elected official by proxy, i.e. Hillary Clinton national policy maker, and the demurely, staid and proper role of the First Lady. Not to disparage the non-policy making spouses, but they did not campaign, were not elected, and continued their preceding roles within their families along with the customary duties of First Lady with dignity.

I use the term spouses because there is a statistical probability that Hillary Clinton could achieve the White House.

Republicans had assumed, along with Hillary Clinton and her political machine, that she was the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee. Their reasons are primal and obviously self serving: She is the most beatable of the Democratic nominees in the general election chiefly because 50% of voters would not vote for her under any circumstance. The perfect political opponent. After her overwhelming defeat in Wisconsin and Hawaii by Barack Obama, garnering his 10th win in a row, her presidential aspirations are on life support and barring some political shenanigans by the Super Delegates, her presidential campaign is effectively finished.

It seems apparent, assuming that the Democrat Super Delegates do not vote contrary to the majority of primary voters, that Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee in the general election.

Should this cause consternation for Republicans? No.

There is one other factor, other than Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming unfavorable and negative rating, that is leveling the negative playing field within the Democrat party. The one x factor that has caused a considerable credibility breech and negative publicity for the Democrat nominees– their spouses.

John Edwards, before dropping out of the race, had to deal, almost on a daily basis, with the imbecilic, idiotic and anti-American dialog and actions from his wife, Elizabeth Edwards. Not that it hurt him so much in the primaries because her rhetoric is in accordance with the far left liberal mindset that Edwards panders to. She would have been a considerable problem in the general election.

Many respected political analysts, both Democrat and Republican, have conjectured that the catalyst for Hillary Clinton’s spiraling descent from front runner status to a mathematically irrelevant candidate is due to Bill Clinton’s disenfranchisement of Black voters. He achieved this by a race baiting strategy against Obama before her candidacy headed into the southern states. His explosive temper tantrums, on air, against the press and anyone else in his or Hillary’s path to the White House has not only alienated a broader spectrum of Democrat voters, but has awakened dormant memories of his presidency and what to expect from a co-Clinton administration if Hillary is elected.

Michelle Obama stated earlier this week that, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Her comments have set off a firestorm of criticism because her remarks are viewed as unpatriotic and justifiably so. The criticism is coming mostly from conservative and patriotic Americans and has garnered a negligible adverse reaction from the left because, at this point in the game, she is preaching to the choir.

Michelle Obama, when discussing a plan for change, stated the following, “I know voters like a plan,” she said. “What’s the details, tell me about your policies. Plans are important, I agree. . . . But a lot of this stuff isn’t rocket science.” As with her husband’s speeches, she is articulates nothingness.

Contrast Michelle Obama’s patriotic void with John McCain’s wife, Cindy, “I am proud of my country.” Just that simple.

Through out the Democrat primary race for the nomination, the candidates bantered back and forth as to who was the most liberal, who could do more for people who won’t do anything for themselves, who could spend the most taxpayer money on these people, and who could turn this great capitalist country into a non-functioning socialist society the fastest. The Republicans, even with McCain as the nominee, should be able to overcome the problematic socialist ideology during a debate with either Clinton or Obama.

At this point, Obama may be equally as beatable as Clinton in the general election for two reason. He is an extremely captivating speaker. His oratory skills are more polished than any candidate from either party. He is one of the most captivating political speakers this country has seen in a long while. But, neither he nor his speeches have any definitive substance. If one reads his speeches from a script, to say it is unmoving would be an understatement. He speaks about nothing but does it with astonishing delivery. At best his speeches and ideology are nothing more than recycled socialist ideology dating back to Carl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 and circa 1960′s radical liberalism.

First reason, he is running on change. He is going to bring change. He has never specifically mentioned what he is going to change or how, but he is going to bring change. At some point he is going to have to define what needs changed to salvage this country from the grip of capitalism. Is he going to change an economy that has seen the longest running bull market in U.S. history? Probably so with liberal economic policies and tax increases. He has stated that he would pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. Regardless if you agree with going to war with Iraq or not, pulling the troops out at this point is an exclusive endeavor from the reason to go to war. If he is elected and does pull the troops out, Iraq will become the largest breeding ground for international terrorism the world has ever seen. If given the opportunity, what type of jurist would he appoint to the Supreme Court? Some one cut from the same clothe as Ginsberg would fit his ideology. The court would, again, shift back to an activist, policy making court.

Second reason, his wife. Is it fair to go after a candidates family members? Yes, if they choose to campaign as a perceived co-candidate. No, if they are not overtly involved in the process. Taking the astutely observed roles of Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama in their spouses campaign, it is apparent that voters would be voting for a package deal. At this point, it becomes a contingent event and they should be as equally scrutinized as their spouses. Her statements are relatively benign at this stage of the process within the Democrat fold, but if she had made those statements in the heat of battle between Obama and the Republican nominee in the latter stages of their campaigns, especially when Obama is being pressed for substance, the results would probably have a catastrophic effect on his campaign.

If John McCain does indeed get the Republican nomination, and when either Obama or Clinton get the Democrat nomination, at the point the dialog gets heated and politically ugly–and it will, this is the point where Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama will do exponentially more damage to their spouses campaigns than any conceivable good they could bestow upon it considering their track records.

There are dramatic contrasts to their respective negativity that they would bring to their spouses campaigns.

Even though Clinton has some flexibility to pander, albeit at this point probably without success, to the center or just left of center with a message of change and moving forward, Bill Clinton will negate any positive gains by dragging her campaign back to the 1990′s and every conceivable nuance about him, and there are myriad, into the spotlight.

Obama has the problem of having painted himself into the radical left corner with no legitimate or convincing escape toward the middle. Regardless if Michelle Obama makes any more unpatriotic comments of this nature in a campaign against a Republican candidate, this statement will come back to haunt the Obama campaign in the general election and be used as an attack on her and her husbands patriotism. But, if she continues giving these types of insights into their foolish personal credo, especially close to November, she could profoundly aid in his campaign’s derailment.

Just as Hillary Clinton’s history of perpetually being in the same room with corruption, yet always innocent, coupled with her large negative ratings, and Bill’s ethical and moral shortcomings, it does make for a Republican dream antagonist. But, with Obama having insignificant political substance, a non-existent political track record, and no discernible accomplishments, when he does speak of anything with substance, it is a radical far left socialist ideology. If he gets the nomination, it would take little effort for a skilled politician to reveal the substance void under his thin veneer. Couple that with his wife’s insensate discourses and you should have another Republican dream antagonist.

Two factors played a significant role in McCain’s ascension to probable nominee. His position is a product of the apocryphal liberal main stream media’s calculated adoration of him and a systematically undemocratic nominating process.

The liberal media has been fawning over McCain chiefly because of his aiding them in bashing the Republican party and his liberal position on immigration: The McCain-Kennedy Bill. The media had an extraordinary influence on his surge in the polls before Super Tuesday with its pro-McCain rhetoric and damaging critical rhetoric of his opponents.

The nominating process is fundamentally undemocratic for both the Republican and Democrat party, more so with the Democrat party with the use of Super Delegates. McCain, with the contradictory primary and caucus rules from state to state, has emerged with the support of Democrats, independents and faux Republicans before half the nation has had a chance to choose a nominee of their choice.

By the time Super Tuesday was over with, McCain was the odds on favorite because of his surge in delegate count, and the departure from the race by Mitt Romney. This left almost half the states in U.S. without representation in the full nominating process. By the time their caucuses and primaries were held they were left with only two choices: McCain and Huckabee. There is also a chance that by the time Texas and Ohio’s primaries take place in March, McCain could be the only candidate left. Not only does this process run counter to a democratic process, but would also leave an enormous cross section of Republican voters disenfranchised from the nominating process. McCain has the unenviable position of trying to energize a large section of the Republican party that, by the time their caucuses and primaries roll around, and if they were Romney supporters, their enthusiasm and significance would have yielded to apathy.

The question most traditional conservatives are asking themselves is should I, could I, would I, vote for John McCain if he is running in the general election on the Republican ticket. How energized can the base be when they feel there choices are a Democrat liberal or a Republican liberal? How energized can the base be when they feel that the stronger conservative candidates have been left at the way side by the process?

There are several influential conservative pundits who have stated they will not vote for John McCain in the general election, but would rather vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. There was no mention of what if Obama gets the nomination–which at this point is more probable than not. The polling numbers do show a cross section of conservatives who will not support McCain in the general election regardless of who he runs against-they will not caste a vote.

McCain gave a very compelling speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. He appealed to the conservative base, among boos during parts of the speech that touched on immigration, that his position is a fundamental conservative position. It was compelling but not many people were compelled. It did raise a few eyebrows and at best put McCain antagonists in a wait and see mode.

What can be expected going forward with the McCain nomination process?

McCain wants the conservative base to believe he can unite the Republican party. He is doing a lot of talking but is not doing a lot of doing. He is talking about uniting the Republican party but has displayed no action. McCain, if he secures the nomination, will come to a fork in the road that leads to the general election. He will either embrace the conservative base, which he needs to do if he wants to win in the general election, or he can turn left, which history dictates he will and try to win with the Hispanic and independent vote, thus freeing him from any obligation to the party he has become antithetical to.

He seems to be positioning himself to turn left by keeping Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio on his campaign staff. These two individuals were on the wrong side of the phenomenal grass roots movement that killed the McCain-Kennedy illegal alien amnesty bill. They are still on the wrong side and so is McCain by association. By eliminating Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio from his inner circle he could prevail upon a sizable number of anti-McCain Republican voters.

Illegal immigration is the albatross around McCain’s neck. McCain has two options at this point concerning illegal immigration: First, he can actually take action and disassociate with Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio and embrace the will of the people and choose to not only close the borders with a fence but declare he will not let any piece of legislation pass his desk, as President, that grants amnesty to anyone in this country illegally. Second, he can stay on his immigration course and hope that the Hispanic vote will get him elected in the general election rather than a Democrat.

The media will start cannibalizing their creation, McCain, the moment there is a definitive Democrat nominee. His only salvation with some, not all, of the media is to revert back to bashing the Republican party and highlighting his leftist views. This still will not help him win the general election.

One scenario equally as important as McCain’s immigration policy is his vice-presidential choice. A few names floating around are some of his apostate Republican brethren: Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida and Mike Huckabee. Also in the mix is Independent/Democrat Joe Lieberman. Any one of these potential candidates has the ability to help McCain or hurt his campaign in the general election. If he choses the right fork in the road, each and every one of them would make it difficult to energize the Republican base in the general election. But if he choses to take the left fork in the road they would be assets to his campaign.

McCain is going to have to make some hard decisions whether he is going to be who he really is or who he needs to be to get elected in the general election. At this point, either direction is truly, at its core, unacceptable but possibly palatable if you hold your nose.

The proposed plan, in its current form is worth $193 billion. If a social security number holder makes $75,000 or less they will receive a $600 rebate and joint-filling married couples who make $150,000 or less will receive a $1,200 rebate. If a social security number holder falls within the categories above and has children, they will receive an additional $300 per child under 17 years of age.

Congressman Tom Tancredo railed against the stimulus package in its current form, stating that is would benefit illegal aliens who were working here with stolen or fake social security numbers and the money would make its way back to Mexico rather than into our economy. Tancredo proposed an amended stimulus package with the same amount of money, but rather than get a cash rebate, social security number holders would instead receive gift cards. “With a gift card the effect on the economy would be felt immediately and would make it impossible for the money to leave the country,”said Tancredo.

Tom Tancredo’s apocalyptic financial epiphany is becoming a reality.

The State of Sonora, Mexico is set to reap a windfall from the United States’ stimulus package. Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson, has stated during an exclusive interview with Univision’s owner Jerry Perenchio, that the potential windfall from the stimulus package is already having an effect on his state’s economy. Sonora has borrowed money from the World Bank against the economic stimulus package windfall they expect. Sonora was able to use U.S. taxpayer’s money in the World Bank as collateral for the loan with President Bush’s permission. The U. S. money at the World Bank has been earmarked to boost Iran’s economy.

When asked by Perenchio how much money Sonora expected from the U.S. stimulus package, he stated, “3.8 billion dollars. ” An astonished Perenchio asked him how they derived those numbers and Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson read from a written statement: “We have 600,000 families from Sonora making less than $150,000 per year in the U.S. at $1,200 per family equals $720,000,000 million and each worker in the family has approximate 5 stole.., excuse me, borrowed social security numbers which would equal $3,600,000,000 billion plus each family has an estimated 6 children at $300 per child equals and additional $201,600,000 million bringing the grand total to $3,801,600,000 billion for the State of Sonora’s economy.

Perenchio asked Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson how that compares to the historical economic status of his state and Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson stated, ” In the past our annual economy brought in around fifty million dollars with seventy-five percent coming from our wonderful citizens sending money back home from the U.S. As you can see this economic stimulus package equals many, many generations of economic comfort for our state. We, all of us here in Sonora, thank George Bush for this gift.”

When asked how the state would spend some of the money, Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson said, “The first thing we are going to do is build a big fence between Sonora and the U.S. With this kind of money, you never know who might try to sneak across the border into Sonora. We have also been approached by several U.S. companies about helping them out such as Citibank, Dean Witter and Morgan Stanley.”

“It sounds like your state is making some very prudent choices for the long term with your money,” said Perenchio.

“Oh, one other thing we are going to do with the money,” said Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson. “We are going to have a statue erected of George

“What type of statue?” asked Perenchio.

“President Bush gave his permission for the statue with two caveats. One was we had to model it out of a picture of his choosing and we keep the statue pointed towards the border,” said Governor of Sonora, José Eduardo Bours Castelo Robinson. “Here is the photo we will use as a model for the statue:

Political pundits that rebuke voters and the media for not delving into the issues of the candidates in the stead of focusing on the person, their race, their gender or their religion–is, at best, sophomoric political counsel. Before casting a vote for a candidate, especially for the office of the President, one should do at the very least a perfunctory political due diligence of the candidates contemplated.

The minimum consideration of a candidate should be: The person, the candidate’s character, the issues they represent, the probable cabinet nominations they would add to their administration, the probable judicial characteristics they are likely to be guided by when nominating federal jurist and Supreme Court jurist, their endorsements, and their political trending. The culmination of the preceding concerns should be the standard investigation for any voter endowed with common sense before casting their vote.

In disregarding and reckless fashion, many plebiscites rarely penetrate the veneer of a candidate. Some voters settle for just a fraction of the person running–perhaps never looking beyond their gender, race, or religious affiliation. Some voters will vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she is a women, or vote for Barack Obama only because he is black. The scenario could be reversed and a vote not cast for Clinton only because she is a woman, or a vote against Obama because he is black. Same with religion. Some will vote against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.

The capriciousness of voters, an affliction for not prescribing to the above stated political vetting process, causes the wild swings in the polling numbers due to last minute susceptibility to slick marketing adds by the candidates, therefore causing the ever fickle plaudits of voters–which they could have been inoculated against with information.

John McCain, after his decisive win in the Florida primary, has moved into Republican front runner status. Thus making it belatedly appropriate to increase the microscopic magnification a notch or two on this political specimen.

Political trending is an effective method of political forecasting. Mitt Romney has been assailed for his past political record being socially liberal in instances. But he has trended towards a much more conservative stance on the same issues. If Romney stays the course, he will evolve into a more traditional conservative. McCain, in antithetical fashion, in the past few years, has trended hard and fast to the left. If McCain stays the course, in a very short while, he will have evolved into the standard neo-liberal that has infected the current Democrat party.

A candidate with a long documented political record cannot evade the manifestation of their stance on issues. There is no better way for their issues to elucidate themselves than to research the legislation they have sponsored and legislation they have voted on. To clarify John McCain’s stance on issues, his most recent legislation and voting record in Congress:

• The McCain-Kennedy Act was the immigration bill that caused the unprecedented grassroots revolution from the American populace to jam every phone line to every member of Congress insisting they vote against it. The bill offered wholesale amnesty to every illegal alien in the United States. Not only did he write and sponsor the bill, he has recently stated he would sign it into law if he were President.
• The McCain- Feingold Act was nothing less than the constitutional censorship of the 1st Amendment. A government agency can now screen and suppress political information before it reaches voters.
• McCain was a cosponsor of the Dream Act, S. 774. This bill would have given in-state tuition to illegal aliens while still forcing citizens to pay out of state tuition.
• McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 that would have mandated that the Mexican government be consulted before construction of any part of the border fence.
• McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act would have added an additional 50 cent tax to a gallon of gasoline and increase the cost of gas utility bills by 20%. This act is the U.S. version of the imbecilic Kyoto Protocol.
• McCain Anti-Torture Amendment would have allowed due-process rights to terrorists thus allowing them to access to U.S. courts. McCain wants Guantanamo Bay closed and the detainees brought to the U.S. prison system and court system.
• McCain voted to give retroactive Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.
• McCain is a proponent of universal health care coverage.
• McCain voted twice against Bush’s tax cuts.

A John McCain probable Supreme Court nomination presents a dichotomy. John Fund quoted McCain as saying he would be more inclined to nominate someone like John Roberts than Samuel Alito, who “wears his conservatism on his sleeve.” When asked “Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito? McCain said, “Well, certainly Roberts.” McCain also voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Supreme Court.

The McCain-Feingold Act is, up to this point, considered by John McCain and the act’s proponents as one of his finest legislative achievements. The McCain-Feingold Act leads McCain into the murky waters of appointing a Supreme Court Justice. The McCain-Feingold act, in all actuality, is unconstitutional, and has had a few close brushes with the Supreme Court. If McCain does nominate someone in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas, there is a higher probability that the McCain-Feingold Act could be ruled unconstitutional. McCain knows this. To believe that McCain would not try and walk a fine line with a Supreme Court appointment and the protection of his act, would be intellectually disingenuous.

You can judge a person by the company they keep, or in the case of a politician, by who endorses them. McCain’s endorsers are a virtual who’s who of apostatically defective Republican politicians and liberal media. Among the RINOs (Republican in Name Only) who have endorsed McCain are California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Democrat Congressman Joe Lieberman. McCain has been endorsed by the rabidly anti-American publications, The New York Times and the LA Times. The liberal media is fawning all over McCain, at this point, because he has spent the past ten years denigrating the Republican party and conservative ideology.

It is still too early to venture a guess who McCain would add to his cabinet. It would not, though, be out of line to take a hard look at the people he has surrounded himself with and make a reasonable conjecture as to who might be in line for a cabinet position.

McCain has added to his campaign staff Juan Hernandez. Hernandez is a fanatical open borders zealot. Hernandez holds duel citizenship status with the U.S. and Mexico and worked in Vicente Fox’s administration.

McCain has also added Jerry Perenchio to his campaign staff. Perienchio was responsible for the millions of dollars spent in California to stop the schools from teaching English to foreign language speaking students and wanted foreign language speaking students to be taught in their native tongue. Perenchio owns Univision. He has the capability to control what enters 40 million Hispanics ears through Spanish speaking television.

Perhaps one or both of these open borders advocates can be assured of a cabinet position. Hernandez would fit into McCain’s idea of Director of DHS. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger could be become Secretary of Education. Rick Perry could become the Secretary of Transportation.

While McCain is a strong advocate for the war in Iraq and wears it like a badge demonstrating his national defense and anti-terrorism prowess , he is as weak on national defense as George Bush. No one, including presiding President George Bush, can legitimately claim to be strong on national security and terrorism, while placating a third world country, whose President advocates the chronic and illegal breeching of our borders, and demonstrate unadulterated indifference to the estimated 20 million illegal aliens that reside within our borders.

If it calls itself a Republican yet it looks like a liberal, walks like a liberal, talks like a liberal, and surrounds itself with liberals–it’s probably a liberal wrapped in a Republican package.

The Brattleboro town garnered enough signatures to to have the vote on the ballot. The item, by a margin of 3-2, has been slated to be voted on during the next Town Meeting day.

Kurt Daims, who has taken the lead on the petition, stated that, “This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do. We have the full power to issue indictments, conduct trials, incarcerate offenders and do all other acts which independent jurisdictions have the right to do.”

A few snipets from the proclamation: The criminal indictments would be the “law of the town of Brattleboro and the Brattleboro police…arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro, if they are not duly impeached…have them put in public stocks and ridiculed for 72 hours…have them tar and feathered…administer 40 lashes….

The town of Brattleboro has a legendary history when it comes to treason.

This isn’t the first time the town has issued arrest warrants for a president. In 1790, Mayor Newsom issued an arrest warrant for George Washington for war crimes against the King under the threat of being hanged by the citizens of Brattleboro if he did not take action. According to Vermont historian, Bryan Smithers, the town had tried to issue a warrant shortly after the war, but were forced to wait for a country and subsequently a president to come into existence. “They jumped the gun, if you will,” proclaimed Smithers. Brattleboro has subsequintly issued 42 indictments and warrants for presidents since Washington.

Before joining the Continental Army in the war against the British, Benedict Arnold settled in Brattleboro and successfully ran for mayor–a position he held during his tenure as General of the Continental Army. During the war and the whole West Point misunderstanding, when Arnold had to move unceremoniously and with haste to Britain, the town of Brattleboro elected him to another term of Mayor in absentia.

A statue was erected in 1965 in reverence to Arnold’s memory in the town square.

Aldridge Aimes enjoyed his summers in Brattleboro where he maintained a summer cottage. He is remembered kindly to this day by residents of the town. “He had several late night visitors at his house, but was a quiet neighbor none the less,” stated Vera Klick. “He was a good neighbor, always willing to help out. And he had the cutest carrier pigeons.”

Johnson Glass, proprietor of the Brattleboro Dry Goods Depot, said he had many long talks with Aimes as he played games of 42 in his store. “Aimes said he always felt drawn to Brattleboro for some reason, but couldn’t explain it,” said Glass.

In an awkward alliance, Brattleboro has a sister city in Texas that also has intentions of arresting George Bush.

The city of Sachse is a cosmopolitan jurisdiction just east of the Dallas skyline. It offers the discriminating emptor a broad selection of high end mobile homes or low end track domiciles. It is a palatable paradise with a wide range of cuisine ranging from Dairy Queen’s beltbuster to the much anticipated grand opening of the Sonic drive in where the discriminating diner can enjoy a foot long cheese coney.

Sachse was drawn into the fray over communism and fossil fuel. The collective intelligentsia of the metropolis of Sachse, thinking outside the box, declared war on fossil fuel energy with a solution diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom. Their solution was to use up all the fossil fuel as fast as possible so the country can move on to another form of energy. The most expedient way to accomplish this goal was for the citizenry to be mandated to drive pick-up trucks. To further enforce this method, all self propulsion modes of transportation are against the law within their jurisdiction. The city has declared war on bicycles and joggers or any form of transportation that does not leave a noticeable carbon footprint. All citizens have been deputized to enforce the ordinance by hurling any type of projectiles or expletives from their fossil fuel propelled vehicles.

The ban on self propulsion vehicles was eloquently encapsulated by one of the finer citizens of Sachse with a neck of crimson persuasion, “Git’em bikes off da road. If you are a riding on one of them there bicycles, and don’t use gas, you are a communist, and we don’t want no gas avoiding communist coming through our town. And if that George Bush thinks he can ride that bicycle of his here, he can get himself arrested just like the other pinkos. The council said so. And besides, they slow us normal folk down on the road.”

When asked for a comment, Dick Cheney, extending an olive branch, said he would invite them all to go on a hunting trip with him and they could work it out.