The Army's $200 billion makeover

March to modernize proves ambitious and controversial

EL PASO - A $200 billion plan to remake the largest war machine in history unfolds in one small way on a quiet country road in the Chihuahuan Desert.

Jack Hensley, one of a legion of contractors on the project, is hunkered in a slowly moving SUV, serving as target practice for a baby-faced soldier in a Humvee aiming a laser about 700 yards away. A moment later, another soldier in the Humvee punches commands into a computer transmitting data across an expanse of sand and mesquite to a site 2 1/2 miles away. On an actual battlefield, this is when a precision attack missile would be launched, killing Hensley almost instantly.

For soldiers in an experimental Army brigade at the sprawling Fort Bliss base, it's the first day of field training on a new weapon called the Non-Line of Sight Launch System, or NLOS-LS, a box of rockets that can automatically change direction in midair and hit a moving target about 24 miles away. The Army says it has never had a weapon like it. "It's not the Spartans with the swords anymore," said Emmett Schaill, the brigade commander, peering into the desert-scape.

In the Army's vision, the war of the future is increasingly combat by mouse clicks. It's as networked as the Internet, as mobile as a cellphone, as intuitive as a video game. The Army has a name for this vision: Future Combat Systems, or FCS. The project involves creating a family of 14 weapons, drones, robots, sensors and hybrid-electric combat vehicles connected by a wireless network. It has turned into the most ambitious modernization of the Army since World War II and the most expensive Army weapons program ever, military officials say.

(Article continues)

Bush approval among military families down 50% since 2004

Jason Rhyne
Published: Friday December 7, 2007


Support for President Bush and his Iraq war policy is nearly as anemic among US military families as it is in the general population, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

The survey finds that almost 60 percent of the military community -- which was defined as active and former service personnel as well as their families -- disapprove of the president's handling of the war. The same percentage of the group disapprove of Bush's overall performance as president. Meanwhile, only 37 percent of the family members approve of Bush. Among civilians polled, the war garnered support from 32 percent of respondents.

Families that include veterans of wars presided over by the president were found to be just as critical of the war in Iraq as other Americans, with a full 60 percent saying the war was not worth the cost.
Story Continues

KO: Special Comment - Bush is a Pathological Liar

"We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole — or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked — at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so — whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.

A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself."

CREW releases new report exposing massive failures and billions wasted at Dept. of Homeland Security

Submitted by crew on 5 December 2007 - 8:41am. Bush Administration Homeland Security for Sale

Five years ago, President Bush signed legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security. Over the past five years, the American people have become far too familiar with stories about DHS and its gross overruns on projects, the worst employee morale in the federal government, the inoperability of information technology, our exposure to cyber-terrorism or FEMA’s fake press conference.

Today, CREW is releasing a report, Homeland Security for Sale - DHS: Five Years of Mismanagement, detailing massive failures and billions wasted at the Department of Homeland Security.

The report can be found at www.homelandsecurityforsale.org. The website includes a video prepared by Brave New Films.

In the report, CREW details billions of dollars in waste and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, for example:

• $24 billion has been spent, and at least $178 million wasted, on the failed Coast Guard Deepwater program;

• over $600 million has been allocated for unworkable radiation border scanners;

• $1.3 billion has been lost on the USVISIT program, which was never fully implemented; and

• projected $2 billion loss on the SBInet “virtual fence” border program.

CREW is releasing its report to hold those who run the agency accountable for its massive failures and to spark a public debate about how DHS can and must be improved in the next administration. The next President will have to fix DHS -- and all the candidates need to provide specific plans to address the massive failings outlined in Homeland Security for Sale - DHS: Five Years of Mismanagement.

In CREW fashion, we name names. The report is divided into five sections. For each, we name the worst offender and the runner up earning dishonorable mention:

I. Most Troubled DHS Component: FEMA

Dishonorable Mention: TSA

II. Most Outrageous Contract: Deepwater

Dishonorable Mention: Radiation Detection Portal MonitorsIII.

III. Failed Program: US-VISIT

Dishonorable Mention: SBI

IV. Component with the Most Serious Crime Problem: CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

Dishonorable Mention: TSA

V. Beneficiary of the Revolving Door: Tom Ridge

Dishonorable Mentions: Holman, Buchholz, Davis, Hutchison

The Department of Homeland Security is an embarrassment that would be comical if only our national security were not at stake. The agency and its leadership must be held accountable for its failures and pushed to do better.

This is a shocking and disturbing report. The American people deserve far better from their government. Much better.

What can you do? Ask your presidential candidate what he or she would do to fix DHS in the next administration. The massive problems at DHS have to be solved by the next President. If you get an answer, please send it to fixdhs@citizensforethics.org and it will be posted at HomelandSecurityForSale.org.

Good Morning America learns that Bin Laden is CIA

'THEY' are getting scared! DeMOCKracy in action:

STRAW POLL CANCELLED: TOO MANY RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!

This is a OUTRAGE!

SF Straw Poll
I paid my $33 for the dinner and vote. A $5 option was also offered to vote after the festivities. We patiently listened to the guest speaker support Fred Thompson and talk on the issues of water and budget problems in California. They then held a raffle, while all the "cheap" voters waited in the lobby. When they finally let them in, the room was flooded with Ron Paul supporters and the organizer notified us the poll was cancelled. I started the video after the initial announcement and pandemonium broke out. The sudden cancellation and an attempt to change the rules, understandably, upset quite a few people.

John Cusack, Naomi Klein Discuss Iraq War Economy

f you have the time, this is an absolutely fascinating look at how the Bush administration used the trauma of 9/11 to push radical free-market policies, It's incredibly interesting and enlightening...and if it says 'Bush' on it, you know it's terrifying too. Part Two.

From Huffington Post - In her new book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein uses the war in Iraq to pull back the curtain on free market myths and expose the forces that are really driving our economy. She details how the crony capitalists running the Bush administration saw post-invasion Iraq as the perfect proving ground for all their pet free-market policies. The fantasy was that a privitazied and corporatized Iraq would become a free-market utopia that would spread the gospel of the market throughout the Middle East.

Klein's writings on Iraq helped inspire John Cusack to create a stinging new satiric film called War, Inc. The pair recently sat down for a HuffPost video - a lively and insightful conversation about The Shock Doctrine, Iraq, the burgeoning new economy that has sprung up around the war on terror, and Baghdad's Green Zone, which Klein calls "a heavily armed Carnival Cruise ship parked in a sea of despair."

Part 1

Part 2

The Lying Liars Caught Lying (Again)

Bush's whole spew on Iran and Nukes and WWIII seems to go out the window as new intelligence shows that Iran had put a stop to their nuclear program back in 2003.

This makes Bush's march to war with Iran look less justifiable. In fact it pretty much debunks the whole nukes will be used against Israel that the president warned us about.

Stephen Hadley tries to defend the president by saying this new report came out just today. That the president did not know that Iran had stopped their nuclear program.

Rachel Maddow comes on to explain what this means to bush.

"The document in question essentially brands the words liar or fool on everyone who has casually and falsely assured that Iran is seeking Nuclear weapons, That includes the president, the Vice president and every republican presidential candidate, other then Ron Paul."

I find it impressive she actually makes sure she does not lump Ron Paul as one of the liar, Iran has nukes Republican Presidential candidates. This gives great credit to Ron Paul for not beating the war drum like all the rest of the Republican Candidates.

But it is true Ron Paul has always said Iran is not the problem, and the current administration likes to beat the drums of war on Iran, this will make their claim much harder. It also proves Ron Paul has more knowledge about foreign policy, then most anyone in Washington.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: White House lost at least 10 million e-mails

Nick Juliano
Published: Monday December 3, 2007


Doubles previous estimate of extent of communications improperly deleted

They could be anything from spam offering male enhancement to furtive exchanges of political strategy with convicted lobbyists, but observers say the White House deleted more than twice as many e-mails as previous estimates, bringing the total number of missing communications involving administration aides like Karl Rove and others to higher than 10 million.

Anne Weismann, the top lawyer for a watchdog group suing the White House, said sources close to Congressional and private investigations doubled previous estimates of the number of deleted e-mails.

"I will tell you, by the way, that it's way higher than five million," Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told ChannelWeb. "It's more than 10 million."

CREW and another open-government watchdog, the National Security Archive, have joined forces to force the government to restore the millions of e-mails that were improperly deleted.

Last month, the pair scored a legal victory in convincing a judge to order the White House to retain backup tapes that contain archived copies of the deleted e-mails. The Temporary Restraining Order required the Executive Office of the President to maintain copies of all the backup tapes it has, although CREW lawyers cannot say how many of the missing e-mails have been preserved for future historians.

"I have a sinking fear that the backups we want have been overwritten. Millions of e-mails, gone. Obviously, if they're already destroyed ..." she told the Web site, trailing off.

National debt grows $1 million a minute!

From yahoo.com:


By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 3, 6:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day — or nearly $1 million a minute.
ADVERTISEMENT

What's that mean to you?

It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.

Even if you've escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That's because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.

And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt — now at relatively low interest rates — rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.

So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.

But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending — leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.

A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.

The national debt — the total accumulation of annual budget deficits — is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.

That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.

It only gets worse.

Over the next 25 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and up is expected to almost double. The work population will shrink and more and more baby boomers will be drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits, putting new demands on the government's resources.

These guaranteed retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt, which totaled $430 billion last year.

Aggravating the debt picture: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade

Despite vows in both parties to restrain federal spending, the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown from about 35 percent in 1975 to around 65 percent today. By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II — when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP, but it's a big chunk of liability.

"The problem is going forward," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poors, a major credit-rating agency.

"Our estimate is that the national debt will hit 350 percent of the GDP by 2050 under unchanged policy. Something has to change, because if you look at what's going to happen to expenditures for entitlement programs after us baby boomers start to retire, at the current tax rates, it doesn't work," Wyss said.

With national elections approaching, candidates of both parties are talking about fiscal discipline and reducing the deficit and accusing the other of irresponsible spending. But the national debt itself — a legacy of overspending dating back to the American Revolution — receives only occasional mention.

Who is loaning Washington all this money?

Ordinary investors who buy Treasury bills, notes and U.S. savings bonds, for one. Also it is banks, pension funds, mutual fund companies and state, local and increasingly foreign governments. This accounts for about $5.1 trillion of the total and is called the "publicly held" debt. The remaining $4 trillion is owed to Social Security and other government accounts, according to the Treasury Department, which keeps figures on the national debt down to the penny on its Web site.

Some economists liken the government's plight to consumers who spent like there was no tomorrow — only to find themselves maxed out on credit cards and having a hard time keeping up with rising interest payments.

"The government is in the same predicament as the average homeowner who took out an adjustable mortgage," said Stanley Collender, a former congressional budget analyst and now managing director at Qorvis Communications, a business consulting firm.

Much of the recent borrowing has been accomplished through the selling of shorter-term Treasury bills. If these loans roll over to higher rates, interest payments on the national debt could soar. Furthermore, the decline of the dollar against other major currencies is making Treasury securities less attractive to foreigners — even if they remain one of the world's safest investments.

For now, large U.S. trade deficits with much of the rest of the world work in favor of continued foreign investment in Treasuries and dollar-denominated securities. After all, the vast sums Americans pay — in dollars — for imported goods has to go somewhere. But that dynamic could change.

"The first day the Chinese or the Japanese or the Saudis say, `we've bought enough of your paper,' then the debt — whatever level it is at that point — becomes unmanageable," said Collender.

A recent comment by a Chinese lawmaker suggesting the country should buy more euros instead of dollars helped send the Dow Jones plunging more than 300 points.

The dollar is down about 35 percent since the end of 2001 against a basket of major currencies.

Foreign governments and investors now hold some $2.23 trillion — or about 44 percent — of all publicly held U.S. debt. That's up 9.5 percent from a year earlier.

Japan is first with $586 billion, followed by China ($400 billion) and Britain ($244 billion). Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries account for $123 billion, according to the Treasury.

"Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican budget hawk.

Of all federal budget categories, interest on the national debt is the one the president and Congress have the least control over. Cutting payments would amount to default, something Washington has never done.

Congress must from time to time raise the debt limit — sort of like a credit card maximum — or the government would be unable to borrow any further to keep it operating and to pay additional debt obligations.

The Democratic-led Congress recently did just that, raising the ceiling to $9.82 trillion as the former $8.97 trillion maximum was about to be exceeded. It was the fifth debt-ceiling increase since Bush became president in 2001.

Democrats are blaming the runup in deficit spending on Bush and his Republican allies who controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency. They criticize him for resisting improvements in health care, education and other vital areas while seeking nearly $200 billion in new Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

"We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "That's fiscal irresponsibility."

Republicans insist congressional Democrats are the irresponsible ones. Bush has reinforced his call for deficit reduction with vetoes and veto threats and cites a looming "train wreck" if entitlement programs are not reined in.

Yet his efforts two years ago to overhaul Social Security had little support, even among fellow Republicans.

The deficit only reflects the gap between government spending and tax revenues for one year. Not exactly how a family or a business keeps its books.

Even during the four most recent years when there was a budget surplus, 1998-2001, the national debt ranged between $5.5 trillion and $5.8 trillion.

As in trying to pay off a large credit-card balance by only making minimum payments, the overall debt might be next to impossible to chisel down appreciably, regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls Congress, without major spending cuts, tax increases or both.

"The basic facts are a matter of arithmetic, not ideology," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates eliminating federal deficits.

There's little dispute that current fiscal policies are unsustainable, he said. "Yet too few of our elected leaders in Washington are willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the long-term fiscal problem and even fewer are willing to put it on the political agenda."

Polls show people don't like the idea of saddling future generations with debt, but proposing to pay down the national debt itself doesn't move the needle much.

"People have a tendency to put some of these longer term problems out of their minds because they're so pressed with more imminent worries, such as wages and jobs and income inequality," said pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Texas billionaire Ross Perot made paying down the national debt a central element of his quixotic third-party presidential bid in 1992. The national debt then stood at $4 trillion and Perot displayed charts showing it would soar to $8 trillion by 2007 if left unchecked. He was about a trillion low.

Not long ago, it actually looked like the national debt could be paid off — in full. In the late 1990s, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of a $5.6 trillion over ten years — and calculated the debt would be paid off as early as 2006.

Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently wrote that he was "stunned" and even troubled by such a prospect. Among other things, he worried about where the government would park its surplus if Treasury bonds went out of existence because they were no longer needed.

Not to worry. That surplus quickly evaporated.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said he's more concerned that interest on the national debt will become unsustainable than he is that foreign countries will dump their dollar holdings — something that would undermine the value of their own vast holdings. "We're going to have to shell out a lot of resources to make those interest payments. There's a very strong argument as to why it's vital that we address our budget issues before they get measurably worse," Zandi said.

"Of course, that's not going to happen until after the next president is in the White House," he added.

10 easy steps to stop compulsive spending (shopaholism)

Do you own every gadget known to man (or woman)? Does your closet contain lots of shoes or clothes that you almost never wear? Are you feeling lost without credit cards? Do you come home with things you didn't specifically go to buy? Do you use shopping as a quick fix for the blues? Do you spend more than you can afford? Are neighborhood malls and Internet shopping sites possess a mesmerizing magnetic appeal for you?

If you answered yes to several questions above, you are probably shopping as a recreational activity. You have a condition called Oniomania. It is also known as shopping addiction or shopaholism, is the compulsive desire to shop. People who shop or spend compulsively get a feeling of being "high" from the experience. This translates into endorphins and dopamine, natural receptor sites in the brain, getting turned on, creating a "good feeling" and reinforcing the desire to shop or spend.

Credit cards facilitate the spending of money as well as mail orders via catalogues or the Internet. In America, shopping is embedded in our culture; so often, the impulsiveness comes out as shopping addiction or compulsive spending. Shopping addiction and compulsive spending can put a strain on both your finances and your relationships. In other words, shopping addicts buy more than they need and spend more money than they can afford, in an effort to make themselves feel better. It can wreak havoc on a person's life, family, and finances.

Here are the 10 simple steps to stop the cycle of shopping addiction and compulsive spending:

1. Identify a “need” from a “want.” Learn to recognize wants from needs, and practice controlling your impulses to spend your money on things you don't really need, and you'll be able to change your spending habits and end up far ahead financially. Before buying anything, ask yourself if it is a need or a want. If it is a want, let go of the item.

A need is something you have to buy, such as groceries. It may also be a new pair of shoes to wear to the office if your present pair is no longer in good condition. A want, on the other hand, is something you just desire but can do without. Examples are a new CD or DVD, a nice-looking hand bag when you have a dozen other hand bags at home, and a cellphone that’s loaded with so many features.

2. If you know you have a problem, try to avoid discount warehouses, malls and shopping districts. Avoid going to the mall if you don’t have to buy something you absolutely need. Even if you have to get a ride from the mall on the way home from work, don’t go inside the mall. Go around the perimeter of the mall instead to get to the bus stop. If you need to go to the bank, go to one that’s not located in the mall. Do the same for other establishments you patronize for other services (e.g., clothes alteration, key duplication, etc.). If you have to meet friends, pick venues that are far from the nearest mall. Avoid temptation.

3. Do not be sucked in by “good deals.” Avoid the sales unless absolutely necessary. Even if your favorite shop is on sale, don’t go there “just to look.” Make your shopping purposeful: think beforehand what you need to buy, make the purchase, then leave.

4. Set a spending budget and stick to it. List down your monthly income, set aside at least 10 percent for savings, then list down all your regular expenses (transportation, food, etc.). Make sure you set aside money for your regular expenses first before even thinking of going to the mall. Be disciplined.

5. When buying gifts; ask, find out whether your friend or loveones have a registry or wish list, or simply inquire what they'd like. This will help you to not only get the gift they really want; it will also help you to zero in on what you need to buy. Your gift won't be original, or a big surprise, but it will not be the one that gathers dust afterward, either.

6. Start writing things down. Tally your actual expenses every month. This will help you determine where your money goes. You can see too how much you can save on some items and where you’ve spent more than you should. It’s also wise to write down your financial goals so you stay focused on what’s important.

7. Carry a shopping list. Try to plan your shopping. If you’re going to shop for groceries, make a list before going to the supermarket. Then stick to your list. Don’t buy anything else. Remember: If it’s not on your list, then you don’t need it. Try leaving your credit cards at home. Pay with cash, check, or a debit card.

8. Find healthy alternatives. Make yourself busy with other activities. Take a walk or exercise when the urge to shop comes on. After work, go home straight then just relax by reading a book or educational TV shows. In this way, you won’t have to unwind in the mall after a long day’s work.

9. Seek support. Ask a friend or family member to keep you accountable. You need someone’s help to make sure you’re taking steps to curb your impulse buying. If you must go shopping at a place that’s especially tempting for you, bring along a trusted friend who knows how much you’re struggling, and ask your friend to help you stick to your shopping list when shopping.

10. Give yourself a simple reward but don’t over indulge. If you have followed these tips after a month or two, reward yourself with something to make you feel good. It doesn’t have to be expensive (remember: you have a budget to follow!). It can be as simple as a trip to the spa or a movie date with a good friend. It doesn’t even have to be a purchase at the nearest mall.

Remember that shopping addiction or compulsive spending can be stopped or minimize. The despair can be ended through successful treatment and people can be restored to normal life. As with other addictions, success follows an honest admission of the problem and the seeking of help from others.

The White House Obstructing Plame Investigation

The Bush Administration is actively blocking Congress' investigation into the outing of once-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman.

In a letter sent today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Waxman notes that "White House objections are preventing Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from disclosing key information to investigating officials." Among the documents being withheld are interviews taken from White House officers during Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

"Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee," Waxman writes to newly appointed Mukasey. "I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay."

Waxman's letter provides one of the first tests for Mukasey, who stressed during his confirmation hearings that he would operate independently from White House directive. The letter also provides greater insight into the extent of collaboration between Fitzgerald and the oversight committee.

Read the full letter here.

The Plot to Rig the 2008 US Election

The Plot to Rig the 2008 US Election

by Johann Hari

Global Research, November 30, 2007
The Independent - 2007-11-29

In the long, hot autumn of 2000, the world was shocked by the contempt for democracy shown by the Republican Party. They knew their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes. They knew the majority of voters in Florida itself had pulled a lever for Gore. But they fought - amid the confetti of hanging chads - to stop the state’s votes being counted, and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed George W Bush.

Today, that contempt for democracy is on display again. In California right now, there is a naked, out-in-the-open ploy to rig the 2008 presidential election - and it may succeed.

To understand how this works, we have to roam back to the 18th century, and learn about the odd anachronistic leftover they are trying to use now to thwart democracy. Back then, America’s founding fathers decided not to introduce a system where US presidents would be directly elected, with the votes totted up in Washington, DC, and the winner being the man with the most. Instead, they chose a complex system called the electoral college. This stipulates that American citizens do not vote directly for a president. Instead, they technically vote for 539 state-wide “electors”, who then gather six weeks after the election to pick the President.

The founders designed it this way for a number of reasons. They wanted the smaller states to have a say, so they gave them a disproportionate number of electoral college votes. They also believed that, in a country that was largely isolated and illiterate, voters wouldn’t know much about out-of-state figures, and would be better off picking intermediaries who could exercise discretion on their behalf.

It is the worst part of the Constitution, producing perverse results again and again. On four occasions there has been such a big gap between the national popular vote and the state-by-state electoral college votes that the guy with fewer real supporters in the country got to be President. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and - most tragically for the world - in 2000.

Article Continues...

Ron Paul calls out CNN & Youtube on their blatant bias!