Friday, January 04, 2008

Expert mis-Analysis on Caucus results, It is now Obama, Edwards as expected vs. McCain Romney in New Hampshire! There's no surprises here!



It never ceases to amaze me that the so called experts in every single category in America before 9/11 still seem to think they matter and that they know what they are talking about. They do not and are constantly wrong in every single instance. The world and America has changed since the accident of Bush and his 9/11. They constantly point that out and then show in every instance that they are incapable of assessing the situation and reacting accordingly. I have to laugh, I just heard a McCain ad saying you haven't changed and neither have I. That is the damn problem. The old mindset is the problem! They constantly say the obvious that this is a different world today and we must adapt to it while like the chief idiot they talk the talk and then show they are incapable of walking the walk.

This is a different world today and we will always be in trouble as long as the so called experts continue to turn a deaf ear to the new experts, the people in the trenches of society who see life from the bottom as the Islamists do and judge and act accordingly. With that said you know I have been saying from the beginning that Obama is going to surprise you. His command of the Iowa caucus was not the surprise the so called experts say. It was absolutely expected. The gap should have been even wider if anything. The so called experts say rarely does the person who wins Iowa go on to win the nomination but he will this time and win the election if there is one!

Obama was no surprise and neither was Huckabee as he was in evangelical country. New Hampshire is not Iowa! He will not do well there and in the end will not get the nomination. I am New England to the core and Lived on and worked farms through out New England including New Hampshire where my family is from. New Hampshire even more than Maine are fiercely independent and Religion is not going to matter. I see Obama doing well there but so too will Edwards and Hillary. in the end I see Edwards Obama dominating. As for Republicans McCain will carry the day in New Hampshire followed by Romney with Huckabee being the distant third he should be. When all is said and done it will be Obama Edwards or Edwards Obama as I would hope it turns out, against McCain Romney. Which ever way that ticket turns out we should defeat them hands down if there are elections and they are not taken out of our hands because of escalating wars or being stolen by any growing number of means!

Anyway that is how I saw it and see it playing out. There were no surprises! Following is the way the so called experts saw it. -- Mike Huckabee needed incredible turnout from self-described evangelical voters Thursday to win Iowa. Hillary Clinton was
counting on capturing the women's vote to carry the day. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee scored well with evangelical voters. Huckabee succeeded, while Clinton did not. So goes the tale of two very different presidential campaigns that appear to be on separate arcs: Huckabee up, Clinton down. "wrong, Iowa was about one, Obama! With all Democratic precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 38 percent of voters, compared to 30 percent for John Edwards and 29 percent for Hillary Clinton. of Course Iowa went for the Religious right. After this mis-administration and the lessons of perversion and corruption displayed by them you will not see this repeated in New Hampshire or anywhere else other than the so called Bible Belt.

Iowa is no New Hampshire. The largely conservative libertarian New England state could prove to be rough sledding for the newfound champion of social conservatives. In Iowa, entrance polls of caucus-goers showed that 3 out of every 5 Republicans were self-described born again or evangelical Christians. Huckabee beat Romney by better than 2-to-1 in this voting bloc. Among the rest of Iowa's Republican electorate, however, Huckabee finished a distant fourth behind Romney, McCain and Fred Thompson. In New Hampshire, social conservatives are not as influential. This potentially opens the door for Romney to regain the upper hand or for McCain to repeat his 2000 victory.

The supposed experts say The Arizona senator will find himself in a two-front battle: against Romney for the hearts and souls of GOP voters and against Obama for the state's unpredictable and sizable independent electorate. Clinton suddenly finds herself looking at Obama's back and rethinking her strategy for winning the support of younger women. Iowa entrance polls showed that the New York senator was the top choice of women over 60, while Obama was strongly preferred by women between the ages of 18 to 59.

Another major challenge for Clinton will be how to weaken the Illinois senator without being accused of running a divisive, negative campaign. So far, voters have rejected this style of campaigning. Meanwhile, Democrats John Edwards and Richardson, as well as Republican Thompson, are still alive with many contests to go. A win Thursday would have been a major boost to Edwards' campaign, and the pressure is now on the former senator to deliver a victory in either labor-friendly Nevada or his birth state of South Carolina. With a distant fourth place finish in the Hawkeye State, Richardson has yet to demonstrate he is a top-tier candidate. expert misanalysis

The attacks on each other must stop, the issues must be the focus, and we the peopl, the experts, must be listened to! Please tell me what you think.!

13 comments:

betmo said...

clinton is my state senator and i have written to her 3 times. i have told her exactly why i won't be voting for her- and i got a canned response. guess cause i didn't send any money. if hillary was genuinely interested in anything other than the title of president- she would come off as genuine. obama does come off as genuine- i have to give him that. a bit too staged and coached these days- but you get the feeling he gives a shit about doing something to better our situation. edwards has good ideas- not leadership material. kerry was correct with the second in command. i am still voting kucinich if he doesn't jump ship after new hampshire.

an average patriot said...

I hate to say it but I have written numerous Senators numerous times and the rare time I do get a response it is always canned and always off base. However like you I find Obama genuine and while a Democrat a vote for him would be a vote for change.

Larry said...

What could this mean Jim:

"Seeds of Destruction"

In 2003, Jeffrey Smith's "Seeds of Deception" was published. It exposed the dangers of untested and unregulated genetically engineered foods most people eat every day with no knowledge of the potential health risks. Efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists.

One was Ignatio Chapela, a microbial ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In September, 2001, he was invited to a carefully staged meeting with Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, Mexico's Director of the Commission of Biosafety in Mexico City. The experience left Chapela shaken and angry as he explained. Monasterio attacked him for over an hour. "First he trashed me. He let me know how damaging to the country and how problematic my information was to be."

Chapela referred to what he and a UC Berkeley graduate student, David Quist, discovered in 2000 about genetically engineered contamination of Mexican corn in violation of a government ban on these crops in 1998. Corn is sacred in Mexico, the country is home to hundreds of indigenous varieties that crossbreed naturally, and GM contamination is permanent and unthinkable - but it happened by design.

Chapela and Quist tested corn varieties in more than a dozen state of Oaxaca communities and discovered 6% of the plants contaminated with GM corn. Oaxaca is in the country's far South so Chapela knew if contamination spread there, it was widespread throughout Mexico. It's unavoidable because NAFTA allows imported US corn with 30% of it at the time genetically modified. Now it's heading for nearly double that amount, and if not contained, it soon could be all of it.

The prestigious journal Nature agreed to publish Chapela's findings, Monasterio wanted them quashed, but Chapela refused to comply. As a result, he was intimidated not to do it and threatened with being held responsible for all damages to Mexican agriculture and its economy.

He went ahead, nonetheless, and when his article appeared in the publication on November 29, 2001 the smear campaign against him began and intensified. It was later learned that Monsanto was behind it, and the Washington-based Bivings Group PR firm was hired to discredit his findings and get them retracted.

It worked because the campaign didn't focus on Chapela's contamination discovery, but on a second research conclusion even more serious. He learned the contaminated GM corn had as many as eight fragments of the CaMV promoter that creates an unstable "hotspot." It can cause plant genes to fragment, scatter throughout the plant's genome, and, if proved conclusively, would wreck efforts to introduce GM crops in the country. Without further evidence, there was still room for doubt if the second finding was valid, however, and the anti-Chapela campaign hammered him on it.

Because of the pressure, Nature took an unprecedented action in its 133 year history. It upheld Chapela's central finding but retracted the other one. That was all it took, and the major media pounced on it. They denounced Chapela's incompetence and tried to discredit everything he learned including his verified findings. They weren't reported, his vilification was highlighted, and Monsanto and the Mexican government scored a big victory.

Ironically, on April 18, 2002, two weeks after Nature's partial retraction, the Mexican government announced there was massive genetic contamination of traditional corn varieties in Oaxaca and the neighboring state of Puebla. It was horrifying as up to 95% of tested crops were genetically polluted and "at a speed never before predicted." The news made headlines in Europe and Mexico. It was ignored in the US and Canada.

The fallout for Chapela was UC Berkeley denied him tenure in 2003 because of his article and for criticizing university ties to the biotech industry. He then filed suit in April, 2004 asking remuneration for lost wages, earnings and benefits, compensatory damages for humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress and coverage of attorney fees and costs for his action. He won in May, 2005 but not in court when the university reversed its decision, granted him tenure and agreed to include retroactive pay back to 2003. The damage, however, was done and is an example of what's at stake when anyone dares challenge a powerful company like Monsanto.

The other man attacked was the world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai. He was vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland's Rowett Research Institute for publishing industry-unfriendly data he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods.

His Rowett Research study was the first ever independent one conducted on them anywhere. He undertook it believing in their promise but became alarmed by his findings. The Clinton and Blair governments were determined to suppress them because Washington was spending billions promoting GMO crops and a future biotech revolution. It wasn't about to let even the world's foremost expert in the field derail the effort. His results were startling and consider the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods.

Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming - this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

GM foods today saturate our diet. Over 80% of all supermarket processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils; soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter). They're unrevealed to consumers because labeling is prohibited yet the more of them we eat, the greater the potential threat to our health.

Today, we're all lab rats in an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. The risks from it are beyond measure, it will take many years to learn them, and when they're finally revealed it will be too late to reverse the damage if it's proved GM products harm human health as independent experts strongly believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps.

Despite the enormous risks, however, Washington and growing numbers of governments around the world in parts of Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa now allow these products to be grown in their soil or imported. They're produced and sold to consumers because agribusiness giants like Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgriSciences and Cargill have enormous clout to demand it and a potent partner supporting them - the US government and its agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture and State, FDA, EPA and even the defense establishment. World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) patent rules also back them along with industry-friendly WTO rulings like the February 7, 2006 one.

It favored a US challenge against European GMO regulatory policies in spite of strong consumer sentiment against these foods and ingredients on the continent. It also violated the Biosafety Protocol that should let nations regulate these products in the public interest, but it doesn't because WTO trade rules sabotaged it. Nonetheless, anti-GMO activism persists, consumers still have a say, and there are hundreds of GMO-free zones around the world, including in the US. That and more is needed to take on the agribusiness giants that so far have everything going their way.

In "Seeds of Deception," Jeffrey Smith did a masterful job explaining the dangers of GM foods and ingredients. Engdahl explains them as well but goes much further brilliantly in his blockbuster book on this topic. It's the story of a powerful family and a "small socio-political American elite (that) seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival" - future life through the food we eat. The book's introduction says it "reads (like) a crime story." It's also a nightmare but one that's very real and threatening.

This review covers the book in-depth because of its importance. It's an extraordinary work that "reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue (and) government corruption and coercion" that's part of a decades-long global scheme for total world dominance. The book deserves vast exposure and must be read in full for the whole disturbing story. It's hoped the material below will encourage readers to do it in their own self-interest and to marshal mass consumer actions to place food safety above corporate profits.

Engdahl's book supplies the ammunition to do it and is also a sequel to his earlier one on war, oil politics and The New World Order and follows naturally from it. It covers the roots of the strategy to control "global food security" that goes back to the 1930s and the plans of a handful of American families to preserve their wealth and power. But it centers on one in particular that above the others "came to symbolize the hubris and arrogance of the emerging American century" that blossomed post-WW II. Its patriarch began in oil and then dominated it in his powerful Oil Trust. It was only the beginning as the family expanded into "education of youth, medicine and psychology," US foreign policy, and "the very science of life itself, biology, and its applications" in plants and agriculture.

The family's name is Rockefeller. The patriarch was John D., and four powerful later-generation brothers followed him - David, Nelson, Laurance, and John D. III. Engdahl says the GMO story covers "the evolution of power in the hands of an elite (led by this family), determined (above all) to bring the entire world under their sway." They and other elites already control most of it, including the nation's energy, the US Federal Reserve, and other key world central banks. Today, three brothers are gone, David alone remains, and he's still a force at age 92 although he no longer runs the family bank, JP Morgan Chase. He's active in family enterprises, however, including the Rockefeller Foundation to be discussed in Part II of this review.

By William Engdahl's

Larry said...

The Planned World Dominance Jim:

By Ann Tyson

In the Pentagon's newly expanded Special Operations office, Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Vickers is working to implement the U.S. military's highest-priority plan: a global campaign against terrorism that reaches far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

The plan details the targeting of al-Qaida-affiliated networks around the world and explores how the United States should retaliate in case of another major terrorist attack. The most critical aspect of the plan, Vickers said in a recent interview, involves U.S. Special Operations forces working through foreign partners to uproot and fight terrorist groups.

Expansive plan

Vickers' job also spans the modernization of nuclear forces for deterrence and retaliation, and the retooling of conventional forces to combat terrorism, a portfolio so expansive that he and some Pentagon officials once jokingly referred to his efforts as the "take-over-the-world plan."

Vickers, a former Green Beret and CIA operative, was the principal strategist for the biggest covert program in CIA history: the paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The movie "Charlie Wilson's War," released last weekend, portrays Vickers in that role, in which he directed an insurgent force of 150,000 Afghan fighters and controlled an annual budget of more than $2 billion in current dollars.

Today, as the top Pentagon adviser on counterterrorism strategy, Vickers exudes the same assurance about defeating terrorist groups as he did as a 31-year-old CIA paramilitary officer assigned to Afghanistan, where he convinced superiors that, with the right strategy and weapons, the ragtag Afghan insurgents could win.

"I am just as confident or more confident we can prevail in the war on terror," said Vickers, 54.

Vickers joined the Pentagon in July to oversee the 54,000-strong Special Operations Command (Socom), based in Tampa, Fla., which is growing faster than any other part of the U.S. military. Socom's budget has doubled in recent years, to $6 billion for 2008, and the command is to add 13,000 troops to its ranks by 2011.

Senior Pentagon and military officials regard Vickers as a rarity: a skilled strategist who is creative and pragmatic. "He tends to think like a gangster," said Jim Thomas, a former senior defense planner who worked with Vickers.

Vickers' outlook was shaped in the CIA and Special Forces, which he joined in 1973. In the 10th Special Forces Group, he trained year-round for a guerrilla war against the Soviet Union. One scenario he prepared for: to parachute into enemy territory with a small nuclear weapon strapped to his leg and position it to halt the Red Army.

Vickers recalled that the nuclear devices did not seem that small, "particularly when you are in an aircraft with one of them or it is attached to your body." Was it a suicide mission? "I certainly hoped not," Vickers said.

An expert in martial arts, parachuting and weapons, and second in his class at Officer Candidate School, Vickers joined the CIA's paramilitary unit in 1983. Soon after, he received a citation for combat in Grenada.

His greatest influence was in the precise way he reassessed the potential of Afghan guerrilla forces and prescribed the right mix of weaponry to attack Soviet weaknesses.

Today Vickers' plan to build a global counterterrorist network is no less ambitious. The plan is focused on a list of 20 "high-priority" countries, with Pakistan posing a central preoccupation for Vickers, who said al-Qaida sanctuaries in the country's western tribal areas are a serious threat to the United States.

Building network

The list also includes Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Iran, and Vickers hinted that some European countries could be on it. Beyond that, the plan covers 29 additional "priority" countries, and "other countries" he did not name.

"It's not just the Middle East. It's not just the developing world. It's not just nondemocratic countries; it's a global problem," he said. "Threats can emanate from Denmark, the United Kingdom, you name it."

Vickers, who has advised President Bush on Iraq strategy, is convinced that more U.S. troops are not enough to solve the conflict in Iraq and that working with local forces is the best long-term strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Working with proxy forces also will enable the United States to extend and sustain its influence, something it failed to do in Afghanistan, he said. "After this great victory and after a million Afghans died, we basically exited that region and Afghanistan just spun into chaos," he said.

"It's imperative that we not do that again," he said.

Naj said...

Jim,

I agree with you that I didn't see what was the big Iowa surprise. I think Obama will outdo Clinton anywhere he goes.

One q: you talk about how everything has "changed" after 911. Do you think it is possible that New Hampsheir will have changed as well? Or the fact that NH has been the "representative" of who eventually wins will change?

I think, as long as Edward and Obama go for president/vice president I will be content. Edward is the only one who hasn't licked the zionist's ass (Obama has; and clinton basically resides in their ass ... oh I can't wait to see MORE of this woman's humiliation!)

an average patriot said...

Larry
We talk about it all the time and this is only one more instance where the average American does not matter. We are merely a tool to be used to feed the machine "big busines and big Industry.
Vegetables, meat, and food in general, is a pet peeve of mine as that is my life long vocation. It bothers me that geneticizing or cloning in order to improve production or profits is all that matters. It is not for us it is for profits. The powers to be probably stay away from all this harmful crap we put in and on our bodies.
You see examples such as you just illustrated routinely and it realy stinks that you know the whistleblower is absolutely right and they get burned for speaking the truth and as always we stay mute and are powerless to do anything.
I am really starting to feel like a whistle blower and conspiracy theorist myself. This is really screwed up!

an average patriot said...

Larry
I have to laugh! I know Jerome counts the ending of the cold war as one of his great accomplishments and I can see Vickers does too. The defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan and the end of the cold war was merely the beginning of the end of the world as we know it.
Vickers has a key role in achieving that end and is proud of it. World domination is the goal and it blows me away that it is obvious to a blind man and we watch fighting terrorism as the excuse to pursue it every day and we are powerless to do anything about it.
The poor fools have created this world problem and as I have said for years that the chief idiot suffers from the Rodney Dangerfield Syndrome "I get no respect" They make it look like they are being forced to fight the world and impliment their new world order while that is actually their original goal.

an average patriot said...

naj
I am glad I am finally getting to your comment. You have great input regardless of the subject and I like that. I just got off the phone with a couple of my sons.
Anyway I agree with you that Hillary is a non entity. I just feel bad for her or anyone else that is well intentioned as i hope che is and they are ignored or defeated.
Now, nothing is the same since 9/11 and I blame it all on Bush and his goal of allowing and using 9/11 to prosecute his plan for a new world order and one world Government that will be total chaos.
I really don't know if all the changes being made to our voting system will make a difference in the end because our system is increasingly set up to have the outcome controlled as the chief idiot likes to accuse others of doing.
I do know the radical personality of New Hampshirites as those are my people. There live free or die motto is not for nothing. They do not realize it but we are not free or a Democracy anymore.
You know, I want to see an Obama Edwards ticket preferably with Edwards in the front and I don't trust or like Hillary but I feel bad for Bill. Take care naj, I think I just noticed you are in Uzbechistan?

Dave Dubya said...

Let me connect the articles with the topic of the election. The pervasive themes of corporatre dominance and permanent war ring true. As all past evidence
indicates, anyone not going along with the corporate military programs will not be selected as president.

Edwards is far too honest about corrupt corporate influence. He will be eliminated.

Hillary remains the number one military industrial complex annointed democrat.

Obama sounds like Bill Clinton. He's a very dynamic speaker who inspires listeners to buy into his presentation. I'm afraid I suspect the same old triangulating smoke and mirrors at play here.

With Huckabee, I think the Big Boys don't like what they see as compassion for the little people. He just may be too much of a true Christian to abuse the poor and less powerful.

Rudy the 9-11 Guy is on his way out due to his own open sleaziness.

A year ago, I thought Thompson would go all the way. Turns out he seems to lack the ambition.

Romney is ambitious and ruthless enough, but without the mindless mega-church bible thumping hypocrites, he can't win.

McCain is the kind of company man perfect for doing the work of the M.I. Complex masters. Watch him get a boost as Hillary continues to slide.

an average patriot said...

Dave that's a real good analysis. I wish you would have given me a prediction based on that. Or was that McCain? Based on what we know and what you said as we always say I really cannot see the military and industrial complex allowing an election or certainly a fair one. I see Bush staying in control by hook or by crook.
I have come to the conclusion that we are just tools and only big Industry, the mega rich, and the Government matter. The rest of us are just incidentals and a means for their support. I am just stupified that we know what is going on and it is merely laughed off and this mis-agenda is just continued.

Dave Dubya said...

Remember when Bush offered Hillary tips on his permanant war? He must have thought she had it locked up. At least for the dems side. She's the hawk so therefore she was approved.

On the repub side we have McCain as the most war-friendly, as well as some appeal to "independents".

Maybe the reason we see so little about the war in the media these days is not due to the success of the "surge", but because the war's continued failure is drawing votes away from the annointed candidates.

Hillary was the expected successor. I always suspected the contest would be set up between the two pro-war candidates.

I have an uneasy feeling about McCain. I think he may still take it. We already know this election will be tampered with, anyway. So I'll just say the presidency is his to steal.

an average patriot said...

You know Dave, Hillary was Bush's choice early on but I figured that was because he knew they could defeat her and Rove was set loose when he was, to ensure that.
Like you I think McCain will get the nomination and can see Edwards Obama against and defeating McCain Giuliani if there are elections and they are not dtolen in any one of a myriad of ways.
As I posted on today, the more I learn about those damn machines the more concerned I get. Did you see Betmo's post. It looks more like a set up everyday.

an average patriot said...

You know Dave, Hillary was Bush's choice early on but I figured that was because he knew they could defeat her and Rove was set loose when he was, to ensure that.
Like you I think McCain will get the nomination and can see Edwards Obama against and defeating McCain Giuliani if there are elections and they are not dtolen in any one of a myriad of ways.
As I posted on today, the more I learn about those damn machines the more concerned I get. Did you see Betmo's post. It looks more like a set up everyday.