$86,400 A DAY, A LESSON?

FROM: TheThoughtSpigot.com

http://www.thethoughtspigot.com/

There was an arrangement, where a man with massive amounts of wealth, decided to give $86,400 a day, to a poor family of his choice. The only catch was this:

1. At midnight, $86,400 would be put into the same family bank account, each day. 2. They were able to withdraw, spend the money on anything, but the money would NEVER carry over to the next day.

3. At 11:59 PM, each day, as the clock struck midnight, the account would liquidate all funds and would deposit a fresh $86,400, in the account.
4. I will ask you to do something for me, sometime, in your lifetime.

Both, the family and the man, agreed to the terms. Everyday, the family would withdraw the money and keep it in cashier's checks, for the first 363 days. After the 363 days, the family decided to see how much money they had spent, saved, and would be making in the future. It turned out, the family was set for life, had plenty of nice things, and would be able to keep on investing and doing what they were doing. However, on the 364th day, their benefactor decided to come and visit the family. The family welcomed him with open arms, but was curious to the meeting and what was in store for the future?

The man brought in the whole family (Mom, Dad, three kids, and others gathered) and he said, "I have given you this money, $86,400 a day, for a year now. I do not care what you have done with the money, what you have left, or what you have saved. However, I do care about the exact amount of money I have given you each day. I have come now to ask one thing of you, and also to let you know that tomorrow will be the last day, a deposit of $86,400 will be given to your family. I am sure you have more than enough saved and left over, so there should be no problem."

The father spoke and said, "We are forever grateful to your generosity, what is it that you wish us to do?"

The man said, "I was given two years to live, because I have cancer. Therefore, I had the idea to not only help a family in need, but also to show them a special way of looking at something. Here is what I am going to ask you all to do and tell you my idea.

I gave you $86,400 a day, to help you and for one reason. There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You do not get them back, once they are spent, you will never see them again, once they tick on. Once, the day is over, you do not get to carry any of the seconds over, to the next day. Each second is precious, more so, than the dollars you have received. Each second of the day, represents a different, special, and unique opportunity for everyone in the world and yourselves. You may use it to change, stay the same, or even squander the time given to you. Although, when you are out of time, there is none left, and you never know when you time is up. This is why I have come today, to let you know, before I am gone (which could be any second), there will be no more money, and I am asking you this; I want you to go out and live each second of your life, do not take anything for granted, and I want you to spread this message, for all it is worth, to you."

The family agreed and the old gentleman left, and they agreed to stay in touch. That never happened, and they were unable to ever speak again. The old man was supposed to live another two to four months, maybe a year, due to his ailments. However, on the way home, from the families house, a drunk man missed a stop sign and slammed into the man's car. The old man died instantly, but not before he got his message out.

NOW, "I" SAY TO ANYONE WHO MAY READ THIS: "There is 86,400 second in a day and each one of them count, because there is not anyone in the world, who knows when they will leave this earth. Please utilize, your seconds to mend old wounds, take advantage of all of the beauty and challenges around you, try something new and make yourself a better person, and most of all, make and impact on those around you, those you do not know and those you do know. Look at the beauty in your life and be thankful, but realize that you need to focus on each second and do the right thing for yourself, but more over for the greater good, each second.

Time stands still for no one. In life, there is no dress rehearsal. Please, LIVE your life, because you do not know, when the sand will run out of your hour glass. On any time line, there is always a starting point and an end."

"THE IRAQ WAR, PETREAS, WHO WILL LEAD AMERICA AND......?"

General Michael Hayden, the leader of the CIA, or Michael Ware (CNN Foreign Analyst), who do you believe? Iraq has been shaky, over the last two weeks, or so, in having the Shiite Militias, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki going out on his own (in south Iraq, to battle, with little U. S. assistance and the British confined in an air base, outside Basra, like women), and now their are democrats and republicans alike coming out of the woodwork, like termites, with all kinds of rhetoric. Regardless, on CNN (in the middle of the week), Michael Ware's face is back on television. He stepped right back into his spot, preaching the doom and gloom, of Iraq's demise, after being absent for much of the last three months (due to the success and low death tolls). On "Meet the Press" Sunday, General Michael Hayden, the head of the CIA, was telling a completely different story. Saying, the Iraqi government is to be in the lead, in heading off of militia and Al-Queada, turning around his original comments in 2006 (saying the Iraqi government, would be irreversible, in the short term).

The common man and woman is not previed to classified information, bound by the press, media outlets, and listening to a variety of leaders, pundits, and sometimes complete morons, to figure out where to stand on the war. When Michael Ware, who comes out and says, "their is not any way in the world, with the United States 'bribing' the Sunni groups, not being able to get a hold on the Shiite militias, and the al-Maliki government (who is still cozy with Iran and Shiite causes) is not in control, there will be no way to win, in this civil war," people can believe him, or not. When the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, comes out and says, "We have gone to school on this (the Iraq war)," meaning the United States military and commanders have learned from our mistakes. He continued, "We have gotten much better against Al-Queada, we can see what is going on, and we should continue to keep getting better." These two men could not be any farther apart, on their comments, yet one has 100% access to all of the intelligence in the United States and the world, Ware has only what his eyes perceive and what he has been told.

Whether CNN's Ware, or General Hayden, are correct, is not going to be known, by the average American. Only a general feeling, a learning experience (by researching and studying nonstop, on Iraq and the Middle East), or a guess by Americans can tell who is correct and who is not. There are only two real questions left. One of these questions, Americans can, once again, do nothing about. The second question, may be the biggest decision for the United States citizens, since the American Civil War.

The first question is pretty obvious (it doesn't include the rhetorical and left leaning Michael Ware, at all), "What will General David Petreas say, in the next 10 days, to the White House and Congress?" If Petreas comes home, saying that we will need an extended stay, of the surge battalions, then the democratic side of the government (or the left) will come unglued. However, if he comes back from Iraq and says, "We are not going to gain any 'political' and/or other kind of gains, by keeping the military surge numbers up. Therefore, we will pull back and start to reduce forces, from Iraq. However, they will go straight into Afghanistan, to help on the Pakistan border, to battle the remaining and incoming Taliban forces and Al-Queada." The conservatives, republicans, and right will begin to howl, judging we are leaving prematurely and are caving to political polls and other "nonmilitary" roles. Either way, General Petreas is the only cog that matters in the machine, coming up, in the Iraq war. In a Presidential year, the democrats are to gutless to cut off funding, use any kind of a vote to bring troops home, or use the power of the people to reverse anything, he may say, or do. However, the American people must have faith, in the General in charge of the Iraq War, because the "common American" does not have any idea about national security secrets and intelligence, period.

The main question, all Americans have a say in, "What direction does the American voter, want the country to go in? Therefore, who should be voted the Vice President and President of America?" If John McCain is voted into the White House, then he will follow the Petreas strategy, do what the military leaders wish, and will be a complete hawk on all "National Security" issues. There is no secret, McCain's intimate knowledge of geopolitical and national security issues, due to his massive record, in these departments. However, on the other side of the coin, there is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They are basically the exact same on the Iraq war issue, as of now. Sure, Obama spoke out against the war, from the beginning. However, today is not the beginning and we are there, so what will he do, once elected? In the "Annis Bizarre" (complete facade and circus behind the scenes), Samantha Powers, Obama's foreign policy advisor, quit. Powers stated, "Behind the scenes, Obama does not have a plan to get the troops out of Iraq, in the nine months, he has promised. In fact, he is not sure how he will get troops out, or if he will get them out at all, due to the facts of how things change on the ground." Obama is going on shows and doing interviews with "The View," "Hardball with Chris Mathews" and other democratic (softball) venues, knowing he will not get the hard "policy issue" questions, at these interviews. Hillary Clinton, is basically in the same boat. She has played the "dove" and the "hawk," when need be. Sometimes, she is pulling troops out of Iraq, "because she is ready to lead on day one," but the next day (in front of veterans and blue collar workers) she either does not comment at all, or else she states, "It is insincere, to call out plans, this far out."

Where does the American people go, to figure out who is telling the truth? Who is going to lead? Why is Michael Ware only on CNN, when he is spewing filth on American troops and the war? Finally, when will the American people stand up, pay attention, demand the tough questions going to the candidates character and judgment (over the years, and not what they feel on a given day), and finally who will be the best candidate(s) to lead this country from the front, rather than from the politically correct position? Only one can hope, the American people can see, research, and learn to the best of their ability, who is a "real candidate" and who is going to take America in a wrong direction, in the next four to eight years.

"FINALLY, ANOTHER TELLS OF OBAMA INEVITABILITY....."

Finally, a Democratic Pollster, on Fox News Friday, made a reference to something I have put into words, for over three months now. Barack Obama, selecting Mike Bloomberg, as his Vice Presidential candidate. Obama has had two breakfasts and a lunch, with Bloomberg, plus some other "directional and position talks," with Mike Bloomberg. Over the last two weeks, Obama has been hemorrhaging in the general election polls, since the Reverend Jeremiah Wright scandal broke. Trinity United Christian Church has an assortment of video and audio sermons, plus other guest spots, with Wright speaking on everything from, "the Roman's looking down their garlic noses, on Christ" to "the leaders of the Palestinian's on the front pages of church bulletins."

However, Mike Bloomberg (if he will take the position), is Barack Obama's political savior. Bloomberg is a wizard in the economics, both nationally and globally. He happens to be Jewish. Finally, what Bloomberg bring to the Obama ticket, is a common thread of the "non-politics as usual" and an overall knowledge of how to get things done. Lending credibility to Obama, who is a Junior Senator, has little experience on economics (on a national and global scale), and will continue to aid Obama in the black, Latino, far left and mainly the youth vote. Bloomberg is the right guy, in the right place, and at the right time. If he will except Obama's nomination, for his Vice Presidential candidate, then it will not only ensure Obama is the Democratic nominee, but he may just be the President of the United States.

I wish someone would have listened to the original memo, I had to type, twice.
==================================================================
On 2-15-08, I wrote:
==================================================================
On 1-7-08 I wrote, in a blog on this topic, but as of this minute not one pundit, media elite, or magazine has commented on this option (when I have actually been ahead of the "media curve," on 76% of my blog ideas/political prognostications). As the election, on the Democratic side tightens, opens up in Florida and Michigan, and looks to start tilting towards courts and the legal system, Barack Obama could fulfill another "Audacity"/never before done option. He could announce his running mate, if he "were" to win the Presidential nomination. Since the "Hillary Blitz," over the four days, before the Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama has lost some of the "positive angle," change talking points, and looks a little "deer in the headlights," at times.An announcement, that I called for on 1-7-08, for Obama to name (or at least be seen several times out with, eating lunch with, or in fund raisers with Mike Bloomberg, even if Mike won't run on his ticket) Mike Bloomberg to his VP slot, now. If Bloomberg is not up for the task, then Obama needs to cash in a favor (under the table) and be seen out with Bloomberg, partially to diffuse the "Clinton/Obama ticket" rumors, and it would give Obama more media traction (just on media and pundit speculation).

A country yearning for "actual change and needs real hope," and both democratic candidates are standing on their "soap boxes," giving the talking points. If Barack Obama wins the democratic nomination, he must not only come thru with a "policy of remarkable change and hope," but he will also need a running mate that will fill the voids in his resume, packs an "Audacity of Hope" punch, and finally will shock the country into voting for him far and away (despite being the most liberal senator on the hill, despite having only three and a half years of experience, and the other possible holes in his candidacy).
================================================
However, here is the prognostication from 1-7-08 below:
==========================================

Barack Obama is the marble in the slingshot, of America speak and voting power. The platform of change, the philosophy of American people dispensing of status quo Washington politics, and the overall timing of an American Nation at it's breaking point on issues of health care, immigration, the economy, and foreign policy are the fork in the slingshot. Obama's win in Iowa, against the "Clintonian Machine," gave him the viability of a winner and is the rubber being pulled back to launch him into the possible democratic nomination.

However, Barack Obama the biracial, always up for any topic, and gifted charismatic speaker is on his way to breaking the "political sound barrier" (some say, a cross between John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.). The phenom from Illinois has made a splash by pounding out a combination of passionate speeches, a promise of American change and hope, and all the while bringing out groups of independents, democrats, and the always cagey (hard to get out) group of young voters. This is a classic campaign of improbability of change, against an almost inevitable comer to the thrown (Ms. Clinton), over what was called "inexperience," and all the while with a clean and respectful campaign. Even the clean cut family man's "holiday commercial," was a beautiful insight into his whole campaign, while showcasing his family. There was an attractive well spoken man, with his strong and equal wife, two adorable kids with speaking parts, a traditional Christmas Tree, and the last all inclusive statement (made by the youngest of the girls) "Happy Holidays." If there was one commercial, television spot that was an insight into the Obama campaign, this was the one. It showed that the country was in for change, with a possible first black president, a traditional side with a full family, an all encompassing message, but behind it all is the most liberal senator in Washington.

However, once the Democratic Nominee is chosen, how will Barack continue to pound the "changing of America" dichotomy home? There is no better way, then to have a vice president candidate that is an independent billionaire (who could run as President himself). He also does not want to take the chance of losing, needs to shore up some more overall foreign policy experience, and could follow in the footsteps of Obama after his term is over. In steps Mike Bloomberg, the now Mayor of New York (the 17th overall biggest economy in the world), would be a perfect fit for the Democratic Nominee, who has only been a one term senator and does have experience flaws. Bloomberg would bring not only an "independent" credibility to Obama's ticket, but he also has the billionaire funds and overall swagger of a vice president now. A Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, or even a solid Richard Luger would be qualified, as solid running mates for Obama. However, for the "Audacity of Hope" candidate, nothing would be more of a shocker, could shore up more independent voters in the "red states" (on name recognition alone), and once again would bring endless funds to a candidate that is already white hot with a good portion of the American people?

With the emergence of Dick Cheney, being the most powerful VP in history and actually making the office a credible source of power and influence, Bloomberg would not have to be a lame duck (i.e., Al Gore, VP Bush, or a lot of the other vice presidents before Cheney). For the first time in America's history, there would basically, be two Presidents in the Oval Office, both of whom would compliment each other and possibly could bring back the balance to the country. Whether or not Obama has the foresight to see this and make a bold decision in this direction, or whether Bloomberg would even take a second seat to anyone, is yet to be seen. However, Obama with any other Democrat in the mix of politics would have the possibility of having his "change message" tarnished. If Obama were to pick another "independent" like Joe Lieberman (which could actually be a running mate of Huckabee, but more of Rudi candidate), then he would be subjected to more of the "same old Washington" baggage and overflow. For all Americans who long for "American Change and hope" in Washington and through the fabric of America, there is a possibility with Barack Obama, but a Barack Obama/Mike Bloomberg ticket looms with not only change, but that is a true "change in politics."

"JAPAN'S BASEBALL FANS, SHOWS USA & MLB THE WAY BACK"

Watching the Boston Red Sox vs. the Oakland A's, at 5 a. m. (CST), there were massive differences in the Japanese crowd(s), compared to the majority of fans, in the United States. Even the announcers, one of whom played his career in Japan in the 1990s, agreed that the Japanese fans have a love for the game, that goes beyond the glitz and glamour, but a love for the fundamentals of the game, what the teams and players bring into their lives, and a love that extends into their lives, not just when it fits into their spare time.

Filling the stadium, over 50,000 Japanese fans, to watch the Red Sox battle the Oakland A's was very different, indeed. Even though, there the may have still been matting in my eyes, in the wee hours of the morning, to see the second game, of Major League Baseball season, I could see subtle and huge differences in the game and it's fans. There was a stadium filled with fans cheering more, during the players batting (than the usual defense cheering, in order to distract the players in the field), which showed respect for the game, as a whole. The stadium was "standing room only," for the whole game. No fans were blazing up the stairs to beat traffic, get another beer (before sales ran out), and continued to banter thru the ninth. The cheering was in waves and coordinated, with the fans using all kinds of implements (like blow up tubes, towels, et. al). In America, fans have a tendency to root for their team, some are die hard fans, and some are at games for the good of the sport and not for beer, fights, and spewing out loud cuss words, in a "family environment." However, in Japan, even when the MLB teams have long gone, and the Yamori Giants are playing another Japanese team, there will still be 50,000 strong, whether at 1:00 p.m. on Monday, or at 9:00 p.m. on a Sunday (as the announcers pointed out this morning). The only baseball in America, that stands out like this, is at the NCAA College World Series, in Omaha. It is all, but gone, in the MLB crowds and some minor league stadiums.

In Japan, baseball is revered. It is revered, the way it was back in the 1950s thru the late 1980s. The fans are screaming and cheering (although, their chants are usually regulated, like actual cheerleaders at a high school football game), for their favorite players, teams, and for the opposite players and teams, when the fundamentals and great plays are executed. Personally, I long for the times when my mom and dad took me and my brother to the MLB games. When I was younger, from the age of four thru fourteen (I am 35), the MLB experience was so very different. Going to "Royals Stadium," in Kansas City, to see the Royals, meant seeing George Brett, Frank White, Willie Wilson, John Wathan, and Amos Otis, most not "All-Stars," but they were the "home team." In those trips, to the stadium, before the name change, to "The K," it was not about booing the other teams, but rooting for your team and favorite players. In the rosters of incoming teams, I learned about the other teams in advance, collecting their cards, memorizing statistics, watching on Saturdays "This Week In Baseball" and having the privilege (of my parents' taking my brother and I) of watching players like Wade Boggs (Boston), Paul Molitor (Brewers), Don "Donny Ball Game" Mattingly/Rich "Goose" Gossage/Craig Nettles (Yankees), and two players who will never make the hall of fame, but where "Royal Killers," (who oozed fundamentals, power, and were modest great ball players) Lou Whitaker and Alan Tramell (Detroit Tigers). Of course, this was before the three league split, the switch in teams to the National League/American League (depending), and mostly it was before the 1994 strike, shortened season. However, before these changes, the game was strong, the players were revered and truly loved (like the stories we heard from our fathers and grandfathers about Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Mays, and Duke Snider). It was the last time, I can remember kids and their parents seeing the game, like I remember seeing it, when I was young.

I do not blame the strike (either people are baseball fans, or they are not), because some people were upset and should have been, but baseball fans are fans for the sport, not fans looking for a reason to turn their back, on the sport they love. The strike season gave an excuse, for the fans who didn't love baseball, but were more happy complaining about the game. Besides, 1994 was a long time ago. I do not blame the other sports, football and basketball, being a quicker way for student athletes to get big dollar deals, and the inner city youth not having a place to play baseball. Simply, because kids were in the inner city, as far back as the depression, but kids still loved the game, playing stick ball in the streets, as far back as sticks, balls, and streets. I am not in a position to blame any one thing, any one type of person, or any direct choice(s) that has taken the game from "America's Past Time" to "America's reason to complain" (for some people). As a matter of fact, I am not in any position to judge anyone, or anything, period. I just miss the American game people used to love, the fans who loved it, and the fact baseball does not have the power to put "the stamp" on our lives, as it once did, for whatever reason.

It boils down to watching the fans and people of Japan, holding up a mirror to America, to see what baseball used to be and mean to our great country. Who cares how much money a player wants, to play for a certain team? Who cares what a general manager does, trading a player for a group of younger players, in hopes to make a team better? There are so many reasons for people to turn away from the sport of baseball. However, if America was to take a look in the mirror, the Japanese are holding up to our country, during the Red Sox vs. A's games. Baseball is life. Baseball, in so many ways the game is played, the strategy it has thru it's heralded lineage, and it mirrors all of the facets of our lives. Baseball is life. The Japanese fans love the games for what they are, a sporting event with spectacular athletes, who play the game with grace and love for the chance to play the sport they devoted their lives to, and who are humble for the gifts they have. The Japanese revel in their team, they came to root for, but they also know about the alternate team and give them equal respect. The majority of Japanese fans worship the game of baseball and are the epitome of what fans are about. They are showing the United States baseball fans, not only how to watch, cheer, and see the game of baseball for what it is, but they show us the way back to our roots. Roots, in America kids playing in the streets (emulating their favorite baseball players), in the family going to the park to root on the team they want to watch (without a group of men and women, spewing out hatred and foul language, at the top of their lungs), and finally the roots of America being all that is good thru, "America's Past Time."

"THE WORST 21 DAYS, FOR TRUTH, IN POLITICAL HISTORY"

American people have to be asking, "Is there any truth in politics, at all?" Of course, the majority of Americans already know (with an 8% approval rating of congress and a 29-34% approval rating for the President) there is not many, if any, politicians who are honest and tell the truth, except when it suits them. Maybe the question should be, "Is there anything not worth lying about, amongst politicians?" Truth, as defined by the "WIKOPEDIA Online Dictionary," is: The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact, or reality, in particular. After all, these are the people who are running the country, have the clearance and knowledge not afforded to "the common man," and most importantly, these are the people who are chosen to "serve" the American people and American good.

In the last twenty days, countless politicians have been brought down, or had the spot light shown down on their lies, infidelities, and complete lack of truth? Nothing is sacred, or worth telling the truth about, in the Congress, Senate, Governor's Mansion, the Attorney General of the State, and Presidential Candidates. In less than a calendar week, at least eight politicians have been caught, from the ambiguous, to flat out lies and deceit. Counting the people serving, the candidates running for President of the United States, there are countless more.

Elliott Spitzer, was caught using high end call girls. His replacement, Lt. Governor David Paterson, has not only cheated on his wife (using tax and the people of New York's cash, for hotels, et. Al), but he has now admitted to doing cocaine and smoking marijuana. Former Presidential candidate, Rudi Guiliani, also had trysts with women, has been married three times, and used tax dollar funds (in the form of protection for his mistress, by the secret service, while still married). These three men, all of whom are narcissistic men, are just former and current leaders in state government in New York. However, they were all attorneys, at one time, and also had to swear to uphold the law (lie number one). They also took oaths, to be faithful to their wives (lie number 2). They also took an oath to preserve the will of the people and stay lawful (lie number 3). These exact same "alleged acts," are hitting the mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick. Except, Kilpatrick lied "allegedly" committed purgery, was having an affair with his top aid, and faces six other federal charges, in Wayne County. Three of four, of these state elected men, have had these transgressions in the last two calendar weeks.

Hillary Clinton was just caught in a major lie, saying that she was on the way to Bosnia, when Chelsea (her daughter) and Senator Clinton heard, "there would be no red carpet, snipers were around the landing strip, and they had to run straight from the plane, to the cars, who took them to the base." What a fabulous and heroic story, she told, it is just to bad that it was all made up and a lie. Mrs. Clinton has a checkered past, when the time comes to open her mouth. She also said, "In school, she was a soccer player." However, after reevaluation her school did not have a girls soccer team, at all. There is no way to tell what is true and what is false, with Mrs. Clinton.

Barack Obama, another Presidential candidate, who has had a lot of trouble over the past two weeks. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been Obama's personal mentor, religious advisor, part of Obama's campaign, and finally the Obama's Reverend, for over twenty-two years. By this time, everyone in America has heard what Wright spewed out of his mouth, in the pulpit of his church and countless other venues. However, the lies that Obama told, about if, when, and how much of Wright's speeches he actually heard, have not gathered the traction. His answers were expansive and all over the map. On Friday, Obama did an exclusive interview, saying, "He had no idea of the 'specific' comments made by Wright, and was never in the pew, when Wright said those things." However, by Sunday, Obama changed his story just a little bit, saying, "that he was just not in the pews." Monday came around and Obama said, "He knew that Wright had said those things. He was not in the pews, but he was like an uncle, that you could not disown." Later in the week, Barack Obama went on to change his story, again. Stating that he had taken Wright off of his campaign committee, but he would still be his spiritual advisor. He also compared Wright to his mother's comment, "typical white people," and even his grandma (who used the "N word"), but he would always be near and dear to Jeremiah Wright. The media never did care to piece together all of the lies and half truths, Obama told over the past week.

Finally, John McCain, a war hero, champion of many causes, and the Republican Presidential nominee. When he was asked about Obama's problem, with the Wright controversy, he said that he did not want to get into it and, "those kind of politics were not for him." However, what he was really saying was, he had just announced that Rod Parsley was his spiritual advisor. Rod Parsley thinks and speaks out against Islam and Muslims. He has said, "they will go to hell, for the religion and cult they believe in" (speaking about the Muslims, across the globe). Indirectly, John McCain has also been evasive, non-truthful, and has been out of the way based on things not said.

Where does it all end? When will the politicians, pundits, and overall the people we are paying, to serve the United States, going to realize that the truth is what people want? They want to have leaders that are affable, not swayed by public opinion, polls, and the special interests, but most of all the people want leaders that are completely transparent and honest. Honesty is something people have to work on, invest their souls in, and build with the American people. Trust is not just given, it is earned. Obviously, over the last two calendar weeks countless people, pundits, and politicians have been exposed for "gutter politics," adultery, lying about federal issues, perjury, drugs use, deviant and federal criminal behavior, and the simplest, lying to save their own careers and political futures. The last fourteen days is the largest spectacle of political hubris, than any other fourteen days in political history.

Barack Obama struck a chord, early on, with the country and young adults, because he was supposed to be the face, the grit, and the man with virtue to turn the country around. Fourteen days later, even "The Golden Boy" of the media, Obama is tarnished and will be exposed. He has shown that when it comes to character, choices to walk away from hate speech and the overall degradation of America, he is not beyond reproach, either.