Skellum's Ramblings 2.0

Tea Party Racism

2011-09-24T00:42:00.000-05:00

Definition
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Definition (Obama/Pelosi media era)
1.
Using race to marginalized or vilify dissenting opinions.

Nancy Pelosi is a racist. There was an old while lady in one picture holding a racist sign. Nancy Pelosi is anold white lady. Coincidence?

Obama is also a racist. There have been pictures of well dressed men of color at Tea Party events. Therefore, all well dressed men of color are racist.

--

The sad fact happens to be that racism is not isolated to men and women that love their country. There are many people of many races that can be called racist. The attempt to marginalize common sense (ie: the ability to use a calculator) with name calling is an age old tactic of those that have no ability to support their position.

--

Somehow slavery keeps being brought up as if the Tea Party is a family reunion of the descendants of southern slave owners. Of course, everyone forgets that there is a big monument in DC (Lincoln Memorial) with a giant statue of a descendant of a slave owning family in the ... wait for it ... "North". It would seem that "The South" wasn't the only place where human beings were bought and sold as property.

It is also somehow forgotten that Africans were knee deep in harvesting fresh crops of slaves for sell to the Americas. More to the point, it is forgotten that slavery was not invented when the Declaration of Independence was written. Most seem to forget that slavery predates the United States, hence The South, by ... pretty much the birth of man. All known civilizations in history have practiced slavery.

The North can put a button on it's vest saying they stopped before the south did. However, it cannot accurately assert that The South would have slavery today were it not for the Civil War. While it sped up the process, slavery in The South would not be an aspect of 2011 life.

There is no excuse for enslaving human beings. It doesn't matter if the slaves are the same race, same tribe, different race, or different tribe. The United States learned that lesson. However, we have allowed the media and "race pimps" to profiteer from that time in history. We've allowed politicians to use racism as a blank check on those that disagree.

I've yet to meet a person who can trace their family tree back to a slave owner. The most likely candidates for that particular genealogy would be elected officials in the Democratic and Republican party. The average "white guy" that is called a racist does not come from an affluent family with historical ties to slavery. However, that guy is the one being called a racist. His only sins are 1. being white 2. being able to use a calculator. 3. pointing out that a political movement is a lie.

In short, those that dismiss the Tea Party with name calling should probably wonder why they do so. They might find that they "heard it on tv". Abdicating all of your decision making to mass media is essentially what people refer to as "drinking the Kool-Aid"...

Tent City

2010-12-27T17:20:00.003-06:00

The land of the free and the home of the brave. Out of the houses and into the tents.

The American dream has not been so long forgotten that we forget growing up in a country where a good work ethic and some drive meant you could achieve home ownership. Paying attention to your monthly expenses, saving for a rainy day, and making sure to work hard was all it took. However, those days are either gone or on hiatus.

For decades people have been hard working responsible individuals that paid their bills on time, saved for the future, and contributed back to society. However, our current economy does not pay them the respect that their responsible nature deserves. Obviously I'm not referring to individuals that expect to be taken care of.

There is a common story across our once great nation. People that have earned, invested, saved, and WORKED for whatever they had are suddenly finding themselves with nothing. Retirement plans are emptied to pay mortgages, basic necessities, repairs, and other bills. Jobs disappear and the savings soon disappear also. Within a couple of years, people that were once thriving members of society are reduced to bankruptcy, no health insurance, no job, no money, and no help.

These people are sometimes willing to sign up for Unemployment or some other form of welfare. They have often paid into it for decades without once utilizing it. However, the sad truth is that these people played it safe and lost. They paid their bills on time. They worked every day. They saved for a rainy day. They planned for the future. Then, they lost their income, were not able to get jobs, and have utilized all of those resources they planned for so well.

Meanwhile, the government continues to dig the economy into a deeper hole with no end in sight. To those that once said "We have determined that your entire system sucks", maybe you were on to something...

Conspiracy Theory

2010-12-11T19:27:00.007-06:00

Conspiracy Theory

These days, political discussions quickly boil down to facts vs fiction. Unfortunately, there is no obvious ownership of the facts. Are the "crackpots" telling the truth or making up elaborate scenarios based in wild imagination? Is the government telling the truth or making up some sanitized theory of convenient plausibility?

Emotions get out of control when topics such as 9/11/01, OKC, Waco, Ruby Ridge, or JFK come up. There are those that blindly believe anything the news reports. There are those that believe any rumor that disagrees with the mainstream news. There are also people that support and believe in both sides that either love or hate conspiracy theory.

However, one wonders who benefits from conspiracy theory. Some claim that the theories are created as a subversive mechanism to make people question the government. Some claim that they are natural phenomenon created by years of government secrecy. Some even claim that these conspiracy theories are needed by the government in order to cloud the issue when they do have something to hide.

Unfortunately, there is no easy or obvious answer. There are people that profit from conspiracy theory. There are people that wish to promote distrust in the government. Also, the prolific nature of conspiracy theory does give a significant amount of plausible deniability to the government in that they can dismiss any fact or story as "false" by lumping it in with other things that have been coined "conspiracy theory".

That being said, any three of the above cases can be made with significant plausibility. Was Ruby Ridge an example of bad cops killing witnesses when their operation went bad? Was OKC a failed plot by the FBI to "save the day"? Was 911 an attempt to garner support for the war on terror or to make a leaseholder rich? Was the banking crisis created in an attempt to destabilize the economy and collapse the middle class?

We are unfortunately drawn into a world of "IFs". The support or detraction of any theory boils down to "IF" this is true or "IF" that is false. The items in question are almost always just out of reach. The information could be classified. If there is information that is classified, then only those with access to that information will ever know the truth. (assuming that classified information is accurate in the first place.) While National Security is an important reason to keep some secrets, it is also an aspect of the information haves and have nots.

In a situation where one party to a discussion has access to some earthshaking revelation that makes everything clear and the other does not, they are NOT free to share the information. While they may find it frustrating that somebody "doesn't get it", the other person is just as frustrated that "maybe", "somewhere", exists something that answers the missing "IF".

Even if granted that information, they would likely view it with suspicion as the creator of the information is only as factual as "they" or "them", whoever "they" actually are.

In short, conspiracy theory is a great tool for a government to use to separate the info-haves and info-have nots thus propagating the long standing unknowing that allows a government to function in secret 99% of the time.

Airport Security

2010-11-24T21:04:00.004-06:00

Airport Security, while a hot topic, is somewhat misleading. Much in the same way that locks keep honest people honest rather than bad people out, security is mostly a dog and pony show that keeps honest people honest.

As we've seen over the past few years, those that "need" to smuggle something onto a plane will. Contraband will find it's way into the air.

Our current issues are less about security than about promoting agendas. Molesting children is not something that TSA or any government agency should be involved in. Should they choose to become involved in such activities, they should not be allowed a free pass from recourse by the American people.

Random searches are little more than an inconvenience to terrorists and smuggler. At the same time, they are a violation to honest citizens they "intend" to protect. For years, smugglers have abdicated the danger of being caught to 3rd party mules. Terrorists have utilized indoctrinated suicide bombers or zealots willing to get caught.

Smuggling something through security has always been a law of numbers. Even when you ignore the corruption factor (getting people/items on planes with a complete bypass of all security), If there is a random search, and only 1 in 20 people are selected, the smuggler instantly has 95% chance to get through without being checked. In short, random screenings keep honest people honest. Since the screenings are necessitated by the dishonest, security must address that factor directly.

If we seriously want to get people from point A to point B with 99% assurance of security, we must immediately implement the following:

1. Baggage and Cargo of any kinda cannot be permitted on the same plane as human beings.
2. At the security checkpoint, ALL people must remove all clothing and have it placed in a shipping container to arrive at the same destination before the travelers arrive.
3. The naked people must then be examined fully before being chained together like cattle.

This would eliminate human cargo being exposed to explosives in the cargo area of the airplanes. This would also prevent people from being able to overtake the crew of a flight.

Racism

2010-07-27T19:43:00.004-05:00

It is no surprise that the progressives are calling their opposition "racists". The age old tactic in shutting up an opponent while avoiding the issue is name calling. Instead of acknowledging the facts of the argument, they are doing everything in their power to avoid them.

There are a number of issues involved with the current push to defend the border of our country. The first and most obvious is that it is a "border". Being the outer edge of our country, it only stands to reason that our government should be enforcing the fact that there is a difference between our country and the countries to which it is connected.

There are significant social and economic aspects to border security. An open border, such as the one we now have, has contributed to serious criminal activities in both our country and Mexico. On our side, we have "illegals" (not undocumented workers, not immigrants) that are bringing violent crimes (rape, assault, kidnap, murder) and activities (drugs, prostitution, smuggling) into our country. (as if we didn't already have enough of that already) On their side, we have violent criminal enterprises built on the fact that we DO NOT secure our border.

Were the United States of America to have secured the borders after "Operation Wetback" (I didn't name it), the rampant criminal activities of human smuggling, kidnap, drugs, etc would have not been cultivated to the point that it is now. Of course those things would still exist, however, our government has created an environment where they will simply THRIVE.

More to the point of the accusations, defending the border is not racist simply because a progressive activist organization has deemed it as a way to avoid defending our country. For some reason, they think American's are stupid enough to think that if you are for securing the border, that you want to kill people from Mexico as part of some ethnic cleansing ritual.

The next time you hear a pundit cry racism, look at it differently. Instead of mindlessly agreeing with them, take a moment to wonder what issue they are really trying to avoid talking about.

Illegal Immigration

2010-07-09T21:32:00.004-05:00

Illegal Immigration

An honest discussion about this topic is almost instantly derailed by misinformation and distraction.

Racism is the most commonly used lie to prevent rational discussion. Any attempt to begin a conversation that is in contrast with the agenda of the average liberal will result in calls of racism. While there may be racists that think the border needs to be enforced, not all people that think the border needs to be enforced are racists. In math, we would say the converse is not necessarily true.

Many of the arguments against enforcing the border draw comparisons to the settlers coming into this continent and starting what would eventually become the USA. Essentially, everybody is an illegal immigrant and we have no right to tell anybody to follow any legal process if they wish to live here.

Sadly, this seems to be the most honest argument that I've heard. It's significantly more honest than "they do jobs white people won't do" (which happens to be a racist statement).

Lets assume for a minute that this is true. Lets say that, specifically the flow of people from Mexico, is identical to European settlers. That would put us in the position of the Native Americans so long ago. Americans would be in a position of watching the "invaders/settlers" move in and not being able to stop them. We would be faced with the consequences of losing our government, language, and culture to the "settlers".

Unlike the Native Americans that inhabited this country before the "settlers", we have the resources and ability to stop the settlers. However, we do not have the political will. We do not have leaders that are willing to obey the law. In fact, we have a president that will sue a state for attempting to protect it's border.

Regardless of the terminology that is in use (illegal, migrant, settler, etc), the fact remains that our government is making an overt choice to allow the steady flow of trespassers a free ride to citizenship. Why is this OK? With non citizens voting, our elections are a joke. Why not just allow China or the UN make all legal decisions in our country?

A secure border is not racist. A secure border is the responsibility of the government. Rounding up all people of a specific nationality/ethnicity and oppressing them because of their race is racist. In the age of misinformation, the opposition is always a "racist". They don't need facts, they just need simple minded people that are afraid of being unjustly called racist.

Ideological Subversion

2009-10-28T09:55:00.003-05:00

How To Brainwash A Nation

[Taken from an interview with ex KGB agent Thomas Schuman (Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov)]

Ideological Subversion: (aka Active Measures/Psychological Warfare)
The process of changing America's perception of reality to such an extent that in spite of an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country.

The Marxist/Leninist brainwashing project goes very slow and is divided in 4 basic stages.

Stage 1: Demoralization
This initial phase takes at least 15 to 20 years by design. That is approximately the time required to "educate" a generation of children. The idea is to expose them to Marxist/Leninist ideas while they have "soft heads". According to Yuri, this process was in full swing by the early 60's. It was also said that the progress of Demoralization in the US was not only beyond the expectations of Andropov, but that much of the work was being done by Americans to Americans. Key influences of this stage were progressive liberal politicians, liberal college professors, and organizations such as the ACLU.

Upon completion of this stage, the subverted are no longer able to assess true information even when the facts are in front of them.

Stage 2: Destabilization

The second phase assumes a 2-5yr time frame. In this phase, the movement no longer cares about the ideals or consumption practices of the indoctrinated. Those things are aspects of the completed subversion or indoctrination phase. At this point, the focus becomes destabilization of:

- Economy
- Foreign Relations
- Defense Systems

State 3: Crisis
In this phase, the details of the crisis are related to the country in question. Historically the crisis is specific to the region being subverted. A credit crisis in one country is more significant than a food crisis would be in another. In our country, the economy is the soft mushy target that provides the most significant reach. This stage is the shortest and may take less than 6 weeks.

This phase includes the destabilization of the economy, promises of "all kinds of goodies", promises of "paradise on earth", elimination of free market principles, and culminates in the placement of "big brother" government.

Stage 4: Normalization

In this final stage, the violent change of power structure and economy born in Crisis leads to normalization that lasts indefinitely. The benevolent dictator(s) will make lots of promises and it will not matter that the promises are not fulfilled. The leftists professors and civil rights organizations that were instrumental in the subversion process will longer be needed or relevant. It is expected that those forces will then become disillusioned with the resulting Marxist/Leninist power structure that shunned them and become bitter enemies of the resulting power system.

"This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis." - Yuri

If we see the ACLU attempt to use the US Constitution as a weapon rather than a target, we would likely be in Stage 4 of the Marxist/Leninist/Progressive subversion of the United States of America.

All Your Internet Is Belong To Obama

2009-08-29T09:44:00.003-05:00

At least for the rest of his term. After that, it belongs to the next guy that Obama's masters give us as president.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

The most interesting aspects include:

1. Government certification may be required of key employees of private communication companies. (ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Cox, etc)

2. The federal government could require private companies to support, maintain, and disclose upon request extensive layout maps and documentation. (probably including router and firewall passwords in clear text *lol*)

3. The current reworded version of the bill doesn't limit power that alarmed Internet companies and civil liberties groups but rather obfuscates what power the bill would give.

In the end, it is humorous that the powers that be like to invoke the Constitution when they are justifying an attack on it and it's people.

The deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee said:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States . . ." -Jena Longo

The Constitution, once for "the people", has been turned into a weapon used to attack the people. This most obviously has been during the Bush and Obama administrations.

How Obama Can Make You Rich In a Recession!

2009-06-23T07:14:00.004-05:00

Forgetting everything else that is going on with our geopolitical puppet show, one may find a thread of silver lining in Mr Obama. In troubles times, people become more concerned with money and jobs. Everybody wishes they had a little bit more or that things were a little bit easier.

Often times, the conversations roll around to winning the lottery, finding out your secretly the last remaining heir to Bill Gates, or inventing something everybody on the planet needs. Essentially, people seem to want to be rich.

You can thank your president. Obama's Hope for you to be rich and his ever Changing stance has made many Americans rich overnight! Most don't read between the lines so they don't even know that they are rich yet!

The greedy and evil republicans classified the rich as people that made more than $1Million per year. Obama, being more of an ACORN lackey than a "rich white guy" decided that was too high. The bar needed to be lowered because there are a LOT of Americans out there that make less than $1Million dollars. He promised to only tax the rich, so he redefined rich in order to keep that promise?

When "rich" was redefined to $280k, most Americans decided that was fine, "we don't make that much" or "everybody that makes more than me should PAY UP!" This is human nature and not a surprise. However, some people looked past that and wondered how this would effect small businesses that employ people. Would this place a burden on a small company that caused them to have to scale back employees?

However, this was soon redefined to $250k. It seems that the extra $30k wasn't enough. Obama so needed the additional tax base, that he would turn around and change his stance only days later. Sadly, most people still accepted this and figured it was "still OK" since it didn't touch them. They didn't see the direction the freight train was headed.

Currently, we're looking at an income of $100,000 being considered rich. This instantly turns the suburbs into Beverly Hills. Although $100,000 seems rich to the average ACORN volunteer, it happens to be where the "Jones's" live. It's the salary range that sells new homes, boats and BMW's, anything that credit will finance. $100,000 is now rich according to Obama. This is not the end unfortunately, this is just the biggest cloud of smoke yet to billow from our burning house of a government.

Ponder this: Obama and ACORN seem to be responsible for defining what "Rich" is. The number, another moving target, can almost be identified with a mathematical equation. The numbers we've seen so far (ex: 280k, 250, $100k) are little more than desensitization before the actual "Rich" are unveiled.

When you do this math, you will realize, that you are probably rich beyond your wildest dreams already!

Rich = (((MinWage * 20hr) * 4wk) * 12mo) + 1

So, consider $6.55 for a 20 hour week, every week, for an entire year. If you're only working 20 hours, you probably work all year cause you get a vacation every week anyway. That number works out to: $6,288yr. my "+ 1" may be a little bit of dramatization. More likely it would be changed to "x3 or x5) as the current definition of "Rich", according to Obama, is that formula with x16 instead of " +1 or "a dollar more than everybody else expects to make".

So, to recap.

Rich According to Greedy White Men:

MinWage * AnnualWork * 160 ($1,000,000)

Rich according to Obama:

Originally
MinWage * AnnualWork * 45 ($280,000)
Then
MinWage * AnnualWork * 40 ($250,000)
Now
MinWage * AnnualWork * 16 ($100,000)

In order to better visualize this trend, picture the multiplier as a group of people. The base formula (MinWage * AnnualWork) identifies what any one person in American should be making under the Obama ACORN structure. The multiplier identifies how many of these Obama/ACORN Americans it takes to make the salary of the rich.

In short, if you make more than $6,288 per year, you will be considered rich by the time Obama and ACORN come out of the closet on this.

Obama's Latest Gun Control Lies

2009-05-13T13:59:00.005-05:00

(The honest double talk of the President would be as follows: "90% of the 100% of the 10% of Mexico's guns are from America". However, it's not as scandalous to say that 9% of the weapons are from America and the remaining 89% are not.)

In the most recent volley of attacks on the Constitution of the United States of America, President Obama makes the argument that our 2nd Amendment is trumped by distorted facts associated with the problems of a country that is NOT the United States of America.

The Assertion: American guns make up 90% of the weapons used in Mexico.

The Underlying Argument: In order to fix the problem in Mexico, we must lock down firearm rights in the United States.

The Reality: Mexico's problems are significantly larger than American firearms. If one were to pick a substantial contributor to Mexican problems related to America, it would have to be the conscious decision to not enforce the border.

The lack of enforcement has contributed to more problems for America and Mexico than a singular issue such as weapon traffic. The refusal to enforce border security has contributed to human and drug trafficking. Weapon trafficking is a byproduct of those two "industries".

Using the border caused problems as a marketing device to pursue anti-gun legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to generate support for the progressive anti-American (anti constitution) policies of our current administration (or at least the people that paid for him and his teleprompter).

If our President Obama were honestly interested in Mexico, he would acknowledge the obvious fact that these issues are associated to years of consciously not enforcing and not allowing enforcement of the US/Mexico border. He would acknowledge that that any American guns in Mexico are trafficked as a byproduct of that past/present/forseable future policy to NOT enforce the border.

Back to the root of the lie: 90% of the guns confiscated by Mexico that are "assumed" to be American are "shipped" back to America and then checked. 90% of the ones selected to be checked are deemed to be from America. That is a significant difference. Consider the following statements:

"90% of the guns in Mexico are from America"
-AND-
"90% of the guns Mexico thinks are American actually come from America"

The more honest statement would be that approximately 10% of the guns in Mexico are sent to the United States, checked, and 90% of those turn out to be from America. The additional fact would be that over 80% of the weapons in Mexico are from Russia, China, Korea and do not arrive via our borders.

Even when we factor in the results of not enforcing the border, only 10% are coming into their country in that manner. The bulk of weapons are arriving via ship through Mexican government controlled ports. While enforcing the border wouldn't stop most of the guns coming in, it would assist in limiting human and drug trafficking.

The thing that should get Americans fired up: The President is using the problems of another country to attempt to limit freedoms within the United States of America. The President is lying about the facts in an attempt to cause Americans to think we're supplying 90% of Mexico's weapons when in fact we are not. The President is abusing Mexico's situation in an attempt to promote an unpopular and unconstitutional agenda. When Obama says "The Stars Have Aligned", we should be scared. We should be very scared.

Those unfamiliar with "Wounded Knee" (1890) should take a moment to imagine the burial pictures as follows:

look at the pictures and imagine Law Abiding Americans in the mass graves. Imagine Obama and congress standing on the edge holding guns over the dead bodies piled on top of each other. The anti-American politics that are so popular today will likely contribute to a lesser violent situation of the same result.

Attempting to Understand the Federal Government

2009-04-21T10:28:00.004-05:00

Recently, a couple of documents surfaced that warned law enforcement of Right Wing Extremists. The first of these documents to be leaked was the MIAC report from Missouri. This document was made public in February of 2009. The second of these documents was Janet Napolitano's DHS document of which an edited version was made public in April of 2009.

Unfortunately, these documents highlight the Federal Government's need to limit free speech. The following is a list of speech or thinking that the government uses to identify Right Wing Extremists:

Opposes restrictions on firearms
Opposes lax immigration
Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs
Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
Opposes same-sex marriage
Has paranoia of foreign regimes
Fear of Communist regimes
Opposes one world government
Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India

Some items in the above list deal with the Federal Governments refusal to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America. Some items are pro America anti Globalism. Some are social policy. However, they all have an interesting commonality in that they oppose current progressive politics.

The unfortunate message is that those that do not agree with those progressive policies must be vilified and given a title such as "Domestic Terrorist" in an attempt to marginalize the views, polarize society, and create an official "bad guy".

While the list includes items that are not "Politically Correct", there are no anti American sentiments. In fact, most are directed at protecting the country from foreign interests.

In short, this list does little more than identify the agenda and create a political environment where it is acceptable to "hate" those that dare assume that the Federal Government is not bigger than the States or the Constitution of the United States of America.

Janet Napolitano: The Real Questions We Should Be Asking

2009-04-18T09:27:00.003-05:00

The recent revelation by Janet Napolitano of the redefinition of "Terrorism" has created both fear and outrage among those that love the United States of America.

Incidents that were previously considered "terrorist acts" (referring to acts performed by foreign combatants targeting Americans or American interests) are now called "Man-Caused Disasters".

Terrorism is now reserved for Americans that do not agree with the Anti-American policies of the Obama administration or the illegal expansion of power that the people within the political structure of our government are currently exploring.

In short, we should not be interested in an apology. We should also not be interested in her firing. However, we should be asking some very important questions.

1. How long has this information been available to law enforcement?

The documents were partially released to the public. We have not seen the original versions. We have not seen the complete documents. At the point that "we the people" were able to view the documents, they had already been made available to the Law Enforcement community. How long have these documents been in use by Law Enforcement?

2. Who ordered the creation of these documents?

Janet Napolitano likely hasn't the power to, on her own, create a policy of treating Americans as villains because they do not agree with the Federal Government. It is a fairly large step to move focus from foreign combatants to Americans when creating an enemy in the eye of public opinion. The contents of the documents should be of less concern than finding out WHO it is that wants Americans vilified for loving their country.

3. What is the end game?

This is the question that inspires "fear" in the hearts and minds of Americans. Why would the government need to create a fake sense of "bad guy" that can be applied to those who speak or think differently than the Federal Government? The most obvious answers range from marginalizing political opponents to creating an atmosphere where the FedGov can get popular support for rounding up people that think they still have a First Amendment right to free speech.

ATF, FBI, Secret Service, and Military personnel will always think twice about randomly raiding an American residence on American soil for political reasons. But what if you take that person exercising their freedom of speech, their 2ND Amendment, and their love for the United States of America and make them out to be a TERRORIST? Suddenly, you get the ability to send armed people into law abiding citizens homes and shut them up with impunity.

Simply associating a law abiding citizen with Timothy McVeigh will create a sense of danger and urgency. No one will ask why. The news will report a great victory in defeating a terrorist.

Will this happen? Why has the Federal Government unleashed a negative marketing campaign on the very people that support the documents that allow it to exist? Has the Federal Government grown to the point that it supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America? Is the fear of playing by the rules so condescending that the Federal Government would choose to vilify the citizens that have somehow escaped the indoctrination they should have already absorbed?

DHS(Civil Liberties) Feelings About Released RWE Warning

2009-04-17T00:50:00.005-05:00

News Story: http://tinyurl.com/c6mv24
RWE: Right Wing Extremist

According to the news, Civil Liberties officials at the DHS were not happy with some of the language used in the RWE release. It would seem that people might find it offensive.

Unfortunately, this entirely misses the point. The words used to describe the individuals to look out for are not the problem. The fact that they are officially making it a point to begin polarizing society is the problem.

The people being labeled as "bad" or "potential terrorists" or people to "watch" are the enemies of "bad government" or "oppressive government". This is particularly scary in that government is overstepping it's bounds as seen in it's attempt to assume non-existent power and exert that power over industry and the state governments.

However, the fedgov knows that it only has to convince a significant portion of the country that the unindoctrinated are somehow "evil" or "dangerous". Those that believe in the United States of America, it's Constitution, it's Union of States, and the limits of fedgov are now being treated as if they are traitors to their country.

This is a classic redefinition of terms. When the fedgov moves to break the laws which made this nation official, they are the ones "attacking" the country. When they usurp the title of United States of America they defy that the States are individual and united within a "specific" framework. When they overcome the will of the state governments they attack those states. Since there is no ability to hide the Constitution or change history overnight, the fedgov redefines the roles.

Under this redefinition, those that adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America are now to be considered RWE (Right Wing Extremists) and dangerous to the government. This begins to paint the "good guy/bad guy" picture in the heads of those that blindly trudge through life with no concern for anything other than what the government offers them in handouts and misinformation. With enough time and reinforcement, the average sheeple will begin to forget the Constitution and believe that real Americans are somehow Terrorists.

Sadly, it makes me wonder if the USA will have it's own Tiananmen Square once the government has achieve it's propaganda campaign against it's own citizens. Remember, Freedom of Speech only applies to them and their supporters. With this new watch list, opposing opinions are now officially "dangerous" to the state.

AAIM:DS (Anti-American Indoctrination Media: Daily Show

2009-04-16T08:12:00.004-05:00

Why do I watch the Daily Show?

- Centralizing yourself to a single news outlet limits your ability to understand the news and get the concepts that literally "drive" society and information.

- To understand the indoctrinated (those who get news/information/knowledge from a single source).

- To gauge the level and direction of indoctrination.

- Because it's funny.

Sadly, many people confuse humor with fact. Individuals who rely upon John Stewart for accurate reporting will find themselves led like sheep to information and conclusions based in the comedic twists of fact that are required to achieve a punch line.

On a number of occasions, I've found myself discussing an issue with an overly confident purveyor of "fact" that was obviously gleaned from John Stewart. After listening to their points, I acknowledge that I also watched that episode of the Daily Show. From there, you are able to talk about the facts of the matter w/o necessarily having to argue directly with the agenda of the writers of a television show which are not part of that conversation.

In short, you can't discuss issues with people that are indoctrinated by the media unless you understand what weapons have been used against them. If you get all of your news from ABC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. you will find yourself unable to accurately form an opinion other than the one handed to you.

It is healthy to get information from multiple sources, preferably with different agendas, in order to read between the lines. If base your opinions upon what you are told, then you're missing the truth, which lives between the lines...

Document: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

2009-04-14T17:27:00.002-05:00

IA-0257-09
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism:
Current Economic and Political
Climate Fueling Resurgence in
Radicalization and Recruitment
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information
should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize
investigative activities.
(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to
FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized
DHS official. State and local homeland security officials may share this document with authorized security personnel without further approval from DHS.
(U) All U.S. person information has been minimized. Should you require the minimized U.S. person information, please contact the DHS/I&A Production Branch at
IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling
Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
7 April 2009
(U) Prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis
Division. Coordinated with the FBI.
(U) Scope
(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the
Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the
phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is
provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement
officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks
against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be
conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States
Government sponsorship.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 2 of 9
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the
1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an
economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to
U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in
violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 9
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.
— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.
(U) Current Economic and Political Climate
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.
— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government.”
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors,
and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate
conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics
are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize
those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to
accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.
(U) Historical Presidential Election
(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment
tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential
administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and
citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 4 of 9
(U//FOUO) Perceptions on Poverty and Radicalization
(U//FOUO) Scholars and experts disagree over poverty’s role in motivating violent radicalization or
terrorist activity. High unemployment, however, has the potential to lead to alienation, thus increasing
an individual’s susceptibility to extremist ideas. According to a 2007 study from the German Institute
for Economic Research, there appears to be a strong association between a parent’s unemployment
status and the formation of rightwing extremist beliefs in their children—specifically xenophobia and
antidemocratic ideals.
ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns
and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the
present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in
expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential
sympathizers.
— (U//LES) Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical,
expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president,
but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the
election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some
threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement
interceded.
(U) Revisiting the 1990s
(U//FOUO) Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the
1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility
and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s
opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those
with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as
well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion,
inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to
the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an
increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
(U) Economic Hardship and Extremism
(U//FOUO) Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and
anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States. Prominent
antigovernment conspiracy theorists have incorporated aspects of an impending
economic collapse to intensify fear and paranoia among like-minded individuals and to
attract recruits during times of economic uncertainty. Conspiracy theories involving
declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the
U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of
a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could
motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.
These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist
individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and
extremist members of the militia movement.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 5 of 9
(U) Illegal Immigration
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
(U//FOUO) Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and
white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point,
and recruiting tool. Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy
generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment,
but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed
against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a
perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite
individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely
would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.
— (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have
observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and
explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had
discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after
communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants
crossing into the United States.
(U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers
(U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition
stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such
activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to
facilitate criminal activity and violence.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government
was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law
that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the
1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of
various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the
confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 6 of 9
— (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year
requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar
legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging
and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law;
nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control
legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and
paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.
(U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred
rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of
ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further
exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity.
Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates
attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move
at this time.
(U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested
subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear
arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the
precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and
parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent
extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization
tool.
(U) Perceived Threat from Rise of Other Countries
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist paranoia of foreign regimes could escalate or be
magnified in the event of an economic crisis or military confrontation, harkening back to
the “New World Order” conspiracy theories of the 1990s. The dissolution of Communist
countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some
rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world
government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution,
thus infringing upon their liberty. The dynamics in 2009 are somewhat similar, as other
countries, including China, India, and Russia, as well as some smaller, oil-producing
states, are experiencing a rise in economic power and influence.
— (U//FOUO) Fear of Communist regimes and related conspiracy theories
characterizing the U.S. Government’s role as either complicit in a foreign
invasion or acquiescing as part of a “One World Government” plan inspired
extremist members of the militia movement to target government and military
facilities in past years.
— (U//FOUO) Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members
in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 7 of 9
(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing
extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information
from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist
cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.
— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most
significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from
any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.
— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the
dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone
wolves carrying out acts of violence.
— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas,
and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence
of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.
ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal
facilities and infrastructure targets.
— (U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and
have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability
to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to
pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and
corporations as a part of subversion strategy.
(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military
veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.
— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”
— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement
that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
joined extremist groups.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 8 of 9
(U) Outlook
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo
the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and
returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain
economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating
rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements.
To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.
(U//FOUO) Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage
technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to
information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of
individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and
groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New
technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted
communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad,
making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent
extremist attack.
(U//FOUO) A number of law enforcement actions and external factors were effective in
limiting the militia movement during the 1990s and could be utilized in today’s climate.
— (U//FOUO) Following the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal
building in Oklahoma City, the militia movement declined in total membership
and in the number of organized groups because many members distanced
themselves from the movement as a result of the intense scrutiny militias received
after the bombing.
— (U//FOUO) Militia membership continued to decline after the turn of the
millennium as a result of law enforcement disruptions of multiple terrorist plots
linked to violent rightwing extremists, new legislation banning paramilitary
training, and militia frustration that the “revolution” never materialized.
— (U//FOUO) Although the U.S. economy experienced a significant recovery and
many perceived a concomitant rise in U.S. standing in the world, white
supremacist groups continued to experience slight growth.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next
several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing
extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political,
economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 9 of 9
(U) Reporting Notice:
(U) DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal
activity to DHS and the FBI. The DHS National Operations Center (NOC) can be reached by telephone at
202-282-9685 or by e-mail at NOC.Fusion@dhs.gov. For information affecting the private sector and
critical infrastructure, contact the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center (NICC), a sub-element of the
NOC. The NICC can be reached by telephone at 202-282-9201 or by e-mail at NICC@dhs.gov. The FBI
regional phone numbers can be found online at http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm. When available,
each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of
equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated
point of contact.
(U) For comments or questions related to the content or dissemination of this document, please contact the
DHS/I&A Production Branch at IA.PM@hq.dhs.gov, IA.PM@dhs.sgov.gov, or IA.PM@dhs.ic.gov.
(U) Tracked by: CRIM-040300-01-05, CRIM-040400-01-05, TERR-010000-01-05

Political Bashing ... The Never Ending Saga!

2009-04-07T18:11:00.004-05:00

Regarding a DCCC.org post with the normal D vs R rhetoric. Of course there were lots of proD moderator approved comments. Here is my summation of how both sides suck ;-)

link: http://dccc.org/blog/archives/bachmann_i_want_peoplearmed_and_dangerous_on_this_issue/

Funny how both sides like to twist things so far in their direction that everybody starts to sound like an idiot.

Obama is more socialist/marxist than American in direction.
(requiring bank participation in order to allow government control is an obvious start)

Regarding her comments on Thomas Jefferson: Yes, when the government starts assuming power that it was never given, they probably do leave the people no option other than what Thomas Jefferson mentions.

She's no more over the top than whoever wrote this email and sent it out. If both sides were concerned with the well being of our country instead of pushing agendas and indoctrinating their audiences, the country, as a whole, would probably get something done.

When will the Democrats and Republicans stop petty fighting over made up issues? Probably when their leaders stop taking orders from the people that give them money and marching orders.

When somebody asks if you are Democrat or Republican, if you would say D or R, just replace admit that you're sheeple that do whatever the guy with "your letter" tell you.

Are FEMA Camps built to hold "True Americans" (patriots or terrorists)

2009-04-06T11:14:00.003-05:00

One of the common questions in these uncertain times happens to revolve around the FEMA camps. In short, these are facilities designed to securely hold between 20,000 and 40,000 people.

Those that are aware of these facilities call them "concentration camps". This is primarily because they are guarded and designed to keep people inside rather than to keep people out. A video tour of a facility reminds one of doomsday movies where zombies are running rampant and the powers that be are quarantining people that may be infected with some virus.

Beyond the first impressions, the theory behind the camps is scary to those that do not trust the government and are worried that their Constitutional rights are hanging by a thread. While we do not know how those in power would actually use these facilities, we do know that they "can" do things that would normally be considered unheard of in the United States of America.

Unfortunately, we did see armed US military forces in New Orleans stripping people of their weapons, taking over buildings, and entering privately occupied homes with assault weapons drawn on law abiding citizens. We also saw troops patrolling the streets, that when interviewed, said they would much rather be patrolling in a foreign country as they had no stomach for shooting Americans in an American city.

In short, we don't know what the "plan" is. However, we do know that military forces can and have been placed in our own country with our own citizens as the target of their missions. The government is being trusted to have the best interest of the people at heart. Hopefully talking about it in a blog like this doesn't earn you a place on their list. With a 40,000 person capacity, the government would have to be selective about who was "chosen" to live in one of these facilities.

Among the unfortunate happenings in our current time, we have Obama enacting "change" that does little more than continue in the steps of Bush while devaluing our economy and destroying the hopes of our children. These are the things that make us fear the indoctrination that created mindless Obama supporters that are too blind to see that he's identical to the guy they hated and could not wait vote out of office.

Who Really Rules The World?

2009-04-02T13:47:00.006-05:00

I've run into this question a number of times since the start of the 2008 Election hype. Before Obama skyrocketed on to the scene, my assumption was that Hillary was going to be the next president. This assumption dated back to when GWB became president in 2000. Although it was expected that a Democrat would be president by the time he finished his two terms, I had fully expected that Democrat would be Hillary. Leave it to Obama to make me look like an idiot. :-)

Enough digression. As with any crime, you need means, motive, and opportunity to direct politics. In order to begin understanding who "really" runs our government (kinda have to know before you can figure out who runs the entire world.), one needs to take a look at our policy, economy, and demographics to begin creating a framework to identify what forces are in play.

"Follow the money" is often a good rule of thumb. However, this does not account for the opportunistic nature of humanity. As such, we have to assume that not everybody that is profiting from a specific program or policy is the creator of that program or policy. As people, we have the ability to work within the bounds of a system, find loopholes, and exploit them for profit. Given that, there will always be people capable of profiting from a situation even if there was no conspiracy on their part to create that situation.

So, back to the matter and hand. In order to begin to understand who runs things, we have to find a verifiable trend over a large time period. Of course, the most obvious would be the banking industry that allegedly tricked our politician into setting up the fed in the early 1900s. While the FED itself doesn't run the country, it is often considered a tool (or secondary organization) for influencing the will of those that do run things.

Of course we're assuming that something is happening "behind the scenes" to dictate policy and that the people dictating that policy are not those that have been elected by the people.

Since I'm not connected to these groups, I cannot definitively say what goes on behind closed doors. However, I will leave links to some information about the various groups assumed to have varying degrees of policy making power for our government.

Bilderberg Group
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
Bohemian Grove
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
Pacific Union Club
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-Union_Club

It's interesting to read. Of course there are references to Masons and Illuminati to be found, but at least the above referenced groups have had verifiable meetings during the time period in question.

Happy reading!

Hillary Clinton Is Full Of Shit! (re Mexico)

2009-03-26T21:23:00.004-05:00

Her points were flimsy misinformation which has been rehashed by various liberals that survive on a steady diet of "gee wiz, we need to idiot proof everything".

According to Hillary:

The mexican drug cartel violence and destabilization of the border region is the fault of America because (1) our drug demand dictates their drug trade and (2) ~98% of the weapons used are provided by Americans.

re(1): The drug trade would not have achieved it's current level had border security been treated seriously. Our governments need to placate big business interests by providing free labor ($3.00 per hour to replace a $25 per hour employee might as well be free).

re(2): If our 2nd amendment right is spilling over into Mexico like a plague, then maybe we need to refer back to (1) and acknowledge that BORDER SECURITY would have to be blamed (at least the lack of border security).

[Not to digress too much, but as she has inadvertently implied, Border Security is not just to protect America from Mexico.]

Additionally, she referred to the Assault Weapon Ban as having reduced crime. This over simplification does not account for the fact that:

-Americans that legally buy assault weapons keep them. They do not spend $1400+ on a weapon in order to secretly sell it for $400 to somebody taking it across the border (or into an American city to supply gangs).

-Many of the weapons (at least the ones that you see watching the news) are similar/identical to (and probably stolen from) the Mexican military & police.

In summary, she's full of shit because she's blaming the law abiding citizens of our country for the American government's failure to secure the border. (mexicans and americans pay for this failure.) Additionally, she's full of shit for getting on TV and lying to us by implying that preventing the sale of guns to law abiding citizens is the fuel of international gun trade.

On a more humorous note, the conspiracist would probably say that she's right that 98% of the weapons come from America and she probably has seen the receipts from the CIA shipments to prove it. *lol* (sorry, had to throw that on in there at the last minute)

Interesting Visualization of the Credit Crisis

2009-03-18T09:56:00.001-05:00

This is one of the more interesting methods of explaining the "credit crisis" that is in the news.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Are You A Domestic Terrorist?

2009-03-18T08:18:00.003-05:00

[According to the following, I would be considered a Domestic Terrorist for accepting the Constitution of the United States of America. It is an interesting read.]

Secret Report Targets Americans

Police Told Which Political Beliefs to Consider “Dangerous”

Lancaster, PA: A secret police report targets millions of Americans as potential “domestic terrorists” if they support the Constitution, oppose unlawful taxation, supported 2008 presidential candidates Republican Ron Paul, Libertarian Bob Barr or Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin (Seen here on Lou Dobbs program ), or if they are opposed to abortion, are against unconstitutional gun control, if they display pro-Constitution bumper stickers or own copies of certain books and documentaries.

The report is part of an ongoing attempt by a number of organizations (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/intrep.jsp) and movements to characterize law-abiding citizens as “white supremacists”, members of “hate groups” or, more recently as “terrorists”.

The report was generated by the Missouri Information Analysis Center

The Center is described as “the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri. MIAC will also function as a vehicle for two-way communication between federal, state and local law enforcement community within our region.”

The secret report, distributed to Missouri law enforcement, lists as dangerous legitimate organizations including those who follow a Constitutionally-based ideology in regard to states’ rights, firearm ownership, free speech and sanctity of life.

The Constitution Party , the fastest- growing third party, subscribes to the Constitutionally- based, limited role of the federal government and calls on members of all political ideologies to voice strong opposition to smear campaigns that demonize Americans because of their political beliefs.

The Constitution Party made numerous calls to MIAC and was told an “officer” would respond to questions regarding this report.

No one at MIAC returned our calls.

The MIAC report states “rightwing” militia movements “continuously exploit world events in order to increase participation in their movements. Due to the current economical and political situation, a lush environment for militia activity has been created.”

The terms “constitutionalist” and “white supremacist” are often used interchangeably.

Page 7 of the report warns law enforcement that “militia members most commonly associate with 3^rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional [sic] Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidate:[sic] Ron Paul Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.”

Issues of concern to those listed by MIAC as reason for law enforcement to label them “terrorists” include: Opposition to illegal immigration, implementation of RFID (radio frequency identification) and the planned merger of the US, Canada and Mexico (North American Union). The so-called “militia movement” contains people who own copies of the late Aaron Russo’s anti-tax documentary America: Freedom to Fascism.

Members of a so-called “patriot movement” are described as being “dangerous” to police in a section of the report titled “You Are the Enemy” which states:

“The militia subscribes to an anti-government and NWO mindset, which creates a threat to law enforcement officers. They view the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps.”

The MIAC report distributed to Missouri law enforcement is a more virulent version of a similar report compiled by the FBI in Phoenix, AZ during the Clinton administration (see page one and page two of the document). The Phoenix FBI document calls “defenders” of the Constitution “right-wing extremists.”

Constitution Party 2008 presidential and vice presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle, along with CP National Chairman Jim Clymer, are available to discuss this disturbing report and the severe limitations it seeks to impose on free speech.

Inquiries regarding this secret report may be made to: MIAC at 866 362 6422.

To see where citizens are encouraged to submit a report that someone could be a “terrorist” click HERE.

###

Take Action Now!

1. Call the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce and say you will not be visiting Missouri out of concern of being PROFILED.

(314) 231-5555

2. Call the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and tell them you won't visit Missouri because of "political profiling". (800) 325-7962

3. Call the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) and tell them their smear campaign is not acceptable.(866) 362-6422 and (573)-526-6115

DONATE NOW TO HELP SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY

To unsubscribe from CPNC newsletters click here.
Please visit our website at http://www.constitutionparty.org/.

Conspiracy Never Dies (when it's fueled properly)

2009-03-17T09:49:00.007-05:00

Another interesting link that some will regard as truth and others will regard as fiction.

US Government "False Flag" Operation Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

What did NORAD know/do on September 11th 2001?

http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html

Q. Was the destruction of the Twin Towers a "False Flag" operation by the government of the United States?

A. No Freaking Clue!

Q. Did the Israelis vacate the twin towers the weekend before 9/11/01?

A. No Earthly Idea!

Q. Did a secret "security sweep" of the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11/01 allow explosives and thermite to be installed in the Twin Towers?

A. No Way I Could Know That!

Q. Did building 7 fall live on the BBC news nearly 10 minuets AFTER they announced it had fallen even though there was no damage to that building?

A. Dunno, All I Saw Was The Footage On YouTube.

Q. Did Building 7 contain most of the SEC files related to Enron and also house a CIA operation that was entirely destroyed even though there was no damage to that building before it collapsed into the ground?

A. Sounds like a bad Hollywood script, but I still have no idea since I've never been to Building 7 or even seen it in person.

However, these theories seem to live on. Are they true? Are they propaganda? Why do so many people assume that they are true? Why do so many people assume that they are false?

Although I'm interested in the various theories, I wasn't there and cannot presume to know what did or didn't happen. If I had a wish, it would be to know what actually happened instead of living with a mixture of wild conspiracy theory and government misinformation.

I understand that the government has to give us something other than the facts and the truth in order to protect national security and ensure as much public calm as possible. However, the misinformation has created a breeding ground for conspiracy theory.

If a nuke device was set off under the Twin Towers, then the government would obviously not want anybody to know about that even if they didn't do it themselves. Thermite, C4, and who knows what else (mini nuke is often cited for Twin Towers and Oklahoma City) come up in conversations about how these two steel buildings are the only ones in the history of modern engineering to collapse from fire damage. This is particularly exciting to conspiary theorists as no building has ever collapsed from less than 20 hours of inferno and did not collapse entirely or make a straight fall to the ground.

Anyway, interesting to read, both sides are too far fetched to believe, and we'll not know the truth in our lifetimes. But, at least we get to continue in the adventure of questioning what we're told and trying to find some reality in between the lines.

I Know It's True, I Read It On Wikipedia!!!!

2009-03-10T17:00:00.004-05:00

In general, Wikipedia is a great source for general information. In most cases, the information found there is somewhat accurate. However, wikipedia, like most information stores, is not the "end all be all" of fact.

There was once a time, when the Internet consisted primarily of factual data. This would be before the commercialization of the Internet and the ability of anybody with a computer to post. We've all heard (or jokingly said) "I found it on the Internet so it must be true".

The parasitic nature of online activism has come to fracture the foundations of information stores such as Wikipedia.

- Facts are replaced by opinions

- Inconvenient facts are omitted

- Agendas are being sold as truth

As Wikipedia gained enough popularity for everybody to tuck it into their toolboxes (seems like yesterday there was no google or wikipedia), it also became subject to the tainting that occurs with all good things.

Although it's uncertain if Wikipedia was intended as a harbor of activism and agenda based fact twisting, the current truth is that people are abusing it. Unfortunately, anti-American activism is more likely to be acceptable while pro-American activism is quickly "cleaned up".

In short, people need to understand that impartiality is not a given on Wikipedia. Additionally, pro-American concepts need to be defended when they are removed and added where they are absent.

No Taxation Without Representation

2009-03-02T08:26:00.004-06:00

Representation: The action or fact of one person standing for another so as to have the rights and obligations of the person(s) represented.

Represent: To take the place of in some respect. To act in the place of or for usually by legal right. To Manage the legal and business affairs of. To serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election.

The current taxation actions DO NOT fit within this scope. As such, they are a violation of the constitution. In order to make the current actions adhere to the constitution, we must redefine the word "representation".

Our governments current definition would have to be changed like this:

Representation(usgov): Ignoring the will, needs, and rights of the people in order to pass a laundry list of agenda items that had previously not been allowed simply because you can now get enough votes.

The people are not being represented in these bills. Sound economics are not present in these bills. The constitution is not being upheld or protected by these bills. Given that our Military is sworn to protect the constitution, it would be a great news day to see them storm the White House and Congress and clean up this mess they way the founders would have wanted.

No wonder they don't want the people to have a 2nd amendment. The actions being taken by our government are getting increasingly close to what the 2nd amendment was designed to prevent.

Obama the Liar: Tax The Rich

2009-02-28T10:31:00.004-06:00

Wow, are we really a nation of morons? When Obama speaks, he does it as if his speech writers have given him the next historical document and the TV cameras on recording gold.

This week, we were informed by "our" president that he's going to "tax the rich". He then proceeds to say that the aforementioned "rich" are people making more than $250k per year. Of course the next day he alters that and now the "rich" are people making more than $208k per year.

Why is this a lie? Because those people are not "The Rich" by any stretch of the word. Had he said the rich were those making $1million or more per year, he would have been somewhat honest. However, his $208k or $250k (depending on the day) targets a large demographic of individuals and business that are GOOD for our economy and provide more benefits than the additional tax burden will achieve.

The only things that saves Obama in the eyes of the common voter would be the fact that more people do not make $208k per year than do. He doesn't have to be honest or fair to the people he is taxing, he just needs to make more friends than enemies.

Obama's lie is that rather than playing Robin Hood and robbing the rich and giving it to the poor, he's attacking the PRODUCERS in our society, leaving the real "Rich" out of harms way, and pandering to the poor. But, until he takes it out on your demographic, sleep easy and be glad that somebody else is shouldering the burden for you.

The Irresponsible Home Buyers!!!!

2009-02-25T20:30:00.006-06:00

One of the most annoying things I keep hearing on the news is the notion that the mortgage industry problem is caused by "irresponsible home buyers" that for whatever reason bought homes that they knew that they couldn't afford.

My biggest issue with this is the insinuation that the problem was caused by millions of irresponsible people that somehow had the power to approve their own loans. How is it that the media, including FoxNews is neglecting to acknowledge that BANKS decide which loans get approved and which get denied?

With the exception of certain lending institutions such as Freddy and Fanny, the push for sub prime lending was not a result of government pressure. It was a sign of greed withing the mortgage industry. The loans that were being advertised and spoon fed to the "irresponsible" home buyers were no accident. Even if greedy realtors were taking it upon themselves to market the dangerous loans, the BANK decided if it was going to fund the loan.

Irresponsible Home Buyers is a distraction from the real issue.

1. Realtors specifically marketed risky loans in an attempt to sell houses that were extremely overvalued in a market that was expected to soften considerably.

2. Banks approved and funded those loans knowing the risky nature of the papers and the overvalued nature of the asset.

3. Bankruptcy laws were tightened to limit bankruptcy options

4. The safe payment era of the risky arm loans expired and the real payments started coming due.

5. As houses foreclose, the market begins to slide.

When a homeowner can see this coming, how can a rational person believe that the banks that funded these loans were clueless???

To the credit of the Irresponsible home buyers, many were led to believe that growth was going to continue, even with the interest only options, they would be able to live in their home for a couple of years, sell it, then buy a home they could more easily afford with the profits. While this is similar to gambling, it was also based on lies. Realtors in the early 2000's were not always honest with their buyers.

The bottom line is that the people responsible for this issue are NOT being held accountable in any way. This was not an accident. Look at the data for the last 10 years. The signs were there. We saw them and worked on getting out before the storm. However, things are worse than even i had anticipated. Unfortunately, we're not at "the bottom" yet . . .

Our Economy and the O Bomb

2009-02-14T20:10:00.004-06:00

It looks like our economy is about to take a hit. Bigger than the one conceived by the terrorists when they began trying to blow up the World Trade Center in the late 1900s. This one consists of random special interest programs the Democrats have been unable to get through during the years of the Republican controlled White House and Congress.

This coming Tuesday our president is scheduled to sign the Stimulus bill into law. The amount of misinformation and lies associated to this package is astounding. Nobody has read it cover to cover. The positive effects are expected to be minimal, less than $15 per week per person in net gain. The negative effects, gross government spending and expansion, will last until the house of cards collapses into something we do not recognize as the United States of America.

Brace yourselves, the O-Bomb is gonna detonate our economy Tuesday..

What Exactly Is Economic Stimulus?

2009-02-12T12:04:00.004-06:00

To listen to some high profile politicians, stimulus is spending money to create a job. Not only is there no scope associated to performance of spent dollars, but there is an assumption that any money spent should be considered stimulative.

I'm sure that there are a number of things in the package which are short term in that they provide an instant job that will perform a task and then end. At the end of that particular "job", the money is gone, and a product such as a road or government building is the result. This does not scale in terms of long term economic growth.

Equally stimulative (in many ways) would be to create short term jobs by providing politicians with an account for hiring prostitutes. It would create "short term" jobs while creating no lasting stimulative effect as there was no scalable product produced. The prostitutes would be getting paid, the politicians would be getting something of interest, and the money would work it's way back into the market.

Are we still supposed to believe that ANY spending by the government to hire somebody to do something constitutes stimulus that will recover our economy?

Fox News: Fair & Balanced?

2009-02-12T11:35:00.005-06:00

The claim of "fair and balanced" gets arguments started. Most detractors say that FoxNews is nothing more than a right wing media front. Most fans will say that FoxNews is the only media that delivers news not approved by the left wing media front.

It's a given that the mainstream media as delivered by the major networks is left leaning, and in some cases ultra liberal. Examples cited often relate to Obama getting a free ride during the PotUS race while the opponents faced tough questions and harsh reviews. On the other hand, detractors of FoxNews will point out that FoxNews was giving no good press on Obama, while promoting only Republican candidates.

So we get to the point where we have to acknowledge that it's probably not possible to be "both" Fair and Balanced in this particular media. This would require that all of the candidates were given an unbiased assessment of pros and cons. Were FoxNews to be "fair" in this manner, the public would still be missing balance.

As we throw a little logic into the mix, we find that the things that detractors hate about FoxNews are the things that make it Balanced. In order to balance mainstream media, the "other side" has to be delivered. Since the liberal opinions are promoted on outlets like ABC and MSNBC, FoxNews seems to be the only outlet delivering the other side of those issues.

Now we get to a bit of a stretch on the word "fair". Although FoxNews does have a conservative slant, we have already determined that it is required that both sides get out. Since FoxNews is the major outlet of the other side of the story, it is "fair" that they exist and provide the other side.

This still doesn't accommodate the "level" of fairness or balance. The thought that FoxNews is an ultra right wing organization with "out there" reporting needs a reality check. Were fox news to perform as Rush Limbaugh does, going off the deep end twisting things around for entertainment to extremes, just as the ultra liberal outlets do, then yes FoxNews would be in that category. However, FoxNews does not twist to the right as far as others twist to the left. This is where FoxNews, although primarily leaning conservative, IS performing in a Fair and Balanced nature when compared to the "other side".

Obama: Liar or Idiot?

2009-02-12T08:57:00.002-06:00

S M U G - the only way to describe obama with regard to "stimulus IS spending by definition".

It's a shame to see him lie to us like that. He is either a moron or a liar. The statement about stimulus is as misleading as it presumes that ANY spending is stimulus.

If we just wanted wasteful stimulus, the bill could simply be: 900 Billion dollars will be divided among all American homeowners in exchange for their "median beautification project.

This project will require that every homeowner spend 3 months on their hands and knees cutting grass with scissors and cleaning up trash.

In return, they will receive a check for 90% of their mortgage."

It would fit the description in that money would go to reducing cost of living, a job would be provided, and a work or service would be provided temporarily. However, that is not the "spirit" of the "stimulus" that our country and it's citizens need.

If obama wants to throw money away, I'm sure the American people would fare better if he threw it away at a short sighted plan like mine.

Think about it, clean roads, billions of dollars in "cost of living" DECREASE. Of course it's not a well thought out plan, which is why I think it deserves to be on the table with the rest of the "not well thought out" items being shoved down our throats.

Do American's Really Need Jobs?

2009-02-09T12:57:00.004-06:00

In 20008, over 2.5 Million Americans lost their jobs

However, the government is still allowing 1.5 Million foreign workers in each year.

Until the government has a profitable plan to pay Americans "just for being American", why are we bringing in so many foreign workers to take jobs desperately needed by our own citizens?

For the record, this doesn't include the American jobs lost due to "outsourcing" to other countries. As a nation, we should always put our own economy before the economy of other nations. It is a sad day when our country is contributing to it's own economic demise.

http://americanworker.org/ for more information on this subject.

Is "a little socialism" ok?

2009-02-09T08:37:00.006-06:00

The foundation of America was not built upon Communism or Socialism. However, we have incorporated a number of socialistic into our government and society.

Are we able to cherry pick from socialism without turning our backs on the country our forefathers provided to us? Is it possible to dabble in socialism without necessarily drinking the cool aid?

We have government funded social services, such as police, firemen, and schools. Yet we are able to provide those without allowing the government to decide where you live, what type of job you have, or how many children you can have. Even though most of those services are broken in some sense, we still have them and they are usually considered better than not having those services.

Sure there are some police officers that are corrupt and on the take. Sure there are some firemen that perform illegal activities in their down time, but still fight fires when the alarm goes off. Sure, the public school system is often broken, fails the children, and is used as a tool for indoctrination by overzealous nut jobs. But, at least there are police, firefighters, and public education?

How do we decide which of societies needs are "safe" to socialize? As a practice of large government, one would presume that it will continue to expand until it reaches critical mass and collapsed. We have education and some services available at no cost.

If so, would we consider health care a "basic human right" and let the government provide that to citizens at no cost? Obviously our capitalized health care system is broken in that you have to work for a large company with a decent salary in order to afford good health care. Our current system provides people with service only during their peak working years.

Before you land that good job, you're kinda screwed. While you work for that company you're somewhat in the clear unless you end up with one of the many conditions that are denied coverage. After you retire and no longer in that position, you're kinda screwed again. Except for that cushy window in the middle of you're life, health care will be a problem.

Our system is based on profit. From the doctor/surgeon to the production of medicine and machines, every level has a healthy markup. By the time you spend 10 minutes inside a room getting minimal attention from a busy doctor, you will easily spend $400 for that 10 minutes with the doctor, $400 for a small amount of medicine, at least $200 for the hospital room (of course you wait in there 45 minutes to get the doctor for 10 non-consecutive minutes) and various other charges.

It is obvious that something needs to change, but the arguments continue on "what" needs to change. Do we socialize medicine? Do we cap profits for each segment of the industry? Do we subsidize medical insurance? Do we attempt to regulate the denial of treatment?

If we look around the globe, we find various forms of socialized medicine. Canada and France are obvious examples. Depending on who you ask, those systems are either great or entirely broken. One citizen of those countries might be unable to comprehend why American citizens cannot get health care since they take it for granted. Another citizen of that same country might wonder why people think his system is a model as his experiences would lead you to believe that the socialized medicine in his country is broken.

Do we need to so something?

Is medical care a "basic human right"?

Is there a fix that doesn't include socialism?

Can we dabble in socialized medicine w/o becoming socialists?

Will Howard Stern Kill Satellite Radio?

2009-02-09T08:14:00.003-06:00

Before his $500 Million dollar deal with Sirius Satellite Radio, neither XM or Sirius were profitable companies. Sirius was gambling on the hope that Stern would leave FM, move over to Sirius, and his huge fan base would follow.

Unfortunately for Sirius, this never happened. The amount of subscriptions and radios that followed Stern was dismal. However, they had already signed their deal. Howard was in, he was the horse to which Sirius had hitched their future.

At the time, XM was the stronger company. Although they had a similar product offering, they had better technology (smaller higher quality radio units and antennas), and better performers.

Opie & Anthony, for example, were on XM. Howard Stern has a history with them stemming from the days when they were both on the same station years ago. O&A were not a $500 Million Dollar overhead for XM and they did perform well for the company. Sirius had nothing to compete with O&A.

Long story short, Sirius & XM merged. The expectation that Sirius would fail and XM would survive was no longer an option. By joining the two companies, the failure of Sirius and Stern would be a failure of XM, Considering that Howard Stern has turned out to be a negative equity investment, it very well could be the final nail in the coffin of the satellite radio industry.

Conspiracy Theory: Howard Stern has long attempted to silenc Opie & Anthony. Could it be that he wanted to go out with a bang, kill both satellite companies, and destroy the medium which was so perfectly suited for the O&A show?

If The Government "Really" Wanted To Fix The Sub Prime Loan Fiasco...

2009-02-06T13:00:00.004-06:00

Supposedly the government wanted to step in too little too late with the wrong solution. Americans were losing their houses to foreclosure. The house of cards was falling. Of course the blame was placed solely on the homeowners that got into loans they couldn't afford.

While it is probably true that most homeowners skip significant portions of the "fine print" in their loans, it is also true that the Real Estate agents were pushing these specific loans in order to make overpriced homes seem affordable. At least in the Bay Area of Califorina, a visit to an open house in 2004-2007 would highlight a flyer type that was not as common in the preceding years.

While it was common to find a monthly payment estimated on the marketing material for a specific home, It was uncommon to find a misleading estimate. However, the housing prices were gaining in the neighborhood of 20% per year. This gain is huge and as people have learned, inflated. With the inflated values, the traditional payment estimates were prohibitively high.

The solutions for this were commonly the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), interest only loans, and stated income loans. In an environment there the property value will increase at a rate of 20% per year, these are almost no lose propositions. Even if you lose the ability to pay your increasing mortgage, you can unload the property for a profit.

However, these loans are not sustainable in a flat or declining housing market. Add a job loss and the homeowner will quickly be in a situation where they lose their home as they cannot pay the mortgage or sell the property for what they owe.

Having said that, the government acted as if it were somehow going to solve the problem by selectively bailing out certain troubled assets. What the government didn't seem to account for was that those assets were not the problem, but rather a symptom of a larger looming problem.

Had they honestly wanted to save those homeowners w/o begging for fraud (many homeowners have worked to make themselves look troubled in order to get in line for a government handout) they would have addressed the core problem instead of the initial symptoms.

Foreclosures, on a large scale, devalue similar properties. In short, one problem brings another as clusters of foreclosures destroy equity in the surrounding properties. Buying slows as potential homeowners see prices dropping on a monthly or weekly basis. Why buy a house today when you know you can wait a month and offer 10k less?

Back to the point. The most realistic attempt to save property values and stave off mass foreclosures would have been for the government to acknowledge that the lending industry had performed something irresponsible and calculated in knowingly approving a large number of unsustainable loans. Rather than cherry pick loans to save, the government could have stepped into regulatory mode and forced the mortgage companies to temporarily suspend increases and revert monthly payments to their rates 2 years prior.

The missing monthly mortgage income is an entirely separate debate. Would it need to be compensated in some fashion, most likely by the government? Would it need to be absorbed by the banks? Would homeowners be required to extend mortgages, equity share on a percentage, or have an additional no interest mortgage based on the missing interest/principle that was being temporarily eliminated from their newly locked mortgage?

What Your iPod Knows!!!

2009-02-06T12:20:00.001-06:00

( Off Topic / Interesting / Fun )

RULES:

1. Put your iPod, iTunes, Windows Media Player, etc. on shuffle.

2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.

3. YOU MUST WRITE THAT SONG NAME DOWN NO MATTER HOW SILLY IT SOUNDS.

4. Tag whoever you want including me

5. Have Fun!

IF SOMEONE SAYS 'ARE YOU OKAY' YOU SAY....?

Narcolepsy

Third Eye Blind

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?

Project Mayhem

Finch

WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR IN A GUY/GIRL?

So Tell Me Why

Poison

HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?

Baby Grand

BillyJoel

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?

Save It For A Rainy Day

The Samples

WHAT'S YOUR MOTTO?

Microwaved

Pitchshifter

WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?

Obsession

Nancy's Early Years

WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?

Bittersweetheart

Soul Asylum

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?

Shake A Leg

AC/DC

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR FIRST KISS?

Fly (wtf mix)

Nancy's Early Years

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?

Shatter Proof

Cannibal The Musical

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?

Saved By The Boyancy Of Citris

Mitch Hedberg

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?

"you don't"

tricky

WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?

(Don't Fear) The Reaper

Blue Oyster Cult

WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?

Little 15

Depeche Mode

WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?

There You'll Be

Fath Hill

WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?

I've Got A Dark Alley And A Bad Idea That Says You Should Shut Your Mouth (Summer Song)

Fall Out Boy

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FEAR?

The Conspiracy

50 Cent

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SECRET?

You Shouldn't Kiss Me Like This

Toby Keith

WHAT DO YOU WANT RIGHT NOW?

Spit Sink

The Dead Milkmen

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?

E.I.

Nelly

WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?

Dreams Burn Down

Ride

Obama Calls Stimulus Package a "Spending Package"

2009-02-06T08:29:00.004-06:00

With a breath of honesty, Obama called the "stimulus package" a "spending package" yesterday.

Unfortunately, he proceeded to make it sound like a good thing. Although it is good to hear him finally calling the package by an honest name, it was at the same time saddening to hear him treat that spending package in a dishonest manner.

While it is true that spending money is required in order to stimulate the economy, it is not true that random spending (spending for spending sake) will stimulate an economy. If the economy were that simple, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

Many Americans know little about the StimuSpend Package that has been pushed by Pelosi as if she were delivering a 15lb baby. The first thing which should make us stop and take a serious look is the number of pages. There are a lot of words, a lot of pages, a lot of ideas. These ideas could not have been responsibly compiled as an honest effort to get our economy on track.

When you look at the various ideas which have been included in the StimuSpend, you will start to recall many of these items have been brought up over time. Rather than seeing new/innovative ideas which specifically address our economic situation, we are seeing pet projects from a disenfranchised wing of the government.

The StimuSpend package almost looks like revenge. It's as if the Democrats started gathering up every project that a Republican wouldn't bow to, and determined that "Now Is The Time" to make the country pay for not giving in. It would be nice to be have the Democrats be honest about the content of he StimuSpend. Why can't Pelosi get up there and say "Right now, we are making America pay for every time that we were called a name or disrespected in high school. Right now Americans will take us seriously. Right now, we have the power and don't care about the future!".

We can only hope that some of the Democrats that have not drank her cool aid will get together with some of the Republicans that are not drinking their cool aid, and come up with an actual Economic Recovery Plan which is designed for THAT PURPOSE. Legislation designed to say nothing more than "WE WON" will not solve economic problems. :-(

Who is President Right Now?

2009-02-06T08:19:00.002-06:00

According to the results of the 2008 election, one would presume Obama to be the President of the United States. However, watching our government in action, one would think that Nancy Pelosi is our current president.

Obama seems to have slipped into the role of yes man, whipping boy, etc. He gets on TV just long enough to talk about what our country needs, in this case, whatever Pelosi tells him we need. He then plays soldier boy and acts as if he has a backbone or beleives in her agendas as if they were her own.

Pelosi has not been elected president. Her years of being the crazy San Francisco representative which was oddly placed 2nd in line for the presidency have left her with pent up angst and lots of pet projects. It would seem that she views the Obama presidency as an opportunity to push for everything half baked idea that she's had in her hat to date.

Somebody needs to let Obama know that he is president. Although his socialist concepts are not what the country needs, we would like to hear him speak for himself and get off of Pelosi's lap for a minute. Nancys Pelosi has never had what this country needs. She's a great spokesperson for an ultra liberal wing of our government that wants to give away everything that our forefathers worked for. In troubling times, we are not afforded the convenience of those types of policies.

We are in a time of hard decisions, precarious situations, and do not have the luxury of getting all willy nilly in persuing pet project that detract from the needs of our economy.

Obama, take the leash from Pelosi, remove the collar from your neck, and put her in her place!

DirectTV Bailout Details

2009-02-05T11:14:00.001-06:00

I'd like to submit my request for a bailout. You see, I'm trying to find a spending package that fits into the so called "stimulus package" that works. So far, my DirectTV item is the most consistant I've thought up.

You see, although I don't need a new DVR, I wouldn't mind having one. It would certainly modernize the current Tivo setup. However, the devices, however "forward thinking" and "modernized" s they are, do cost money. But, since the current administration seems to think of spending money on ancilary items as stimulus, I very well should qualify.

I'd like to replace both of my Tivo units with the newest HD DVR models that DirectTV now offers. However, I don't wish to spend the money. In short, the purchase is entirely unnecessary. But, the DVRs are newer than the perfectly functional ones that we currently have.

So, my proposal is that 1 billion dollars be set aside for my tivo upgrade.

DirectTV HD DVR $199 (x2)

Shipping

Installation

Time & Productivity Lost Watching TV (tivo)

$1,000,000,000

I understand that the cost of this partucular stimulus is about $398 before shipping. However, if the government wants to waste money, It would be unpatriotic to submit a request for $398 or an unnecessary purchase when you can just ask for a billion....

Democrat Bill Writing Process

2009-02-04T18:57:00.002-06:00

First of all, you have to have a brainstorming session. Think of some things that would be really cool to do, think of some problems that need solutions, and think of some extra stuff to add to the list.

Once you have a bunch of random disjointed ideas floating around the room, grab a pen!

1. Make a list of things that fall under the heading of "Wouldn't it be cool if . . . ."

2. Make a list of problems that need to be solved/handled/dealt with

3. Make a list of extra stuff you want but don't need, get suggestions from others.

note: the easiest way to get suggestions is to hint around that there might be some money handed out soon.

Start writing the bill. Make sure to include everything in the first section by removing the phrase "Wouldn't it be cool if" and just placing the item in the bill as if it were a completely thought out idea rather than a brainstorming item.

Try not to overthink any of the items in the bill. Nothing has to work. As long as money gets spent, it actually looks like it's working. If nothing good happens, you can always blame it on somebody else. Remember, you added enough "Wouldn't it be nice" items that at least you look good for trying something so "wouldn't it be nice".

Make sure and highlight the intersting brainstorming ideas while preventing people from actually looking at the details. Why should others be looking at the details when the politicians that wrote the bill never did??? If at all possible, make the bill as wordy as possible. That way the nightly news will skim over the information and only tell people about the "woudln't it be nice's" in the bill. This allows you to offer nothing more than fluff, debt, and expendatures w/o ANY of the ramifications.

And remember, if anybody picks on parts of you bill, you know, the ones you never thought out or found a way to honestly make work, then just repeat the cool brainstorming ideas, even if they didn't make it into the bill. Then call the nay sayer something negative or use partisan politics as a default "it's not me" shield.

In summary, offer the sky, don't offer a way to do it, then try to get people from realizing that you're either full of it or that you idea failed and caused more problems than if nothing had been done!

Chissle wissle can belissle issle!!

2009-02-03T17:50:00.002-06:00

That's right, "Change We Can Beleive In!" (CWCBI)

In order to get that type of change, every American has to do their part. This is not something we can read about in the paper, watch on the news, listen to on the radio, or secretly bitch about with our friends.

True CWCBI can be achieve if we all work together. The steps are few but the results could be amazing!

Step 1 (hint, there is only one step!)

Stop being politically correct.

PC is for squares, pillow biters, crackheads, and high school teachers. Ok, so it was stereotypical so presume that all high school teachers are ultra liberal tools of indoctrination. However, it's also not politically correct, so I'm somewhat bound to say it if I beleive in CWCBI.

The American spine has been weakened by the overbearing requirement that nobody have their feelings hurt. It's impossible for nobody to have their feelings hurt. As such, the requirements of PC must have another motive. That motive is to remove the spine of Americans. Guess what, it has worked.

So, fight for America! Say "Christmas" instead of "holiday". If you're Jewish, say Hannakuh, so what if I get mad cause I think it's Christmas. Stop looking around the corner every time you see something lame and say "dude, that's pretty gay". If it's gay, it's gay. Don't be ashamed to say it! If you're married, say you're married. Who cares if it offends somebody that isn't allowed to be married due to their lifestyle choices. Oh, and don't say "lifestyle choices", say gay, see, i'm already falling down on the job!!

It's not easy, but unless we all stand up and see how much spine we can regrow, we're all going to be "partners" instead of "married". We're going to be celebrating a holiday like "North American Caucasion Independance Celebration" instead of "July 4th". C inco de mayo already got screwed cause it's named after a day. Besides, it wouldn't be very politically correct to call it "Mexican War To Kill The Debt Collectors After Mexico Stopped Paying It's Debts" now would it?

Go ye therefore and say things that are NOT Politically Correct!

Why I'm Not A Republican

2009-02-02T18:25:00.002-06:00

short answer:

Because Democrats and Republicans are smoke and mirrors designed to prevent anything positive from getting done in our country. (remember, the globalized fed controls the money so they control everything)

longer answer:

Republicans and Democrats are BOTH guilty of the following:

Ignoring our economy

Ignoring National Security

Ignoring Immigration

Ignoring the Constitution

Bowing to Special Interests

In order to become a successful Democrat or Republican you have to play politics as usual and be crooked as hell. Both parties are guilty of using abortion, homosexuality, and racism to further their agenda of diversion.

Republicans tend to come off as cold and heartless and only care about getting money and power. Democrats tend to come off as nutty but caring and only care about making sure nobody gets their feelings hurt. If you care more about coddling a pour soul that was offended by a joke overheard by a stranger in public, then you're probably drinking the Democrat cool aid. If you're bent out of shape about illegal aliens getting your tax money, then you're probably drinking the Republican cool aid.

The unfortunate reality is that we are forced to either pick one or entirely disengage from politics. Constitution Party does has a great selling piont in acknowledging the Constitution of the United States of America as something other than toilet paper. However, they are entirely more religious than a political party needs to be. Our founding fathers must be turning over in their grave. Not because the president it black, but because the congress is equiped to do little more than perpetuate it's own existance...

No Wonder Obama Loves The Stimulus Package

2009-01-31T08:09:00.002-06:00

No wonder Obama loves the so called "Stimulus Package". The package is filled with spending. While it would more appropriately be named a Social Works package, Stimulus is a nice buzzword and who would be against that?

But, rather than spend too much time talking about how the largest spending package in the history of our country is being named in a misleading manner in order to create partisan discourse and skew public opinion, lets just contemplate why obama likes it.

basicly; taxes are for little people to pay

Yes, another Obama nominee has taken it upon himself to pay his taxes AFTER being informed that he was picked for a position. Although we already knew that Democrats like to "give away the store" and spend money as if we had it, we are now getting some insight into why they do not spend it in a responsible manner.

I'm sure that anyone you know would be interested in paying their neighbors mortgage, buying condoms for strangers kids, installing new sprinklers at the courhouse, etc... as long as they were given the credit cards of Obama, Daschele, or Geithner.

The only package this can stimulate is the one that Obama wants to shove into the backsides of the Middle Class...

Britney Spears says everybody wants to "F U C K Me"

2009-01-29T20:57:00.003-06:00

wow, so i guess her career has dumped so far into the crapper that the only way she can get attention is to pull an old 2 Live Crew stunt from the 80's and put some "parental advisory" type lyrics in a song and get her chunky butt back in the news.

hey, it sells albums. kids eat up this kinda stuff like aderall, ritalin, and extacy.

but the interesting thing is how the line "If you seek Amy" doesnt even fit in the song as if to accidentally garner attention. It's just thrown in as a thinly if at all veiled way to have Disneys superstar gone retarded say that everybody wants to fuck me.

too funny. at least she has gone the way of the genie in a bottle and sold out the last remaining drop of fame she once had in an effort to get back on the news before she overdoses on something and fades into oblivion...

Hillary Illegaly Appointed Secretary of State

2009-01-29T18:31:00.001-06:00

Too funny. Pretty clear though. Is this an accident or just more evidence that the Democrats don't care about the Constitution at all???

Article I Section 6:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Blago is Gone

2009-01-29T17:56:00.002-06:00

so the vote is in and the downtrodden governor is out.

the greatest thing about this is the precedent that has been set. now "We The People" have a reason to expect that our politicians are now supposed to function by certain rules that have been ignored for generations assuming they have ever been followed.

So, when do we start cleaning house? There are a LOT of governors, senators, representatives, etc that should be next. Republican and Democrat alike. Lets hold them all accountable!

Why stop at one goofy governor in a state famous for corruption? If we're gonna pick one, we need to start picking them all off!

c'mon people, lets get the tar and feathers out and march on washington and our respective state capitols.

stimulus package = WTF???

2009-01-29T16:37:00.002-06:00

At what point did the stimulus package become bastardized to the point that it's an open checkbook for any and every pet project known to Democrats?

As a traditional thinking human being that was fortunate enough to be born in America, I have specific view on stimulus. When the personal finances of the average American begin to suffer, we tend to watch what we spend money on. In a perfect world we do that anyway. However, we are a lot more likely to go to best buy and pickup a new TV, Entertainment System, Computer, Game System, Video Camera, etc when we have disposable cash or at least a steady supply of direct deposits from a company that's not in trouble.

However, when your company starts performing layoffs, or profit margins are down, or outsourcing is hitting your industry, people tend to pay attention to things like Electricity, Gas, Water, Food, and Car Payments. Our government for some reason has a problem understanding what expendable and core income are. If we are truly in an economic disaster, every penny that would go to Convenience should go to core economic needs.

Hundreds of millions of dollars on birth control, abortion, art, etc should be part of a social development package, not an economic stimulus package. Although many Americans understand this, how long before all of us realize that tagging pet programs into important issues is detrimental?

How many of us would take our last $100, drive past the grocery store with hungry kids in the car and proceed to CompUSA for a new USB Hard Drive?

Why is that only the Americans in distress have an understanding of what makes the economy work?

The real stimulus package would be deny all work visas, kick foreign workers out until we get our problems handled, and tax companies so heavily for outsourcing work to other countrys that it becomes cost prohibitive to send whats left of our GNP overseas.

We have nurtured corporate greed so handily that illegal immigration and outsourcing are the norm. We are finally seeing what it feels like when the chickens come home to roost...

obama extends a hand to republicans

2009-01-29T16:24:00.002-06:00

Obama received applause and kudos from Americans for extending a hand to Republicans and attempting to initiate non-partisan solutions to the problems facing our country.

However, not only was his hand as empty as his plan to accomplish anything "productive" and "good" for our country, it was as empty as "show" of non-partisanship.

Unfortunatly, the Obamites that have drank the coolaid and require grand speeches instead of substance don't see through the fog. They think that because he "said" he was reaching out that it must be true.

However, it is as true as any liar that pretends to "listen". His agenda was not flexible. The core problems the Republicans had with the stimulus packate were ignored. In fact, he turned his outstretched hand around and delivered it to the face of every "thinking" American by saying that "I Won" as if that makes faulty logic and detrimental programs somehow "OK" all of the sudden.

If High School antics, attitude, and drama are what our president views as reaching out and working with Republicans then he will be a fantastic failure even if the media figures that love him so much lie to the American public on his behalf.

Reaching out is not telling others that their reservations and opposition to programs is to be ignored because "he won" Reaching out is not sitting down at the same table and offering socialism to Americans that know better.

We really might have made a mistake with this guy. His inexperience and arrogance are exactly what this country DOES NOT need at this juncture. The American citizens can only hope that he wakes up and realized that there is more to fixing our problems than empty words and sitting at tables with your eyes and ears shut to anything contrary to what you thought was right in your infinate ignorance.

America is not a neighborhood in Chicago. America has problems significantly more diverse than a single community. Our economy is on the brink of disaster and the Liberal mindset is something that only works when we have the resources and convenience to indulge the masses.

txt message of the day

2009-01-19T00:05:00.002-06:00

so i'm minding my own business, working out in the shop when my phone lets me know there is a txt message. as i open the screen, it reads:

Happy James Earl Ray day!

After a moment of confusion, I realize this has to be associated to MLK in some manner. My first thought was that MLK was a made up name like the guy that invented kwanzaa in prison in the 60s. i know he changed his name after he got out of prison and tried to screw up christmas for the whitey that he hated so much.

So, i did a little google search, and realized quickly that james earl ray was not the birthname of MLK but rather the name of the guy that assassinated him. Of course, this txt came from a friend in califorina. so to everybody that thinks only rednecks live in oklahoma, there must be some that snuck into california. dont be so suprised. from what i see on the news, califorina lets anybody sneak in. it's kinda a california thing ya know!

why can't i do markups like this?

2009-01-16T11:22:00.002-06:00

so, one of my laptops has been running a little warm, the puppy chewed the power cable, and the kids spilled some sprite on the keyboard.

although not a serious multi-thousand dollar unit, it.'s a decent laptop, a cpl years old now, and was under a grand at best buy new. of course i upgraded the ram since they never put enough in w/o raising the price way more than the cost of the new ram. but, i digress.

so, the kids killed my keyboard. a sprite incident left me with some keys that stick now and again, or if you type w/o looking, you'll end up noticing that random letters are missing from what you "thought" you typed. so, i figured i'd at least check and see what a new keyboard costs.

then, i noticed that unless i had my laptop on a solid flat surface with plenty of airflow (you know, how you should always use them) that it would get hot and lockup. since i often used it sitting down, or on the couch, the lack of airflow would cause it to lockup.

then there is the puppy thing. right at the base of the ac adapter, it's a little bit sparky when the wire moves. they chewed my wife's adapter in the middle of the cord, so i was able to mend that somewhat. so with this one, i just unplug it before i move it since i cant move the computer w/o overheating it anyway.

well, since both my wife and i often need something more mobile and reliable than what the hp dv5000 i have provides, we looked into buying all the parts to get everything back to 100%, which means both computers need adapters, batteries, and keyboard. turns out, replacement parts are marked up like no tomorrow. cheap price to get the laptop, but they get you back on the parts..

so, we figured it was a good time to pickup a couple of the dell mini 9 (insperon 910) units. she has white, i have black. as my hp is upside down underneath the mini9, i type this post.

so, back to the point. the laptop cant be purchased in the same cart as the keybard, fan, adapter, but it should be about 120 to 150 bux.

Part you are ordering

Show parts Show parts
Hide parts Hide parts
Part List
Price
(USD) Defective
Core Charge
(USD) Net
Price
(USD) Qty Total
Price
(USD)
407807-001 Part is in stock.
CPU fan assembly Pavilion 42.45 0.00 42.45 1 42.45
407857-001 Part is in stock.
Keyboard assembly - 88 keys 101-key compatible with Windows key - Integrated 10-key numeric keypad Pavilion 70.30 0.00 70.30 1 70.30
417220-001 Part is in stock. View a picture of this part.
AC adapter 65-watt - Input voltage 110-240VAC, 50-60Hz - Output voltage 18.5VDC, 3.5A - With power factor correction PFC technology - Requires separate 3-wire AC power cord with C5 connector 65.55 0.00 65.55 1 65.55

Total

Order subtotal (USD): 178.30

add the battery to that, and it costs more than my insperon 910 new.

to add some fun to that, they also offer a cr203Part you are ordering

Show parts Show parts
Hide parts Hide parts
Part List
Price
(USD) Defective
Core Charge
(USD) Net
Price
(USD) Qty Total
Price
(USD)
407807-001 Part is in stock.
CPU fan assembly Pavilion 42.45 0.00 42.45 1 42.45
407857-001 Part is in stock.
Keyboard assembly - 88 keys 101-key compatible with Windows key - Integrated 10-key numeric keypad Pavilion 70.30 0.00 70.30 1 70.30
417220-001 Part is in stock. View a picture of this part.
AC adapter 65-watt - Input voltage 110-240VAC, 50-60Hz - Output voltage 18.5VDC, 3.5A - With power factor correction PFC technology - Requires separate 3-wire AC power cord with C5 connector 65.55 0.00 65.55 1 65.55

Total

Order subtotal (USD): 178.30 2 batter for $77.30
this particular battery can be found at walmart less than 5 bux, or on the internet in bulk for about a dollar.

that's some serious markup. can i go to mcdonlads, get hired at 6 bux an hour, then ask for 66 bux an hour? i wouldn't mind flipping burgers for 66 bux an hour. might be kinda fun. you know, like high school with a useable paycheck.

Early, but: Sarah for President

2008-09-06T19:42:00.002-05:00

Yes, I understand that Sarah Palin is the VP nominee. As such, there is no guarantee she will become VP let alone President. However, there is the chance that her nomination has woken a REAL sense of HOPE and a legitimate opportunity for CHANGE.

However, lets assume that McCain and Palin win this November. There is little expectation that McCain will be a two term president. In some circles, there is little expectation that McCain will live long enough to server a full term.

Regardless of how that plays out, a McCain/Palin win in 08 would likely be the beginning of Palins election in 2012 (running against Hillary of course).

Of course she would probably have no competition if she were to have to fill in for McCain for health related issues during their first term. But, if she didn't, I'm pretty confident that she could play her cards right, get some action instead of talk, and have the entire country BEGGING her to run in 2012.

So, there you have it. My latest conspiracy theory. Of course the conspiracy this time is that not only is America ready for a woman president, but we're ready for the RIGHT woman president. Take that how you will, but we truly seem to be on the verge of a good thing here.

The Survival of Sarah Palin

2008-09-06T10:25:00.002-05:00

Of course the democrats (and everybody else that hates republicans) are scrambling to find a way to discredit Palin without going against all of their usual "talking points".

They can't discredit her for being a woman because until Obama was up in the mix, they were pretty keen on Hillary and the concept of having a woman in office.

They can't discredit her on experience because she has more political experience than Obama. The unimportance they attribute to experience because of Obama's lack of experience prevents them from making a credible argument against somebody with more experience.

They can't discredit her on track record, as Obamas track record consists of a lot of voting "present". If anything, his track record is protecting his image.

They can't discredit her on her speaking ability because she's spot on. Besides, they don't need a lot of attention on the fact that Obama looks as if he's done little more than memorize the mannerisms and speaking techniques of JKF and MLK.

Of course, the only thing left to discredit her is the fact that she's republican. That is where she deviates from what they like. Unfortunately for them, that is exactly what the country seems to like about her.

Further more, she is a hard to discredit candidate because the democrats have been preaching "change" and "hope". The democrats have a track record of "talk" when it comes to these words. I'm suprised that people still take them seriously given that they also have a track record of inaction on the subject. However, Sarah Palin has a track record of making change instead of just talking about it.

Her own ability to "do" as opposed to just "talk" is the key to her survive. The detractors will have to settle for pithy tabloid trash if they want to attack her. Where the rubber meets the road, she's already moving...

Election 08 Lives Again

2008-08-29T21:21:00.002-05:00

I'd given up on all things "Election 08" way back when the prospects seemed to be generic filler. However, this morning something that can only bee described as "exciting" happened.

The GOP candidate picked his VP. Sarah Palin was the name that sparked that interest. I've been reading up on her all day. Rather than listen to what the TV has to say, I went to the trenches. Similarly, rather than view "pro Palin" websites, I also read sites that hate Sarah Palin. I learned many things from both viewpoints.

First, I learned that she's probably the most substantial candidate for CHANGE in the race. Beyond that, she embodies HOPE. Most of that was learned by reading the DEM biased websites. They are obviously scared. She picks up where their "talk" leaves off. She has quantifiable history of attempting and also succeeding where the DEMs only talk.

Furthermore, she is a woman. What i didn't know was that she's not a "last minute gimmick". She's been in the running for some time. The first references I've seen are well over a year old. In short, the more i read (pro and con), the more interest I have.

On a more optimistic fantasy note, if she were to be elected, she would be a great candidate for 2012 assuming she survived the political gauntlet that special interest would likely have waiting.

I'm sure that Obama isn't happy that he's now faced with somebody that understands and achieves BOTH "change" and "hope" in more than a speech. I'm also sure that Hillary isn't happy that 2008 now holds the most viable female candidate an election has ever had, and it's not her. To take it one step further, she's on the road to being a more viable presidential candidate than Hillary ever was.

Go Palin!

Bank Slaves For Sale

2008-07-22T23:51:00.002-05:00

We the people are most effected by the political puppet show starring the Democrats and Republicans which does little more than keep us from paying attention to the people that actually run this country.

100 years ago, politicians had a job to do that was directly related to running the country. the last century has seen politics become a televised distraction to prevent people from noticing that private banks make the rules and the people only have the power to complain. Thanks to the politicians doing their part, we're not even complaining to the right people.

I know it's business, but it's unfortunate when that business is built on the blood of our forefathers.

Countrywide get's called out for setting homeowners up

2008-06-25T01:03:00.000-05:00

By CARYN ROUSSEAU, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO - The nation's biggest mortgage lender engaged in "unfair and deceptive" practices to get homeowners to apply for risky mortgages far beyond their means, according to a civil lawsuit Illinois' attorney general planned to file Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The lawsuit against Countrywide Financial Corp. — planned for the same day shareholders were scheduled to vote on the company's takeover by Bank of America Corp. — stems from information from documents subpoenaed by the state beginning last fall, as the number of foreclosures nationwide began to skyrocket.

"Countrywide's conduct has contributed to the high number of foreclosures in Illinois and caused significant harm to the public, the market, and scores of Illinois borrowers and homeowners," according to a draft of the lawsuit provided by Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office Tuesday evening.

A spokeswoman for the Calabasas, Calif.-based company declined to comment on the litigation.

Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said the lawsuit would be filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court. In the complaint, Madigan says that Countrywide offered unfair loans with risky features, used misleading sales techniques and encouraged employees and brokers through incentives to sell more high-risk loans.

"Unfair and deceptive advertising, marketing and sales practices were utilized to push mortgages, while hiding the real costs and risks to borrowers, including enticing borrowers with low teaser rates, low monthly payments and 'no closing cost' loans that failed to make clear and conspicuous," according to the lawsuit, which also names Countrywide Chairman and Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo as a defendant.

Among other things, Madigan wants Countrywide to pay restitution to all affected consumers who lost their homes or loans. She also asks for 90 days to review any loans that are in or near foreclosure to see if borrowers can pursue affordable options.

Countrywide, like many in the mortgage industry, has suffered under the weight of the subprime fallout as thousands of customers default on home loans.

Defaults and subsequent foreclosures have been most pronounced on adjustable-rate mortgages made to borrowers with past credit problems. The subprime loans typically require a lower monthly payment in the first two or three years before resetting to higher interest rates and much larger payments.

As the nation's largest mortgage lender and servicer, Countrywide has been under scrutiny by federal and state authorities. It also faces numerous other lawsuits related to its lending practices.

Countrywide agreed in January to sell itself to Bank of America Corp. for around $4 billion in stock. The deal is now valued at around $2.8 billion, reflecting a decline in Bank of America's stock price over the last six months.

The acquisition received clearance from the Federal Reserve earlier this month, and Countrywide shareholders are scheduled to vote on it Wednesday morning during a meeting at the lender's headquarters.

Assuming shareholders give their approval, Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America has said it could close the deal as early as July 1.

___

AP Business Writer Alex Veiga in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

___

The Woman Who Thought She Could

2008-06-18T10:19:00.002-05:00

Of course Hillary had a better chance against McCain than Obama. However, the Democratic party seems to have given up on the presidency. Obama's only selling point is that he's an underdog. American hasn't officially had a "black" president, so that is what he has to offer.

As a politician, his record is one of intense mediocrity. His only marketable quality is the color of his skin. This is unfortunate for the democrats. In a presidential election you hope to have candidates that are appealing to both parties. There is no sense in finding the candidate that your party likes if he's not going to get elected.

It's one thing to win a party nomination, but quite another to win a general election. In this case, Hillary was the candidate with the highest potential to win general, but was overshadowed by the parties internal enamor with Obama.

Do the Democrats simply not want the presidency during these troubles times? Are they attempting to show at the general election by placing a solid second place runner in a two man race? What would be the advantage other than avoiding responsibility during troubled times? Could it be another chip in the game to say we've been ignored by racists when the truth is they put up a candidate with nothing more than race to offer?

Of course many Democrats will say that racism or corruption prevented them from winning this election. The truth however, is that the Democrats purposely created the scenario for failure. Sadly, the country and the Republicans will receive the blame.

When people complain about racism or corruption, just remind them that they had a good chance before they decided to lose with Obama. It's not likely that they didn't understand that a majority of Democrats chasing eye candy is not the target audience for a general election.

Why Hillary Won't Quit

2008-05-16T07:59:00.002-05:00

This is a multi-part answer. On one hand, she's a Democrat and she wants to win a Presidential Election. On the other hand, she's Hillary and wants to be president. Although the two goals work hand in hand, they are not shared by the entire Democrat party.

Hillary realizes that her party will not win a general election with Obama as the Presidential candidate. As such, McCain will in the election, Republicans will be in office for another 4 to 8 years. As a Democrat, this isn't an option for her. She needs a Democrat to take the white house for the next 4 to 8 years.

Furthermore, "she" wants to "be" the next president. If she drops out, she obviously has no chance at being elected.

When you break it all down, not only does she want a Democrat as president, she want's to be that democrat. The bonus for Republicans is that Democrats will indulge themselves in the fallacy that their own ability to nominate Obama can translate into a Presidential victory. Hillary and her supporters seem to be the only ones that realize how much McCain's hopes of becoming president rely upon Obama being the Democrat nominee.

When you boil it down, a Democratic Nomination of Obama for the general election is a sign that Democrats don't want to be President (which is possible considering the inherited mess to be handed over on 1/20/08).

obama's "Bitter Half"

2008-05-09T12:36:00.002-05:00

She seems to be setting a new precedent in how a candidate's wife wrangles with the media. Of course, if she's catering to the disenfranchised, she may very well be on to something.

Traditionally, the candidates don't spend much time whining. However, this seems to be the big thing she has to offer. Does she envision singing a verse of America the Bitterful the next time she has a camera in her face?

The interesting thing to me is how many people surrounding obama are capitalizing on the negatives. Historically, a campaign defined consisting of "our country sucks" would not get a lot of momentum. However, for some reason, directly reaching the disenfranchised is working well for votes.

Unfortunately, obama is a politician. As such, he knows that he will never have the power to achieve any of the change he promises. At the same time, he is smart enough to know that he can use the lies to get votes. Of course, he would also be able to blame the lack of change on somebody else when it didn't work out.
In the end, the disenfranchised say disenfranchised. If they buy into the hype before and after, then they become indignantly disenfranchised to a level that matches that of Rev Wright and obamas bitter half

The Obama Wright Connection

2008-05-01T12:14:00.002-05:00

To listen to some people, this scandal is a bad thing for Obama.

However, that is not true. This "scandal" is exactly what Obama needs right now. Black voters need to know that he's "still black" and not some "uncle tom" that is "too white" to represent black people. At the same time, white voters need to be assured that he's not another "kill whitey" Black Panther in sheeps clothing.

The current scandal allows him to appease both sides of the argument. The black voters will say "we see how he realy is, he's down, he's just playing the white mans game in denouncing Wright". The white voters will say "there ya go, he's standing up against the anti american!"

Both voting groups have now been given exactly what they need to rationalize how the candidate is more like they want him to be. Neither group needs to "think" about him or his candidacy because he's offered enough to both groups to fuel their preconceived notion, hopes, and desires about what he would offer.

Furthermore, the scandal gives him more time at the water cooler, more time on the blogs, and more time in peoples heads. You can be sure that he's happy to be in the news again, as there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I still think the entire situation is designed to ultimately give the candidacy to Hillary. However, him losing at this point allows for gracous speaches about how "close we came" and what should have been done in retrospect. In addition to appeasing his followers, it provides a convenient tranfer of DEM campaign energy from Obama to Clinton.

They should be able to come together after the nomination is officialy decided and work together to get their followers (supporters) to lament the scandals, but accept the victor.

the dem campaign so far has made for great tv. hopefully the writers have been well compensated!

Supporting Obama Is Supporting Terrorism!

2008-04-29T22:08:00.002-05:00

If you provide money to the Obama Campaign, you are directly supporting terrorism!

More to the point, if you provide money to any policital campaign, you are directly supporting terrorism.

When undertaking any investigation, you're always told to "follow the money". Although we already know that the utopian "world peace" is not possible given the racial and cultural barriers on our planet, we also know that the wars and police actions of modern society do not occur without help.

Who profits from these actions?

Since WW1, large financial instutions have profited, often making money from both sides of the conflict. In America, the profiteering entered a different type of low with the coordinated bank efforts that crashed the stock market and allowed subversive tactics to hand the money of USA over to the FED.

Our political partys were then converted to smoke and mirrors, a publicly viewable show of nonsense where nothing gets done that's not ordained by the powers that be.

To this day, our political system is a distration which occupies the thoughts and minds of Americans while the real power, behind the scenes, continues without check or balance.

As we enter new elections, we can easily get caught up in the candidates. However, we are forgetting that these candidates do what they are told when elected, and the very process of making a big deal about them keeps us "talking" about thing instead of getting them done.

Supporting this financially is giving money to the terrorist that control the puppets we call candidates.

And don't forget, if we learned anything from JFK, it's that breaking ranks and not doing what you're told as president is a sure way to get yourself killed.

Long story short, by engaging in politics and ignoring the fact that it's a grand illusion, we are directly supporting the people that know us as sheep while they continue to steal our land and profit from killing our children under false pretense.

Who Owns Your House?

2008-04-27T21:00:00.001-05:00

If you're a renter, you may think this is an easy question. You probably think it's the guy that you're renting from. If you're a "home owner", you probably think it's still an easy answer. Either you think you own it, or you (more closer to the truth) think that the bank you have your mortgage through owns it.

However, those answers are wrong in all cases. The people that control the money issued in our country are the ones that own the land. They have the power (and have exercised it in the past) to take your land, even if you own it outright and carry no mortgage.

The government essentialy own and controls everything. Or so we'd be led to think. However, the government is "owned" by the larger financial institutions, particularly "The FED" that we hear so much about. You know, the group that supposedly "insures" the money that we call "ours".

The money belongs to the FED, and the people that control the money control everything.

The Necessary Evils

2008-04-27T20:20:00.003-05:00

Democrats: The overly good guy that want's to help everybody out regardless of how much it hurts society in the long run.

Republicans: The money grubbing power mongers that love kicking the little guy and enforcing demanding rules about everything from murder to morality.

In one corner, you have the supposeded camp for preserving our nation, it's people, and it's economy. In the other corner, we have the supposed camp for giving away everything, ignoring and cheapening the sacrifices of our forefathers, and leading society down a path to destruction in exchange for some short lived victorys.

However, we've seen in history that our two party system does little more than provide a distration. These two partys fight over everything, do little or nothing, and allow the real powers to continue doing their things in the background w/o attention.

Why would the American people allow the government to be taken over by unnamed individuals if they actualy knew it was happening? Without the smoke and mirrors of the two party system, "we the people" might actualy notice that type of thing instead of bickering about who get's a blowjob in the whitehouse or who gave a friend a free pass out of trouble.

Yes, the people with the money (hence the control of our country and ultimate ownership of the land we rent under the guise of mortgages) continue to do their thing behind the closed doors of a private banking corperation w/o even having their names listed.

Welcome to the party people, as we spend millions of dollars in simply determining "who" will be on the ticket, the machine turns yet another revolutions and we're still too busy staring at the curtain to begin to wake up and realize that there is somebody behind it. . .

About The Blogosphere

2008-04-25T01:19:00.003-05:00

Ewww, not the blogosphere! Better put our ears to the blogosphere and see what people are saying? Considering the random blatherings of the average blogger, that would be as informative as trending the music purchases of 12yr olds. You can guess they are probably buying a lot of Hannah Montana and no so much Rolling Stones.

So which pretentious asshole decided he was cool enough to become a cyberlebrity by calling the digressive thoughts of morons (like you and me) some quirky little homosexual sounding term like "blogosphere".

Why not just call it the Assholes&ElbowSphere?

The next time I hear the term Bolgosphere i'm gonna loose it. Kinda like people saying "Newbie" all the damned time. fuggin newbs...

;-)

Why do people care about Election 2008?

2008-04-24T20:03:00.002-05:00

For whatever reason, the people are still donating to the various campaigns.

I'm not sure if it's the constant email from each candidate saying "you've helped so much, don't stop now, please send money" or if they think the President of the United States actualy has power.

Until a member of the FED is president, we're just hiring a yes man and a publicist for the people that realy run the country behind the scenes. The election process is a grown up version of Survivor or American Idol for voters.

Of course, many have resigned themselves to the fact that we simply have no choice for president in this election (even if it mattered who were to be elected). They acknowledge that if Obama were not BLACK, he would be ignored by everybody. However, the fact that he's black allows people to shove an otherwise smarmy used car salesman type down the throats of everybody with a tinge of "white guilt". However, I don't have white guilt as i've never owned a slave. They also acknowledge that if Hillary were not a woman (open to argument if she is or not) she would not be in the race. Her last name and the fact that we can rally around "America hasn't had a woman president" enough to get interest are the only things keeping her on the TV.

Then to the other side, McCain is just about as interesting as voting for an unknown high school teacher from Wyoming. He's the third Democrat on the ticket, hence the propensity for Conservatives to overlook him as running in the first place.

Fred Thompson, yes, i'll say it again, would have been the PERFECT president. He's an adequate actor, can read scripts, and is entertaining. The bankers realy screwed the pooch when they let him out of the race...

Where did our government go?

2008-03-31T13:01:00.002-05:00

How blind were "we the people" when we let our government slip into the hands of a privately held bank with no accountability to us? How blind are "we the people" that we stand by idle as those who pose as our leaders hand more power and control over to the FED?

Did we not notice that we've undermined the freedoms we used to have in exchange for a friendly form of slavery while the "masters" build a monetary system which uses interest to control every aspect of our lives?

Why do we continue to fight as Democrats or Republicans when those two parties are little more than a front of plausibility bending only to the will of those in power? How is it that the average American doesn't notice that our elected politicians are just actors and the secret owners of the Federal Reserve Bank, a privately held company, are the ones making the real decisions?

Are You Proud to be an American?

2008-02-23T11:42:00.000-06:00

Is it possible to be proud of your country even if you are disappointed with how it is being run?

At what point did being a "patriot" require blindly drinking all of the cool aid being sold by the government and mass media? If being a patriot requires undying devotion to the mass media, then somebody must have hijacked the dictionary.

A patriot is able to be severely disappointed by the actions of our elected officials without turning his or her back on the country that they love. America for example, is likely the best country on earth. However, there are many "people" in power that do not represent or care for the things that make this country great. It should never become a bad thing to support the Constitution. However, we find ourselves in an environment where supporting the constitution makes one a racist or sexist or worse.

While I'm personally proud to be an American, I'm at the same time disappointed in our governments inability to safeguard it's own founding documents. That disappointment makes me an enemy to those that oppose or ignore the constitution. However, it doesn't make me anti-American. In fact, the opposite is true.

We need to remember that just because the media or an official says he's the patriot and you are un-American does not make it so. People will often hide behind the flag they wish to corrupt for personal gain. Although not a treasonous offense, we should find it imperative to hold these officials accountable for their attempt to hide their un-American tendencies behind false accusations leveled at the real patriots.

Obama is the F'd-O-Meter

2008-02-20T08:49:00.002-06:00

The soaring popularity of this candidate provides insight as to how F'd we are as a voting population. The fact that a huge (H U G E) number of voters are providing financial and voting support to a candidate of this nature should be sending a message to every remaining thinking American.

There are two likely possibilities for this particular surge.

The first possibility is less likely but more hopeful. That is the thought that maybe voters are sending a message that they want change and are supporting him for that reason until the election in November. At that time they will vote on a candidate for President rather than voting to send a message that our government needs to do a better job.

The second, more likely, more scary possibility is that they truly buy into his words, and will follow like lambs to the slaughter in November. Maybe they have been so trained by our multimedia Hollywood spoon fed entertainment that they need speeches rather than substance. Maybe they are so fed up with the system that they are willing to vote a socialist that cares not for the Constitution of the United States of America into office. Maybe they have given up on our country and simply want to throw everything into turmoil and have to start over with some sort of revolution.

Alternately, what if the entire Obama phenomenon is a republican conspiracy (everybody love conspiracy theories) to make an oncoming depression a result of the Democratic inability to handle a high maintenance economy? Yes, that last one is a stretch.

The unfortunate likelihood is that the voting population truly is as ignorant and short sighted as they would seem to be. It's entirely likely that generations of taking our country for granted has led to a society where the future no longer matters. Is it possible that we've finally realized a nationwide pattern of "emotion trumps logic"?

It would seem the fate of our nation is in the hands of those that cannot balance a checkbook, understand how much money they throw away when going upside down for a car they don't need, or realize that the house they are buying will cost more to keep than they make within the next 24 months.

If we use Obama as the F'd-O-Meter, it looks like we're pretty F'd people.

Will A Native American Ever Become President

2008-02-17T16:05:00.002-06:00

[this was a recently asked question. to explain the last line, one person treated the Trail of Tears as if it were a funny part of history.]

It's a statistical improbability. Considering the way the US government has treated them, there would probably be some worry that he or she would want to "take it back" or at least be digging up every old treaty the government ever broke and making sure they were finally executed correctly.

More likely, the only way would be if a party picked one and threw their money behind him. It takes a lot of marketing (look at obama and clintons spending) to make a dent in the american pupulus. Of course everybody thinks they are made of money becuase of the casinos. However, they might not want to throw their money into a system that abused their people in a rather calculated manner.

To anybody that thinks the Trail of Tears is a joking matter, **** off. Stop for a minute and imagine your great grandfather on it next time...

The Contract with Conservatives

2008-02-13T15:52:00.000-06:00

Supporting the Contract with Conservatives

The party of Ronald Reagan -- a collection of social and fiscal conservatives -- saw all their work come together with the Republican Revolution of 1994. Republicans came to power through their dedication to core, conservative principles.

Since that time, the conservative base has seen the Republican Party go astray. From runaway spending, to big government programs, to assaults on our First Amendment rights to amnesty for illegal aliens, conservatives have become disheartened, and the time has come for dramatic change.

America can thrive under conservative leadership and government. The Republican Party is best equipped to deliver this kind of leadership, but too often, it has not. The time has come when conservative voters can no longer be taken for granted. Conservatives need something more than simple assurances. For our time, effort, money, and votes, we need a pledge. We need a pledge from our presidential nominee to uphold the core Republican values that built this party, and which have taken a backseat to politics in recent years.

The Contract with Conservatives is that pledge. It is a pledge to uphold the major conservative ideals that have been pushed aside over the past decade.

We, the undersigned, will support our presidential nominee and other candidates for high office, only if they uphold the Contract with Conservatives.

It is time to get back to basics. The conservative base will work for candidates who pledge to uphold conservative values.

Contract with Conservatives

Immigration Reform

Secure America's borders
Enforce employment laws
No amnesty

The American people have spoken, and the clear message is that immigration reform starts with secure borders. In a post-9/11 world, we should expect nothing less. In addition, the American people do not support amnesty. Candidates must repudiate amnesty and show respect for the American people by showing respect for the law. Illegal aliens should not be given special consideration for citizenship and should not be put ahead of those seeking to come to America legally. Conservatives will work for candidates who pledge to put border security first and who pledge to not put illegal aliens ahead of those seeking citizenship through legal means.

Tax Reform

Make President Bush's tax cuts permanent
Reduce taxes, both on business and individuals
Simplify the tax code by moving to a flat tax or the Fair Tax
No favorites -- All tax cuts should be across the board

The tax code must be simplified, and all taxes should be reduced. The tax code should focus on its core function -- a means of raising revenue. The tax code should not be a vehicle for social engineering, and the reduction of taxes should not pit one socio-economic group against another. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to cut taxes and simplify the tax code, while not engaging in class warfare.

Size and Scope of Federal Government

Reduce the size of the federal government
Reform entitlement programs
Respect states' rights and limit the reach of the federal government as stated in the Constitution
Cut spending
Support a balanced budget amendment
Eliminate earmarks and support stand-alone spending bills

It is not enough for the federal government to only grow by a few percentage points. In the end, it still leads to bigger government. The federal government must SHRINK. The Republican Revolution was built on this core Republican principle, and conservatives will support candidates committed to shrinking the size and scope of the federal government. The pork must go! Earmarks and pork-barrel spending must be eliminated. These practices lead to corruption and are not conservative. The federal government should do only those core jobs enumerated in the Constitution. Other governmental responsibilities should fall to the states. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to cut spending, shrink government, and eliminate earmarks.

Judges

Vigorously nominate and support the confirmation of judges who follow the law, not those who legislate from the bench
Wage a real fight against left-wing attempts to block judicial nominees

Nominating a conservative judge simply to let him or her languish without an up-or-down vote is not acceptable. Judicial nominees, who follow the law rather than make new laws from the bench, deserve full and enthusiastic support. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to nominate strict constructionists and who will not wilt in that support even under left-wing attacks.

Life

Respect the rights of the unborn and promote laws which will protect innocent human life
Support the overturning of Roe v. Wade
Block any efforts to fund or promote embryonic stem cell research

Conservatives believe in a culture of life. This culture must be embraced and advocated by our Republican leaders. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to promote a culture of life and who work for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. No candidate can say they are "100% pro-life" and also support embryonic stem cell research. This research results in the destruction of innocent human life. Research proves that adult stem cells are as good or better for curing diseases, and thus the use of embryonic stem cells is moot. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to support life at every stage.

Free Speech

Repeal the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
Embrace First Amendment rights

The Campaign Finance Reform Act is an assault on free speech and must be repealed. The law resulted in a rise in soft money advocacy through the actions of 527 organizations while other groups were not allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights to support a candidate of their choice. This is wrong. Conservatives will support candidates who pledge to repeal this law and support the free speech rights of all Americans.

America The Victimized

2008-02-12T00:23:00.000-06:00

American politics is a sham. Between the Democrats and the Republicans, the people are not being represented. Instead, special interests and big business are the catered to demographics.

We the people have been forgotten. It's assumed by the "two party" system that we've assumed our position as sheep or lemmings, readily gobbling up the rhetoric spewed by both parties. We're supposed to think that nothing gets done because "the other side" blocks all good work.

If that is truly the case, then we need to rid ourselves of "both sides" and start over. By and large, the political leanings of both Democrats and Republicans are out of step with either party. The democrats align with the party because they see it as the only fight against big business interests of the Republicans. The republicans align themselves with the party because they see it as the only fight against throwing away the freedoms earned through blood sacrifice of our ancestors.

The reality however, is that both parties are deviating away from the interests of our nation, away from the foundation of our Constitution, and into paths that each pose their own dangers.

We can't accept this as a nation. However, there is no answer. Each party holds inconsistency, including the alternate parties such as Independent and Centralist. To further the problem, any alternate parties have no power in politics. The presidential race boils down to who the D and R put on the ticket. We've been so ingrained that only those votes count that we only choose those letters in order to prevent throwing our votes away.

Whatever the answer is, it doesn't lie in the party Democrat or the party Republican. Only a future of continued disenfranchisement awaits us. Does anybody have an answer?

Obama Wants To Give Peace A Chance

2008-02-10T09:02:00.000-06:00

No, i'm not a hippie. However, I think it's time we actually gave peace a chance. do we really want to live in a world that is consumed with war? Do we find personal satisfaction in knowing that people are dying every day across the globe? Do we want to rest safe in the knowledge that war is the only constant on Earth?

Why don't we all just give peace a chance? Why don't the people of all countries put down their weapons for once and NOT pick them back up and start fighting? Why don't the leaders of all governments get together, let the past go, and celebrate the diversity that is Earth?

Wow, there are a lot of whys there. Rather than smoking some pot and sitting in a peace circle, I guess I could think out loud and try to answer a couple of those "why's". Hmmm, where to start.

* Why don't we all just give peace a chance?
Because we're human. War exists when need or greed or ego are combined with power/might. The peaceful hippie that wants to give peace a chance has very simple needs. ("everybody just be nice to each other and share") However, the simple utterance of the phrase doesn't change the world. In fact, the masses uttering that phrase can be a detriment as they further the ignorance that peace will rule when we "give it a chance". Rather than dealing with the issues of war, people get sidetracked by a false hope .

* why don't all of the countries put down their weapons?
Because they arn't stupid. The first county to put down it's weapons becomes the first target for those that did not. The best defense is a good offense because it feeds on the humanity of your enemy. Who is your enemy? Anybody who wants what you have and has (or thinks they have) the power to take it from you (or your country).

* Why not let the past go and celebrate the diversity of Earth?
Humanity prevents people from letting go of the past on a base level. Whatever you want to call it, it's a part of human nature. Being an enlightened soul is nice when you have no responsibility, but governments must learn from the past and be ever vigilant of what could occur in the future. Regarding diversity, racial differences are also a catalyst in some conflict. In cases where it is not the catalyst, it certainly plays a factor in response. No matter how much conditioning we inflict upon our children (be a colorblind society), race is an integral facet of humanity, it's an obvious visual indicator of "different" and humanity is designed to fear or study that which is different.

The people that beg to "give peace a chance" need to wake up and stop causing the problem. by demanding diversity and assimilation, they are creating the environment where peace has no chance. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If you take two things that do not naturally mix, then force them to mix under the weight of guilt (if they dont accept), eventualy there will be a breakdown. Globalization is great for corporations. However, it gives a false hope that one world can get along w/o war. Peace is diminished by diversity, except in small pot smoking circles. Hippies, make a choice, do you want diversity, or do you want peace?

In the worlds of The Offspring, "you gotta keep em separated".

Bush Shames Republican Party Into Hiding In 2008

2008-02-08T15:28:00.000-06:00

That's probably the most honest assessment of this Nomination season. Republicans have a tremendous black eye in public opinion. The past 7 years have setup the greatest chance for Democrats to gain control of the White House, Supreme Court "Justices", and the direction of our nation during a dark time in our history.

Even the Republicans that voted for Bush are dissatisfied with his performance. From overt attempts to get us to beleive things that are highly unlikely (the public reasons for entering Iraq and what they are lying about regarding 9/11) and outright failure to perform in the realm of Illegal Immigration have left a very bad feeling among Republicans.

Democrats already hated bush for "stealing" the elections from Gore and Kerry so there was simply no chance of getting support from them. Essentially, the Democrats wouldn't like republicans if everybody were suddenly given 40 acres, a mule, a government expense account, and rainbow streets flowing with chocolate rivers.

But, the Republicans could have at least accomplished something positive regarding the economy and Illegal Immigration. Instead, Bush fell back on the "i don't have to do anything about it" stance of promoting "reform" instead of "enforcement". Obviously enforcement would not be popular among liberal. However, he already had a war nobody wanted so what impact would enforcing immigration laws really had on public opinion?

Bush missed a chance to get some real work done. However, he chose to polarize the nation, give Democrats every bit of momentum they needed going into 2008, and still leave the people thinking they have been lied to and ignored. In short, there is no room in public opinion for Bush. Unless the Republican party publicly kicks him out of the club, no presidential nominee will have chance. Since that's not happening, it looks like the republicans are choosing a safe loss candidate (McCain/McLame) and letting the conservative voters stay home.

Picking a strong candidate and losing would have been better for the party than watering down everything we beleive in and still losing the election. It's one thing to fail, but arn't we supposed to go down swinging?

Goodbye Romney, Hello McLame

2008-02-07T20:49:00.000-06:00

Romney drops out of the race, McCain visits CPAC.

Voters are used to being lied to. Little white lies, vague embellishments, and bold face lies. We've seen it all so what is different now? McCain stepped into CPAC and essentially told us what we wanted to hear, glossing over the facts and ignoring his liberal tendencies.

He played the "lets get along" card while selling softened stories about how the differences don't matter. Honestly, if the differences don't matter, then why do we care if Hillary gets the White House? The simple truth is that differences to matter when they effect the direction of our government.

Our ability to ignore his deviation from responsible conservative thinking doesn't make his job easier, it makes us quitters. If this country were founded by quitters, we'd still be getting overtaxed for tea and singing praises to England.

McCain walked in like a used car salesman and jerked everyone around at CPAC today. The only bit of honesty in that entire deal would be the boos when he attempted to broach the subject of Illegal Immigration.

Oreilly Calls Willie Nelson A Pinhead

2008-02-07T17:06:00.000-06:00

With a quick sound byte of Willie Nelson saying he doesn't buy the official explanation of the 9/11 building collapses, Bill Oreilly proceeds to call him a "pinhead" before looking down as if ashamed.

What Bill doesn't acknowledge is that it's healthy to understand that our government lies to us. It keeps secrets for various reasons including National Security. If there was more to the clip that explained some strange conspiracy theory, that would have been interesting to include. But considering Willie Nelson a "conspiracy nut" because he question the accuracy of the 9/11 report makes Oreilly some kind of nut himself.

More than likely the government will never tell us everything it knew or knows about 9.11.01. We still don't know the real story behind the Kennedy assassination and that was long before most of us were born. Why would we know the real story about WTC towers and building 7 if we don't know the truth about a famously dead president?

Willie is a nut for various reasons and a tax attorney could accurately call him a pinhead. In this case, Bill is the pinhead.

McCain to Republicans: STFU

2008-02-06T09:27:00.000-06:00

McCain: "I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there's areas we can agree on," McCain said at a news conference in a Phoenix airport hangar.

McCain has basically told Republicans to ignore everything they don't like and try to look for the things they agree on.

This is an incredibly opportunistic way to make it look as if he's being the rational party. It's interesting how one would turn this around on the voting population. Rather than acknowledging that he is liberal enough to be a Democrat and has policy goals which are anti-American, particularly in the area of Illegal Immigration, he puts his failure upon the voters.

Please stop talking about my weaknesses and focus on my good points. If that's not a cry from a position of fault, I'm not sure what is.

The following statement is like somebody breaking into your house to kill you. You don't want to die. They don't want you to life. McCain easily sums that kind of situation with the following:

McCain: "We may have a disagreement on an issue or two," he said. "That's healthy. Wouldn't we pretty boring if we agreed on everything? So the point is that we can succeed."

It will be interesting to see how conservatives respond to this. Will they "shut the f*** up" as McCain needs them to? Will they make it known that we don't agree on enough issues to consider McCain any more viable than Obama or Clinton? An open letter to McCain would probably include the reiteration that nobody wants Immigration reform, they want ENFORCEMENT.

Surely we are watching the Republican party field this candidate simply in an effort to make a good show of losing a general election.

The Responsiblity of Rights

2008-02-05T19:39:00.000-06:00

We're inundated with messages about what we're owed. We're indoctrinated with the legacy of injustice. We're told we can make revolutionary change. We're told to change the world. We're told of how we've wronged various groups. We've been told that the world owes us something and it's our birthright to go get it.

We're surrounded by socialist and communist influences, such as the ACLU, ordained to facilitate the deconstruction of our constitution. We're surrounded by liberals that let emotion trump logic and give away the strength paid for by our forefathers blood in exchange for the instant gratification of short lived convenience. Our children are surrounded by bleeding hearts with no sight for a scalable society or long term future of our country.

Our children and our forefathers are the greatest victims. The men that gave their lives for the hope of the future probably did not anticipate pseudo-intellectuals throwing their pearls to the swine. The random handouts in the name of entitlement to every niche that feels victimized has amounted to little more than spoiled grandchildren wasting their inheritance on cars and drugs.

Why do the liberals make it seem like a bad thing to exercise responsibility and conservation when handling issues of great importance? It's as if you're the bad guy unless you act in an irresponsible and impulsive manner.

Hillary's Day of Hope

2008-02-05T07:29:00.001-06:00

Today is the day that Hillary hopes to defeat Obama. This is her day of "yes we can". Last night she was on letterman and watching her was like watching the lady that already knew she was going to win. Of course, watching Tom Brady before the superbowl left you with a similar feeling.

We saw how the Giants literally smashed his hopes into the field during that game. Today, we watch and see if that happens to Hillary. Considering that the Republicans don't really have a candidate in the ring that can beat Hillary or Obama with any certainty, this is probably going to be the most "interesting" political race of the season.

Yes, i still think that the elections are handled behind the scenes. Yes, i still think that Hillary has already been promised the 2008 Presidential Election. Yes, i've been wrong before. I'm not a ranking member of some secret society and I don't make those decisions. However, it looks pretty likely that Hillary is going to take this Nomination and then it's subsequent election.

I would much rather be wrong about that as i'm not a Clinton supporter nor have I ever been one. So don't start thinking that this is a post of celebration. Welcome to Super Tuesday everyone.

Tomorrow it's official. Huckabee or McCain or Romney

2008-02-04T17:04:00.000-06:00

Obviously we're looking at a McCain/Romney shootout. We're still going to vote for Huckabee, we're just going to know that doing so keeps us out of the big shootout. Even Chuck Norris can't kick this thing into gear. A round house to the white house?

We've got Huckabee splitting the McCain/Romney vote and who knows what the skew will be. Are we hurting ourselves by taking votes away from the real candidates? Should we complain when we're only hoping that we do that to the Democrat nominee when it's time for the general election? How can we complain about it now if we know we're counting on it against the Democrats?

We can complain because our government has traded in it's responsibility to the people and exchanged it for politically correct vote grabbing garbage. Even Huckabee is guilty of being soft on illegal immigration for some reason. At least we'll be able to take the extra players out after tomorrow. We can guarantee that the opposition already has a series of attack prepared for whoever happens to win the nomination. We can only hope that "our side" (and i use that term loosely) is prepared for such attacks.

Bring on your Hillarys and your Obamas. Bring on your McCains and your Romneys. We're still going to be here, bent over the voting table, waiting for what's coming to us. Hopefully it won't hurt as bad as it did last time. :-)

Romney sets himself apart on Immigration

2008-02-04T09:25:00.000-06:00

Romney seems to be the only candidate not riding the "path to citizenship" train. All of the other candidates seem to think the best way to handle illegal immigration is to remove the word "illegal" from the problem.

At that point, there is at least no reason for people to talk to them about the issue. The root of the problem isn't solved, but at least governmental culpability is mitigated. Romney seems to be the only candidate that doesn't support fixing illegal immigration by granting citizenship to all of the trespassers.

It's too bad that his inability to get a message to conservative voters will likely cause Huckabee and Paul supporters to inadvertently allow McCain, a Republican in name only, to get the support required to become the party pick.

Sadly, there is no "best candidate". There are simply issues that sometimes they are on the right side of and sometimes not. We're in for a bumpy ride.

Choose to survive: McCain

2008-02-01T14:09:00.000-06:00

So, it seems the Republicans are not purposely trying to isolate their base by choosing McCain. The statistical data presented since the "rallying" around that particular candidate seems to show they are instead just trying to survive.

As one would expect, Huckabee, although the best choice for President, can expect no more than 5% of the Democrat vote. Since Republicans assume they have the lions share of the Republican vote, they must now look to the Democrats for the rest of their votes. Unfortunately, many Conservatives have a hard time stomaching McCain as their candidate, so write-in votes for Huckabee, Thompson, and Ron Paul are rumored everywhere.

In any case, McCain seems to have some draw among the McCain Democrats. This draw can supposedly get into the 30% of the Democrat voters if they are as unhappy with their partys candidate as we are with McCain. This is a strategic move to get most of the Republican votes while also pulling in a large chunk of the Independent and Democrat votes.

The second part of this puzzle supposedly depends upon who wins the Democratic nomination. If it is Obama, rumors are that Romney will be the Republican choice, as he will somehow run better against that opponent. However, if Hillary is chosen, then McCain will be the guy.

The only saving grace is that Huckabee is best choice for VP if McCain happens to take the Nomination. He's pretty old. Although I would rather have Huckabee head the ticket, it does make sense that he would have a much tougher time of beating the entire Democrat ticket. America doesn't like hard choices, so America avoids conservatives.

Welcome to the roller coaster, let the ride begin.

Choose to Lose: McCain

2008-01-31T10:26:00.000-06:00

If you listen to FoxNews, you will get a feeling that the Republicans have already chosen McCain as their candidate. Fortunately, FoxNews is not the measure of truth. There is still a chance that the Republicans will not Choose To Lose the election by fielding McCain as the candidate of choice.

If McCain happens to get the nomination, I will at least have one more feather in my hat to prove that this election was handled behind the scenes by power brokers and promised to Hillary years ago. McCain will be the sure sign that the Republicans don't want to win, they just want to field a decent 2nd place finisher.

The race is narrowing . . . Huckabee is our only hope...

2008-01-31T09:47:00.000-06:00

The amount of attention being shared by McCain and Romney is scary. From what you see, it would make you think that the Republican Party is going to choose one of those two.

That is a scary thought. We don't need another Bush. His almost-a-democrat politics has left this country without the president we voted for. The leader of our country should be somewhat conservative. Putting a liberal in that position is dangerous business. McCain and Romney are the same brand of Pandering to Democrats as Bush.

Why should we reward the negative aspects of the current president by hiring somebody that is the same old business? Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates with the most promise. They both held the hope of people that we would once again have an Intelligent President that could take care of business.

Thompson is no longer in the picture. This leaves Huckabee. He's the last great hope of the 2008 election process. All others on both sides are useless politicians. They are a continuation of the USAFraud perpetuated on the voting public. With Huckabee, we still have a chance to remove the Fraud, and be left with a USA.

State of the Union (Bush 7th of 7 Speaches)

2008-01-28T21:24:00.000-06:00

The State of The Union address was well written, decently delivered, full of hope, but hard to take seriously. This would have been a great speech delivered as the first of his seven. However, that would have required some follow through. In this case, it's pretty words that fade into oblivion because "it's not my fault they didn't do what i said."

If only there were a feeling of sincerity rather than a hope to redeem a doomed legacy. As the song said, "we won't be fooled again". Well, time and time again, Americans have failed to hold true to the promise of that song.

We're happy that our government languishes in mediocrity while holding the same endless arguments that allow us to disparage each other based on party affiliation. We're alright with nothing getting done unless it happens to be done by "our party". Until it directly effects us, we literally don't care.

The politicians know this. The politicians cater to this. We are their enablers. They are the manifestation of our own inability to make decisions and see results. In short, we get what we pay for. We always get what we pay for.

Obama v. Huckabee, Let the Race Wars Begin

2008-01-28T09:51:00.000-06:00

Although the primaries and caucuses don't add up to a specific number of votes which define the party choice, they do give us something fun to play with at this point.

Lets assume from those outcomes so far, that the Democrats pick Obama and the Republicans pick Huckabee (not because of votes, but because his competition are basically Democrats).

Race has been an increasingly noticeable aspect of these campaigns. If these two were to become the final choices of each respective party, Imagine the smackdown we'd be setup for. On one side of the ticket, you have a black man. On the other side of the ticket, you have "the man", the white symbol of the "old boys club", the oppressor. A politician of a southern state, the states that supposedly fought the Civil War with no purpose other than keeping slavery (according to liberals).

Now we have the makings of a good old fashioned race war. You know, the kind that Farrakhan and X and Sharpton have been looking forward to since the dawn of their peoples freedom in this country. If these were the names on the ticket, and Obama were not elected, imagine how "jilted" and hard done by blacks would be. Imagine the outrage among activists. Of course the average person would probably say "i shoulda known better", but the activists would be outraged and screaming for TV time to complain about yet another injustice imparted up on their people, the victims, by a white racist machine.

If a politically unexperienced person such as Obama were to receive the nomination and subsequent presidency, imagine the turmoil that would follow. Eventualy the office of presiden would come to a stop, similar to placing a 2nd grader in junior high and forcing the rest of the class to follow his learning curve. Either way, America looses with that particular ticket.

Fearing The Woman President

2008-01-23T20:57:00.000-06:00

So, I've heard a number of arguments against having a woman president. The most common one is related to sanity. Well, not directly sanity, but mood swings. "what if the russians make a bad move on the wrong day and she decides to nuke the world???".

Personally, I'd think that's some kind of exaggeration. I doubt a woman would let a bit of impatience allow her to forgo all reason and responsibility and initiate Armageddon.

Of course, I often expect the best from people, and find that a bad day goes much further than one would reasonably imagine. Then there are the people that bring up the woman that went crazy and killed her children or the woman that (supposedly) got mad and ran her husband over in the driveway with a steam roller.

I guess nuking the world would be possible if a person had gone crazy enough to kill their kids or flatten their husband. However, there are people constantly surrounding the president. If she started getting sketchy, I'm sure somebody would notice long before she started picking up the big red phone and telling people to bomb something.

I'm not myth busters, but it would seem that we're reasonably safe from a mood swing induced nuclear war. However, if Hillary in particular were to be President, I wouldn't be surprised if cheating husbands were given some pretty harsh treatment. Federal prisons for cheaters?

Abortion 2008 and the Price of Tea in China

2008-01-23T20:01:00.000-06:00

One of my personal pet-peeves in any.. well EVERY election is the topic of abortion.

The most significant fact of the matter is that it's used by both sides of the argument when neither side is honestly approaching the subject matter. In the end, this simply means that nothing but discourse will follow. The voters find a wedge driven between themselves and every other issue in play.

The politicians have to be doing this on purpose. Why else would they continue the historical argument when both sides know they are not talking about the same thing? It would seem it's a valuable tool in obfuscating the real issues. Is immigration, war, oil prices, or the housing market getting to uncomfortable? Well, let's get Americans fired up about an emotional argument that has no end and we won't have to talk about anything uncomfortable!

Wait, did I just insinuate that abortion is a comfortable topic for politicians? Compared to the other topics, it is comfortable in that it requires no answer. It just requires rhetoric. The other issues require "something" of substance that will later be held as a test of pass or fail.

The pro-life side of the argument is arguing when life begins. The pro-Choice side is arguing that women have a right to choose. Can anybody see why this argument goes nowhere?

The pro-life crowd for some reason thinks they will convince the pro-choice crowd that live begins at a specific point in time. They don't understand that the pro-choice side isn't listening, will not listen, and probably wouldn't care if they did. Yet the pro-life crowd still engages in an argument knowing this.

The pro-choice crowd for some reason thinks the pro-life crowd will cease to think that the life of a baby is important just because they have started talking about rights rather than talk about the baby that the pro-life people are referring to. Yet, they still engage in the argument.

The crux of the abortion argument should be out of Election politics until a couple bits of information can be determined.

1. When does life begin. - without this defined, nobody is going to be talking about the same subject.
2. What rights do people have and when is the appropriate time to exercise those rights. - When does the "womans right to choose" (as per bumper stickers littering berkeley, ca) interfere with the life of another? pro-life would say her right to choose happens when she chooses to engage in pregnancy causing activities w/o taking responsibility for the results of that particular biological process. pro-choice would say it happens at any point convenient. I'm not sure if this includes up to 18yrs or possibly after.

In short, the issue is a diversionary tactic used by both partys to polarize voters over an issue that has no political solution. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned today, the American people (even if it were a minority) would not allow Abortion to become illegal and revert to back alley practices.

I'm not suggesting that Abortion is right or wrong. I'm simply suggesting that it's a diversionary tactic used by politicians to get us antsy about something other than what we're hiring them for.

You're a Racist if you don't support Obama

2008-01-23T19:46:00.000-06:00

Why is it that many people treat you as if you are a racist if you don't support Obama for President?

The fact that I don't have a vested interest in the skin color of the president shouldn't make me a racist. Do I hate Arkansas if I'm not supporting Huckabee? Do I have something against actors if i didn't support Thompson? Do I hate women if I don't support Hillary?

I understand that many people of color have a vested interest in a black president being elected. I also understand that's skin color is going to be significantly more important to them. However, I take issue with being treated as a racist because my vote requires something a little deeper than skin.

Do I think Obama is the right man for the job? No, not just no, but **** no. His skin color has nothing to do with his socialist anti-American opinions. Regardless of his skin color, I don't want a man with his opinions as president.

White guilt won't buy my vote and it's racist for people to assume that skin color makes him a worthwhile candidate.

The Democratic Mud Machine

2008-01-22T21:34:00.000-06:00

Well, things are getting messy in the Democratic side of things.

Usually, the mud machine is pointed all the way across the isle and at the Republicans.

But, with the Democrats running two minorities, it's beginning to be a battle for who is most hard done by. Is it the black man, or is it the woman? Watching them go at each other is great entertainment. Watching the Democratic Mud Machine throw a mess all over itself is even more humorous.

Gotta love it!

c'mon Hillary and Hussain, take the gloves off!!!

Hillary Hates Black People!!!

2008-01-14T21:40:00.000-06:00

Well, that title is about as accurate as the obama campaigns characterization of her statement regarding MLK the other day.

To hear it on the street, Hillary said that MLK didn't do anything, it was all President Johnson.

The only way that could be gleaned from her comment would be if the listener had a smaller brain than a regular human, or maybe coarser brain matter that was only good for building strong muscles and enduring tedious manual labor. Oh, did I just say that?

The Obamatards are twisting her words of fact, that MLK's work was officialy put into play by a US President, and making it sound as if she said "MLK didn't do shit, it was all President Johnson!"

Obamatards, looking for "change", need to "change" their diapers, grow up, grow a pair, and stop twisting words around that are obvious to anybody with an IQ above 80. Maybe the damage is done. It's possible that a bunch of hack thugs in suits can use the race card to trash people becuase their entire campaign has no substance.

Ron Paul, who is this guy

2008-01-13T19:59:00.000-06:00

Ron Paul is very entertaining to watch in the debates.

But, from what I've heard, he's got some ideas that are contrary to popular opinion.

Legalize Prostition: Although this might help with some of the problems associated with the rampant illegal sex trade that occurs in our country (and globally), It's not going to fly with the average american.

Legalized Drugs: For years people have touted the amount of money the government could make in taxes and save on the "war on drugs". However, this will also not fly with the average American that envisions a nation of potheads.

The Obama Advantage (as posted on DailyKos)

2008-01-09T11:47:00.000-06:00

The elections are always directed behind the scenes. The largest proof of that in recent years would be the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections. That being said there is an advantage to Obama being in the race even though he will not win the Democratic nomination or the subsequent presidency.

Money. The amount of money spent during his campaign will help the various regional economies it touches. That is never bad for a city.

Marketing. The Democrats are currently highlighting TWO minority candidates, both from demographics we've all been taught have never and will never "on our lifetimes" become president of the United States. This gives the whole party a great marketing opportunity and gets people talking about more than the issues which have plagued an will continue to plague the party.

It's always better to keep people from being focused on things like rampant illegal immigration, government programs that help everybody but the citizens, and random social policies which are designed to weaken any sort of national pride that was groomed back in "old days".

Instead, we're looking at a "bright future" and "change" w/o any substantive basis.

The fun part, is that we've known Hillary was going to get the Presidency since 2000, so this particular "show" is just great entertainment. My only question is if Obama knows this, and is just playing along. If so, it's easy not to feel bad for him knowing he's not going to be the next President. If he's not aware of the decisions of te Power Brokers, then you do have to feel kinda bad cause that means he's actualy trying to win a losing race.
- usafraud

http://usafraud.blogspot.com

Presidential Election 2008 - The race will start soon

2008-01-08T18:23:00.000-06:00

So going into Iowa and New Hampshire, everybody wonder which of the dozen plus candidates will make the cut for the Two coveted spots.

Only one Democrat in the group will get their name on the ticket. Only one Republican in the group will get their name on the ticket. It's the time when all of the players put on their best game face and smile for the camera.

But, everybody wonders who will win. Not just who will win the party nomination, but who will ultimately win the election and become the next president. So, who are the big names? Obviously Clinton and Obama get first billing because they are minorities representing demographics that we've all been taught cannot be president. That's worth some TV time right there. So in short, those two are most likely going to be the only ones that count when the decision is made to pick a candidate.

However, on the Republican side of the table, it's a little bit murky. Some people love Guilliani and think he could go all the way. Some love McCain and think the same thing. Personally, I love Thompson, but i'm under the impression that he's not going to make it to the final stretch.

So, who will be the final two? Will it be McCain and Obama? That's my tenative guess. As far as story goes, I'd kinda like to see Clinton v. Huckabee and have a good old Arkansas Smarm-Off!

CHANGE (yeah, just a little more)

2008-01-08T14:55:00.000-06:00

Yes, this word happens to be a pet-peeve of mine when it comes to election politics.

CHANGE is a word emphasized by the candidate with the least to say. They have nothing else to offer so they hide behind a generic word that means nothing. They do this because they know that the average American assumes they mean some sort of directed "change for the better".

The candidates know that and use this word simply as a marketing tool. Something like a rich uncle offering you a job at his investment banking company. You assume you're going to be sitting in a big office in the 50th floor overlooking times square. However, you soon find that your promise was actually for a spot riding a 10speed around town delivering papers.

Change means nothing unless there is a specific attainable change that has some likelihood of becoming a reality rather than am empty campaign promise.

Obama, the great ... hope!

2008-01-04T20:49:00.000-06:00

CHANGE!

Obama is certainly entertaining to watch. However, If I had to pick a candidate with no political experience and base the choice only on race, i'd probably pick Will Smith. He's a good actor, he's a good musician, and much like Obama, he knows nothing about the presidency.

It's scary when people get all hyped up about "change". The word itself means little more than something different. The "change" that everybody is talking about could just as easily be accomplished by placing Don Imus or Madonna in the White House. Change for the sake of Change is usually an act of desperation which will ultimately result in failure.

Lets worry less about "change" and maybe come up with some sort of PLAN in facilitate "change".

Hopefully the American people won't be fooled again by cute speaches and rehashed political rhetoric...

Everyone has the right to vote!

2008-01-03T10:36:00.000-06:00

Back in school, we were taught about voting. It was a right for all citizens. Men could vote, Women could vote. All races could vote. You just had to be a citizen.

Fast forward to adulthood.

We're all able to vote. We're just not necessarily assure that our vote will be counted. We never could be sure that our ballot wasn't thrown in the trash by some election official that needed to come up with a specific result. We never can be sure that our electronic votes are being counted any more securely than our paper votes were.

We're also never sure that citizens are the ones voting. There are supposedly millions of illegal aliens voting in every election.

Then again, they are supposedly counting our votes in the first place. Who is to say every vote has ever been counted. Elections are a "black box" for most people. The average voter has little exposure beyond dropping in the ballot or clicking on a choice. We have no way of knowing anything beyond the moment we make our selection and hope for the best.

On a brighter note, it's at least a little comforting that important decisions arn't being made by 200 million apathetic neighbors that have no idea what they are really choosing. At least we can assume that in a fixed election, the people with the power actually know something about the issues on the ballot and their long term societal ramifications.

Isn't our best interest ultimately their best interest? maybe? hopefully? please? *lol*

Should Don Imus run for president?

2008-01-02T09:27:00.000-06:00

Well, he's go the cover of NewsMax. Not sure that's the same thing as People or not, but hey, it's a cover. In any case, it would be an interesting race. Independent? Republican? Democrat?

Most likely the green party, but hey, that could just be his hat talking. Why not, he's famous. He's controversial even if it's just becuase Al Sharpton can't take a joke. Alright, that wasn't fair. Al Sharpton can take a joke. Al has to love Imus. W/o Imus, Al would have been unable to get more TV time!

Isn't it fun how the different characters intertwine to make each others popularity spike and fade and then start all over again?

Welcome to 2008 - Happy New Year

2008-01-01T11:46:00.000-06:00

As we wake up to our new year I have no idea what is going on with the political media machine and the current state of pre-election hype. It's kind of nice. There will be plenty of time to play catch up before November.

I'm sure the writers understand that some of us are going to be sleeping in. As such, they probably don't want a whole lot to happen today. At least in the public eye. It would be a great day to send couriers around to the different players and unveil the next plot change behind closed doors.

Maybe that means we'll get some really interesting entertainment from the candidates over the next week or so. In any case, I'm leaving the TV and Internet in the "news free zone" today...

2008 Election Playoffs

2007-12-30T11:18:00.000-06:00

Watching the morning news we'll see the stats displayed just like an NFL pre-game show. Huckabee is up, Guiliani is down, Obama and Clinton are throwing pre-match jabs, and the Iowa caucus is expected to draw less than 10% of the population.

The only real difference between this particular form of entertainment and football is the teams. We're not getting ready for the Colts v. the Titans or the Detriot v. Green Bay. In this episode, we're getting ready for Huck v. Guili and a black man v. a woman. On one side, you have the traditional politicians. On the other side you have a battle of minorities previously assume to never have a shot at presidency.

Who will win each contest? Which minority will emerge victorious? How much of this is scripted? Can it really be an accident that in an election where Republicans are the least viable that the Democrats would have multiple "high impact ticket items" battling for their chance?

It is a great strategy. Having two underdogs in the running allows for the competition to have to pick one to attack, possibly discredit, and still have another underdog in tow to pickup the party and run to the finish. Also, how much can an opponent attack an underdog w/o looking bad? If they were to take out one of the minorities, they would surely have to step carefully in handling the remaining opponent wouldn't they?

In any case, we're watching one of the best political "made for tv movies" of our time. We've been groomed for this election since grade school. Are we ready to see how it ends? Buckle up kids. Obama wasn't even around when Hillary set her sights on the White House. Let's fire up the Tivos and see how predictable the script turns out to be!

Have you complained about the government lately?

2007-12-29T13:28:00.000-06:00

It's easy to get started. Take any conversation with nearly anyone you know or meet and bring up politics. Soon, you'll find somebody talking about what annoys them in our government.

There are the obvious hot button issues like taxes (particularly this time of year), immigration, and of course elections. Elections are always fun. Everybody knows who would do the best job but nobody agrees who it is. In most cases, we don't have a clue what the people we promote would even try to get accomplished if they were elected.

In the cases where you're lucky enough to vote for somebody that gets elected, it's time for the long term disappointment. Those who vote for a losing candidate at least get their disappointment over with on election day. They are then given the opportunity to complain about how it would have been different if their candidate had won. However, the "winner" is left with the bitter taste of their candidates failure.

Well, at least their perceived failure. In reality, we all know that nothing is going to change, at least not like the pre-election hype would lead us to believe. Eventually we're left with empty promises and the same old situation we had with the last guy.

So yeah, it's great to get excited about your election when you're 18 and you think the votes change the world. But after a couple elections and a little overview of political history it becomes increasingly clear that you just performed in another episode of "Punk'd" starring your candidate.

What exactly is "USA Fraud"?

2007-12-28T17:55:00.000-06:00

The term is specifically tied to how the "American Dream" or "America" in general is misrepresented to us during our formidable years in school. The depth of the fraud requires a deeper understanding of who is behind it's perpetuation.

We have the obvious suspects. "Them", as the conspiracy theorists would say, referring to "The Man" or the government. "Teachers" as the parents would say, when their children come home repeating the indoctrination of the day.

Regardless of who is ultimately behind it, there is an obvious disconnect between the USA taught in schools, and the country we eventually accept as ours.

USA Fraud is an attempt to reconcile why many Americans are unhappy about nearly every aspect of our government, from Immigration and War to Social Security and Fixed Elections.

The frustration in seeing how things "really are" in contrast to how they are "supposed to be" tends to fuel random issues and opinions beyond what would reasonably be expected. The minutemen are an example of the government failing a demographic. Their very presence on the border is an expression of frustration with the governments deviation from the textbook "American Dream"...

Clarification: Who's side am I on?

2007-12-28T14:27:00.000-06:00

From this blog perspective, I'm more of a watcher. I write what i see, and editorialize a little. However, I'm Pro-American with my thoughts. Pro-American can be defined as whatever the teller wants it to be. In this case, I'm pro "the America i was taught about as a kid".

I'm not a proponent of corrupt government, war, peace, immigration, genocide, etc. More to the point, I'm not a proponent of the Political "show" that we're subjected to as voters. Yet, telling the average American that it's "show" is like telling grandpa that Professional Wrestling was fixed back in the 70's/80's. People don't want to hear that. It's inconsistent with their indoctrination.

In short, I'm for the people, and against the sideshows that pass as politics and elections. I may be wrong, but who is to say that Hillary Clinton wasn't determined to be the 2008 President of USA 10 or more years ago?