[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...
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Contract with Conservatives
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.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
America The Victimized
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?
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?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Obama Wants To Give Peace A Chance
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".
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".
Friday, February 8, 2008
Bush Shames Republican Party Into Hiding In 2008
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?
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?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Goodbye Romney, Hello McLame
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
