A post about nothing.

But c'mon, I have to post something on the 29th of February, don't I? :D

Oh, wow...

My last three posts have been links to Youtube videos...
Real post coming soon :)

Primetime Jerry Springer...

Story link

"The wife of a New York City cop who admitted to cheating on him and wanting to be married to another man on Monday's episode of Fox's "The Moment of Truth" says she did it for fame and fortune.

I start ranting incoherantly against modern society when I see commericials for this show...it's absolutely ridiculous. I have no idea how this show has stayed on air for the short time it's been on.

On a lighter note...

I absolutely love The Onion :D. This video is great...
[Disclaimer: it does contain some profanity, just a warning.]

"I recommend the politics of fear"

Bill Kristol: "[Obama’s] riding a wave of euphoria. She [Clinton] needs to puncture it. The way you puncture euphoria is reality, or to be more blunt, fear. I recommend to Senator Clinton the politics of fear."

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[Reposted] Opinions?

on The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

It's not something that gets a lot of press coverage; when it does its existence is denied, or it's called a conspiracy. (It does, in fact, exist, but I already have my own opinions.)

So, to leave this very open-ended, what is your opinion - if any - of the CFR?

[I posted this a couple weeks ago, but didn't really have anyone visiting my blog at the time, so I'm reposting it.]

Think Obama is a viable (second) choice? Think again!

(hat tip: Daily Paul, Gayle)

I'm very disturbed by the kind of support that Senator Obama has been getting lately. He's getting support from the mainstream Democratic party, of course, but what scares me even more is that some of my fellow, more liberal Ron Paul supporters, along with moderate young people are looking at him as a viable second, or even first choice. This is dangerous thinking, friends!

Gayle has a post up about Louis Farrakhan's essential endorsement of Obama. For those of you who might not be familiar with Farrakhan, here are a few quotes from him (emphasis added.)

"Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."

"White people are potential humans — they haven't evolved yet.

“FEMA is too White to represent us and so is the Red Cross.”

After a little searching (OK, I did a Google search) I found this Washington Post article which talks about Senator Obama's church's recent praise of Farrakhan as a man who "truly epitomized greatness." It would be fair to note, as the article points out, nothing directly ties Obama directly to Farrakhan, and Obama has made a few vague statements about "not agreeing with his church" on everything. And no, politicians don't pick the people who endorse them.

However, I find it very disturbing that the Senator hasn't openly spoken out against Farrakhan, and I feel it's because he doesn't want to cut ties with that extreme fringe of Black activists. I think that's very disappointing, at least, and at most, despicable.

But anyway, another thing that I've heard from some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters is that Obama is the second best candidate because of his foreign policy. First of all, I think it's foolish to be a single-issue voter. I'm not voting for McCain or Obama, but it's for a variety of reasons. Either way, Obama's foreign policy as a whole is not preferable. He's against the Iraq war, yes, but that's just one issue...Read this quote is from an article on gopusa.com... (again, emphasis added)

"A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

I don't know about you, but this seems ridiculous to me! Aside from the U.S. having no jurisdiction or authority to tax our citizens to send money abroad, this would put more power with the U.N.! Our economy is already stretched thin, we're entering, if not already in, a recession, and Obama would have us send our money to the U.N., for "global poverty"!? Obama's foreign policies are just as globalistic as any of Bush's, and his domestic plans are socialistic. And you're telling me he's a reasonable second choice to Ron Paul (or a reasonable choice at all)? Come on, people!

Those are just two of the many reasons I don't support Barack Obama, but it's getting late, I'm getting wordy, and I have school in the morning...

Goodnight!

An educational little song...

'Tis quite randomly funny, too. ^_^

Since I can't find any real topics to blog about...

Yay for one and a half semesters of Spanish! :D

You Passed 8th Grade Spanish

Congratulations, you got 8/8 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Spanish?

Thoughts?

On the McCain-Lobbyist New York Times fiasco?

I personally don't like John McCain and won't be voting for him in November. Even so, I think it was a very unprofessional article for the Times to run, especially with no real sources.

That being said, I think that the whole thing is a smoke screen for real, legitimate concerns about McCain. I mean, who really cares if he had an affair with a lobbyist? This is such a non-story, it's only a distraction. The people who'd attack him for it wouldn't be voting for him anyway. I doubt it could do serious harm to his campaign. Liberals want a Republican nominee like John McCain, it makes it all the more easy for the Democrats to win if they're running against a war-hawk like McCain.

Anyway, what do you think?

Pakistan bans YouTube.

Pakistan's government has banned access to the video-sharing Web site YouTube because of anti-Islamic movies that users have posted on the site, an official said Sunday.

Of course. Because there's nothing like banning anything you disagree with when you want the world to believe you're progressive and tolerant.

Elmo doll threatens to kill toddler...

"The Bowman family, of Lithia, Fla., said an Elmo doll belonging to their 2-year-old son, James, began to spout death threats towards him after they changed its batteries, TBO.com reports. The Elmo Knows Your Name Doll started saying "Kill James!" in a sing-song voice, the site reports."

...Do I have a sick sense of humor for finding this absolutely hilarious?

Some stories that caught my eye...

Woman stabs man for calling her ugly.
Just takes feminism to a whole new level, doesn't it?

Marijuana plants found in University of Michigan gardens.
"It just randomly grew there, dude, I swear..."

Clinton attacks Obama as all talk, little substance.
Nah... really? Eh, I mean... CHANGE! HOPE! YES WE CAN!!!

Ah, I must get to bed, I have a Spanish test at 8 O'Clock tomorrow >.>

Castro Resigns

HAVANA — An ailing, 81-year-old Fidel Castro resigned as Cuba's president Tuesday after nearly a half-century in power, saying he will not accept a new term when parliament meets Sunday.

I have to get to school now, so I don't have time to write my thoughts. What do you think about a post-Castro Cuba? What role, if any, should the U.S. play?

The new version of Blogger...

Is totally not working for me. I switched back to the old version, because it wouldn't let me install Haloscan. Turn on Blogger comments, you say? They didn't show up when I did. Are there any computer geeks in the house?

My geography skills need work!

36



*Screams* I DON'T DO WELL UNDER PRESSURE!


=P


Can you beat me?

Blah

I've been sick all week, I missed church today for the second week, and I've been coughing like crazy. The weather's nice and sunny today, so that's good. Most of this winter it's been cold and raining, (and by cold I mean Florida cold, my Maine blogging friends are laughing at me now) so it's nice to have a sunny, mild day. Anyway, the sun has set and I'm feeling better so I'm about to head out and do some shopping. That's all my complaining for now, talk to you later, mis amigos!

What's so funny Mr. McCain?

I don't find September 11th very funny. Why does John McCain?

McCain, war hack extrordanaire

Questioner: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years..."
McCain (cutting him off): "Make it 100... That'd be fine with me."

*Gasp* No way!

Slutty girls take slutty pictures.

How shocking!

And FoxNews.com posts said photos on the front page. Naturally.

How?!

Ok, this is old news, Mitt Romney is out of the race (thank God.) But I still, for the life of me, cannot understand how Mitt Romney is/was considered the Conservative candidate. A poll on FoxNews.com has 53% of voters saying that Romney's endorsement will help "win over Conservatives."

Hello!

Am I the ONLY person to remember this?


Or this?

Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined

"ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to newly released FEC reports, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received more military donations than the other three remaining Republican candidates combined.

“The latest numbers make it clear: the troops support Ron Paul,” said Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has worked his entire career working for veterans, and has many awards and endorsements due to his dedication to their cause.”

A search of the FEC database by employer reveals that Dr. Paul has received 1160 donations from military donors, nearly triple that of John McCain, and more than McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee combined.

Dr. Paul’s total military donations of $249 thousand are almost as much as the $260 thousand of combined donations received by the other five remaining candidates.

Congressman Paul is no stranger to military support. Former president Ronald Reagan once said, “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

According to the FEC reports, these are the total number and amount of military donations for each of the presidential candidates:

Ron Paul: 1160 - $249k
John McCain: 438 - $83k
Mike Huckabee: 126 - $37k
Mitt Romney: 126 - $24k
Barack
Obama: 443 - $76k
Hillary Clinton: 154 - $41k "

Link.
Opensecrets.org.

Wonder if Fox News will have the same front-page, breaking-news coverage for this as they did when his campaign said it would "scale back" in states that had already held primaries...

Utah bill would allow Police misconduct to be hidden from public

"A new bill proposed at the legislature would allow for police to withhold misconduct reports from the public. Supporters of the bill believe that police misconduct should be kept secret from the public so to not discredit police testimony. Others say that a forthright police unit is essential to the community.

In September, Jared Massey was zapped with a taser by Trooper John Gardner. A video of the incident was recorded from Gardner’s patrol car. Gardner can be seen shocking Massey until he hits the ground while Massey’s wife screams from the side of their SUV.

More than a million people watched the video on “YouTube.” Massey was shocked to see his new found fame. The footage may have never been seen had Massey not made a records request to obtain the tape.

Currently, misconduct reports are available in Utah with an official records request. Under the bill SB260, sponsored by Senator Chris Buttars, the video and investigation report from Massey’s tazering might have been kept secret from the public and journalists."

I'll be honest, I think this is ridiculous. I support law enforcement, but I also know that police can make mistakes, obviously. If information is kept from the public and the press, internal change isn't going to happen, certainly not as easily.

Anyway, it's been a long week, and I'm not sure if that made any sense. :P What are your opinions?

"Congress shall make no law ... restricting the freedom ... of the press."

Gunman kills 5 at Northern Illinois University

Link.

Today:
More violence on our college campuses,
Five young lives cut short,
Sensationalist, yellow journalism,

Tomorrow:
Grieving families,
More sensational news coverage,
And arguments about gun control.

This is something that shouldn't be exploited or politicized.
Keep the families in your prayers tonight.

Fox News and Iran

[Before watching this, please note that this specific youtube channel is definitely more Democratically partisan. I'm sure that if I looked, I could find similar clips airing on CNN, ABC News, etc. I don't agree with everything this clip implies, I don't think Fox News is in any way "bullying" other networks, but try to look past all that and just watch the clips. They're really quite disturbing.]

Click this link if the video won't play here.

Clemens testifies before Congress

WASHINGTON — Star pitcher Roger Clemens testified under oath before Congress on Wednesday that he has never used steroids, human growth hormone or other illegal drugs despite claims from his former trainer.

Clemens, who has repeatedly denied the accusations made public in December's Mitchell report on the use of steroids in baseball, said he would never use illegal performance-enhancing drugs because his baseball career is based "on the premise that your body is your temple."

I definitely don't advocate steroid use, but I think it's ridiculous that Congress gets involved in these sorts of things.

What are your thoughts?

Ron Paul NOT dropping out.

From Ron Paul's official Myspace blog:

"A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last week. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up — with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.

Republicans do not want John McCain to be their nominee. He has only been able to become the front-runner because the field was so divided and because he's a media darling. We can see just how unpopular McCain is in the heartland by his performance in the Kansas caucuses today. Kansans resoundingly rejected the Arizona senator, ref: Washington Post Story and McCain's big wins so far have mostly been in blue states — states he won't win in November if, heaven forbid, he's the Republican nominee.

Republicans want and need an alternative. Some people think Mike Huckabee provides an alternative to McCain. But Huckabee, who now tries to sound like Ron Paul when he talks about abolishing the IRS, raised taxes in Arkansas and vastly expanded spending in that state when he was its governor. Huckabee is no alternative at all. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has never voted for a tax increase, never voted for an unbalanced budget or for an unconstitutional war or government program.

At stake here is not just the Republican nomination — which McCain still has not locked up — but the future of the Republican Party and, much more importantly, the future of our liberties. We have to organize in every single state, including the ones that have already voted in the primaries and caucuses, to continue the fight to take back the Republican Party and to ensure that Ron Paul's principles, the principles of Washington and Jefferson, prevail. For the sake of that cause, Ron Paul's campaign continues, all the way to the convention.

Please volunteer to become a precinct leader and walk door to door for Ron at Voters.RonPaul2008.Com

Please visit the official website for the most up to the minute information: RonPaul2008.Com

Please donate to the campaign at: RonPaul2008.Com/Donate

Become more informed about Ron Paul, his voting record and rationales in his own words
at RonPaulLibrary.Org."

(Less political) opinions?

Should I go back to Blogger comments, or stay with Haloscan?

Why is it easier for me to attack the Republicans?

With John McCain leading for the GOP nomination coronation, there's a lot of talk about jumping on the McCain bandwagon to "keep Hillary out of the office." And, as some of you might know, I've never supported John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And I personally take issue with that statement of voting for the (supposed) lesser of two evils. I do find myself in a dilemna, because I can't bring myself to support someone I don't agree with, no matter their party. Right now, I really don't know who I'll vote for if there isn't a viable third party candidate and McCain does in fact get the nomination.

But back on topic. Over this election season, for the few months I've been active, I've caught a lot, and I mean a whole lot of flack from Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee and McCain supporters about my protesting and speaking against a "fellow Republican." Once, an older lady approached me at a rally as I was holding Ron Paul signs, and scolded me like a child. "I've never seen this in all my twenty years of voting! We're supposed to be united against Democrats!" I tried to tell her that her candidate didn't represent Republican values, but she didn't seem to want to listen.

And that's something I hear often; attack the Democrats, stay loyal to the party no matter what, and vote for someone you don't believe in. Why? I suppose I could write every forum or blog post about the "evils of Liberalism", and why I'm not a Democrat, but that would be rather redundant, would it not? Let me see, I disagree on several fundamental issues like taxing, Federal power, the proposed socializing of Healthcare, gun rights...I could go on. I have a moral objection to abortion, and feel that it should be illegal. I'm obviously never going to be a Democrat, so I see no purpose in rehashing the same things over and over.

But what about my own party? I'm of the opinion that the Republican party that once stood for Conservative values has abandoned some of these basic values, and become an elitist party with little to stand on but the War. The Iraq war has been an issue for little more than five years. The Repubican party is much older than the war. I also take issue with things like the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. Decreased Federal power used to be the very essense of Republicanism. Now, if a candidate - or anyone for that matter - is against the Patriot Act, they're labeled anti-American. If they oppose the vast Federal expansion of No Child Left Behind, they're called a liberal. And, if they don't want the Federal government defining marriage, they're labeled "anti-Family." And this is why I support someone like Ron Paul. This is why the Primary season has been exciting this year, and this is why I will continue to disagree with and criticize Republicans. I want to see the Republican party go back to its basic values, I want my party to become my party again, not George W. Bush's party.

Wow, I ramble a lot now, don't I?

Musings of an anti-(Iraq) war Republican.

So, it's been very interesting these past few days - jumping back into the Conservative blogosphere. I've just started, but I have a feeling that my new posts might be met with confusion by some of my old blogging buddies. You see, I have changed my positions on a few things: The Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and the Republican "establishment," if you will.

Allow me explain my positions, then feel free to attack them.

In about 2003 and 2004, I began remarking to my family and friends "Gosh, I hope my first vote isn't John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton." The closer it got to the election, the more it seemed that my childish prediction would be proven true. Starting out 2007, I was barely following politics at all. I really didn't like any of the candidates, but more than that - none of them were truly Conservative! Taxing, abortion, gun rights - none of them had held consistent views on the Conservative side of all of those issues.

By this time, I was becoming more and more apathetic about the War, and all of the candidates said the same thing about it "stay the course, stay the course, terrorism, freedom, PATRIOT! And don't question!" It was as if there was a new litmus test for Republicanism, and that was blind support for all wars and increased Federal power. No matter that they threw values aside that once defined Republican and Conservative.

It wasn't until I heard about Ron Paul in about June or July that I found a candidate I can truly support. The first time I heard of this Republican Congressmen from Texas, I didn't think too much of him. There were 12 or so Republican candidates at the time, and Ron Paul certainly didn't get equal debate time. When he spoke, he was attacked and mocked for his non-interventionist ideas. At that time I was considering supporting Mike Huckabee, believe it or not. I saw a clip of Ron Paul on The O'Reilly Factor, and found him to be very unarticulate. It was easier to dismiss his views when he was being shouted down and called a "nut." It wasn't until a few months later that I allowed myself to actually listen to Ron Paul, and the more I heard, the more I liked. I didn't agree completely about the War at the time, but I allowed myself to think about the logic in opposing ideas.

I actually began to reconsider my long held views about the war in Iraq. After five years, I wondered what exactly our objective had become. You know, right after September 11th, it was really easy for me as a young person to say "we're over there to fight terror," "the world changed on September 11th," "We have to share our God-given freedom," and so on. And some of that might be partly true. I realize what an emotional, horrible event September 11th was. But I think that the emotions surrounding it helped the Government mislead us about Iraq, about their purpose of freedom.

First of all, I no longer believe that Iraq had the capability or the incentive to attack us. Yes, Saddam was a brutal, horrible dictator. But that alone doesn't mean that he was willing and able to attack a nation thousands of miles away, one which could turn his country into a wasteland in a matter of seconds if we were attacked. Even if he did have WMD's, I can't see how he could have any reason. And you're saying out there (I know, because I've said it myself too many times) "Well, Saddam attacked his own people, what would stop him from attacking us?" True, he did. And it was horrible. But attacking a helpless minority in his own country is a far cry from attacking one of the most powerful nations in the world.

Now we get to the freedom part of the argument. "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Again, Iraq was a horrible place, I'm not denying that. But if we're really in there to free people enslaved (or on the brink of being enslaved) by dicatorships, we should also by the rules of morality be in Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Darfur, and more. We simply can't. It's neither our place, nor in our power. And if we have our troops spread around the world, doing police work, what about back at home?

What about "finishing the job"? Well, my question is this; how long do we have to be there? Presidential candidates have suggested as many as 100 years. How many lives have to be lost? And on a larger scale, look at the Middle East. Five years is nothing in middle-eastern society. Dictatorships have fallen and risen again after years and years! I really do hope Iraqis the best, but I truly believe at this point that the best thing we can do is leave them to police their own country.

But before I ramble too terribly long, let's move on to the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Again, this was something that was easy to argue for in the months and even few years following September 11th. Emotionally charged buzzwords, like Patriot, and "Real American" were thrown around, and in while eating Freedom Fries and singing Toby Keith songs, the wool was slipped over our eyes. While railing against terrorists, we allowed -rather, vigorously argued for -the Government to take away some of our basic rights. Do I think that spies are looking in my window and reading what I'm writing right now? No. Seriously, I doubt they care. But things like the Patriot Act give them the ability to, and that's wrong.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And an argument that's been used (at times, by me) in favor of suspending Habeas Corpus is that Lincoln suspended it for Secessionists before the Civil War. The thing is, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm probably going to get chastised for this post anyway, so I might as well say this: I personally believe Lincoln to be one of the worst Presidents we've ever had. I think he was very close to a dictator and his policies and war were absolutely, 100% un-Constitutional. So why did I use him as a way of justifying Bush? I guess that was the best I could come up with. But simply put, just because something's been done horribly wrong in the past doesn't mean it's right today.

Well, this has gone on and on, I really must go. Please, before you comment, take time to read over my post carefully and not just attack my views. Think about what I'm saying logically, and allow yourself to think of things a different way. :)

~Mary Ann

RonPaul2008.com
RonPaul.Meetup.com

Mitt Romney out.

Another one bites the dust...

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention...I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win. rankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

*Gag*

I really can't comment on his comments, I might be forced to use language unbecoming to a lady.
Ok, the positive. This is good, this is really good! We're down to three very different candidates and, perhaps, the media will be forced to mention all three. The ridiculous McCain coronation is getting a bit sickening, but this really is good for Constitution fans :)

Well, I have quite a bit of homework to finish, so I must go.


Go to RonPaul2008.com/Issues, and Meetup.RonPaul.com.
It's not too late. Inform youselves, get involved, and STOP letting the media choose our candidate!

Stupid people

Below is an approximate transcript between Random classmate of mine #1, Random classmate of mine #2, and yours truly. For the sake of both anonymity and brevity, I shall rename them Tom and Jerry.

Tom: So, dude, y'know after that Virginia Tech thing *laughs* Man, I thought that was you, 'cause you like said how much you loved Fidel Castro.
Me (turning to Jerry): How the HELL can you like Fidel Castro?
Jerry: He's a patriot, man. Viva la rev-uh-loo-tion!
Me: Dude, seriously, how the hell can you support him? He's a pig. He's been in charge of one of the most brutal dictatorships in this century.
Jerry (smirking): I don't see people getting tortured over there or nothing.
Me (blinking): Have you ever read about their prisons? They were and are HORRIBLE. They imprison and torture people simply because they aren't communists!
Jerry (still smirking): Well, America like tortures people at Abu Grahb and stuff. [*Changing the subject*] Bay of Pigs! Yeah!
Me: Yes, that was horrible, an example of American politicians claiming to stand up for victims of horrible crimes against humanity and then not following through. Then, we symbolically wash their hands with the trade embargo.
Jerry: No dude, like, Castro won! *pumps fist* Yeah!
Me: I wish you'd talk to my Spanish teacher, or some people I know from Miami...
Jerry(cutting me off): Are they Cuban?
Me: Yes...
Jerry: Well, you can't trust those Cubans; they just, like, hate him.
Me: *Sigh*

Stupid people make my brain hurt.

In 2008, I support...

Ok, in a lame attempt to revive this blog, I'm going to ask a few question and then we'll talk about it :). My answers are below, they're certainly not complete and I have plenty more to back up my arguments, but alas! I have to get to school, so it's brief.

Who do you support, and why, in 2008 for your respective party? Ron Paul, because he's the only candidate who's always been consistent on issues like 2nd Amendment rights, the Right to Life, decreased Federal power and taxing. His foreign policy ideas are almost a smaller issue for me, but I do agree with those as well. In the past I've been a supporter of the Iraq war, but I've reached the point where I can't keep justifying it. It's pretty much the same for the Patriot Act, I don't know why we Republicans like so much to argue "Yes! Take away rights! And don't question!" because, frankly, it's ridiculous. No, I don't think the Government is spying on me, because really, I doubt they care, but things like the Patriot Act give it the ability to. And that, in and of itself, is wrong. Like I said, I have much more, but I don't really have time to go into it...

Who's your second choice if your candidate doesn't receive the nomination? Ron Paul, as an idependent, although I don't know if he'll run as one. If not, I don't know, because I really, really don't want my first vote to be for the lesser of two evils.

What would make you vote for the opposite party in 2008? Mike Huckabee being the Republican nominee and having no one else in the race.

That's all, my dear readers, however few of you are left. I'll be back to check comments and defend my points later. :)