About my email.

So, I just now checked my blog email account (in-the-pines@hotmail.com) and realized that I had unread email from several weeks ago. Sorry guys! I'll try to check in more often :). Also, I really like getting feedback or friendly emails, but I usually don't respond to creepy emails (hi, you look cool, want to be my friend?) yeah... no. Anyway, I gotta run, hopefully I'll get some more posts up here soon.

Cartoons of the week

As far as stupid moments go...

This one has to top the list...but then again, potheads aren't typically very bright.

Marijuana Grower Busted by Cops After Reporting Pot Plant Stolen.

SYDNEY, Australia — An Australian man's complaint of an break-in at his home went to pot Friday when police arrested him for growing marijuana.

The 35-year-old man in the central Australian city of Adelaide called police to report that six men had broken into his house through a window and stolen parts of his cannabis plants, South Australia Police said.

Police were unable to find the intruders but brought a drug warrant to search the home, where they found six large cannabis plants growing in two bedrooms, police said in a statement.

5 years.

5 years.
4,000 dead.
30,000 seriously wounded,

And counting...

How long?

Wow.

Reading over the responses in the Facebook debate poll "Does the 2nd Amendment give individual citizens the right to own guns?" I came across this genius of a response.

"Seriously people READ IT! Don't go off what politicians tell you, read it for yourself!

By the way, the constitution is old and outdated anyways. Do we really wanna protect the right of right wingers to shoot animals, and kids to kill each other with handguns?"

Eh, yes I've read it...

The second part of his comment is even scarier (especially since he probably votes.) I've actually heard that from a lot of people, "The Constitution is outdated," "It was written so long ago, it doesn't matter anymore," and it drives me crazy!

Do these people enjoy giving up rights?

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.)

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

Supreme Court hearing arguments on gun rights

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday took up gun control, hearing arguments concerning a District of Columbia ban on handguns more than two centuries after the Second Amendment gave Americans the right to "keep and bear arms."

A line forms Monday outside the Supreme Court, where justices took up the District of Columbia's gun ban.

Lawyers for both sides tried to strike a moderate tone before the court, arguing that there was an individual right to own a weapon, but that governments could impose reasonable gun-control legislation.

Alan Gura, arguing against the ban on Tuesday before the court said the city "simply doesn't trust the people to protect themselves in their homes."

But Walter Dellinger, a lawyer for the District of Columbia, said there should be a "a reasonable standard" to allow cities to pass gun-control legislation."

IMO, the District's gun ban is absolutely un-Constitutional, not only violating the 2nd Amendment, but also violating the 5th, possibly the 4th as well. Anyway, this is certainly interesting to watch... I'm hoping the Conservative court comes through.

2nd: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

4th: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

5th: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

What do you think?

England's top cop: "Put children on DNA list"

From The Observer.

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.'

Someone once said that those who would give up freedom for security neither deserve nor recieve either. How much freedoms can a nation give up before they realize they've become the same as what they claim to fight against?

In related news...
Daytona Beach, FL: "Police Swabbing Mouths During Traffic Stops In Serial Killer Hunt."
From CNN/Time: "Do Americans Care About Big Brother?"

The high tide is coming...

The Revolution will not end! No matter how hard the opposition tries, it will not be stopped! We are not giving up and going home after one year. Ron Paul may have been blacked out by the media's puppet race, but the Revolution is only beginning

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government" ~ Thomas Paine

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion...what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" ~ Thomas Jefferson.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ~ Gandi

About my archives

Those of you who've known me since I began blogging at fifteen know that I used to be the ultimate neo-con Bushite. I did use to like Bush - I was 10 when he took office. While I was intensely interested in that election, I didn't have any kind of understanding of policy beyond the basic issues like abortion. September 11, 2001 came a few months after my 11th birthday. When I was 12, President Bush declared that Iraq was key in the War on Terror. I had no experience with, and little knowledge of foreign policy in a pre-9-11 world, so for the next four and a half years, I agreed.

Reading over my archived posts from that time, I see how much of my writing was uninformed, and some verging on stupid. But, I was young. I was living under the attitude if we didn't invade the entire Middle-East the terrorists would get us again. I like to think that my views today are more informed, perhaps more open-minded. At least I realize that open-mindedness can be a good thing.

Anyway, the point of this rather long-winded post is to say that my archives will stay up. Please realize that I have changed my opinions on a lot of things. I can't change who I was in the past, but hopefully you won't hold it against me today :).

What is the Council on Foreign Relations?

A powerful lobbying force? Evil, secret organization? Or just a scary-sounding acronym?

I posted about a month ago here and asked what my blog readers opinions were on the CFR. Not suprisingly, there weren't many opinions. Most people haven't heard about it (or at least, don't remember hearing about it.) I know I'd heard the name before, but hadn't heard anything about what they stood for before about six months ago. I sort of dismissed it as a Conspiracy when I first started listening.

I now believe strongly that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an organization absolutely bent on destroying the United States' sovereignty. Please allow me to tell you why, because only you and I can stop this.

What is the CFR's plan for the United States?

I was browsing Gayle's blog the other day, and curiousity about what some of my old blogging buddies have said about Ron Paul led me to come across this post by her (excellent post Gayle, btw... wish I hadn't disappeared from blogging for so long). In it, she discussed the proposed North American Union, as reported by Newsmax and other sources. As expected, she and most of her commenters were absolutely 100% against these plans. Anyone here actually want to merge the U.S. with Mexico and Canada?

What I also noticed was the absence of the mention of the CFR in this post, or comments. I was surprised, because the CFR is so connected to these plans. But first, what is the CFR, officially?

Here's a brief idea of what the CFR is (from their website):

"Thinking about and discussing pressing foreign-policy issues is a long-established tradition at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan and independent membership organization. As you can learn by reading our mission statement, the Council has promoted understanding of foreign policy and America’s role in the world since its founding in 1921. It does this in a variety of ways: by convening meetings at which government officials, global leaders, and Council members debate major foreign-policy issues; by operating a think tank that is home to the world’s most prominent scholars of international affairs; by sponsoring Task Forces and commissioning books and reports; and by publishing Foreign Affairs, the leading journal of global politics."

Now, the CFR is much more than the "debate group" its website suggests. They are an extremely powerful lobbying force which holds a lot of power in Washington. More importantly, since its founding, the leaders of it have been pushing for a union of North America. They've also been integral in passing precursers to it, like NAFTA.

But you really don't have to take my word for it. Read this article from the CFR's official website. In it, President of the CFR Richard Haas talks about Globalism and Sovereignty.

"...states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the iternational system is to function...Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change ... sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation."

Another publication (this is one of many) from the CFR's site talks about "The Future of North American Integration."

A 2005 Report by the CFR on Globalization and the NAU is also quite disturbing.

Even more frightening, the "North American Union" has made its way into official foreign policy of the U.S. The official website, which isn't connected in name to the CFR is SPP.gov. (I highlighed ".gov", because that indicates that this is a Government website.)

And in case you missed this news report:

Now, I don't strive to be like those annoying bloggers who say "I'll tell you what I believe! Read/watch this!" But I really can't link or list all the reputable sources about the CFR's plans to integrate North America, if any of you doubt what I've already talked about; please, please ask me for more information!

But you're probably wondering now, Does this organization actually hold the power to pass laws? And how can it push for things like the NAU so blatantly?

Well let's look at some past and present members. All of these politicians are reportedly members, but I'll cover in a minute why it's hard to find news sources listing membership...

There are literally thousands of videos online from various news sources, showing these politicians and others speaking about their CFR membership/involvement, or addressing the CFR, so if you doubt this list, ask me and I'll find the videos.

Notable current members(not a full list):

-Michael Bloomberg
-Jimmy Carter
-Dick Cheney
-Bill Clinton
-Christopher Dodd
-Newt Gingrich
-Robert Gates
-Colin Powell
-Walter Mondale
-John McCain
-Lewis Libby
-Joseph Lieberman
-Teresa Heinz
-Jesse Jackson
-Fred Thompson
-George Soros
-Rick Warren
-Paul Wolfowitz
-Condoleezza Rice

Any names sounding familiar to you?

A few notable past members:

-George H.W. Bush
-Thomas Dewey
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
-Michael Dukakis
-Geraldine Ferraro
-Gerald Ford
-Herbert Hoover
-Hubert Humphrey
-Robert F. Kennedy
-Ann Richards

Any of these sounding familiar? Additionally, the CFR's official website again has a report on American Presidents and links to the CFR.

So why is the media turning a blind eye?

The John Birch Society (of which I'm a member) reports on some other CFR members (again, this isn't a complete list, but the most prominent people from each organization):

AOL Time Warner
-Chief Executive Officer/COO Richard D. Parsons

Time, Inc.
-Editor-in-Chief Norman Pearlstine

CNN News Group
-CEO & Chairman of the Board Walter Isaacson
-CNN Anchor Paula Zahn

Associated Press
-Vice President/Director of World Services Claude E. Erbsen

Disney/ABC
-Chief Executive Officer Michael Eisner
-Anchor Diane Sawyer
-Anchor Barbara Walters

PBS NewsHour
-Executive Editor & Anchor James C. Lehrer

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
-Editorial Page Editor Cynthia A. Tucker

NBC Nightly News
-Anchor/Managing Editor Tom Brokaw

20th Century Fox Corporation
-CEO Rupert Murdoch

U.S. News & World Report
-Chairman & Editor-in-Chief Mortimer Zuckerman
-Editor-at-Large David Gergen

Newsweek
-Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria
-Chairman/Editor-in-Chief Richard M. Smith
-Editor Mark Whitaker

Syndicated Columnists
-William F. Buckley Jr.
-Charles Krauthammer
-Dan Rather
-Tony Snow
-George Will

In addition to the press and the media, the CFR also has links to Corporate business.

Now, this post is very long already, but I do honestly have more links and stories I could give you. If you doubt what I say, again, please ask me for more information. I don't blame any of you who are sitting there thinking Conspiracy, because like I said - that was my thinking at first. All I ask is that you do your own research, find out for yourself.

And what can we do about it anyway? The first thing is obvious - don't vote for politicians who are members! Of course, with the presence of McCain on the list, a lot of you will disagree with me. If you choose to vote for such a politician anyway, at least be informed about the CFR and its plans! A major tool they use is the fact that most people only rely on Mainstream news. So talk about them! If people honestly knew what it was about, I doubt they could support it.

It's time to stand up for our sovereignty!

Additional reading:

The John Birch Society's site about the NAU.

JBS' Youtube channel.

Dick Cheney speaking to the CFR.

Mike Huckabee and the CFR.

"Peeping Tom" cleared by Oklahoma Court

Story Link.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A man accused of using a camera to take pictures under the skirt of an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl at a Tulsa store did not commit a crime, a state appeals court has ruled.

The state Court of Criminal Appeals voted 4-1 in favor of Riccardo Gino Ferrante, who was arrested in 2006 for situating a camera underneath the girl's skirt at a Target store and taking photographs.

Ferrante, now 34, was charged under a "Peeping Tom" statute that requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy." Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt.

Crazy, just crazy. Vehicles, streets, stores. Where else are we going to not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

And I know that laws change from state to state, but I'm almost positive that in my state, this man would've been convicted of lewd behavior towards a minor, and been listed in the sex offender registry. I can't see how the court could say he did nothing wrong.

Spitzer to step down by Monday

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Wednesday that he will step down from the state's top office because he cannot allow his "private failings to disrupt the public's work."


Gov. Eliot Spitzer apologizes Wednesday because, he said, he "did not live up to what was expected."

"I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me," he said in a brief news conference announcing his intention to resign, effective Monday. "I will try once again outside of politics to serve the common good."

So... your thoughts?

Some have also, rightly, pointed out that there are serious problems with Spitzer otherwise, particularly with illegal immigration, and that this is distracting from other issues. That's a good point, and I'm obviously going to follow politics other that this - I'm not letting it distract me, at least.

However, I agree that Spitzer absolutely should've stepped down. I personally don't care, politically, if he cheats on his wife. Of course it would make me disrespect him personally, but that alone isn't a political issue. However, the governer is wrong, this isn't about his private life, this is about a lawmaker breaking the laws of his state. Simple as that.

In random news...

Maybe the reason I find this article so funny is that, with a younger brother, I've spent far too much time in the presence of middle-school guys...

A Minnesota lawmaker proposed a bill Monday urging a fragrance-free educational campaign to discourage students from dousing themselves in scents that aggravate classmates with asthma and other health problems.

Odors that fill hallways come mostly from boys who douse themselves in body sprays like Axe, said Mikolai Altenberg, a senior at Minneapolis South High School. He said the smell is "indescribable" and unavoidable.

"You can smell it from 10 feet away," Altenberg said. "Mostly it's just guys who just think that putting Axe all over them is a substitute for showering."

Rofl, ok, so banning it is taking things a bit too far...

California court restricts homeschooling.

"Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.

Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

No, the Constitution doesn't specifically say that parents have the right to homeschool. I suppose the Justice failed to remember that the Government also isn't given the right to educate. And have these judges never read the 9th and 10th amendments?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Well,

It's 2:15 AM, and I've just finished my research paper that's due tomorrow morning. "Procrastination is a very bad thing, children..."

Good night!

Quote of the day!

"You look like a Christmas tree on crack! ...I meant that as a compliment."

- My Statistics professor to a girl in class who was wearing a multi-colored necklace.

Haha, politics are so depressing these days, yay for random math teachers!

Aren't you glad...?

From The Modesto Bee.

"It is wonderful to see that the Republican Party has chosen John McCain as its probable nominee. We won't have to listen to Ron Paul talking about freedom and restoring the Constitution and a sound monetary system anymore.

We can now move on as a nation with open borders, higher taxes, runaway inflation, more manufacturing jobs moving out of America, higher gas prices, a national ID card where our government can keep track of us 24 hours a day, a private banking system called the Federal Reserve system that can cause boom or bust at any time, a 100-year war with Iraq, our troops in every nation.

We won't have to listen to Paul wanting to restore the republic that our forefathers set up. What a waste of time to think we can become a nation of freedoms again. We need to continue paying our income taxes so that we can pay the interest on our national debt. It's great to see that the Republican Party wants to remain status quo and not interrupt any of our systems all in the name of democracy..."

Aren't you glad that silly man is gone?

"Super Tuesday II"

Clinton wins Ohio, Texas; McCain effectively gets GOP nomination.

Well, I'm not surprised with the results...

As for my candidate -- Ron Paul is still hanging on 'til the Convention, and with the situation with delegates there is a slight, tiny, little speck of hope, but Huckabee dropping out doesn't help. Honestly, I think it's sad that Ron Paul has been blacked out my the media and his party because he didn't take the pro-Iraq stance, but the fight for Constitutionalism is far from over - and a lot of it starts at the local level.

But as for the media's darlings - no, Clinton's not going anywhere, she's going to hang on by her bootstraps as long as she possibly can. She's been planning this run for many years, she's not going to go away. I believe firmly she and Obama both are horrible choices, for a variety of reasons which won't be discussed here, as most of you are Republicans and wouldn't vote for either anyway.

As for McCain, I agree with him on the right to life, gun control and find his current, moderated views on taxing slightly better than the Democrats. I disagree with him on just about everything else. And, as most of you know, I'm absolutely not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I haven't liked McCain for a long time - didn't like him in 2000, didn't like him in 2004 (especially when he condemned the Swift Boat Vets,) and I don't like him now.

Right now, the best thing that McCain has going for him in the National race is the presense of Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and (presumably sometime soon) Mike Gravel as liberal third-party candidates. Aside from that, I think his chances are slim to none.

Well, my dear readers, I have a statistics test in about 45 minutes (*groan*) so I leave you with a Youtube video yet again. ;) The sentiments expressed at :54 match mine...

Movie review -- Vantage Point

Ok, so this is something I've not done before... but since Vantage Point is doing really well in theatres and I saw it last week, I figured I'd give it a try. :) Spoilers throughout.


"8 Strangers. 8 Points of View. 1 Truth"


The positive:

If you like fast-paced action movies, you'll love this. Think "24" on steriods. I liked that it managed to be suspensful without having much gory violence. Don't get me wrong- people were getting shot left and right... but it was so fast-paced that the camera didn't linger on wounds or blood.

It also made some pretty relevant political statements (which some might take as negative) especially from the 'vantage point' of the media, and their coverage of the event. The ending of the movie in particular was just chilling.


If you were watching closely enough, there were some other obvious political messages, though none too blatant, and none in poor taste. For instance, the terrorists' main objective seemed to be to get the President to pre-emptively attack a country that wasn't directly tied to the group...


Negative:

The first is obvious - some people will disagree with the implied political statements. The plot itself was very confusing. (Not to keep comparing a movie to TV shows) It reminded me of Heroes without the superpowers - everyone connected with everyone, plot twists every minute, a shady organization that's never fully explained. Only thing is, the movie ended before fully explaining half of its plot twists.

The tagline of "one truth" was definitely a stretch, because there never was a single unified explanation for the events of the movie. The main plot twists were tied up, but nothing further.

Another thing that was a bit weird for me was the lack of religious motivation in the terrorist group. I'm not saying that every bad guy in a movie has to be Muslim, but it was a bit perplexing for a group to come up with this intricate plot, be willing kill thousands of innocent civilians, blow themselves up, kidnap the President, kill their own, and infiltrate governments basically just for the hell of it. One short-sighted goal of influencing foreign policy was clear, yes, but there was no obvious ideology driving this mad determination. The fact that the terrorists were made up of Spaniards, Americans, English and very few visible middle-easterners made regional-based hate unlikely.

But, overall, it was a cool movie, as long as you don't think too much about it ;)