In The Pines

This blog has moved

2008-11-07T16:15:00.001-06:00

A note of...optimism?

2008-11-06T08:35:00.005-06:00

I've been thinking a lot since Tuesday about what the future is for Conservatism and Constitutionalism. I did not, and would not in retrospect, vote for McCain, so I'm not going to make a judgment on what a McCain administration would mean. I'll try to control my "And McCain/Bush stood for the very same thing/are worse!" comments throughout. That's irrelevant. We must, as always, go with what we've been given.

Barack Obama's nomination is representative of a very monumental time in American history for a number of reasons; some good, but most bad. We have elected one of the most Socialistic Presidents in American history. We have elected someone who is extremely pro-abortion. Someone who is a complete and total globalist. Someone who will undoubtedly rival our last President in spending. I have no doubt that Obama will at some time take advantage of the executive orders*[see note] and laws that Bush has passed through on us and everything will not be the euphoric false hope that was presented. But, believe it or not, I do see a few points of optimism with the nomination.

First; nothing was going to "change" with McCain. I don't mean that in the way that Obama means. Conservatism, I think, died with George W. Bush. McCain was going to bury it. In the past eight - especially four - years, Conservatism has been redefined and anyone who stands for war is considered relatively Conservative. All other points of contention; from abortion to spending, are in comparison irrelevant. That's not good! Even if you support the Iraq war - and I don't - you cannot help but admit that it's essential that a Republican president stand strongly for something other than the Iraq war! Of course, McCain moderated a few of his positions and did his best to seem anti-abortion, anti big spending, etc., but the truth remains: he was not, is not, and will never be, a true Conservative. I honestly believe that had McCain been elected, it would've meant the death of everything most of us stand for.

With a President Obama, we now have the opportunity to take the idea of modern Conservatism back to its roots in Reagan Republicanism and Jeffersonian Conservatism. Pseudo-Conservatism and a Democratic Congress with McCain and Palin is not something that would've inspired people to elect Conservatives in 2010. Now, we can retake the House and the Senate in two years, and retake the Presidency in four much easier.

With Obama in office, we now also have the possibility of increased vigilance, especially from the churches, but also from Republican lawmakers seeking to retain their jobs. Had Barack Obama tried to pass half of the executive orders, the Patriot Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus - there would've been outrage! And rightly so. The so-called "Patriot" Act - under a different name, of course - was introduced to a Republican Congress under Clinton and they rejected it! But when it was introduced under Bush, post 9-11, the hundred-page law passed literally the day after it was introduced. Ron Paul stood alone in the House (with only a few Democrats) and only a few Senators joined him (interestingly enough, Larry Craig was one of them...)

But I'm getting on a Ron Paul rant here. My point is that this newly elected Democratic President represents a chance for us to be more vigilant, more aware. Where Conservatives might have been hesitant to criticize a Republican, they readily condemn a Democrat. We need to retake the Republican party for true Conservatism and we need to redefine what that means. With Barack Obama in office, it will be a whole lot easier than it would've been with John McCain.

I have to get to class now, but I'll probably be back later to edit my crazy ramblings a bit! In the meantime, let me know what you guys think!

*For instance: one executive order passed by Bush would allow him to declare a state of emergency - institute national martial law - for six months without Congressional oversight at all. Those of you who like the idea of Bush being able to do that - what about Obama? The executive orders apply to all Presidents unless they are overturned.

Nationalism defined

2008-11-05T16:40:00.003-06:00

Elizabeth Hasselbeck supporting President-elect Obama.

Hasselbeck said her daughter Grace, 3, had asked her who won and who lost the election. "No one lost," Hasselbeck said she told her child. "Seriously, today is a victory for this country."

"I will get in a long line of supporters … for this president," she said.

Now, I don't suggest that we should all spew vicious hate against Obama. I've seen plenty of that in the past few days, and it's not pretty. It's not right, either. Spreading hate like that is not only destructive to us, it's also dangerous. There are plenty of enraged, crazy people out there, and the last thing we need is for something crazy to happen. I don't care fpr Obama, but I certainly don't want some crazy nutcase killing him, either. I also agree with the notion of tentatively "giving the guy a chance", if you will, of waiting until he actually does something to criticize. That's reasonable.

But supporting someone just because he's the President? Excuse me, but aren't our politicians supposed to be public servants? He's Constitutionally set up for a reason, and that reason is not to be our beloved, revered leader whose respected above all other.

Ron Paul says it better than I can

2008-11-05T10:50:00.002-06:00

"Dear friends,

Our journey together has been truly historic. As the final votes are tabulated and the curtain closes on this election, we must take time to reflect on our successes even as we turn our attention to the task before us.

Our campaign has stirred the sleeping giant by showing millions that freedom, peace and prosperity are achievable. We know that these things can only come about through sound money, limited government and a respect for the inherent rights of every individual. We have awakened the political class to the popularity and viability of Liberty. And, most of all, we have awoken within ourselves a spirit of freedom and independence that cannot be suppressed by any ruler, army, or philosophy of subservience and fear.

Yet we must not reflect long. We must press our efforts and lay the groundwork for the future of our movement and our country. The 2010 election cycle is just around the corner. We must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.

Ours is the most solemn charge of all: to defend Liberty in this bleak hour lest the very notion that man might best govern himself be scoured from this land and from the conscience of mankind.

In our campaign for liberty, we're just getting started.
Let the Revolution begin."

-Ron Paul

On election day

2008-11-04T06:34:00.002-06:00

You can vote for more of the same.
You can pick the lesser evil and hope that he turns out half decent.
You can vote for one because you're scared of the other.

Or, you can vote for someone who's truly Conservative. Someone who understands the nature of God-given liberty and will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Someone who will truly end abortion, instead of just use it as political leverage. Someone who understands that the nation's financial problems can all be traced back to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve. Someone who will do something about the nation's problems, something more than partisan bickering.

You can pick a McBama if you like. Or you can join me and vote for the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin, and cast your vote for principle.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quinc
y Adams

So, I really don't care for Halloween...

2008-10-31T11:40:00.003-05:00

Something about honoring an ancient Celtic death festival doesn't seem quite right. Hm. Maybe that's just me. But I hope you all have a lovely day nonetheless :)

So what does Obama think of the Constitution?

2008-10-27T21:04:00.004-05:00

[Emphasis added]
"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

I can't speak for the absolute validity of this clip. The statements were supposedly made in 2001, so I might not be the first person to hear of this. I was just blindsided, though. Not by his criticism of American policies - and I think slavery, really, was what he was referring to - because I don't have a problem with someone criticizing something they seek to fix. What blows me away is how he uses the past tense. How he refers to the foundation of our God-given rights as merely a "political document". It's crazy.

On a Cold, Rainy Day in Florida

2008-10-24T15:10:00.005-05:00

~~But, alas, I cannot think of one. So it stays.~~
(Aha! I can think of cleverer titles, it just takes doing some laundry.)

Wow, I should really post more, right? Don't boo all at once, now :P. Haha, only kidding, but it does seem that my lack of activity has dwindled down my readership to one or two lonely souls. Ah, well. Some updates.

First of all, I just spent most of the day scrubbing my shower with bleach, so I'm a bit short of breath from the fumes, and quite tired as well. Which means, of course, that I can't be blamed for anything stupid I say! I should spend time with bleach fumes more often.

Did anyone watch the third-party debate last night on C-Span? Since I don't have cable, I was resigned to watching it online. I did enjoy what little I saw between the five minute freezes that the player went through periodically. No, but for those of you who didn't see it; you can view it here. It wasn't a full debate, because only two of the four candidates attended: Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin. Nader should've just shut up and let Baldwin speak. I appreciate him standing up to the two-party monopoly, but he didn't speak like someone who was actually trying to win. And since he's been running since before I was born, I really don't think he is. Anyway, Baldwin did an excellent job articulating his points and avoiding being interrupted by the rather verbose moderator. What did you guys think of the debate?

After the debate, C-Span showed a poll for the third-party candidates, and interstingly enough, Baldwin was excluded. They showed the polling numbers for Barr, McKinney, and Nader, and excluded Baldwin; even though he was one of two who actually bothered to show up there. For those of you who've been active for Ron Paul, this kind of stuff isn't any surprise, but it is maddening. Nonetheless, I have the confidence that Baldwin, who recently picked up Ron Paul's endorsement, will be recognized by any educated voter as the only reasonable choice - third-party or otherwise. Baldwin '08!

Ok, enough of that. I suppose I could include some non-personally-identifying updates about myself. I'm currently finishing up my last semester at the Junior College that I've attended for nearly two years, and planning to transfer to the local University to continue my pre-law studies. I turned 18 over the summer! (Sorry, you can't know the exact date... my mom would definitely scold me for putting it online ;P). I can actually vote this year, and that's awesome, even though I do get lectured on a regular basis for "wasting my vote" by not voting for the McCainiac. Oh well. It's still awesome. I'm also continuing to stay active on a local political level, with the Ron Paul meetup group, as well as with the local Republican party (that whole being lectured about McSame thing...)

Oh yes, and I attended Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic back in September, which was absolutely amazing (I don't think I've talked about that here, have I?) I met the good doctor himself, as well as Aimee Allen, Adam Kokesh and others. For those of you outside the Ron Paul spectrum who have no idea who I'm talking about, check them out. Pretty awesome people.

But anyway, I think this has been one of my most scattered posts ever. I blame it on the fumes! It's a good excuse for now. (Un)fortunately, I must close now, so my rambling has come to an end. And yes, I know I've said this a bazillion time, but I'll try to stop by my readers blogs more often.

See you guys soon!

Call your Senators today!

2008-10-01T11:43:00.002-05:00

From Dr. Ron Paul:

Action Alert

Congress must not bail out the failed banks! This is an unconscionable violation of the public trust. We encourage everyone to contact their congressmen and let them know that the continued looting of the American taxpayer for the benefit of corporations is wrong and must stop.

Together we can mobilize to change our politics and our nation, but it begins with you.

Contact Congress NOW!

UN chief heralds Globalism

2008-09-24T11:07:00.002-05:00

UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday stressed the need for "global leadership" as he pressed world leaders not to pursue narrow national interests in the face of hard economic times.

"I see a danger of nations looking more inward, rather than toward a shared future," he said at the opening of the UN General Assembly's annual debate.

He spoke of a "challenge of global leadership" to tackle the world's worsening financial, energy and food crises.

"We see new centers of power and leadership -- in Asia, Latin America and across the newly developed world," Ban told more than 120 heads of state or government, including Presidents George W. Bush of the United States and Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

"In this new world, our challenges are increasingly those of collaboration rather than confrontation," he added.

"Nations can no longer protect their interests, or advance the well-being of their people, without the partnership of the rest."

Link.

Are you ready for the North American Union? With things like this, and the economic crisis (heavily brought about by our central bank, of course), it's certainly on the horizon.

More information.

Thought Police?

2008-09-24T10:47:00.003-05:00

Homeland Security is now testing the next generation of security screening — a body scanner that can read your mind.

Most preventive screening looks for explosives or metals that pose a threat. But a new system called MALINTENT turns the old school approach on its head.

MALINTENT, the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security's directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers.

It has a series of sensors and imagers that read your body temperature, heart rate and respiration for unconscious tells invisible to the naked eye — signals terrorists and criminals may display in advance of an attack.

But this is no polygraph test. Subjects do not get hooked up or strapped down for a careful reading; those sensors do all the work without any actual physical contact. It's like an X-ray for bad intentions.

Story link.

Wow. This is...crazy. There's really no other word for it.

We do indeed live in a brave new world...

And, yes, I'll stop with all the book references ;). This is frightening, though, very frightening. How much freedom are you willing to give up for "security"?

Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin!

2008-09-22T16:47:00.002-05:00

From the Campaign for Liberty blog.

The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process....

Calling together candidates from the liberal, conservative, libertarian and progressive constituencies, who are all opposed to this rigged process, was designed to alert the American people to the uselessness of continuing to support a process that a claims that one’s only choice is to choose the lesser of two evils and reject a principle vote that might challenge the status quo as a wasted vote.

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

This does not mean that I expect to get Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney to become libertarians, nor do they expect me to change my mind on the issues on which we disagree. In the meantime, why can’t we be friends, respectful of each other, and fight the corrupt process from which we suffer, and at the same time champion the four issues that we all agree upon which the two major candidates won’t address?...
Although we were on the receiving end of ridicule in the reporting of the press conference, I personally was quite satisfied with the results. True revolutions are not won in a week, a month, or even a year. They take time. But we are making progress, and the momentum remains and is picking up. The Campaign for Liberty is alive and well, and its growth and influence will continue. Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end. Recovering from the mistakes and shortcomings of all that we do in this effort is not difficult if the message is right and our efforts are determined. And I’m convinced they are. That’s what will determine our long-term success, not the shortcomings of any one person.

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

Yes, this is very good news indeed! I had been hoping for a long time that Dr. Paul would step up and endorse Baldwin, and because of what I'd heard him say, I suspected that he did in fact support Baldwin. But with it set in (virtual) stone, it's a huge step to reuniting the revolution this November!

Baldwin/Castle '08!

Pardon from Potential War Crimes?

2008-08-27T14:18:00.001-05:00

Iraq demands US withdrawal

2008-08-25T10:19:00.002-05:00

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday no security agreement with the United States could be reached unless it included a "specific deadline" for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Last week, U.S. and Iraqi officials said the two sides had agreed tentatively to a schedule which included a broad pullout of combat forces by the end of 2011 with a residual U.S. force remaining behind to continue training and advising the Iraqi security forces.

But al-Maliki's remarks Monday suggested that the Iraqi government is still not satisfied with that arrangement.

"There can be no treaty or agreement except on the basis of Iraq's full sovereignty," al-Maliki told a gathering of tribal sheiks. He said such an agreement must be based on the principle that "no foreign soldier remains in Iraq after a specific deadline, not an open time frame."

How long do you think we'll have to stay there to save face?

Fear propaganda

2008-08-22T13:26:00.002-05:00

From FoxNews' cheery article entitled "7 Reasons to Worry [about sending your kids back to school]"

1. The anti-vaccination movement. Misinformation about vaccines being linked to autism has spread like wildfire. As a result, some parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children. The result: diseases that were on the decline, like measles, are once again on the upswing.

"The anti-vaccination movement is based on irrational fears and is absolutely destructive," Siegel said. "Vaccines are mainly for the sake of the herd, but no one cares about the community. However, if you want to protect the entire population, you have to vaccinate."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in July that a measles outbreak had infected at least 127 people in 15 states. It was the largest outbreak since the mid-1990s and most of those infected had not been immunized.

“I can’t say that every kid who doesn’t get vaccinated will get the measles,” Siegel said. “It really depends on where you live. But vaccines are pretty well regulated and drug makers aren’t making a lot of money on them, contrary to popular belief. Getting vaccinated is basically for the public good."

http://www.know-vaccines.org/parent.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/149984/new_rotavirus_vaccine_danger.html
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9635
http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html

But if it's for the "public good", it's all ok, right?

Police using GPS to thwart the 4th Amendment

2008-08-18T17:37:00.002-05:00

From CNN.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It's the stuff crime movies are made of: Determined police officers shadowing their suspect as he drives around town, watching and waiting for his next move, always careful not to lose him.

David Lee Foltz Jr. faces trial on abduction and sexual battery charges after police tracked him using GPS.

But now, investigators can track a potential bad guy without ever leaving their desks, thanks to the Global Positioning System, or GPS.

The technology is easy to use and the devices are hard to detect.

All police have to do is attach a GPS receiver to a suspect's car and they easily go along for the ride online, tracking the individual's exact location in real time from their computer.

But because investigators often track without a warrant, privacy advocates say the tactic threatens to monitor innocent people as well.

"Those who would give up essential freedom for temporary security neither deserve nor receive either."

And on a similar note.

2008-08-15T11:28:00.005-05:00

Georgia signs cease-fire with Russia.

TBILISI, Georgia (CNN) -- A grim Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili said Friday he signed a cease-fire agreement that requires the immediate withdrawal of all Russian forces from Georgian soil.
Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili announces Friday he signed a cease-fire agreement with Russia.

Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili announces Friday he signed a cease-fire agreement with Russia.

The agreement includes a provision for independent monitors and an eventual reconstruction plan for Georgia's economy, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who brought the documents to Tbilisi.

First, can someone tell me, please, how the hell is this any of our business?

And again we see a stunning display of hypocrisy from our delightful President:

In Washington, President Bush on Friday chided Russia for Cold War-style behavior, saying, "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."
Bush said the United States stands "with the people of Georgia and their democratically elected government." He said the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity "must be respected."
"We will not cast them aside," he said.
Bush said Russia's invasion of Georgia in recent days has "damaged its credibility."

Invading a sovereign nation? How dare he?

Interesting, to say the least.

2008-08-15T11:16:00.004-05:00

But the government and the media wouldn't set up a false enemy so that we could get into a war, would they?

And yes, a Youtube video isn't final proof. Just something to consider. Other sources (which I, of course, cannot find at the moment) have reported that it was Georgia, not Russia, that struck first. And we have funded Georgia for years.

Will you be willing to send your drafted sons and daughters to fight and die in WWIII?

Bush condemns China's restrictions on speech

2008-08-07T13:37:00.005-05:00

"The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings.

America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists.

We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labour rights not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential."

Hypocrisy.

Finally back!

2008-08-06T00:04:00.004-05:00

My dear readers, however few of you remain, I have returned! Since it's currently past midnight, I'm not sure how coherent this post will be, but I have to jump back in sometime.

First, what's new in my life? Surprisingly, not all that much. I've managed to stay just busy enough to neglect this, but I'm trying to do better. I'm preparing to start classes back in the fall, that will be my last semester working on my AA degree. By December I will have (officially) graduated high school, and finished up my Associates Degree. Yay! I'm excited, but I know that this fall is going to be very busy.

I'm also working, on a grassroots level, with the Chuck Baldwin campaign. There's not much going on in my area, which is frustrating, but I know that it's a hard fight trying to get a third-party any attention. Chuck Baldwin is definitely getting no mainstream attention. I've been tirelessly (ok, I do get tired of it) emailing different news websites and requesting that they at least list Baldwin under Presidential candidates, but so far MSN is the only website to actually do so. It's very frustrating for me to see Bob Barr and Ralph Nader listed as "the" third-party candidates on FoxNews, because it's so blatantly biased, and because I know that the message can't reach people if they never hear about it.

But I digress. For those of you who don't know who Dr. Baldwin is, please visit his website, Myspace, or Youtube to find out more. Don't waste your vote on the evil of two lessers!

Aside from the Baldwin campaign, I've only been moderately following the other candidates. To be honest, it all seems like a big soap opera. McCain and Obama have their superficial differences, but deep down they are very much the same.

But anyway, this post is getting a big long, and it's getting more than a bit late, so I'd best close now. I'll be checking in more often, so I look forward to seeing what you guys have up on your blogs and hearing your opinions on mine. I leave you with a video, hope you like!

Absence

2008-07-15T23:27:00.002-05:00

Hey guys, I know I've been really bad about posting here and visiting y'all's sites lately... who knew I'd be twice as busy over the summer than when I'm in school? I'll try to get some stuff up soon, and come around to my reader's blogs as well.

Happy Independence Day!

2008-07-04T11:07:00.000-05:00

Hope everyone has a happy and safe 4th!

Michael Reagan calls for Mark Dice's murder

2008-06-14T11:24:00.004-05:00

The crazy thing is, I used to like Michael Reagan. Can somebody please explain to me what is treasonous about what Mark Dice is doing? Whether or not you agree with his point of view, you have to take into account his motivation. He believes that everything that the soldiers are fighting for - and dying for - is, well, a lie, and wants the troops to reconsider for whom and what they are fighting. Not too many people are going to agree with that standpoint, but how does that make Mark Dice a traitor deserving of death?

Somebody explain this to me.

Subway writing contest snubs homeschoolers.

2008-05-28T14:05:00.003-05:00

Perhaps they think being homeschooled is an unfair advantage...?

Story link.

Ron Paul supporters: Tell me what you think!

2008-05-28T12:23:00.007-05:00

Well, you don't have to be a Ron Paul supporter, but you guys are probably the only ones who won't be voting for the Republican or Democratic candidates...

What are your thoughts on Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin? I have decided that I will be voting for him this year, I feel that he represents Ron Paul's message and the message of Constitutionalism better than anyone else in the race. I know that a decent percentage of write-in votes for Ron Paul would be a great statement to make, but in all reality most write-in votes don't even get counted. And, truth be told, it's not about Ron Paul. The message is what matters, not the man.

So, whether you plan to vote for McCain, Obama, Clinton, Barr, Nader, McKinney, or Ron Paul, check out these links and tell me what your thoughts are!

Baldwin2008.com (Official Campaign Site)
ConstitutionParty.com
Chuck Baldwin on Wikipedia
Chuck Baldwin on Youtube

Preparing our hearts and minds...

2008-05-28T06:47:00.002-05:00

Hat tip (again) to Infowars.com.

“North American Parliament” Meets At Integration Forum.

A simulation of a North American Parliament, designed to "develop the participants’ sense of belonging to North America" and "and promote the creation of North American academia networks" is currently taking place in Montreal.

100 selected students from universities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico have been selected to take on the roles of Legislators, Journalists and Lobbyists, in the fourth annual.

Remember, the date that the Council on Foreign Relations, in cooperation with the Security and Prosperity Partnership have set for North American "integration" is 2010...Things like this are simply preparing us, so that we won't be too shocked. Something like this doesn't happen immediately, it's gradual. Some won't recognize it until it's beating down their doorstep.

I don't honestly know anyone who would truly support a "North American Union," as they say, but we don't hear about these sort of things on the mainstream news. People (not to get too bad into lecture mode), we have to inform ourselves! We have to find these things out for ourselves, because the TV's and the newspapers are not going to tell us!

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." Hosea 4:6

Read more about the coming NAU.

Thoughts?

2008-05-27T14:56:00.004-05:00

On the Fox News-Obama fiasco?

I'm not a fan of Obama - at all - so it's hard for me to take up for him. I do think that the Fox News' guest's joke was certainly in poor taste, though, but I'm not really sure how much of a issue it truly should be.

What do you guys think?

FBI insider opens up about bureau problems

2008-05-22T06:51:00.004-05:00

WASHINGTON — The FBI’s counterterrorism program cannot adequately protect the nation against another attack by Middle Eastern terrorists, a high-ranking FBI official and recognized whistleblower claimed Wednesday in a rare appearance on Capitol Hill.

Bassem Youssef, in oral and written testimony, decried what he saw as major deficiencies in his own bureau’s counterterrorism operations.

He accused the FBI of needlessly violating the civil liberties of thousands of Americans, misidentifying threats against the United States and repeatedly making “sloppy mistakes."

Youssef, currently the chief of the FBI's Communications Analysis Unit, is a known bureau whistleblower whose past statements — and alleged bureau retaliation against him — have triggered investigation by the Department of Justice.

He again ran the risk of backlash Wednesday and expressed some anxiety at the start of his testimony.

"Regardless of what happens to me when I walk into the Hoover building tomorrow, (these concerns) are what I wanted to get across," Youssef told the subcommittee.

The sparsely attended meeting included an appearance at the witness table by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a longtime FBI critic and advocate of government whistleblowers.

Grassley spoke in support of Youssef and other FBI dissidents, saying, "Underneath all of the good things (in) the FBI, unfortunately, there is a history of abuse, mismanagement and retaliation so strong that it has become part of its organization culture.

"Only a brave few dare to speak out. … When they do speak out, they usually suffer retaliation," he said.

Full story.

Wow. That's quite eye-opening, I'm really surprised something like that made it to the mainstream press. It really makes me wonder - if this is the kind of things we actually hear about, what else can be going on behind the scenes?

I don't mean to sound like a Conspiracy theorist, but things like this do concern me, greatly. It was Abraham Lincoln (ironically enough, the man should've taken his own advice) who said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." And James Madison is known for saying "If tyranny and oppression ever come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." With things like this (and the Patriot Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, etc.) I can see the wisdom of Americans who came before us... Are we willing to listen to them?

Obama implies the government should control how much you eat...what?!

2008-05-18T19:24:00.003-05:00

Since I have an anti-McCain post below this, it's only fitting to equally bash... ;) Hat tip to InfoWars.

Source: Google News.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama set his sights on November's general election Saturday as he campaigned in Oregon, where he hopes to declare victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.
"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

That's pretty scary, isn't it? He implies that the government should have control over what people eat, and suggests that it should be at the bidding of foreign nations?

It doesn't seem strange anymore that he would allow the whole calling a reporter "sweetie" debacle to become a big deal. Anything to take the attention away, eh?

McCain: Iraq victory by 2013

2008-05-16T15:22:00.002-05:00

So, five more years?
4,000 more dead?
Several hundred thousand more wounded?

What do you see in five more years in Iraq?

It's a better prediction than 100 years, but it's still pretty damn pathetic.

McCain panders to the California crowd.

2008-05-11T23:38:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON -- After spending several weeks staking out positions on taxes, Iraq and judges designed to appeal to conservatives, John McCain is shifting his attention to independents and Democrats, with proposals on climate change.

Sen. McCain's support of regulating global-warming gases like carbon dioxide -- the biggest environmental issue before Congress -- more closely resembles the stance of his Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

This headline made me laugh

2008-05-11T14:17:00.002-05:00

Not a funny laugh, of course. A sort of wry, oh-gosh-this-again laugh.

Feminists Divided over Clinton and Obama.

... I don't know about you, but I don't consider pro-choice to be pro-woman. Not that pro-war is specifically pro-life, either, but that's beside the point.

I've never understood a woman who would only vote for someone if they were pro-abortion. I'm not exactly a feminist, but I like to think that I'm not such an idiot as to need someone to provide me the "right" to kill my children. I mean, talk about insulting. I guess women are just stupid animals who can't help themselves from becoming impregnated?

Sorry for the random post, but I've never understood that. Maybe you guys can help me to get that line of reasoning better.

Texas to immunize FLDS children

2008-05-11T13:48:00.005-05:00

From the Salt Lake Tribune, hat tip to Infowars.com [Emphasis added]

Texas authorities have asked foster care providers to immunize every FLDS child - despite some parents' concerns about possible negative effects.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sent letters to 16 group homes and shelters this week asking them to line up shots for the children.

"It appears to be a totally unimmunized population," said Patrick Crimmins, department spokesman. "We're the legal parents of the children and we would like for them to be immunized."

Crimmins said the state requires all children in custody to be immunized for their "health and safety."

I probably have a different perspective about this than most of you - my parents believed that vaccines weren't safe and I was never immunized as a child. The only reason we got around school regulations, most likely, is that my siblings and I were homeschooled. Whether or not vaccines are truly unsafe, it's absolutely deplorable that the State can own these children and do with them what it wants.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these children shouldn't be in the care of the State in the first place. Do I condone polygamy? No. Of course not. I don't think polygamous marriage should be legally sanctioned, but I certainly don't think that we should be prosecuting those living in plural marriages. If there is abuse along the lines of underage marriages really going on, that's one thing, but to prosecute people for their - albeit dreadfully wrong - personal convictions is wrong.

I also think that if there was abuse going on, the children shouldn't be taken from their mothers. Since when do we take children away from abused mothers? Mothers living in abusive (singular) marriages essentially "allow" an unhealthy environment to continue, but we don't take their children away!

Anyway, that's a bit of rambling post for one little article, but I hadn't talked much about this situation yet, so I figured I would ;).

To all the moms out there...

2008-05-11T11:11:00.001-05:00

German court rules against religious freedom

2008-05-08T16:46:00.004-05:00

A German court on Wednesday ruled that a Muslim student cannot skip co-ed swimming lessons because her religion prohibits form-fitting clothes that do not cover her body, The Local reported.

The 12-year-old girl’s parents sued a school in the northern city of Remscheid after it refused to let the girl skip the lessons. The court sided with the school, saying that the state’s responsibility to educate the girl outweighed an infringement on her religious freedom.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think this is pretty ridiculous. I'm not advocating for Islam's teachings (I know quite a few fundamental Christians who would have similar beliefs,) but that's not really the issue. What bothers me is that the State's "responsibility" to educate - their essential ownership of children, supersedes a personal conviction. That's wrong.

Do you guys agree or disagree?

So,

2008-05-04T18:49:00.004-05:00

Which party do you belong in? Your Result: Constitution Party You are an old-school conservative. You believe the Bill of Rights are sacred. You believe in a strong interpretation of the Constitution, traditional values, limited government, and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. You are opposed to abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, most taxes (especially the income tax) non- defensive, un-declared wars and federal laws on anything not expressed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. You generally support free-markets but are anti-globalist and somewhat protectionist.
Libertarian Party
Republican Party
Green Party
Democrat(ic) Party
Which party do you belong in? Create a Quiz

Yay! Now I'm twice considered an anti-Government radical (by the SPLC, of course...) John Birch Society AND Constitution party? Tsk tsk...

Anyway ;)
What party do you belong in?

Wow...finals week

2008-05-01T07:44:00.002-05:00

So, I've been really really busy these past few weeks. I haven't been around commenting anyone's blogs or posting here, achk, I don't want my blog to die out again. I'm almost finished with finals, though, so I should be back around soon! Two finals down, three to go =/. See y'all in a few days!

Chuck Baldwin receives Constitution Party nomination.

2008-04-26T21:22:00.003-05:00

From the Kansas City Star.

Convening its national convention in Kansas City today, the Constitution Party picked radio talk-show host Chuck Baldwin over former Ambassador Alan Keyes as its 2008 presidential candidate.

The pick was seen as something of an upset, given Keyes' higher national profile. Known for his fiery stem-winders, Keyes is a two-time GOP presidential candidate who abandoned the Republican Party this month to join the Constitution Party, which believes in limited government and is committed to ending abortion and bringing American troops home from Iraq.

But Baldwin's roots in the Constitution Party run deeper. He was the party's 2004 vice-presidential candidate, and party members said his stands were more in line with party thinking. "Chuck is the real deal," said Jim Clymer, the party's national chairman.

Ok, first of all -what do you think of the party's pick? Second, I am considering supporting Baldwin, but I want to know what you think. This is probably aimed more at my fellow Ron Paul supporters, but the rest of you, please weigh in too...

I really don't want to see Ron Paul's vote split between the Libertarian and Constitution parties. That being said, I also really want to be able to really, truly get behind someone for President again. When people ask me who to vote for, I need an answer beyond "write-in", because - honestly - nobody but hardcore Ron Paul'ers agree with, or even listen to that.

I do agree with a great deal of what he says, but my mind isn't made up. Chuck Baldwin has previously endorsed Ron Paul, and is pro-life, anti-Iraq war and speaks out against things like the NAU, which is rare. At the same time, I'm very, very Libertarian on Church-State issues and would feel wary supporting a Pastor for a political office. I don't want to vote for a Mike Huckabee with Ron Paul's political views, if you know what I mean. I'm not saying that's what Baldwin is, I'm just wary.

What are your thoughts?

Creepy much?

2008-04-22T15:13:00.001-05:00

From FoxNews.

What's got a 500-foot wingspan, flies at 90,000 feet and stays up in the air for five years without ever touching the ground?

If the Pentagon has its way, it'll be the Vulture, its planned long-, long-, long-range unmanned surveillance and communication aircraft.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency last week awarded contracts to Manassas, Va.-based Aurora Flight Services and top defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin to develop working prototypes of the Vulture, according to the aerospace news service Flight.

Thoughts?

ABC News Questions Gore's Use of Computerized Images in "Inconvenient Truth"

2008-04-21T16:33:00.006-05:00

From ABC, hat tip to Infowars.com.

Al Gore's "traveling global warming show," the award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," includes a long flyover shot of majestic Antarctic ice shelves. But this shot was first seen in the 2004 blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." Sculpted from Styrofoam and later scanned into a computer, the ice shelf "flyover" looks real.

Karen Goulekas, the special effects supervisor for "The Day After Tomorrow" said the shot is a digital image. She was glad Al Gore used it in the documentary since "It is one hell of a shot."

And it looks like ol' Al isn't giving up the lie-peddling... as Infowars.com reports, a sequel to Inconvenient Truth is in the works. The media, Congress, and President are eating it up too, passing taxes and restrictions on carbons, and in effect placing the the environment higher than American taxpayers. All the while, questions about the truth of the global warming theory are being resolutely ignored or silenced, while public hype grows.

And we wonder why we get idiots into office? People assume that listening to Al Gore and his band of celebrities will get them all the information they need.

Wake up people!

John McCain vs. John McCain

2008-04-21T16:24:00.002-05:00

President Bush to meet with Canada, Mexico's leaders

2008-04-21T06:20:00.004-05:00

From the AP: Bush seeks to cement legacy of ties with Canada, Mexico.

WASHINGTON - President Bush, joining the conservative leaders of Canada and Mexico for one final time, is eager to expand a trading relationship that has been lucrative for the United States and both of its neighbors.

Bush joins Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Monday in New Orleans for his fourth and final North American Leaders' Summit.

While the MSM sees- or would like you to see- a harmless meeting about trade agreements, others see the meeting as a continuance of the plans for a North American Union. Plans have been on the table for several months, so this innocuous meeting might not be so harmless in truth...

Research the NAU, and the forces behind it.

The untold casualties of a war...

2008-04-17T20:56:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON - Some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries, a new study estimates.

Only about half have sought treatment, said the study released Thursday by the RAND Corporation.

“There is a major health crisis facing those men and women who have served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Terri Tanielian, the project’s co-leader and a researcher at the nonprofit RAND.

“Unless they receive appropriate and effective care for these mental health conditions, there will be long-term consequences for them and for the nation.”

No time for a real post...

2008-04-12T21:25:00.008-05:00

Just a quick note before I run. I have oodles of homework to finish tomorrow, and three tests next week, eek. Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend...I had church today, but the rest of you - hope you have a good Sunday ;). See y'all Monday afternoon!

McCain's VP?

2008-04-06T15:07:00.005-05:00

So, there's a lot of talk lately about who McCain should pick as his running mate if and presumably when he earns the nomination. I highly doubt he'd choose a socially-moderate-to-liberal like Romney, but more likely candidates have been brought up, including my Governor, Charlie Crist (not a big fan of his, myself) and others. Rest assured, even if McSame picked Ron Paul himself, you'd have a hard time convincing me to vote for him, but I'm just curious - who do you think he should choose?

Charlton Heston dead at 84

2008-04-06T14:55:00.004-05:00

"Charlton Heston was seen by the world as larger than life. He was known for his chiseled jaw, broad shoulders and resonating voice, and, of course, for the roles he played," Heston's family said in a statement. "No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given more to his family, to his profession, and to his country."

US Government using drones to track Marijuana growers

2008-04-04T18:19:00.007-05:00

The U.S. Forest Service has bought a pair of flying drones to track down marijuana growers operating in remote California woodlands.

Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, who oversees the Forest Service, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the pilot less, camera-equipped aircraft will allow law enforcement officers to pinpoint marijuana fields and size up potential dangers before agents attempt arrests.

The purchase of the two SkySeer drones, for a combined $100,000, reflects rising interest in remote-controlled aircraft among law enforcement, science and other government agencies.

Wow...

First of all, the 10th Amendment states: "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." So if California wants to legalize pot, they have every Constitutional right to! The Federal government has no right to step in and control what a State does, unfortunately it's something that happens all the time. I don't, nor will I ever, smoke Marijuana (or drink, for that matter) but I don't think that the government - especially the Federal government - should outlaw something just because I disagree with it.

And the larger issue here - does it bother anyone but me that the Government is so readily using remote tracking? It doesn't directly affect me now, because the Government doesn't consider me a lawbreaker. But is our Government incapable of making mistakes?

In ridiculous news...

2008-04-04T18:05:00.001-05:00

First-Grader Labeled a Sexual Harasser

Randy Castro, 7, who likes recess and soccer, now has an alarming red flag in his school records. It started on the playground with a first grade classmate.

"I saw another kid like hitting her butt so I did it," Castro said.

His Potomac View Elementary School then called the police and wrote him up as a sexual harasser. Woodbridge, Md. school officials described the incident as "Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive," in their report.

Dems: Iraq report "too rosy"

2008-04-04T17:33:00.003-05:00

Story link.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior Democratic senators challenged a new intelligence report's assessment of President Bush's "surge" strategy Friday, saying the troop increase in Iraq has failed to achieve its strategic goals.

A Shiite fighter aims at Iraqi government troops in the Sadr City area of Baghdad during fighting this week.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was distributed to key lawmakers this week, sets the stage for the latest public progress report on Iraq that will be delivered Tuesday and Wednesday to congressional committees by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad.

"In my judgment, it's too rosy, but there are parts of it that are not so rosy, and both pieces need to be declassified," Sen. Carl Levin said, pointing in particular to the portion of the report describing Iraq's political progress.

A few things about this article bother me, as a Conservative who doesn't support the war. First of all, the hypocracy on the Democrats part is repulsive. If you recall, many Democrats have been staunch proponents of the war in the past, including Hillary Clinton. I find it hard to believe that many lawmakers are against Iraq on anything but political grounds. Then again, I suppose that's just politics.

Another issue that bothers me - and this is more against both parties - is the matter-of-fact way the deaths of soldiers is portrayed. Let's not mince words folks; when we say "troop surge" we're talking about more soldiers dying for Iraq, more soldiers being kept away from home for an un-Constitutional war, and more soldiers being used as political pawns! And this goes both ways. Even notable non-politicians, like Angelina Jolie have come out in support of the surge because of the "humanitarian efforts" in Iraq. Somebody tell me, when did it become the job of the American soldier to die for far-flung foreign nations? Soldiers sign up to defend America, not Iraq!

The Democrats are probably right about things not being as "rosy" as they're portrayed, but I see this as a non-issue. Our objective in Iraq, to get rid of the tyranny of Hussein, was finished four and half years ago. We cannot stay until the region is completely stable, even Ronald Reagan spoke about the irrationality of the middle east. We just marched in and we can just march out. It's way past time.

Well, there's my rant for the week. I have a feeling that most of my fellow Conservatives are going to take issue with my views...but anyway.

What do you think?

Florida House Committee passes Abortion bill

2008-04-03T08:31:00.006-05:00

From Fox 7 in Miami and Medical News Today.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- All women seeking an abortion would first have to have an ultrasound and be given the opportunity to view the results under a measure approved by a Florida House committee Thursday.

But a more controversial requirement that would have forced women to wait 24 hours before having the procedure was dropped in the face of opposition from moderates in the Legislature.

Florida already requires ultrasounds on any women seeking abortions in the second or third trimester. The bill would require ultrasounds before all abortions, and compel abortion providers to tell the woman she has the option of viewing the sonogram.

The woman wouldn't have to view the image under the legislation.

Read the entire bill here.

Well, I'm obviously in favor of this bill, but I wish that it could be passed with stricter restrictions so it could directly challenge Roe v. Wade. Either way, I'm glad Florida's taking a few steps to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, this has just passed committee, it still has to be passed by the entire House and Senate and then be signed by Governer Crist, but this is an important step.

But speaking of the Court, do you think 2008 could be like 1973? Several landmark, bad cases and laws were decided or passed by the more liberal-leaning Supreme Court and Congress in that year (Roe v. Wade, the War Powers Resolution,) and if more States would step up and take advantage of the 10th amendment, we might get long-standing bad case law overturned.

About my email.

2008-03-30T09:20:00.003-05:00

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

2008-03-23T13:55:00.007-05:00

As far as stupid moments go...

2008-03-21T18:24:00.006-05:00

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.

2008-03-19T11:23:00.005-05:00

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

And counting...

How long?

Wow.

2008-03-19T10:56:00.005-05:00

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

2008-03-18T16:54:00.006-05:00

"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"

2008-03-17T10:47:00.005-05:00

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...

2008-03-15T20:56:00.003-05:00

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

2008-03-15T10:04:00.004-05:00

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?

2008-03-14T08:51:00.015-05:00

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

2008-03-12T15:24:00.003-05:00

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

2008-03-12T15:11:00.003-05:00

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...

2008-03-11T06:37:00.003-05:00

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.

2008-03-06T14:38:00.005-06:00

"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,

2008-03-06T02:15:00.002-06:00

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!

2008-03-05T17:35:00.002-06:00

"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...?

2008-03-05T10:14:00.005-06:00

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"

2008-03-05T08:00:00.005-06:00

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

2008-03-04T17:18:00.005-06:00

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 ;)

A post about nothing.

2008-02-29T10:40:00.001-06:00

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

Oh, wow...

2008-02-27T15:37:00.002-06:00

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

Primetime Jerry Springer...

2008-02-27T15:24:00.002-06:00

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...

2008-02-26T17:26:00.002-06:00

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"

2008-02-26T13:31:00.002-06:00

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?

2008-02-26T13:11:00.002-06:00

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!

2008-02-25T20:14:00.004-06:00

(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...

2008-02-24T21:38:00.002-06:00

'Tis quite randomly funny, too. ^_^

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

2008-02-24T19:15:00.002-06:00

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?

2008-02-24T13:38:00.002-06:00

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.

2008-02-24T11:51:00.004-06:00

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...

2008-02-22T17:13:00.003-06:00

"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...

2008-02-20T21:46:00.004-06:00

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

2008-02-19T06:30:00.002-06:00

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...

2008-02-17T11:55:00.002-06:00

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!

2008-02-16T18:19:00.003-06:00

36

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

=P

Can you beat me?

Blah

2008-02-16T18:03:00.002-06:00

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?

2008-02-15T16:40:00.003-06:00

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

McCain, war hack extrordanaire

2008-02-15T16:29:00.003-06:00

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!

2008-02-15T15:57:00.002-06:00

Slutty girls take slutty pictures.

How shocking!

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

How?!

2008-02-15T10:53:00.004-06:00

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

2008-02-15T10:38:00.002-06:00

"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

2008-02-14T21:26:00.002-06:00

"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

2008-02-14T21:14:00.002-06:00

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

2008-02-13T11:00:00.002-06:00

[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

2008-02-13T10:55:00.002-06:00

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.

2008-02-11T14:11:00.000-06:00

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?

2008-02-10T15:25:00.000-06:00

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

Why is it easier for me to attack the Republicans?

2008-02-10T14:17:00.000-06:00

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.

2008-02-07T15:31:00.001-06:00

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.

2008-02-07T14:20:00.002-06:00

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!