If you're my age, you remember the "cold" war. While in elementary school, we were shown how to survive a nuclear attack by hiding under our desks. Neighbors had fallout shelters built in their backyards and we knew that Nikita Khrushchev, head of the USSR, was an evil man who meant us harm. This didn't change for years. Eventually, miracles of all miracles, the wall separating Germany from Germany came down. We watched with tears in our eyes as families were reunited. The USSR was dismantled. We thought that democracy would be the answer to their peoples' long years of poverty, suppression, and torture.
And, for a time, though the path was difficult, Russia and it's bordering states made their way into the world. The people began to feel the freedom of standing on their own two feet. The Russian stock market began to rally and all seemed right with the world, for a short period of time.
Putin, Russia's new president, was impressive. His people "loved" him, according to the press. But, what they didn't see, what our own President didn't see in Putin's eyes, was his need for power or his love of communism or maybe the ultimate power, a dictatorship. Now, we know that we have our old enemy back and he's stronger and more powerful than ever. Why? Because now he has oil and that gives him a lot of leverage over Europe.
Already, some of Europe has caved over his carefully planned invasion of Georgia. What can they do? They have no power. Unfortunately, the United States has had to carry the burden of power since WWII, along with our friend, England. Remember the Nazis stomping over Europe? Who In Europe could possibly stop Russia from doing the same thing? Don't think the United Nations. It has become a haven of corruption and impotent countries.
We have to admit that history repeats itself; over and over and over. I came to a conclusion yesterday. It involves human nature. I imagined myself an anthropologist studying the history of man. Since we can remember, MAN, and I do mean MAN, has waged war. There is a basic animalistic or humanistic drive for power and control. When you have a weak tribe or state or country, one human can inspire a group or army to wrest control from another. This has happened continually throughout the world since the beginning of mankind. The American Iroquois had it right. Give the power to the women. They (normally) will not choose to fight or start a war unless it's necessary. Now, if only we can convince the rest of humanity to allow women to rule!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The People's Communist Republic of the United States?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69784
Posted: July 16, 20089:37 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.
In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.
According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:
"We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy."
But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue, and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
He added that he wants the help of "every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election."
Since Farah reported the statement, it's been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.
In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it's likely one of Obama's handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.
"Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it," Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are "delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub."
Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and "in the moment of the speech, he decided, 'they're back in.'"
Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to "pay closer attention to Obama's speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he's really good on a fixed script. And we know that he's really bad on his own."
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
On the forum page for Blue Collar Muse, one reader said, "I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATFE, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, that already did that."
Added another: "The other, more likely, possibility here is that Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. That would explain why he hasn't elaborated on the idea."
Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."
"I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines."
And he told the audience he would "ask for your service."
"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges. … As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer."
He also talked about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."
Posted: July 16, 20089:37 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.
In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.
According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:
"We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy."
But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue, and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
He added that he wants the help of "every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election."
Since Farah reported the statement, it's been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.
In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it's likely one of Obama's handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.
"Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it," Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are "delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub."
Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and "in the moment of the speech, he decided, 'they're back in.'"
Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to "pay closer attention to Obama's speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he's really good on a fixed script. And we know that he's really bad on his own."
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
On the forum page for Blue Collar Muse, one reader said, "I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATFE, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, that already did that."
Added another: "The other, more likely, possibility here is that Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. That would explain why he hasn't elaborated on the idea."
Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."
"I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines."
And he told the audience he would "ask for your service."
"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges. … As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer."
He also talked about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."
More Scary Stuff from the Radicals
Pro-Obama Group Threatens Republican Donors
Friday, August 8, 2008 11:08 AMBy: Jim Meyers
Article Font Size
A new left-wing organization that wants to help elect Barack Obama president is sending letters to nearly 10,000 major donors who contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups.
The nonprofit organization, Accountable America, is even offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for violations of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative group, according to The New York Times.
Accountable America is led by Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, and its research director is Judd Legum, who served that role in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Matzzie called the organization’s effort “going for the jugular.” He told The Times, "We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground.”
The warning letter being sent to potential donors “is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives,” The Times reports.
If a conservative group do run ads attacking Obama, Matzzie says his group plans to run ads countering it exposing the donors behind the anti-Obama message.
Matzzie’s group has so far raised only $200,000, but he said he hopes to raise more than $500,000 by next week and $2 million overall.
Republican strategist Chris LaCivita doubts the group will succeed in scaring off donors, saying “they’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left.”
Matzzie previously headed the Campaign to Defend America, which has run ads against Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/accountable_america/2008/08/08/120255.html?s=al&promo_code=6789-1
Friday, August 8, 2008 11:08 AMBy: Jim Meyers
Article Font Size
A new left-wing organization that wants to help elect Barack Obama president is sending letters to nearly 10,000 major donors who contribute to Republican causes, threatening them with potential legal problems if they finance conservative groups.
The nonprofit organization, Accountable America, is even offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for violations of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative group, according to The New York Times.
Accountable America is led by Tom Matzzie, former Washington director of the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, and its research director is Judd Legum, who served that role in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Matzzie called the organization’s effort “going for the jugular.” He told The Times, "We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground.”
The warning letter being sent to potential donors “is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives,” The Times reports.
If a conservative group do run ads attacking Obama, Matzzie says his group plans to run ads countering it exposing the donors behind the anti-Obama message.
Matzzie’s group has so far raised only $200,000, but he said he hopes to raise more than $500,000 by next week and $2 million overall.
Republican strategist Chris LaCivita doubts the group will succeed in scaring off donors, saying “they’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left.”
Matzzie previously headed the Campaign to Defend America, which has run ads against Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/accountable_america/2008/08/08/120255.html?s=al&promo_code=6789-1
100 Mile-Per-Gallon Cars - Here We Come!
I'm not a brilliant person, but I do know that government oversite comes at a price: less money or less freedom. I live 20 miles from a city. I prefer to be right where I am. Mass transit is not "friendly" out here. It takes a lot of time to ride the bus when it stops every few miles. I've been trying to keep up on solutions to the oil crisis. John Hofmeister, former CEO of Shell (on Glenn Beck last week) said gas is only 20% efficient and ethanol is less. He proposes hydrogen cars. They're clean energy, emitting only water and some heat. But, he failed to mention that hydrogen is produced by coal, gas or oil, so we're back to square one. Electric cars, hmmm, they're okay tooling around town, but they don't go far before they need to be charged again. Hybrids are a possibility, the prototypes can get over 100 miles per gallon when you calculate the cost of electricity, but I don't want to "plug in" my car. I don't want battery powered cars ruining my environment. Plus, they are painfully expensive. I just want a gas powered car that can get 100 miles to the gallon. If we could do that, we would reduce our CO2's by at least half. Is that asking too much? (A rhetorical question.) There's an international competition to build a 100-mile-per-gallon car. The Automotive X Prize will have an award of at least $10 million to the team that builds the car. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that somewhere someone has the ingenuity and brilliance to create a car that is capable of rocking our world!
So, until that happens, government will want us to do our part to make sacrifices and spend hours on a train or bus, move closer to a city, limit our vacations to the closest beach, and pony up more for the cost of fuel. No more going to visit grandma down in Florida (a 1,500 mile trip). Maybe we should just start riding horses.
So, until that happens, government will want us to do our part to make sacrifices and spend hours on a train or bus, move closer to a city, limit our vacations to the closest beach, and pony up more for the cost of fuel. No more going to visit grandma down in Florida (a 1,500 mile trip). Maybe we should just start riding horses.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Obama on Energy
I was watching the youtube video on Obama's Energy Plan address to Ohio. Obama was pushing wind energy and stated that $3.5 billion in wages could be made by 2020 through wind energy. And, with the right investments (?), Ohio could save $24 billion and provide energy for 2 million homes. And, he would reduce demand for electricity by 15% nationwide which would save $130 billion and improve energy efficiency.
Sounds great! But, one really huge wind turbine can power about 4,000 homes - which means Ohio would need about 500 turbines - which will cost about $4.5 million each or about $2.5 billion total. Not a big deal, right? Although, I can't imagine 500 giant wind turbines that are 130 feet tall in our back yards. I think I'd rather see a couple of oil rigs.
Still, Mr. Obama hasn't addressed the basic issue. The oil crisis. He wants to give us $1,000 "gift" (basically, a bribe), which we will promptly pay back to the oil companies in higher prices. It's stupid! So, what do we do? First, we have approximately 62 million registered vehicles in the U.S. All of those cars are not going away anytime soon. I know I'm not planning on getting rid of mine soon. So, the majority of cars are still going to be using gas in five to ten years. What's going to happen to oil prices in five years? Shouldn't we be providing gas to all those cars in order to keep the economy going while alternatives are being developed? Solution - ANWR. John Hofmeister, the retired CEO of Shell, says we can get ANWR pumping some oil in two years because we already have the Alaskan Oil Pipeline. Two years, people, NOT ten years.
Now, alternative energy for automobiles. Mr. Obama is talking about electric cars with batteries. You plug them in, they suck up electricity and store them in batteries. Lots of batteries. But, electricity and batteries won't get you very far - they die in 50 to 100 miles. They're ok if you're going to the grocery store, but what if you want to see Grandma in Florida and you live in New York? Plus, what do you do with the batteries when they wear out? Can I say it? Pollutants!
Mr. Hofmeister proposes hydrogen as an energy source. Okay - that sounds good! Hydrogen can be supplied at gas stations. Mr. Hofmeister is concerned about the global climate change. Hydrogen is an non-polluting energy - it leaves water. And, it doesn't have to be plugged in to get energized. But, there's a "dirty little secret" about hydrogen. It is produced, at least 90% is, by fossil fuels - coal, gas, oil - so we're in the same mess we started with! Plus, hydrogen cars (right now) are extremely expensive. And, I believe they can explode.
So, here's a question: if we use electricity for our cars and have to plug them in every night before we go to bed, how are we going to save 15% in energy? We aren't. With 62 million cars, that's a lot of juice. It's scary to say, but it sounds like Mr. Obama is suggesting we don't drive anymore. Get out your horses, your bikes, and a good set of sneakers! No more visiting granny, because we won't have any planes, trains, or buses. Yikes!
So, we are back to square one. Until someone thinks up a genius idea to power our cars, we're still going to be using gasoline in 2050
Sounds great! But, one really huge wind turbine can power about 4,000 homes - which means Ohio would need about 500 turbines - which will cost about $4.5 million each or about $2.5 billion total. Not a big deal, right? Although, I can't imagine 500 giant wind turbines that are 130 feet tall in our back yards. I think I'd rather see a couple of oil rigs.
Still, Mr. Obama hasn't addressed the basic issue. The oil crisis. He wants to give us $1,000 "gift" (basically, a bribe), which we will promptly pay back to the oil companies in higher prices. It's stupid! So, what do we do? First, we have approximately 62 million registered vehicles in the U.S. All of those cars are not going away anytime soon. I know I'm not planning on getting rid of mine soon. So, the majority of cars are still going to be using gas in five to ten years. What's going to happen to oil prices in five years? Shouldn't we be providing gas to all those cars in order to keep the economy going while alternatives are being developed? Solution - ANWR. John Hofmeister, the retired CEO of Shell, says we can get ANWR pumping some oil in two years because we already have the Alaskan Oil Pipeline. Two years, people, NOT ten years.
Now, alternative energy for automobiles. Mr. Obama is talking about electric cars with batteries. You plug them in, they suck up electricity and store them in batteries. Lots of batteries. But, electricity and batteries won't get you very far - they die in 50 to 100 miles. They're ok if you're going to the grocery store, but what if you want to see Grandma in Florida and you live in New York? Plus, what do you do with the batteries when they wear out? Can I say it? Pollutants!
Mr. Hofmeister proposes hydrogen as an energy source. Okay - that sounds good! Hydrogen can be supplied at gas stations. Mr. Hofmeister is concerned about the global climate change. Hydrogen is an non-polluting energy - it leaves water. And, it doesn't have to be plugged in to get energized. But, there's a "dirty little secret" about hydrogen. It is produced, at least 90% is, by fossil fuels - coal, gas, oil - so we're in the same mess we started with! Plus, hydrogen cars (right now) are extremely expensive. And, I believe they can explode.
So, here's a question: if we use electricity for our cars and have to plug them in every night before we go to bed, how are we going to save 15% in energy? We aren't. With 62 million cars, that's a lot of juice. It's scary to say, but it sounds like Mr. Obama is suggesting we don't drive anymore. Get out your horses, your bikes, and a good set of sneakers! No more visiting granny, because we won't have any planes, trains, or buses. Yikes!
So, we are back to square one. Until someone thinks up a genius idea to power our cars, we're still going to be using gasoline in 2050
Saturday, August 9, 2008
What does FACIST mean?
A lot of words have been bandied about on the internet regarding Obama and his meaning of the word "CHANGE." Unfortunately, he hasn't given us much of an explanation. People still don't know what he's talking about.
On the internet, or talk radio, some people have called him: a liberal (we know that one), a socialist, a communist, or a fascist. Hmmm. Fascist. Well, there's a word Americans haven't heard before regarding a political candidate. A fascist? We know Obama has a murky past with his admiration of Rev. Wright and Farrakan. One of his early mentors, whom he called Frank in his book Dreams From My Father was Frank Marshall Davis, a known communist. He admits in his book to attending "socialist conferences" and reading Marxist literature. Okay. So, there's a good chance that Obama IS a liberal (a given), a socialist, and possibly a communist. Still, is he a fascist? Here is a definition of a fascist:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. — Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism .[8]
Well, then, I think we know the answer to whether Obama is a fascist.
Obama and his wife have spoken of their lack of pride in this country. Here's two videos to prove it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw (Michelle - "For the first time... I'm proud of my country, people are hungry for change, people want to be unified, not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment." ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d667NAI9HIM (Barack - "America is no longer what it could be, what it once was...")
We know they are "sugar-coating" their words. If they said what they really meant, what their friends, mentors, and religious leaders have been drilling into their heads for over twenty years, they'd lose us, because Americans want their freedom, they want to feel safe, they want to prosper without the government leading them around by the nose. At least, I hope they do. I know that's what I want.
Another good article, Obama's Communist Mentor by Cliff Kincaid, explains Obama's connection to communism as quoted below: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
"Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a Communist Party USA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses."
"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."
Scary stuff for the people of the United States!
Next: What will happen if Barack Obama is elected President of the United States?
On the internet, or talk radio, some people have called him: a liberal (we know that one), a socialist, a communist, or a fascist. Hmmm. Fascist. Well, there's a word Americans haven't heard before regarding a political candidate. A fascist? We know Obama has a murky past with his admiration of Rev. Wright and Farrakan. One of his early mentors, whom he called Frank in his book Dreams From My Father was Frank Marshall Davis, a known communist. He admits in his book to attending "socialist conferences" and reading Marxist literature. Okay. So, there's a good chance that Obama IS a liberal (a given), a socialist, and possibly a communist. Still, is he a fascist? Here is a definition of a fascist:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. — Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism .[8]
Well, then, I think we know the answer to whether Obama is a fascist.
Obama and his wife have spoken of their lack of pride in this country. Here's two videos to prove it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw (Michelle - "For the first time... I'm proud of my country, people are hungry for change, people want to be unified, not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment." ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d667NAI9HIM (Barack - "America is no longer what it could be, what it once was...")
We know they are "sugar-coating" their words. If they said what they really meant, what their friends, mentors, and religious leaders have been drilling into their heads for over twenty years, they'd lose us, because Americans want their freedom, they want to feel safe, they want to prosper without the government leading them around by the nose. At least, I hope they do. I know that's what I want.
Another good article, Obama's Communist Mentor by Cliff Kincaid, explains Obama's connection to communism as quoted below: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
"Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a Communist Party USA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses."
"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."
Scary stuff for the people of the United States!
Next: What will happen if Barack Obama is elected President of the United States?
Friday, August 8, 2008
Joining the "real" world
I have joined the real world - Technorati. Please be kind. I am only giving my views. I would like to hear yours without alot of four letter words and hatred. We're just trying to figure this all out, after all. Hopefully, we can find the truth. (Gad! I sound like Fox Mulder!)
Technorati Profile
Technorati Profile
Obama's Connection to Corruption
At the very beginning of the Democratic campaign, I remember reading something which spoke about Mr. Obama's connection to a man in Chicago named Tony Rezko. Rezko is not a nice man, in fact, Hillary Clinton had a few choice words about him (at the website below) and she ain't lily white herself! The Chicago Sun Times has outlined the whole ugly facts, however, I'm listing the worst of it right here: "A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor." I wonder what "favors" Obama did for the $520,000 free lunch from Rezko? If Obama is claiming he has risen above the norm on campaign contributions, he is sadly mistaken. He's just taken a "back door" approach! Woe to all of us if he gets into office!!!
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Capitol Watchdogs Fret Over Rise in ‘Honest Graft’ Land Deals
This is just "the tip of the iceberg", I'm afraid to say. The website is below.
Published on Thursday, May 17, 2007 by ABC News
Capitol Watchdogs Fret Over Rise in ‘Honest Graft’ Land Deals
by Justin Rood
WASHINGTON - A series of questionable land deals involving U.S. lawmakers have raised alarms among government watchdogs, who fear such dubious arrangements are on the rise.
“Everyone’s been trying to catch up to this phenomenon,” said Keith Ashdown of Washington, D.C.-based Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Each deal is different, but experts say they follow the same pattern. By himself or with others, a lawmaker buys up cheap property. Then the lawmaker pushes for changes in law or a shot of federal spending which boosts the value of the property. When the price surges, the property is sold, sometimes netting the lawmaker hundreds of thousands of dollars.
On their face, such deals aren’t illegal, say experts. The bar is high: to prove that a lawmaker specifically intended to use his public act for private gain.
“Unless you have these guys wired up and record them talking about the deals,” it’s almost impossible to prove a lawmaker had such an intent, Ashdown said.
Still, watchdogs are growling over the trend.
“Some of these deals look so cozy and were so profitable you have to wonder,” said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics.
Recent investigations by reporters and watchdog groups have led to four instances in which sitting lawmakers have been accused of improperly enriching themselves through such deals, leading Ashdown to dub the trend “the public service land rush.”
Indeed, according to the most recent figures available, lawmakers invest more of their wealth in real estate than any other type of investment, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“In Congress, land deals are more popular than a shoe sale at Nordstroms,” quipped Naomi Seligman-Steiner of the left-leaning anti-corruption group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Her group has called for IRS and FBI investigations into several recent land sales by lawmakers that have been linked to their public actions.
While the rise in such deals appears new, the deal itself is hardly innovative. A powerful New York City political boss described the gentle art of “honest graft” more than 100 years ago. In a now-infamous 1905 speech, George Washington Plunkitt, a prominent figure of New York’s notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall, defended his practice of making money in real estate using exclusive foreknowledge of where the government was developing parks and other public amenities.
“Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight?” asked Plunkitt. “Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft.”
In Plunkitt’s time, it was harder for reporters and the public to catch such worrisome deals.
Today, watchdogs are beginning to use technology and publicly available information to match up lawmakers’ real estate holdings to the perks they squeeze into legislation for new bridges, highway interchanges and other goodies that can boost property values.
The Washington, D.C.-based Sunlight Foundation has mapped thousands of proposed bridges, highway improvements and other projects funded by U.S. lawmaker requests, or “earmarks.”
Ashdown’s group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, is taking the effort a step further, by using the online satellite imagery and geolocating tools of Google Earth to map real estate holdings belonging to U.S. lawmakers, in the hopes of seeing where certain tracts match up with certain improvements.
A review of the questionable deals recently unearthed gives an idea why those groups and others feel a sense of urgency about their efforts.
Last year, the Sunlight Foundation raised questions over a deal involving former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. In 2003, Hastert and two other men had used an investment trust to buy up land in Illinois. Then Hastert pushed for hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a highway improvement which would make the land more accessible. Three months after the federal funding was approved, Hastert and his business partners sold the land. Hastert reportedly pocketed an estimated $1.8 million from the deal.
When questioned, Hastert told the Associated Press the land deal “has nothing to do with” the nearby $207 million highway interchange for which he won funding.
The Los Angeles Times discovered that in 2005, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., went in with a partner to buy a four-acre tract in southern California. Then Calvert championed a $10 million earmark for a highway interchange and commercial improvement near the parcel. A few months after the bill passed, the two men sold the property, bagging nearly $450,000 in profit.
A week after the paper reported the deal, the FBI scrutinized Calvert’s financial records. Later, a grand jury requested documents relating to a separate land deal between Calvert and a California town.
Calvert has said he “encourages a thorough review” of any of his earmarks. “I am sure they all meet the highest standards of public benefit,” he told Roll Call newspaper.
This week, House Republicans gave Calvert a coveted seat on a powerful spending panel which oversees such earmarks.
In terms of complexity, Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif. may have the most impressive deal in the bunch. First, he reportedly borrowed millions from a political backer to buy from the backer’s company land near an ailing city airport. Then Miller helped push a bill through Congress to close the airport, allowing his political backer to develop the airport property, which improved the value of the land Miller had bought. Shortly afterward, Miller sold the land at an undisclosed profit.
Miller has called the deal “a normal real estate transaction.” Watchdogs and ethicists decried the deal as ethically compromised, particularly because he did not mention the massive loan on his financial disclosure reports during the period. The FBI is reportedly investigating a number of Miller’s recent land deals. Despite the FBI’s interest in his dealings, House Republicans recently made Miller their top man for investigations and oversight at the Financial Services Committee.
Miller’s office has said the lawmaker has done nothing wrong. “His business dealings have all been above-board…these allegations are baseless and have no merit,” his spokesman said in February responding to news of the investigation.
Now, some Republicans from the Alaskan congressional delegation appear be working on a real doozy: scoring hundreds of millions of federal dollars to extend highways to a backwater Alaskan region known as the “Knik Arm,” where a number of the members’ aides and relatives own land. According to Roll Call newspaper, which broke the story, the deal involved Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young.
Murkowski declined to comment to Roll Call, but Sen. Ted Stevens’ office said the state needs access to Knik Arm because the population of Anchorage, the closest major city, continues to grow.
The Republicans aren’t the only ones with land deals that raise eyebrows. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used his position to help snag $18 million in taxpayer money to build a bridge near 160 acres of undeveloped Arizona land he owned. The deal, discovered by reporters at the Los Angeles Times, likely increases the value of his land, according to experts and local officials contacted by the paper.
Reid has defended the deal, saying the bridge was necessary for interstate truck travel and denying the bridge would significantly improve the value of his land. Congress-watchers voiced disappointment to the Times that taxpayers “may have helped inflate the value” of Reid’s property.
And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.-Calif., has been accused of funneling federal dollars into projects that could boost the value of property held by her and her husband. Pelosi got $25 million for a San Francisco waterfront improvement project about a mile away from four properties owned by her husband.
Pelosi’s office has said it’s highly unlikely the project will boost her husband’s property values, and even Republicans who led the charge against Pelosi’s earmark did not offer evidence or expert opinion to support the idea.
Watchdog groups say they aren’t deterred by the difficulty in identifying these questionable deals.
“Through our work and other muckraking, the public can see what’s going on,” said Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Ashdown echoed the sentiment, “Let the public decide for themselves if they feel there’s a bit of hanky-panky here.”
Copyright © 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/17/1271/
Published on Thursday, May 17, 2007 by ABC News
Capitol Watchdogs Fret Over Rise in ‘Honest Graft’ Land Deals
by Justin Rood
WASHINGTON - A series of questionable land deals involving U.S. lawmakers have raised alarms among government watchdogs, who fear such dubious arrangements are on the rise.
“Everyone’s been trying to catch up to this phenomenon,” said Keith Ashdown of Washington, D.C.-based Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Each deal is different, but experts say they follow the same pattern. By himself or with others, a lawmaker buys up cheap property. Then the lawmaker pushes for changes in law or a shot of federal spending which boosts the value of the property. When the price surges, the property is sold, sometimes netting the lawmaker hundreds of thousands of dollars.
On their face, such deals aren’t illegal, say experts. The bar is high: to prove that a lawmaker specifically intended to use his public act for private gain.
“Unless you have these guys wired up and record them talking about the deals,” it’s almost impossible to prove a lawmaker had such an intent, Ashdown said.
Still, watchdogs are growling over the trend.
“Some of these deals look so cozy and were so profitable you have to wonder,” said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics.
Recent investigations by reporters and watchdog groups have led to four instances in which sitting lawmakers have been accused of improperly enriching themselves through such deals, leading Ashdown to dub the trend “the public service land rush.”
Indeed, according to the most recent figures available, lawmakers invest more of their wealth in real estate than any other type of investment, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“In Congress, land deals are more popular than a shoe sale at Nordstroms,” quipped Naomi Seligman-Steiner of the left-leaning anti-corruption group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Her group has called for IRS and FBI investigations into several recent land sales by lawmakers that have been linked to their public actions.
While the rise in such deals appears new, the deal itself is hardly innovative. A powerful New York City political boss described the gentle art of “honest graft” more than 100 years ago. In a now-infamous 1905 speech, George Washington Plunkitt, a prominent figure of New York’s notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall, defended his practice of making money in real estate using exclusive foreknowledge of where the government was developing parks and other public amenities.
“Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight?” asked Plunkitt. “Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft.”
In Plunkitt’s time, it was harder for reporters and the public to catch such worrisome deals.
Today, watchdogs are beginning to use technology and publicly available information to match up lawmakers’ real estate holdings to the perks they squeeze into legislation for new bridges, highway interchanges and other goodies that can boost property values.
The Washington, D.C.-based Sunlight Foundation has mapped thousands of proposed bridges, highway improvements and other projects funded by U.S. lawmaker requests, or “earmarks.”
Ashdown’s group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, is taking the effort a step further, by using the online satellite imagery and geolocating tools of Google Earth to map real estate holdings belonging to U.S. lawmakers, in the hopes of seeing where certain tracts match up with certain improvements.
A review of the questionable deals recently unearthed gives an idea why those groups and others feel a sense of urgency about their efforts.
Last year, the Sunlight Foundation raised questions over a deal involving former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. In 2003, Hastert and two other men had used an investment trust to buy up land in Illinois. Then Hastert pushed for hundreds of millions of federal dollars to build a highway improvement which would make the land more accessible. Three months after the federal funding was approved, Hastert and his business partners sold the land. Hastert reportedly pocketed an estimated $1.8 million from the deal.
When questioned, Hastert told the Associated Press the land deal “has nothing to do with” the nearby $207 million highway interchange for which he won funding.
The Los Angeles Times discovered that in 2005, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., went in with a partner to buy a four-acre tract in southern California. Then Calvert championed a $10 million earmark for a highway interchange and commercial improvement near the parcel. A few months after the bill passed, the two men sold the property, bagging nearly $450,000 in profit.
A week after the paper reported the deal, the FBI scrutinized Calvert’s financial records. Later, a grand jury requested documents relating to a separate land deal between Calvert and a California town.
Calvert has said he “encourages a thorough review” of any of his earmarks. “I am sure they all meet the highest standards of public benefit,” he told Roll Call newspaper.
This week, House Republicans gave Calvert a coveted seat on a powerful spending panel which oversees such earmarks.
In terms of complexity, Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif. may have the most impressive deal in the bunch. First, he reportedly borrowed millions from a political backer to buy from the backer’s company land near an ailing city airport. Then Miller helped push a bill through Congress to close the airport, allowing his political backer to develop the airport property, which improved the value of the land Miller had bought. Shortly afterward, Miller sold the land at an undisclosed profit.
Miller has called the deal “a normal real estate transaction.” Watchdogs and ethicists decried the deal as ethically compromised, particularly because he did not mention the massive loan on his financial disclosure reports during the period. The FBI is reportedly investigating a number of Miller’s recent land deals. Despite the FBI’s interest in his dealings, House Republicans recently made Miller their top man for investigations and oversight at the Financial Services Committee.
Miller’s office has said the lawmaker has done nothing wrong. “His business dealings have all been above-board…these allegations are baseless and have no merit,” his spokesman said in February responding to news of the investigation.
Now, some Republicans from the Alaskan congressional delegation appear be working on a real doozy: scoring hundreds of millions of federal dollars to extend highways to a backwater Alaskan region known as the “Knik Arm,” where a number of the members’ aides and relatives own land. According to Roll Call newspaper, which broke the story, the deal involved Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young.
Murkowski declined to comment to Roll Call, but Sen. Ted Stevens’ office said the state needs access to Knik Arm because the population of Anchorage, the closest major city, continues to grow.
The Republicans aren’t the only ones with land deals that raise eyebrows. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used his position to help snag $18 million in taxpayer money to build a bridge near 160 acres of undeveloped Arizona land he owned. The deal, discovered by reporters at the Los Angeles Times, likely increases the value of his land, according to experts and local officials contacted by the paper.
Reid has defended the deal, saying the bridge was necessary for interstate truck travel and denying the bridge would significantly improve the value of his land. Congress-watchers voiced disappointment to the Times that taxpayers “may have helped inflate the value” of Reid’s property.
And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D.-Calif., has been accused of funneling federal dollars into projects that could boost the value of property held by her and her husband. Pelosi got $25 million for a San Francisco waterfront improvement project about a mile away from four properties owned by her husband.
Pelosi’s office has said it’s highly unlikely the project will boost her husband’s property values, and even Republicans who led the charge against Pelosi’s earmark did not offer evidence or expert opinion to support the idea.
Watchdog groups say they aren’t deterred by the difficulty in identifying these questionable deals.
“Through our work and other muckraking, the public can see what’s going on,” said Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Ashdown echoed the sentiment, “Let the public decide for themselves if they feel there’s a bit of hanky-panky here.”
Copyright © 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/17/1271/
Who Can We Believe?
If you turn on talk radio or listen to certain television programs, you would think the commentators really want to change our country for the good. They complain about Congress and the Republicans and the Democrats and generally get us all worked up. Then, we rant and rave to our significant others or friends or to anyone who will listen, complaining right along with the commentator who caused our vexation. "I totally agree that something must be done!" I say. But, notice, does the commentator offer any solutions to these problems? Nope!
So, what do these right and left wingers stand for, if not for change? They stand for themselves, of course. They make big money complaining about both sides, causing our blood pressure to rise, while offering no solutions! They have their own agenda.
But, we, the people, are very unhappy with our government right now. Recent polls show Congress has an approval rating of 9 - 11%. What can we do? We have been complaining about political corruption for so long that Congress has become increasingly bolder and greedier because they realize we are doing nothing to prevent this corrruption. They continue to escalate the amount of earmarks they are approving, only now they are earmarking money that goes directly into their pockets! (See the next posting.)
People shrug their shoulders and say - "Well, nothing can be done. Congress has the power. We don't." They are wrong. We do have the power. We have the power to protest, we have the power to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and sit on the steps of the Capital until something is done. We have the power to Petition the government: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And if that doesn't work, we have the right to withhold our taxes until the grievances are addressed.
I know, I know. I'm talking revolutionary and scary stuff here, but it can be done with cooperation from the citizens of the United States. This will mean dropping bi-partisan politics. We will need to become one people, people who demand a change, a change that will remove Congress' self-governing interests from their grasp. Currently, Congress decides on their salary, their benefits, their office expense, their fundraising rules, their lobbying rules, their earmark rules, their very own ethics rules. Can you believe it? They get to decide whether they are breaking the law or not! Imagine that. If you had that type of power, and you were a person who already has a weakness for power, would you ever give it up? Of course not! Why should you?
So, this is my preliminary proposal to my fellow Americans. We have brilliant people in this nation, people much more intelligent than me. I challenge you! I challenge you to develop a plan, in alignment with our constitution, that will insure our government has the proper checks and balances. This can be strengthening our right to petition (and what happens after we petition?) It can be the development of a separate branch of government (the House of Checks and Balances?) that reports directly to the American people, that accepts no fundraising or cannot be lobbied, that audits the branches of government and reports back to the public, that has the authority to audit each area of government, and perhaps brings key issues to the public for a vote.
We can do this, fellow Americans, with a well-thought out plan, something our government has not done well lately. We still want Congress to pass our laws, but we surely don't want them to pocket cash and benefit directly from the laws they pass! Let's make a difference. Let's get it done!!!!
Your fellow Patriot,
Sue
So, what do these right and left wingers stand for, if not for change? They stand for themselves, of course. They make big money complaining about both sides, causing our blood pressure to rise, while offering no solutions! They have their own agenda.
But, we, the people, are very unhappy with our government right now. Recent polls show Congress has an approval rating of 9 - 11%. What can we do? We have been complaining about political corruption for so long that Congress has become increasingly bolder and greedier because they realize we are doing nothing to prevent this corrruption. They continue to escalate the amount of earmarks they are approving, only now they are earmarking money that goes directly into their pockets! (See the next posting.)
People shrug their shoulders and say - "Well, nothing can be done. Congress has the power. We don't." They are wrong. We do have the power. We have the power to protest, we have the power to march down Pennsylvania Avenue and sit on the steps of the Capital until something is done. We have the power to Petition the government: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And if that doesn't work, we have the right to withhold our taxes until the grievances are addressed.
I know, I know. I'm talking revolutionary and scary stuff here, but it can be done with cooperation from the citizens of the United States. This will mean dropping bi-partisan politics. We will need to become one people, people who demand a change, a change that will remove Congress' self-governing interests from their grasp. Currently, Congress decides on their salary, their benefits, their office expense, their fundraising rules, their lobbying rules, their earmark rules, their very own ethics rules. Can you believe it? They get to decide whether they are breaking the law or not! Imagine that. If you had that type of power, and you were a person who already has a weakness for power, would you ever give it up? Of course not! Why should you?
So, this is my preliminary proposal to my fellow Americans. We have brilliant people in this nation, people much more intelligent than me. I challenge you! I challenge you to develop a plan, in alignment with our constitution, that will insure our government has the proper checks and balances. This can be strengthening our right to petition (and what happens after we petition?) It can be the development of a separate branch of government (the House of Checks and Balances?) that reports directly to the American people, that accepts no fundraising or cannot be lobbied, that audits the branches of government and reports back to the public, that has the authority to audit each area of government, and perhaps brings key issues to the public for a vote.
We can do this, fellow Americans, with a well-thought out plan, something our government has not done well lately. We still want Congress to pass our laws, but we surely don't want them to pocket cash and benefit directly from the laws they pass! Let's make a difference. Let's get it done!!!!
Your fellow Patriot,
Sue
Monday, August 4, 2008
Just be open minded....
I listened to this man today. He's a Baptist minister and he ministered up in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, years ago when they were making the Alaskan pipeline. His name is Lindsey Williams. Some have dismissed him as nuts, however, let's be open minded here. That's what this blog is for- to look at all the possibilities. Think about it. Wouldn't it make sense, if you were an oil company, and you found a vast reservoir of oil, and you were already making good profits, and this large amount of oil would drive down oil prices, wouldn't you maybe cap the oil well and save it for later, like a 401K? It would be worth so much more, in say, 20 or so years. And, you could use the Saudi's oil in the meantime. Then, when the Saudi's got low on oil, oops, look what we found! Alot of oil! Land 'o goshen! Can you believe it? Only now, the oil is $5 or $10 dollars a gallon. Yup. That's what I'm thinkin'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk#
Love ya,
Sue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk#
Love ya,
Sue
My First Blog....
Greetings, People of Earth, but primarily United Statesians,
Doesn't it seem the citizens of the United States should be called something besides Americans? Canadians are Americans, but they don't call themselves Americans. Somehow, "Americans" seems a little presumptuous, like we own the whole continent, which we don't. Well, at least, we don't right now. (Just kidding.)
I started this blog because I am frenetically addicted and involved in what is happening in this world, and especially in the United States. Of course, I have an opinion. By the way, my opinion of my opinion is that I can save the world from itself. Truly. I really believe that.
I'm terribly scared right now, partly because of our Presidential candidates (and no, it's not because Barack Obama is black and John McCain is white, old, and some people say, ill) but mostly it's because we Americans have lost our way. The erosion has been gradual, almost unrecognizable, like sand sliding down a hill, or mulch being worn away from your landscape beds (which irritates me).
I bought a book on the United States Constitution yesterday. I read the whole thing frantically searching for words I wanted to see but they were nowhere to be found. What was I looking for? A way for checks and balances to prevent self-governing of the three branches of our government.
But, what do you mean? We have checks and balances, right? Yes, in a way, but our brilliant forefathers, who could not see into the future, left out one very important piece of the puzzle. Think for a minute of the power our Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches hold. Have you noticed some issues recently? What comes up constantly in the press?
I can think of a variety of them, but primarily it has to do with earmarks (pork barrel spending) and fundraising and passing bills without voting and our elected officials moving the publics' money into their family's, or their own, pants pockets. It's about our judges not going by the letter of the Constitution. It's about letting terrorism take our freedoms away. That's what I'm talking about. There are a variety of innovative ways our elected officials are taking advantage of us. I'm sure George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the boys are turning over in their graves.
How could this be? Why is no one preventing this from happening? It's because we have put the power to make these rules and laws, and to police the ethics of our elected officials, into their own hands. And, that is the one crucial point that our forefathers forgot to add. That officials should never be allowed to make laws or rules that directly affect their position. They should never be allowed to rule themselves. It's common sense. This is the fatal flaw.
We are now stuck. How do we change the mess we are in? There's certainly been alot of complaining lately and alot of it is about spending. It's like watching "Girls Gone Wild" only we should call it "Congress Gone Wild." See all those Senators and Congressmen shaking their booties in the halls of The Capitol as they strip us naked! Since 2002, my glorious state Senator Hillary Clinton received 360 earmarks totalling $2.2 billion for our proud state of New York. Some of that money went to defense companies in New York, who turned around and gave her $270,000 for her campaign. This is repeated over and over again throughout the USA. Sounds like legal bribery to me.
So, how do we change this? Well, we go through the normal channels. We submit bills to Congress limiting or preventing earmarks, or changing fundraising laws, which they decide to reject, and we're back to square one. Wouldn't they be supremely stupid to pass a law that restricts earmarks? Or, restricts campaign contributions? YUP! They've got it made! And, that's what I'm talking about. Frustration by the people of the U.S. who have no control over this problem. It just keeps getting worse.
So, I have an idea to get us out of this mess, but it will require expertise and probably money, both of which I don't have enough of right now. But, bear with me. I'm not asking you for money. I'm asking you for solutions to our Catch 22 here. How many people put together the Constitution? How many of us can make it even better? That's what I want from you. In order to form a more perfect union, a union we are proud of, a union that needs to be tweaked ever so slightly in order to correct this weakness which is threatening to destroy our great nation. That's it. So, if you have any other ideas on how us United Stateians can correct this huge boondoggle of a problem, let me know. I'll be writing about my proposal shortly.
Sue
Doesn't it seem the citizens of the United States should be called something besides Americans? Canadians are Americans, but they don't call themselves Americans. Somehow, "Americans" seems a little presumptuous, like we own the whole continent, which we don't. Well, at least, we don't right now. (Just kidding.)
I started this blog because I am frenetically addicted and involved in what is happening in this world, and especially in the United States. Of course, I have an opinion. By the way, my opinion of my opinion is that I can save the world from itself. Truly. I really believe that.
I'm terribly scared right now, partly because of our Presidential candidates (and no, it's not because Barack Obama is black and John McCain is white, old, and some people say, ill) but mostly it's because we Americans have lost our way. The erosion has been gradual, almost unrecognizable, like sand sliding down a hill, or mulch being worn away from your landscape beds (which irritates me).
I bought a book on the United States Constitution yesterday. I read the whole thing frantically searching for words I wanted to see but they were nowhere to be found. What was I looking for? A way for checks and balances to prevent self-governing of the three branches of our government.
But, what do you mean? We have checks and balances, right? Yes, in a way, but our brilliant forefathers, who could not see into the future, left out one very important piece of the puzzle. Think for a minute of the power our Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches hold. Have you noticed some issues recently? What comes up constantly in the press?
I can think of a variety of them, but primarily it has to do with earmarks (pork barrel spending) and fundraising and passing bills without voting and our elected officials moving the publics' money into their family's, or their own, pants pockets. It's about our judges not going by the letter of the Constitution. It's about letting terrorism take our freedoms away. That's what I'm talking about. There are a variety of innovative ways our elected officials are taking advantage of us. I'm sure George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and the boys are turning over in their graves.
How could this be? Why is no one preventing this from happening? It's because we have put the power to make these rules and laws, and to police the ethics of our elected officials, into their own hands. And, that is the one crucial point that our forefathers forgot to add. That officials should never be allowed to make laws or rules that directly affect their position. They should never be allowed to rule themselves. It's common sense. This is the fatal flaw.
We are now stuck. How do we change the mess we are in? There's certainly been alot of complaining lately and alot of it is about spending. It's like watching "Girls Gone Wild" only we should call it "Congress Gone Wild." See all those Senators and Congressmen shaking their booties in the halls of The Capitol as they strip us naked! Since 2002, my glorious state Senator Hillary Clinton received 360 earmarks totalling $2.2 billion for our proud state of New York. Some of that money went to defense companies in New York, who turned around and gave her $270,000 for her campaign. This is repeated over and over again throughout the USA. Sounds like legal bribery to me.
So, how do we change this? Well, we go through the normal channels. We submit bills to Congress limiting or preventing earmarks, or changing fundraising laws, which they decide to reject, and we're back to square one. Wouldn't they be supremely stupid to pass a law that restricts earmarks? Or, restricts campaign contributions? YUP! They've got it made! And, that's what I'm talking about. Frustration by the people of the U.S. who have no control over this problem. It just keeps getting worse.
So, I have an idea to get us out of this mess, but it will require expertise and probably money, both of which I don't have enough of right now. But, bear with me. I'm not asking you for money. I'm asking you for solutions to our Catch 22 here. How many people put together the Constitution? How many of us can make it even better? That's what I want from you. In order to form a more perfect union, a union we are proud of, a union that needs to be tweaked ever so slightly in order to correct this weakness which is threatening to destroy our great nation. That's it. So, if you have any other ideas on how us United Stateians can correct this huge boondoggle of a problem, let me know. I'll be writing about my proposal shortly.
Sue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
