Archive for October, 2008

This article by Devvy Kidd explains the latest twists and turns in Berg’s lawsuit against Obama.  It also mentions lawsuits in several other states where someone is demanding someone else produce an authentic copy of Obama’s birth certificate.  As I mentioned yesterday, the claim that Obama isn’t a US citizen may in the end be shown to be “complete, unmitigated hooey.”  However, the process of figuring this out is important because it concerns a man running for president who many people have expressed reasonable doubt about his US citizenship–reasonable enough to be filing lawsuits.  What does this say about the state of our nation when there’s even a remote possibility that a major presidential candidate is on the ballot illegally?  What does it tell you when the law in question is a Constitutional law?

Kidd brings up another interesting little tidbit in her article.  Her previous column mentions a fund that McCain set up at the end of February 2008 called the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund.  Remember all the soul searching that supposedly went on in August about who McCain was going to pick as his Vice President?  It appears he knew he was going to pick Palin way back in February.  Why lie about something like that?  And given that, why should I trust McCain to speak the truth about anything else, including how he intends to treat the abortion issue, something that has long been dear to my heart?

Kidd mentions a little research she did about the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund and it turns out the Registered Agent for the Fund is The Corporation Trust Company, whose registered agent is Sidley-Austin, LLP, a company that employed Michelle Obama at one time, and apparently has other dealings with Barack Obama.  I honestly do not know how significant this connection might be, but it’s interesting.  Is it another indication that the Republican and Democrat parties are more similar in agendas than we’re lead to believe?  Or is it just some random fluke that Obama and McCain have both used the services of the same, perhaps very large, company?  Is that even allowed, given that McCain and Obama are supposedly opposed to each other?  Maybe it’s a sign of monopolism, which in and of itself is a matter of concern.

Here’s the situation as I see it.  In this last week before the election, the pro McCain talk show hosts are in a panic.  It’s looking like Obama has the election zipped up and boy is he a scary character.  My gosh, he’s going to start socialism in America!  My thought is where have these talk show hosts been for the past seventy years–we’ve had socialism in this country since FDR’s New Deal!  And what did they think the bailout bill was all about?  But anyway, they’re worried.  Still, no one is talking about the reason Obama as president could have all this power to wreak the kind of havoc he’s going to wreak, which is that over the past eight years, Bush curtailed a lot of our Constitutional Rights and wrote himself and his successors a whole boatload of new power.  So now, Obama will have a much easier time ruining the country thanks to Bush, and to be fair, several of Bush’s predecessors.

But anyway, people are panicking about the possibility of an Obama presidency.  The main issue that gets air time these days is Obama’s plans to redistribute wealth.  But another issue that makes an Obama presidency scary is abortion.  Where previous presidents have favored some restraint on abortion, such as parental consent laws and limitations on visible funding to organizations that provide abortions, Obama promises to get rid of all such limitations.  Not only that, as president he could appoint up to five Supreme Court Justices, therefore reversing the previous slow and steady trend of getting Justices who have leaned more to the pro-life side.  Given the right numbers, I suppose there’s a chance the Supreme Court might even reverse Roe v. Wade.  But we can forget it with an Obama presidency.

Naturally, many pro-lifers are strongly behind McCain and want everyone to vote for him.  This is where it gets interesting.  Right now, there is a presidential candidate running who is clearly more pro-life than McCain.  Here is what Chuck Baldwin writes on his campaign site

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments, and that certainly includes the office of the President of the United States, to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. I affirm the God-given legal person hood of all unborn human beings, without exception.

In addition to guaranteeing the legal person hood of the unborn, Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which I wholeheartedly support, would strip the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. This would mean that Roe v. Wade would immediately pass away as any legal authority on this issue. There would be no need to worry about putting a Supreme Court on the bench that might eventually make the right decision on this issue. We can, therefore, end legal abortion immediately upon enactment of the Sanctity of Life Act.

Republicans tout themselves as being “pro-life.” Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. If the Republicans were really serious about being pro-life the could have already ended legal abortion in America. Obviously the Republican Party and most GOP politicians are not serious about ending abortion, but are, regrettably, simply content to perpetuate the issue to manipulate pro-life voters.

Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

Baldwin has two separate strategies for either legislatively taking abortion out of the hands of the Supreme Court, something I didn’t know could be done until he mentioned it, or getting rid of it by starving the industry itself.  In any case, he claims legalized abortion can end within days of him taking office.  If he manages to do that in the first six months of his administration, I and millions of pro-lifers across the country, will be ecstatic.  Because I am deeply pro-life, I preferred to vote for Chuck Baldwin over John McCain.  McCain has voted favorably on much legislation concerning abortion and I don’t doubt he’d continue; however, he is not as strongly pro-life as Baldwin.  There were many other reasons why I cast my vote for Baldwin this election but his strong pro-life stance was huge for me.

And because I chose to vote for the more pro-life candidate, I and others in my position have been told we’re wasting our votes.  Why?  Because there is no way Baldwin can win, and since without Baldwin I might have been inclined to vote for McCain, my vote for Baldwin essentially went over to Obama–Obama the extreme pro-abortionist.  So by voting for the most pro-life candidate running, I just voted in favor of killing more innocent babies.  No doubt this should be a huge pain on my conscience.

Is anyone else realizing how screwed up this all is?  For the sake of the unborn babies who will be killed in the near future, I’m enjoyned to vote for someone who is less strongly pro-life, who clearly lied about when he chose his vice-presidential nominee, who might have some shady connections with Obama, who certainly isn’t leading the way to make sure the Constitution is honored in who gets to stay on the presidential ballot and other matters, who I know to be part of the movement towards one world government (didn’t he say something about us being entangled in Iraq for the next hundred years?), and who will not lead the country in sound money practices (he voted for that ridiculous bailout) just so that I can vote against the socialist, extreme pro-abortion, terrorist-consorting whack job who quite possibly shouldn’t even be on the ballot anyway, and hold onto the far-off hope that maybe McCain will appoint Supreme Court Justices who will turn out to be more pro-life than Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor was, that maybe these hopefully pro-life Justices will decide to re-hear Roe v. Wade, that maybe they’ll actually rule to overturn it, and that somehow McCain won’t be corrupted by all that extra power he’ll get thanks to Bush, that maybe he’ll at least be a benevolent dictator just because under the current, extremely corrupt two-party system, McCain can win and Baldwin can’t.

Someone explain to me again why I’m supposed to vote for McCain.  Actually, don’t bother because I already mailed in my ballot.  The truth is that when it comes to abortion, the only way to end it is incrementally.  I and many others would love it to be all over and done with tomorrow, but that’s not reasonable.  Voting on the basis of who’s going to nominate more pro-life Supreme Court Justices, and gradually accumulate enough such Justices to get a fair shot at overturning Roe v. Wade is one form of pro-life incrementalism and it’s a valid one.  I happen to think it won’t work only because it hasn’t worked for a long time and I want to try something different, but it’s still a valid approach.  The pro-life incrementalism I’m going to go with is to vote for and promote a candidate who given the chance will bypass the whole Surpreme Court route and use the law and money to get rid of abortion, as well as address head-on many of the problems that contribute to abortion in the first place, including the bloated and unconstitutional power of the Supreme Court.  Granted, this year this candidate has a slim chance, but I figure that any votes he does take this year will build a foundation for votes he or another comparable candidate can take next election, and that in a few election cycles, there may be a possibility of such a candidate actually winning, especially with the growth of such movements as Freedom Force and Campaign for Liberty.

I think my form of incrementalism has a much better chance of succeeding.  The main reason is that it has become pretty obvious to me that the Republican party has little interest in the abortion issue other than as a way to manipulate pro-life voters to vote for them.  Republicans will vote in favor of limiting abortion just to keep the pro-lifers voting for them.  However, the people actually running government, the ones bringing us to the New World Order through their manufactured economic crises, their secret deals with Mexico, Canada and Europe, their steady establishment of millitarized police to declare martial law and stepping up of citizen surveillance and erosion of Constitutional Rights, not the least of which right now is foisting a possible non-citizen president on us without even looking into it, know full-well that once they get sufficient power, all that legislation limiting abortion will go right out the window, and what they’ll do with it will make Obama look like Mother Teresa.  So sure they’ll limit abortion for the time being.  They know it buys them votes and power and it won’t be that way forever.  They’re just done buying my vote.

For what it’s worth, my prediction is that McCain is going to squeeze out a victory this election.  The result will be that there will be massive rioting attributed to disenfranchised Obama voters.  There will be enough evidence of voter fraud to make them believe that McCain stole the election.  As I write, I’m sure Rent-a-Mobs are being stationed in major cities across the US and they will start their mayhem on cue.  At the same time, the people who screw with our economy–apparently there are thirteen of them–will orchestrate a major stock market drop or some other financial crisis–they wouldn’t need to, just the fear of Obama winning has set the stock market back–and maybe a terrorist act will be staged to boot.  Then good ole cowboy Bush will step forward and declare martial law to deal with all the mayhem.  He’s been chomping on the bit to do this for a long time and his presidency is about to end.  And when everything settles down, McCain will simply not bother to undeclare martial law and we’ll all learn what a totalitarian government really looks like, even without Obama.  And if there are elections next time around, Chuck Baldwin will have a fighting chance at winning. 

I just want in on the ground floor.


Read Full Post »

In the time leading up to the 2004 presidential election, my husband and I spent some time on the Little Green Footballs web site.  Many of the LGF members would post comments as they were watching the various conventions, debates, and then the election results coverage itself.  The comments were often quite funny, irreverent, and sometimes (we thought) right on the money.  We considered ourselves conservative Republicans and let’s just say we didn’t want Kerry to win that one.

We don’t frequent LGF as much as we used to, but my husband still checks them out from time to time.  However, we’ve changed in the interrim, and perhaps the site has too.  Dh says it’s deteriorated in the sense that Charles Johnson, the site owner, now writes posts saying so-and-so is a complete scumbag, something he didn’t do before.

One time I was reading comments, and I noticed there was some debate about the validity of Jerome Corsi’s book Obama Nation because Corsi had been seen associating with Ron Paul.  Someone else mentioned that he was a “9/11 Troofer,” LGF’s insult for people who are part of the 9/11 Truth movement.  another commenter conceded that at least his book Unfit for Command kept “JF’nK” out of office.  Seeing as I was hoping Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination I found it disturbing that someone’s credibility might be called into question merely because he associated with Ron Paul or had something to do with the 9/11 Truth movement.

I’ve been following Attorney Phil Berg’s progress with his lawsuit against Obama which claims that in two separate ways Obama does not meet the presidential requirement of being a natural-born US citizen and therefore cannot legally be on this year’s ballot as a presidential candidate.  The latest is that the judge hearing the case dismissed it and Berg is taking it to the Supreme Court.

Members of LGF apparently were posting links pertaining to Obama’s birth certificate and Charles Johnson put a stop to that with a forceful message that anyone who continued to post such links would have their membership revoked.  He said that the whole affair wasn’t true because Factcheck.org said it wasn’t and that was that.  OK, fair enough.  Factcheck.org is supposed to check these things out and they came down saying Obama was born in the USA.

But the real clincher, the absolute proof that this whole lawsuit is frivolous posted yesterday.  Charles Johnson wrote: 

“Here’s one simple fact that should be enough to show you why we believe this story is complete, unmitigated hooey.

Philip Berg is a 9/11 Truther.”

So there you have it.  The mere fact that Berg is involved in the 9/11 Truth movement (apparently he filed some sort of case wanting to put Bush and Cheney on trial for their role in 9/11) automatically makes his current lawsuit against Obama “complete unmitigated hooey.”

I’ve checked out a few 9/11 Truth web sites and people involved in this movement run the gamut from folks who were present during the attacks and find some discrepancies between their experience and the official story which they would like to see addressed to those who believe Bush personally planted explosives in the Twin Towers, then guided each plane to its unfortunate destination.  It’s an extremely broad movement, and some of the people involved have demonstrated clear thinking, writing, and speaking in other matters.  It’s unfortunate that any involvement at all with this movement is considered by some to be a justification for completely writing someone off.

Today, Johnson posted that Ashley Todd, who pretended to be attacked by an Obama supporter, had worked on Ron Paul’s campaign earlier this year.  “McCain Volunteer in fake attack story was a Paulian,” his headline read, as if that explains everything.  To his credit, he did include part of the text of his source article which said she was asked to leave the Ron Paul grassroots organization due to her behavior.  The commenters had a field day, saying stuff like “figures,” and “too crazy for Ron Paul, ha!”  So now, if you support Ron Paul, you’re automatically a kook.  Great.

Charles Johnson has also attacked Creationists, again a very broad movement.  And there’s the usual fare of doing the same for Obama supporters and anyone who questions the War on Terror.  If I looked through more of his blog I may be able to find other groups or movements he’s summarily demonized.

Creationists, 9/11 Truth members, Ron Paul supporters, Obama supporters, objecters to the war… that’s getting to be a rather long list of groups to either dismiss or demonize.  Of course, demonization of groups of people is nothing new, but I am noticing it more.  The so-called conservative talk shows do it daily.  Their usual scapegoats are liberals, Democrats, environmentalists and feminists.

I have nothing against intelligent discourse where someone on the air or through a blog artfully tears apart the arguments of a person or ideology they disagree with.  I believe everyone can be strengthened through the arts of debate and persuasion, even if your format doesn’t allow an immediate answer.  I listened to a couple of third party debates last night, and one thing that was missing was any personal insult of any candidate, including Obama and McCain (who were not present).  People stated their platforms, answered questions, listened and learned from other candidates’ answers.  No groups of people were looked down on.  The general sentiment was that everyone had something positive to offer.

I believe demonization of entire groups of people is a dangerous trend.  If you start thinking of people in groups, then looking down on those groups, I think you can become primed for later condoning, or even participating in, atrocities against the people in those groups.  During Hitler’s regime, one of the first steps towards killing twelve million people was his propaganda campaign against the Jews.  He encouraged people to think of them all as one group and then to think poorly of the group as a whole.  First it was the Jews he demonized, then it was anyone who helped or sympathized with them.  Then it was other groups of people.

Of course, Hitler and his entourage carefully planned the propaganda campaigns, but the citizens of Germany internalized that propaganda and some of it may have resonated with them based on their own prejudices.  I’m not saying that Charles Johnson or anyone else who speaks or writes against groups of people is guilty of a planned propaganda campaign with the intent of leading to genocide.  I think people in general prefer to think in terms of black and white, good guys vs. bad guys, etc.–it’s just simpler and easier to see the world that way, and there certainly is a cosmic struggle between good and evil going on.  It’s easy to innocently fall into those false dichotomies.  That’s why it’s so dangerous, because it’s gradual and insidious and perfecly good people then wind up condoning mass murder and wondering how they got there.

If there’s any group of people who truly spans a broad range, it’s victims of propaganda, genocide, and everything in between.  It might start out as one group of people who you have nothing to do with and don’t care about.  But it doesn’t ever stop there.  It’s this insatiable hunger for ever more sacrifices.  One day, it could be the group you’re a part of.  It’s far better to nip these things in the bud.

Today it may be your credibility.  Tomorrow, it could be your life.

Read Full Post »

Candidate worship

Today I caught a bit of the Glenn Beck radio show and he played one of apparently many over-the-top pro-Obama adds.  This particular one had people in the background singing the popular Christian chorus “Sanctuary” with a prominent quasi-traditional drum beat, and on the screen (Beck was reading that part out loud) were words saying things like:  “Take a few moments each day to… visualize Obama winning the election, visualize Obama taking the oath of office, visualize your heart filling with hope as Obama gets inaugurated…”  There were also adoring voices in the background repeating “President Barack Obama!”  This whole “Annointed One” theme is getting to be creepy.

So Obama worship is way obvious and over-the-top.  But I’ve noted some McCain (or at least Palin) worship going on as well.  It’s more subtle, but it’s there.  This recent 20/20 program shows some snapshots of the worship afforded McCain and Obama.

So when did electing our president become an extended worship service?  I first heard of it with the whole Greek columns theme of Obama’s convention speech.  Then when Palin gave her convention speech, the entire crowd was electrified.  I watched her speech and for a few moments I wanted nothing more than to vote for her (even if that meant I’d have to also vote for McCain).  That didn’t last long for me–I just can’t get past McCain-Feingold no matter how I might feel about Palin.

The real question is why all this candidate worship.  There was a time long ago when kings were considered gods and some notable Biblical heroes were cast into a fiery furnace for refusing to bow down to the king’s idol.  When our country was founded, it was clear to the Founding Fathers that the president was definitely not a god.  He was a citizen, a public servant, who was not above the law.  He would serve for a brief period of time and when his term was over, he’d go back to his former occupation and blend back into the fabric of society.

With Bush having spent his two terms giving the presidency as many extra powers as he could get past a rather sleepy Congress (which by the way included both McCain and Obama), the next president will be more like a king than before.  People are even starting to wonder if there will be elections in two years.  OK, it’s people worried about Obama saying this, but I see it equally possible with McCain.  Once a king, then I guess becoming a god isn’t too far out of reach, especially with adoring fans willing to bestow worship on you.  But why would people want to have a king or a god rule over them?

In the case of Obama, I think it’s pretty obvious.  He appeals more to the young amoral and areligious of our society.  Those would be the people raised in public school where you couldn’t pray or even have a school sanctioned moment of silence, where children learned the “Pledge of Allegiance” minus the “Under God” part, and where from kindergarten on they were indoctrinated with collectivist notions.  Then they went on to college where in between their decadent partying they took classes from professors who went out of their way to impugn any respect for traditional religion they might have had left in their souls.  So you have this large group of young people with no moral compass, no allegiance to God and with a huge void in their hearts and souls.  We humans have a part inside of us that longs to worship, and when we aren’t able to direct that worship to the One True God, we find something–or someone–else.  For many people right now, that’s Barack Obama.

The problem with Barack Obama for the other half of society, the half that still has values, still believes in God and still has some vague notion of what the Constitution is, is that he is a socialist, consorts with terrorists and other extremists, has a history of fraud with ACORN, is extremely pro-abortion, and to top it all off, may not even be elligible to run for President (not that I’ve heard much discussion of that last point).  In short, he’s scary.  When you listen to what he wants to do–redistribute the wealth of people like the now famous Joe the Plumber, curtail free speech and make gun ownership illegal, to give just a few examples–and you couple that with all the extra powers he’ll have as president thanks to Bush (not that I hear a word on that either from the so-called Conservative voices), it’s no wonder he has people terrified over what’s going to happen to the country should Obama win this election.

If the Obama supporters are looking for a Messiah, the McCain supporters are looking for a Savior.  There is essentially one overriding reason to vote for McCain, and that is to save the country from Obama.  Because McCain is the only candidate considered to have the chance to defeat Obama, his many faults must be overlooked because whatever McCain might do to further wreck the country, Obama will do so much more damage, and therefore he must be stopped at all costs, even the cost of principle.  The insane hope placed in McCain is made more palatable by the presence of Sarah Palin–after all, she’s someone Conservatives find they can get excited about–but it’s insane and it’s misplaced nonetheless.

The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils, worship and adoration aside, is that you are still voting for evil.  Just because evil is the only thing that has a chance to win is no reason to choose it.  If I got a dollar for everyone who says McCain and Obama are the only viable candidates I could single handedly finance a truly viable third party campaign.  This election let’s remember who our Real Savior is and vote our conscience.

Read Full Post »

If this isn’t a good reason to boycott both McCain and Obama and vote for a third party candidate I don’t know what is.

In a nutshell, European leaders are calling for a global currency and President Bush is calling for summits to discuss the economic troubles and somehow save the free market by interfering with it to death.

Keep in mind that the European Union began as an economic arrangement.  If world leaders are openly coordinating economic activities and manage to institute a global currency, then a global government is coming next.  If you vote for McCain or Obama, you are voting to go along with this plan.  Please vote for one of the third party candidates who has publicly addressed the issue of globalism and has pledged to keep the US out of it.  Chuck Baldwin is probably the most outspoken candidate on that score but I don’t believe he is the only one to have taken a stand.

Folks, this is beyond the realm of conspiracy theories.  It’s just around the corner unless an overwhelming number of citizens suddenly wakes up.

UPDATE:  Here’s an article with more world leaders crying for a global currency.

Read Full Post »

I don’t want to fall into the partisan trap of going off on all Barack Obama’s faults and why he’d be a bad choice for US President, and I definitely am not a “we gotta vote for McCain just to stop Obama” groupie. 

The question of a presidential candidate’s US citizenship, though, goes beyond Barack Obama.  A well-respected life long Democrat attorney named Phil Berg has filed a lawsuit claiming Obama is not a US citizen and therefore is not eligible to even run for president, let alone hold the office.  He’s asking Obama to produce an original birth certificate to prove he was born in Hawaii instead of Kenya.  Berg is also making the claim that regardless of where Obama was born, he became a citizen of Indonesia as a child in order to attend school there and so would have needed to go through the naturalization process in order to regain US citizenship.  Naturalized citizens are not eligible to hold the Presidency.

In order to qualify for the presidency, a candidate has to be a native-born US citizen.  This means that he or she has to have been born in the United States or in one of its territories or on a US military base.  John McCain was born in Panama, but it was on a US military base, so he passes.  That is the law of the land right now and that is the law that any person with ambitions to become president needs to follow.

I understand there are those who say the law about being a native-born citizen is unfair, that it knocks out some great people such as the current Governor of California, that it shows what a racist, bigoted country we are.  Fine.  If you don’t like the law, then work to change it.  The Socialist Worker’s Party Candidate, Roger Calero, is ineligible to run, so he has a stand-in on the ballot, and his campaign director told me that should Calero’s stand-in be elected, he will immediately move to change the law.  Calero also wants to legalize undocumented workers.  I can respect that.

The problem I have is with people who simply ignore the law or act like it doesn’t apply to them.  If Obama doesn’t meet one of the qualifications for being president, he is welcome to introduce legislation to change the requirements.  He is a US Senator after all.  The citizenship requirement for a Senator is that the candidate is a US citizen for at least nine years at the time of election.  Assuming Obama went through the naturalization process upon his return from Indonesia, he’s cleared to be a Senator and as such can introduce new laws.  So he should do that; we will then have the opportunity to have a national debate to reevaluate our requirements for the US President.

What he should not do is pretend he meets the current requirements if he does not.  Where I come from that’s called deception.  If he truly is a native-born citizen, he should produce the necessary paperwork to prove it and be done with it.  The fact that he has so far refused makes one think he doesn’t have it.  In this case he needs to be taken off the ballot and all votes for him received thus far should be disregarded.  Someone should have caught this at the beginning, be it the DNC or the Federal Election Commission or some other bureaucratic entity.

I hope Berg’s lawsuit gets resolved within the next few weeks because as a voter I should not even have the option of voting for an illegitimate candidate.  By the time the candidates make it to the ballot there should be no question of their legal right to be there.  My job as a voter is to select the best candidate based on his or her character and campaign platform among a group of candidates who have passsed the basic eligibility screening.

But knowing the wheels of justice can turn slowly in this country, the more likely scenario is that the election procedes as is.  If Obama loses, then I think the defendants in Berg’s lawsuit breathe a sigh of relief, Federal money gets thrown at whatever Federal entity is supposed to screen candidates resulting in those who failed to catch Obama’s ineligibility all getting a promotion, and it’s all over.  Whew!

If Obama wins the election, and it’s determined that he indeed is not eligible to be President… That could get interesting and ugly.  Clearly he should not be permitted to take the Oath of Office, and if he already has it should be revoked.  There will undoubtedly be much outrage and accusations of racism from the Left and much glee from the Right.  My hope is that it will result in a brand new Presidential election where everyone gets to recast their ballot.  The Democrat Party may also need to hold a new primary, although it seemed pretty clear that Hillary Clinton was the second choice.

Read Full Post »

Was anyone else surprised and maybe a bit perturbed by the House of Representatives’ flip-flop on the Mega-Bailout bill?  In about four days it went from overwhelming defeat to overwhelming victory.

Well, apparently, several members of Congress were personally threatened with Martial Law upon the country should the bill fail.  A couple of them spoke out about this during the debates; evidently they believed the threats were real, and not the usual political posturing.  I’m sure the “If you vote no I’ll make sure you never get reelected” threat has been made and carried out often.  The Martial Law threat ups the ante substantially.

Hmmm, what to choose?  Paying off some irresponsible rich CEOs or sending the millitary into the streets?  How do you face your Constituents if your vote brought that on?

I was pretty angry with the House for their flop.  Although I still believe they should have voted Yes, then launched an all-out media campaign about the threats they received, I have a bit more compassion for them considering what they were faced with.

This is not exactly a reassuring moment for me in terns of faith in my government.  It gives me another piece of evidence that entities other than our elected officials actually run our country.

On a different but related note, I have within the last month learned of two instances of alledged or possible future internet censorship (see here and here).  This bothers me deeply because I get so much actual life impacting information from the internet, some of which is hard to find elsewhere.  Even more fundamentally, it’s a severe infringement on our First Amendment right to free speech, particularly if the censorship is government sanctioned.  It has been said that information is power.  If you control the gateways of information in a society, you can also control the people in that society.  Can someone give me a good reason why our government might want to control us?

While you are thinking about it, please take a few moments to inform yourself of the many third party candidates who are running for President this election.  It is my belief that a great way to nip this shadowy government business in the bud (OK, it’s a bit more advanced than the bud stage) is to get someone in office who is not beholden to the system.  That disqualifies both the Republican and Democrat candidates.

Read Full Post »

Bush, in one of his oft-repeated “let’s destroy this country” moves, recently signed into law the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, a measure that will allow the Millitary to be used on US soil for police work–things like crowd control, traffic control, and other forms of control–in the event of natural or manmade disasters, emergencies and terrorist attacks.

So if/when the government overrules the will of the people and calls on the Federal Reserve to print money to rescue all those beleaguered banks, and that causes massive inflation and runs on the bank and the grocery stores and gas stations, you just might see the millitary in the streets keeping order.

The next time there’s some scare about a biological warfare attack, you just might bump into your friendly soldiers making sure you and your children get vaccinated, whether you want to or not.

And if you say the wrong thing or act a little too rowdy, you might get a bullet in your head.

This is the sort of thing the people who founded this country wanted to avoid when they wrote a quaint little document otherwise known as the Constitution, the memory of being forced to house and feed British soldiers still fresh in their minds.

This is also what governments do when they want to control their own people by force. They start turning the millitary agaisnt them. Our great country is preparing to become a police state. And what do you suppose the people in our government have planned, that they would need the millitary to make sure it happens? Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin has his suspicions, and he’s by no means the only one.

We’re probably not going to see great numbers of soldiers in the streets right away. However, if we don’t use this coming election to hold our elected leaders accountable to their Constitutional limits (and fire all the ones who have overstepped those limits), it won’t be long. 

From everything I can tell, both John McCain and Barack Obama are going to continue along the same vein.  I would encourage all voters to broaden their horizons beyond Republican and Democrat this Presidential election.

Read Full Post »