Georgeallen 2008

On Politics - One of the Most Lucrative Jobs in America - Part 3

2007-05-28T20:40:00.001-07:00

The truth of the matter is that being a politician in America today is one of the best paying jobs a person could have despite their supposedly low wages compared to corporate executives.

I bet there are corporate executives in America who wish they were making $16 million a year like Giuliani.

The tragedy of all of this is not that a Republican is being discovered, tried and convicted in a news report, but that the same can and will be done to a Democrat by some other news reporter hell-bent on trying to pass off their brilliance as actual news rather than accusatory garbage.

If you do not know that the vast majority of politicians lie, cheat and steal as necessary to get elected and stay elected, you do not understand much about politics in America today. It is real difficult to practice integrity when your pants are down.

The best job most national politicians do is helping themselves get rich legally at the expense of the electorate they are supposed to be representing.

It is never too soon to vote themselves another raise, perk or benefit, or cut an out-of-sight deal to line their pockets, and it is never too late to bail out on legislation that might offend a big campaign contributor.

This is politics in America today: you buy and sell votes like a common prostitute in the red light district of your city; you try to do it legally, and if you cannot, you hope to hell that you do not get caught.

Who exactly do you suppose politicians are protecting when they will not pass legislation to protect innocent children against child predators? This is the world we live in today.

No payoff is too great to not be swept under the carpet.

It is difficult to sidestep the cow pies when your are mired in a crap field.

When something good is done for the people at large it is more likely to be done today by accident than by design. Politics and the business of politics are simply that bad.

Some politicians ignore children who are innocent victims as not even being worthy of the same rights they enjoy, and then make it a badge of liberal honor to try and rehabilitate predators who are no better than yesterday's garbage. Usually it is these same politicians who do everything in a fit of righteousness (their rightness at your expense).

Man is the only animal on the face of the earth who preys on his own species. Man is also the smartest animal on the face of the earth and the stupidest at the same time. We would rather kill each other than live in peace.

I believe Ambrose Bierce had it right when he defined politics in his Devil's Dictionary as: "Politics, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."

Bierce first published his Devil's Dictionary in 1911, a time some would consider more genteel. Today's political parties and politicians have raised lying, cheating and stealing to an art form.

When I say cheating I mean both of money and extramarital sex. Some of our married politicians at the national level are so horny they need to be romancing their secretary or an intern young enough to be their daughter or granddaughter. A few even fancy themselves as incredibly attractive Lotharios masquerading as chick magnets. They might be able to pull this off as long as their photo-opts are straight on; the side views may be problematic in print.

Bierce was an interesting guy. He was an American editorialist, journalist, short-story writer and satirist who wrote for a number of newspapers, including the San Francisco News Letter, a financial magazine founded by Frederick Marriott in the late 1850s.

Bierce was the 10th of 13 children, all of whom had names starting with the letter "A", as in Abigail, Amelia, Ann, Addison, Aurelius, Augustus, Alameda, Andrew, Albert, Ambrose, Arthur, Adelia and Aurelia. His dad's name was Marcus Aurelius Bierce.

Ambrose Bierce fought at the Battle of Shiloh on the Union side in the Civil War. He would later write about the experience. He is most remembered for his lucid, unsentimental style that created the Devil's Dictionary which offers up reinterpretations of the English language which lampoon cant and political double-talk.

Bierce was born in Ohio in 1842, grew up in Indiana, moved West to San Francisco, worked as a writer, and died in Mexico. His actual date of death is unknown, listed only as possibly 1914 (June 24, 1842-1914?). There was no question mark about his work; his writing lives on.

If you ever find a better definition of politics than the one offered up by Ambrose Bierce, you let me know, and I will buy you lunch.

(Editor's Note: This ends Part 3 of a 5-Part Series)

Thoughts on Who I Read and Why, and on Politicians, Pundits and Predators - Part 2

2007-05-26T11:49:00.001-07:00

When reading Charles Krauthammer, I am reminded that Henry Ford said "the hardest thing to do in the world is to think, and that is why people do so little of it." This is especially true during Presidential elections which start about a year too early and end about a year too late.

It is often hard for me to decide which is wearier, the droppings of a contentious person or a Presidential election.

We have 18 more excruciating months to go in this one and will probably be no better informed on the day we vote. This is because we are going to be inundated with lies, misrepresentations, hateful remarks, character assassination, snide remarks and insults, and there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the bickering parties and candidates.

Ann Coulter, in her book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), points out that "When Democrats make an accusation against Republicans, newspaper headlines repeat the accusation as a fact," like "U. S. Law Chief Failed to Heed Terror Warnings," or "Bush White House Said to Have Failed to Make al-Qaida an Early Priority."

"But when Republicans make accusations against Democrats" says Coulter, "the headlines note only that Republicans are making accusations," to wit: "Ashcroft Faults Clinton in 9/11 Failures."

The second story I read on Giuliani was an Associated Press piece on May 15, 2007 with this headline: "A President Giuliani Could Face Ethical Web." Was this another example of Coulter's observation? You decide.

The boldface subhead and introduction to the story said this: "An Associated Press review of Rudy Giuliani's law and lobbying firm finds it would spell ethical trouble for him if he won the presidency."

This is exactly what Coulter was pointing out.

This is the kind of crap we get for news in newspapers today: the writers weave an elaborate trail of "facts" arriving at a conclusion of wrongdoing without the reader even having to think.

The writers of this piece of tripe—Sharon Theimer and Devlin Barrett—are trying to convince me that they have uncovered some brilliant piece of investigative reporting when what they have really done is present their own prejudiced views and convicted Guiliani of some wrongdoing.

These writers are masquerading as news reporters but are actually political hacks that do not even recognize how misguided they have become. They probably think Giuliani is as stupid as they think they are smart.

It is probably true that Giuliani made more than $16 million in earned income during the past 16 months, so what is the big deal? Do they think he is a trained attorney and a former prosecuting attorney who is now pig-slopping his way though deals to make income?

Heck, virtually every candidate running for the presidency who could possibly win is at least a millionaire.

John Edwards reported $1.25 million in earned income last year and has listed assets of at least $5 million. Heck, even newcomer Barack Obama knocked down more than a half-million in royalties for one of his books and an advance on another. I believe he earned at least $900,000+ in income last year.

They could investigate Giuliani until they are blue in the face and fine nothing illegal has been happening.

You can bet that any of the presidential candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are not going to be doing illegal moneymaking deals that could ruin their shot at being elected. They would likely wait for a more opportune, less media exposure time to cut a back room deal that would line their pockets.

They may have some moral indiscretions along the way, but will likely cover their heinie in their financial dealings while running for the presidency.

The AP story cites example after example of how Giuliani could be implicated in his lobbying and other money-making activities, and covers all of the supposed conflicts of interests arising from lobbying efforts, like every other candidate has not had any dealings with any government agency since becoming a politician.

Good grief, all politicians make money hand over fist in all kinds of dealings, hundreds of which never become a matter of public record. So what? If any politician really screws up today, he or she is likely to be found out, right down to the money in the cooler.

Virtually every politician at the national level has had their hand greased at one time or another, directly or indirectly. Almost any political candidate who takes campaign contributions of any kind could be shown, upon examination, to have rewarded the contributor with a timely vote that could be justified as legal, moral or honest.

Lyndon Johnson did not make squat when he went into the Texas legislature as a schoolteacher and was a multi-millionaire before he was a President, all on a politician's wages.

(Editor's Note: This ends Part 2 of a 5-Part Series)

There is an Interesting Phenomenon Occurring

2007-05-21T12:14:00.001-07:00

There is something very interesting happening on the web. There is a grass root's effort to have Al Gore run for president. It started in California (according to the first few that 'signed') and is spreading like a wildfire across the country. The draftgore site has more than 80,100 signatures (over eighty thousand one hundred as of this writing) from people of almost every state, writing and begging him to run for President. The only states I did not see represented were - Alaska, North and South Dakota and Wyoming.

There are die-hard republicans who have never voted for anyone other than a republican, now asking him to run and promising they, and their voting family, will back him. There are people from other countries saying they are applying for American citizenship so they can vote for him.

"I have been a republican for 60 years but you will have my vote if you will run. Our nation needs you. The world needs you. Our planet needs you" - this is a direct quote.

Many are furious with the corruption and disregard for the constitution this administration has shown. Many are begging him to run so their grandchildren will have a world to live in. Many are volunteering, now, before he even says he will run, to help his campaign.

I find this interesting because, even though we have censored news, the average American seems so disgusted with what news is leaking out, and the propaganda being fed to us, that they willing to commit a personal effort to change it. They feel he is the only hope for this country and this world. They feel he will restore Americas' true image and instead of the rest of the world hating us, they will welcome us back into the world community.

Anyone interested can go to the draftgore site and read the comments for themselves.

athena_louise

Should We Grant Amnesty To Illegal Aliens?

2007-05-18T07:08:00.001-07:00

Amnesty is not an option in regard to illegal aliens because it is more than likely that a good portion of those illegal aliens committed a crime within our Country and was never caught. In reality, it's not really amnesty, but a pardon. You know, like the pardon Richard Nixon got from his fellow Republican, Ford. We all know that Republicans always were faithful to business people.

In order to prosper, big business needs a whole lot of new customers to mortgage to the hilt and drown in an ocean of debt. Banks and lending institutions prosper from tens of millions of interest dollars they get from those people.

Then again, how in the World are we ever going to be safe walking on the street, or even within our homes if violent street gangs are allowed to continue as they have since Puerto Rico was given a chance for Statehood way back in 1959. Well, that Country, after several votes by its population, still hasn't approved it. But they get to come here free and clear of any immigration laws.

Believe it or, that's not the only Country to reject Statehood. The Philippines also rejected Statehood after we freed them from Japan. The big difference is that those people made many positive contributions to our society, and they didn't force themselves into our Country any way that they could like the people from South of our border have in the past and continue to do.

Since that time the gang mentality set in and nothing good was a result. Who in their right mind would grant a pardon to people who have brought illegal drugs into our Country and/or sold that poison to our children? How many of our children are beat up, stabbed, killed or otherwise threatened by those gang people?

Then too, how many of our senior citizens are victims of street crimes because that terrible situation is allowed to continue? What about the tens of billions of dollars of damage caused by such violent people? How much grief and suffering did they cause to our society? I know many people who were truly hurt and amnesty won't ease the pain of those people. Compared to this problem, the Arab Terrorist problem is nothing in terms total damage and victims.

The only real difference is that the Arab Terrorists' victims were rich or very well off, and we victims of gang crimes are just average working people who expect their Government to also see to their safety and welfare.

German Memory- US President Gen Dwight D Eisenhower in the German POW Crisis

2007-05-15T16:55:00.001-07:00

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States (1953–1961) who was in charge of the Allied Forces during the Second World War, made the controversial decision to reclassify German prisoners of war (POWs) in U.S. custody as Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEFs). As DEFs, they could be compelled to serve as unpaid conscript labor. An unknown number may have died in custody as a consequence of malnutrition, exposure to the elements, and lack of medical care.

Canadian author James Bacque in his book "Other Losses" heavily criticized Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for his involvement in treating the German prisoners of war. James Bacque's comments in "Other Losses" were widely discussed on American and German televisions and received a mixture of excitement and anger.

The reason for the reaction was the author's conclusion that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as head of the American occupation in Germany in 1945, deliberately starved to death German prisoners of war in staggering numbers. Bacque holds that "the victims undoubtedly number over 800,000, almost certainly over 800,000 and quite likely over a million. Their deaths were knowingly caused by army officers who had sufficient resources to keep them alive."

Eisenhower's method, according to Bacque, was simple: he changed the designation of the prisoners from "Prisoners of War" (P.O.W.), which required by the Geneva Convention to be fed the same rations as US Army's, to "Disarmed Enemy Forces" (D.E.F.), which allowed him to cut their rations to starvation level.

Bacque says the D.E.F. were also denied medical supplies and shelter; because of that they died by hundreds of thousands. Their deaths were covered up on Army records by listing them as "other losses" on charts showing weekly totals of prisoners on hand, numbers discharged and so forth.

Bacque was quoted in a wire service interview as saying, "Americans should take down every statue of Eisenhower, and every photograph of him and annul his memory from American history as best they can, except to say, 'Here was a man who did very evil things that we're ashamed of."

But the critics exclaimed if there were a million dead, where were the bodies? Did Eisenhower have such vast power that he could order starvation on a mass scale and keep it a secret? Was the undoubted suffering in the camps, especially the transit camps along the Rhine, the result of Eisenhower's policy or the result of the chaotic conditions that prevailed in Europe in the spring and summer of 1945?

Historian Stephen Ambrose criticised James Bacque for having had no previous historical research or writing experience. James Bacque himself admitted in his introduction to the book "Other Losses": "Doubtless many scholars will find faults in this book, which are only mine. I welcome their criticism and their further research, which may help to restore to us the truth after a long night of lies."

Some time back, the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans invited some leading experts to examine the charges. The conference participants, including historian Stephen Ambrose came to the first conclusion that James Bacque had made a major historical discovery: "There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably."

Their second conclusion was, "when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously - nay, spectacularly - flawed in its most fundamental aspects". They accused that, "he misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd."

The final conclusion of historians was that Eisenhower was an enthusiastic supporter of denazification, but not because he hated the Germans or believed in collective guilt. On the contrary, he believed that there were Germans who were committed to democracy and that the task of the occupation was to find them and bring them to the fore.

In a speech in Frankfurt in 1945, he declared, "The success or failure of this occupation will be judged by the character of the Germans 50 years from now. Proof will come when they begin to run a democracy of their own and we are going to give the Germans a chance to do that, in time."

Historians exclaimed, "This does not sound like a man who simultaneously was directing the death by starving a million of young Germans."

The Reality with Humanitarian Efforts

2007-05-13T08:40:00.001-07:00

So often folks give money, volunteer or travel half way around the world for a cause - of course I am not naive to the world and also realize our national interests, which must coincide with and compliment the humanitarian aspect. My thinking is that with proper planning you can do both and all. You can help people and fix the real problems while simultaneously keeping an eye on national security interests too.

One thing which often bothers me is that once we start bribing two-bit dictators they learn the extortion game and keep asking for more money. If we keep paying them, the inflation of payment amount continues and they never spend the money on anything that they should? But what can you expect from Machiavellian thieves, liars and dictators?

Since the world works on guns, drugs, arms, human trade, diamonds, gold, oil and cold hard cash some of this BS, is unfortunately a pragmatic choice that makes you cringe, yet in reality there often is no other way. I often do not like the World we live in, or most humans, but the reality is there indeed.

Of course if you open your mouth or get too much attention, they will intervene. In the end a system which is so set on control of the pie will have less and less of it. If the pie is expanded giving up some control will actually make the pie bigger and the slice you control more. It is a catch 22 game of protectionism and control VS. opportunity and innovation.

If the game were played at a higher level, we could solve all the problems, without compromising our values too much. It is not my job to make excuses for anyone or the the NGOs of the World or the nations who send money and aid, you see I am retired. I know these things go on all the time; it is not a pretty world out there.

Indeed, I believe that the humanitarian efforts if done correctly do serve a greater purpose. I also believe greater cooperation ought to be in place so the end result is the best for all concerned. I only care about solving problems, but if no one wants the problems solved, then why waste the time. Are you interested in writing about how to fix the situation there?

Is Senator John Mccain Overrated?

2007-05-11T15:11:00.001-07:00

Sen. John McCain, once praised as a maverick, has shown himself to be just another political hack. McCain the septuagenarian in the 2008 presidential race brings the grandpa factor front and center. Older should mean wiser, which unfortunately isn't the case with Mr. McCain, if his unwavering support for George Bush's failed war policies are any indication. Despite having his first run for the presidency derailed by the Bush crime family, McCain genuflects whenever he's in the presence of that son of a Bush. Though McCain clearly is the elder statesman in the race, he distains age being mentioned.

Ronald Reagan was older than McCain when he ran for president. For much of his presidency, unbeknownst to you and I, John Q. Public, Mr. Reagan was in various stages of Alzheimer's disease. Mr. McCain's is the picture of good health, now that his cancer is in remission. His insistence that this latest surge be given a chance does make one question his judgment. The war in Iraq cannot, that's right, I said it, cannot be won militarily. It requires a political solution. The war on terror, like the war on drugs is an oxymoron, a romantic farce, out of the John Wayne school of thought. It is clear that we must respond to the terror threat. A preemptive strike against a country that had nothing to do with the terror we faced isn't even close to the solution. Mr. McCain apparently thinks that it is, if his vociferous support for that son of a Bush is any indication.

Make no mistake about it; John McCain has served his country in exemplary fashion. Like his predecessors he has a distinguished Navy career. He was shot down out of the sky over Viet Nam and became a five-year occupant of the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison camp. For most of that time, various forms of torture were applied. Given his experience in Viet Nam you would think that he would be staunchly against torture. Initially he was, but in short order, caved in under White House pressure. Mr. McCain appears extremely malleable under White House pressure. I can only speculate as to what Satan, I mean Dick Cheney has on him. As it relates to the war in Iraq, the most critical comment you can get out of him is that the war wasn't properly executed.

According to McCain, he has always believed that more troops should have been employed. He now argues that the Bush surge is our last chance for a military victory in Iraq. Again, one must question his judgment. What might have worked at the outset of the war has little chance of succeeding at this juncture. Our troops are in the middle of a civil war that we have no stake in. All concerned want us gone. Shia, Sunnis and insurgents are of one mind when it comes to this. McCain wants us to give it one more try. April has proven to be one of the bloodiest and costliest months since the war began. What is McCain's answer to the carnage? Stay the course one more time.

Has MySpace Become MyBully

2007-05-06T15:09:00.001-07:00

MySpace has recently gone out and shut down any US based company that had software add ons for helping people to use MySpace. One company they shut down was Spacepromoter which had software to allow marketers to create multiple MySpace profiles. Shutting down a company like this makes a lot of sense because in their terms they say you are only allowed to have one MySpace profile.

BadderAdder was also shut down but their software had nothing to do with creating multiple identities on MySpace. It did nothing to promoter manipulating MySpace in any way whatsoever. What this software did was to help people add friends to their existing profile. MySpace froze BadderAdders Paypal account for 10 months prior to Michelle MacPhearson agreeing to shut her Badderadder software down because MySpace threatened legal action against her.

A lot of other MySpace Bot's as they are referred to were also threatened by the People at MySpace. Of course all these companies were US based. Because of Web 2.0 and the entire world now being connected by the Internet what can MySpace do to non US Companies that have Bot's for MySpace? BadderAdder was just a MySpace Friend Adder. Is MySpace going to now go after the local Starbuck's because they are making some of their money from MySpace employees?

At least when Microsoft used to get their competitors to close down they first offered them station wagons filled with cash. Bill Gate's was always being dragged into court by the department of justice because of so called monolopolistic tactics. Will MySpace now get prosecuted for their dealings by the DOJ?

Everybody wants to come to America because they hear we are a Free country, How Free are we when companies like MySpace can use strong arm tactics to shut a competitor down? Michelle was doing nothing wrong when she create BadderAdder a Friend Adder software. Companies like MySpace with all of their money I able to put the squeeze on others who are not as wealthy as they are.

What are the end results of what MySpace is doing to local US companies? Buddypromoter, an all in one software suite for marketing on MySpace which was created and owned by a company outside of the US are now the only answer. Of course, a software suite like Buddypromoter in the US would cost almost a $1,000 but because it was created offshore where other countries cost of living is a lot less anybody who wants to market on MySpace can grab ahold of this product for less than $200. I have even heard that they even give special discounted pricing to bands who will probably only be using the software as a replacement for a friend adder.

In the end US Bot's are dying because of companies with more money like that of MySpace or maybe even Microsoft. If somebody with a new idea cannot even have their own product created and marketed then where is this Free country that immigrants are looking for?

Red Flag for Men - Feminism

2007-05-04T12:48:00.001-07:00

As you go through the journey of meeting women of different kinds, backgrounds and beliefs, you must remember that one fundamentality quality of a woman says much more to her than just the possession of that single quality.

For instance, a woman who is a passionate / extreme feminist, who believes not only in equality but in equivalence of sexes - a woman who wants occupy exactly the same role and position in life and society as a man would at any cost is very likely to have some major flaws in her personality that would prevent you from enjoying dating her.

A feminist is less giving than a traditional woman. She is usually incapable of submitting to a man or pleasing a man.

A feminist is hypersensitive. She can't take many jokes and gets offended easily.

A feminist in insecure in her position in life and she feels the need to prove over and over the fact that she can do everything a man can and more, which can be quite annoying. A woman who claims to be "independent" will confront you and argue with you over little things just to make a point that she can.

On ther other hand, a woman who holds traditional values and believes in gender roles to at least a certain extent is likely to be much more affectionate, giving, not easily offended, much easier to get along with and otherwise more fun to be around. You are much more likely to be able to be yourself around such a woman.

So... you decide who you want to date. I made up my mind.

Arkady Itkin
www.PracticalHappiness.com
Revolution in Dating & Personal Growth Advice

30 Million Undocumented Workers - Concerned Yet?

2007-05-01T13:44:00.001-07:00

The legal aliens are promising to protest and shut down the city of Los Angeles again on May Day. If you'll remember Mayday is a communist holiday and the legal aliens are celebrating by protesting in the streets of our nation's largest city to demand citizenship.

The organizers of the protest state that the 12 million illegal aliens in the country is a false figure. They claim that there are well over 30 million undocumented workers in the United States today. And they will be out in full force and effect and have actually caused Los Angeles to declare Mayday a holiday since the traffic will be unbelievably thick due to the protest marches and some of the unions are honoring the picket. And the city realizes that it cannot handle the mess.

This year the Mayday protesters and legal aliens which will be marching and protesting in the streets of the United States of America even though they are not US citizens. Their goal is to shut down our businesses by boycotting and not buying anything on Mayday. Mexico losing populations and having more babies to make up for it and many of those babies have been born here as anchor babies. As a U.S. citizen you might be concerned about all this, but the protesters say not to worry, as all you have to do is give citizenship to 30 million illegal aliens and they will be nice.

They say they have come here to build a better life and to work hard for their money and this is why they are going on strike on Mayday to demand more and skip a day of work. It is amazing that anyone would listen to this or condone this activity, especially when Mayday is a communist holiday. Since when is the United States of America a communist country and since when do we condone communist activity or celebrate communist holidays? I would like to know, so please explain this.

I Am America

2007-04-29T12:05:00.001-07:00

The great beauty of a once-proud nation remains in its people and in the roots of its character. It also remains in its sense of idealism. For no matter how far current policy and practice have strayed from the attributes that were part of her founding vision, no matter how much America has ceased being a universal hope for all people, and no matter how far she has departed from her moral center, she remains, in the end, a nation built on the ideals that gave her birth.

These ideals were infused into the hearts of the founders at the time of America's beginnings, fostered by the Realms of Light that watch over each nation, and implanted into the receptive hearts of those who sought freedom and embraced hope. These higher Realms who guard the world and who insure the steady progression of humanity toward greater liberty and self-expression, strengthened the impulse toward freedom and democracy that burned so brightly within the hearts and minds of those who sought to establish a new republic. Though overshadowed in many respects today, this impulse continues to burn brightly within America's deepest heart.

For America's heart is not to be found in her present policies and tendencies. It is not to be found in her present practices concerning other nations. Rather it is to be found in the people themselves who live in small towns and villages, in large cities with busy streets, in spread out farming communities that grow food for a nation, and in all the many places in which life continues in the richness and diversity that has always characterized American life.

All that is noble about America remains in her heart, and yet her heart has become more separated from her outer behavior than ever before. And so those who seek to remain faithful to America's heart must remain in a period of mourning until such time as she can restore to herself the natural goodness that has been part of her heritage and outlook on the world, replacing the greed and self-interest that has so much become part of her present relationship with others.

This return to the moral goodness that remains within the heart of America shall happen inevitably, for it is not possible for a nation to entirely abandon its spiritual destiny. And yet in the meantime, there is much pain that has resulted from this wandering away from her center - both to those who have been disenfranchised at the hands of America's policies, and to those who watch on the sidelines, observing a course of action being taken that is distressing, yet feeling unable to do much about it.

Nevertheless, America's heart remains safe within her people. It remains the promise of hope and opportunity for all. It remains the source of generosity toward all and the wish that all be able to pursue the life that they desire and have chosen. This generosity of spirit, this wish for freedom and for the pursuit of happiness for all, characterizes America's heart and spirit. However clouded over it may be at present, the time of its return to a central place in America's relations with others will be, for the heart of America is carried on wings of light, and shall be protected from all that would diminish it or undermine its existence.

Challenging CPR (Criminology - Politics & Religion)

2007-04-26T16:50:00.001-07:00

National statistics indicate that 64.8% of what the American public has been trained to believe about Criminology, Politics, and Religion (CPR) is in fact false.

Before reading any further, will anyone take the time to challenge the previous statistic? Probably not. It's usually easier to commission others to "think for us".

If Americans were told the truth about, why most people commit crimes, and what happens to their psyche when imprisoned, there would be less people imprisoned and less people willing to arbitrarily create and enforce laws to place them there.

People don't commit crimes because they are inherently "bad people." To suggest that only "bad people" fill prisons is to suggest that only "good people" fill the free world. Neither of these suppositions could ever be true.

Rather than blindly accept the theory that harsher prison sentences and more prisons will solve all of our criminal woes, we should challenge the wisdom of those in charge of our throwaway citizens.

We need to find out what makes some people more prone to criminality than others. We need to cease viewing other humans as disposable. If punishment is necessary, then surely treatment is as well.

Either the science of criminology is flawed, or we are being lied to about how to make our neighborhoods safer and how to foster positive change in the occasional deviant of society.

Challenge is in order.

We complain and complain about the performance of our local, state and federally elected and appointed officials. We complain about entire branches of government. We complain, complain and complain... but do nothing about it.

George Orwell once said "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful, and murder respectful" But who doesn't already know this?! Yet, the complaining continues.

Every branch of government in the United States of America has a failsafe or checks and balances to correct a system which does not run in the manner in which The People (voters) intended or understood as the manner in which it was/is to run. Again, everyone knows this.

We have firings, recall elections, impeachment proceedings, midterm elections, senate and congressional hearings...everything we need to make things work properly. But for some reason we believe that there is nothing we can do about any bad political situation in which we find ourselves.

Study your state and U.S. Constitutions. Study their respective amendments. Spread the word: When something is not working properly it can and should be fixed. We don't have to accept the status quo as the status quo.

Make useless complaining a thing of the past.

Challenge is in order.

Fear or admiration is often the reasons parishioners won't question their religious leaders.

A simple two or three paragraphs written by a throwaway citizen certainly won't undo centuries upon centuries of abusive religious leadership. But, I would like to provide you with something to ponder.

Generally speaking religion is not something to be despised. It is despicable people who should be despised.

Consider the following analogy.

A well-known chef of a highly acclaimed chain of restaurants has instructed his cooks to serve from a menu which he alone has created, promising an exquisite, culinary delight.

The patrons consume the food over a course of time and begin experiencing symptoms which lead them to conclude that they have developed some sort of sickness. Some of the patrons (very few) privately express their concerns to the cooks and servers that the food may be causing their uncomfortable symptoms. The overwhelming majority will say nothing, rather choosing to wholeheartedly accept the promise of the chef that what they have been served is truly an "exquisite, culinary delight."

In fact, the vast majority of patrons will look elsewhere for the cause of their discomfort, never for a moment believing in the possibility that the cause could be their beloved chef.

No one notices that the chef won't eat food from his own menu.

Where will they find help when the cause and cure spring from the same fountain?

This is perverted religion with despicable leadership.

We've all heard the saying that "If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is." I remind everyone of another perspective, "If something seems wrong or unreasonable, it might be. Challenge it."

Sometimes CPR doesn't work. Instead of continuing to waste precious time with tried and UNTRUE methods, we must disengage relinquishing our minds and our wills to finite and fallible humanity with such a short period of time on Earth, shouldn't we spend some of that time making things right for ourselves and others?

CPR is killing us.

Challenge is on order.

So What Is The Problem?

2007-04-24T08:15:00.001-07:00

It is amazing to me that we are still pitting the biblical account of creation against the Theory of Evolution. Especially when a careful read of chapters one and two of the King James Version of Genesis indicates the writer was talking about two different types of creation; a "spiritual" creation and a "physical" creation. The Old Testament writer describes a "spiritual" creation in six days, and then a "physical" creation without any reference to how long it took to complete that creation.

Let me explain; and please, get your bible out and follow along if you are a believer in scriptures. In Genesis 1:11 through 26, it is written that God created plants on the third day, stars on the fourth day, water animals and birds on the fifth day, and land animals, man and woman on the sixth day. But in Genesis 2: 4 through 5, after the account of the six day creation, the following is written: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." (emphasis mine)

In other words, the writer is clearly stating that plants, herbs, and man were created in some state of being before they were "in the earth" and before they "grew". This suggests to me that the six day creation is a "spiritual" or "conceptual" creation, and not a "physical" creation.

After the description of a six day creation, the King James Version of the bible goes on to state in Genesis 2: 6 through 7: "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In this second version of the creation there is no mention of how long the creation process took to bring forth life. It could have taken millions upon millions of years, and it probably did. So there is no need to for an argument between people who support Creationist thought and those who support the Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of room for both ideas.

911 Conspiracy Theory Revisited By Crack Online Think Tank Team

2007-04-18T17:25:00.001-07:00

There seems to still be lingering 911 Conspiracy Theorists out there and so our Online Think Tank has reviewed all the material from the 911 Conspiracy Theorists. And yes we are aware and have heard the recent Rosie O'Donnell comments. Indeed we have listened to George Noory and the interviews of the Colorado Professors (at length) and in all this it is quite clear that all the conspiracy theorists out there have an axe to grind, big time.

We do not believe that it is healthy for the United States of America to go any further on the questioning of these events unless absolute proof is available. I have watched specials on the Discovery Channel and all the towers looked like demolish to me, but that is merely an observer of third hand video, I was not there.

Since, I have no information and I refuse to speculate, so too should the conspiracy theorists. In fact, I went thru all the data from a gentleman I met in Flagstaff, AZ who wrote an eBook on this, I went thru every single chapter and came up with plausible deniability on every single point of contention, yes, every single topic, without exception.

The selective use of news, false reports, non-mainstream media, etc. is alarming, the folks purporting these conspiracy theories have financial gains, ambition and books to sell or websites to promote; they are not with us.

In fact, one cannot tell us that the "news media" was in on it and then use the news media reports during all the chaos and selective quotes to prove their points of contention. Indeed, on the Think Tank our bulletin board went thru each point by point and found errors in each item of the conspiracy crowd. These comments are against our nation are very detrimental and damaging, they serve no purpose whatsoever and only weaken us. Thus I will defend against the conspiracy theorists.

Pass the Ammunition - Arming the Lord's Army

2007-04-17T07:08:00.001-07:00

Long after the attack at Pearl Harbor, reports continued regarding
an incident involving a Chaplain who uttered the now infamous
phrase, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

The actual Chaplain was Lieutenant Howell Forgy, aboard
the U.S.S. New Orleans. He was on duty that Sunday morning,
December, 7, 1941.

Another Lieutenant who had been in charge of an ammunition
line on the USS New Orleans during the attack remembered,
"I heard a voice behind me saying, Praise the Lord and pass the
ammunition. I turned and saw Chaplain Forgy walking toward
me along the line of men." He reported that the Chaplain was
patting men on the back and encouraging them.

AS IT IS SPIRITUALLY, SO IT IS IN THE NATURAL

I don't often talk politics, but something strange is going on in
Americas' political scene for which we have a direct spiritual
correlation. Essentially, our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
and others in our anti-war, Democrat-dominated House, want to
starve the "troop surge" escalation ordered by President Bush,
and thus force him to begin to withdraw them, a move increasingly
favored by a majority of Americans, if you credit the polls.
They want to do this in the name of "supporting the troops," they say.

I say we do NOT want that war "over here" and it's only our brave
men and women "over there" that are keeping us from another 9-11.

But I digress.

As you'd expect, Republicans, including the President, see the Dem's
proposal as an attack on the very troops they profess to support,
despite whatever "spin" they try to put on this, their favorite pitch.

Let's call it what it is: Denying funds to the military during
wartime (insanity!) may force the Military and Republicans to shift
tactics, but in the meantime, it would make the already difficult jobs
of our troops that much harder.

Imagine being in the heat of battle - in the heat of Iraq - running low
on ammo, body armor, fuel, medical supplies, not to mention the
falling morale of a warrior who perceives that his country has
abandoned him.

Now, imagine a soldier in the Lord's Army whose superiors are
failing to sufficiently arm and train him to do his job. It's happening
everywhere as we have become, far and wide, a Church with a
"form of godliness, denying the power thereof," (2 Tim 3:5).

YOU'RE IN THE ARMY NOW

Most Christians have heard, or have sung the song, "I'm in the
Lord's army." Sung to the tune of "The Ol' Gray Mare," it goes
like this:
"I may never march in the infantry

Ride in the Cavalry

Shoot the artillery

I may never fly o'er the enemy

But I'm in the Lord's army!

Yes Sir!"

The Body of Christ is often referred to as "the Army of God."
God Himself is referred to as a Man O' War (Ex 15:3). Ephesians 6
is a chapter that is all about warfare. Second Corinthians 10:3-5
reminds us that we are engaged in a spiritual war and if we
"submit ourselves to God" we can resist the devil and he will
flee from us (James 4:7).

Now, I have to get something off my chest before I explode like an
al-Qaeda martyr. It's an aspect of Christianity with which I am
intimately acquainted. It's something that, I've found, too many
Christians know too little about. It's something that, if we will grab
hold of its biblical truth, it will not only change our lives but will
allow us to change the world as well.

This is, in my opinion, the "ammo" every soldier in the Lord's Army
needs in order to maximize his effectiveness as a warrior.

Interested?

I'm talking about the manifestations of spiritual gifts. Once
you've renewed your mind to what you're about to ingest -
and acted upon it - your spiritual life will never be the same.

LET'S GET LOGICAL

We must think logically about a few things for a moment...

In Luke 4:18-19 (AMP), Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord [is]
upon Me, because He has anointed Me [the Anointed One,
the Messiah] to preach the good news (the Gospel) to the poor;
He has sent Me to announce release to the captives and recovery
of sight to the blind, to send forth as delivered those who are
oppressed [who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed, and broken
down by calamity], to proclaim the accepted and acceptable year
of the Lord [the day when salvation and the free favors of
God profusely abound."

Next, we read in Romans, 8:11 (AMP), "And if the Spirit
of Him Who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you,
[then] He Who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will
also restore to life your mortal (short-lived, perishable)
bodies through His Spirit Who dwells in you."

After reading these verses, do you see the picture that has been
developed? God doesn't live in any church building and Jesus is
not merely an historical figure in an ancient book. In truth,
the Anointed One dwells within US! Therefore, He wants to
use US to minister to others. Though we, ourselves, may know
nothing about healing or casting out a demon, for example, it
doesn't matter so long as we KNOW the One who DOES the
healing THROUGH those who will make themselves
available.

You may step out on the water, so to speak, and give what you
believe is a prophetic utterance or Word of Knowledge. If it
blesses somebody, great. If you miss God by a mile, that's Ok,
too, for you are, at the VERY least (A) trying to obey God and
(B) exercising a gift; developing it through use as you fall down
and get back up like a teetering toddler.

We've got to walk before we can run, amen?

Far too many of us are never taught about these truths. Many
who ARE taught these things never embrace them for ourselves.
Multitudes never see or experience miracles so we can't bring
ourselves to believe in them. Merely hearing about them often
registers as being something strange to us.

In those groups where people DO witness prayer for healing,
and even see miracles taking place, generally, the only ones
doing the praying, laying on of hands and anointing with oil
are pastors and elders and Christian celebrities, all within
the friendly confines of a church building.

Question: What if the pastor or elder praying for you has no
faith for divine healing?

Another question: What if the one who needs healing is
in a restaurant or workplace conference room and there's not
a minister in sight?

CONSIDERING THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST

Jesus said in case after case, "Your faith has healed you."

He also said "Be it unto you according to YOUR faith."

He could do no miracles in His home town due to the people's
lack of faith.

He cleared the faithless from the room so that He could raise
Jairus's daughter from death.

When it came to healing the sick, His methods varied from one
occasion to another; Blind Bartimaeus was healed instantly.
For another bind man, He had to put saliva on his eyes and pray.

Twice.

The ten lepers were healed, Scripture says, "as they went."

The woman with the issue of blood was healed on the spot.

Some demons that He commanded to leave did so immediately.
In another instance, he told a Greek woman - a gentile - that her
demonized daughter was healed when the girl was nowhere in sight.
She went home and found the child on the couch, healed.

So much for understanding the Lord's healing and deliverance
methods.

So much for putting Jesus in a box.

What I gather from these biblical examples is that there IS no
formula and that their ONLY common denominators were somebody's
FAITH and JESUS. It's all about what God Himself chooses to do
through His willing vessels for reasons of which only He may be aware.

Are YOU one of those willing vessels?

We know that Jesus was a willing vessel. He did NOTHING
until the Father gave the order. He declared in John 5:19-20 (NKJV),
"...the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father
do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner..."

In John 5:30 (NKJV), He said, "I can of Myself do nothing...I do
not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."

Likewise, we can - and should - do nothing without the Sprit
of Christ. Everything we do should be in obedience to His
directives. Sadly, far too many Christians - ministers included -
refer to the Holy Spirit as a "force" and as "it." This isn't Star
Wars, folks. He's a person with characteristics and responsibilities
geared toward advancing the Kingdom.

And we're powerless - and can have no effect - without Him.

Jesus said, John 14:9 (NKJV), "...He who has seen Me
has seen the Father..."

The question we must ask ourselves is this: When they see us,
have they seen Jesus? They will see Jesus - the things that Jesus
did and empowered His army to do - ONLY if we DECREASE
and allow Him to INCREASE through our lives, (John 3:30). To
accomplish this, we must step out in faith.

THE KEYS: OBEDIENCE AND AVAILABILITY

Now, I'm just a guy, ordinary as they come. I've fallen in love
with our King and the cause of Christ and have learned firsthand,
by receiving a healing in my own supposedly incurably diseased
body, that Jesus sill heals. Matter of fact, while standing with
a cane, I prayed for people who received healing. The mind
boggles! In a previous message (Jesus: Still Healing after all
These Years), I listed a number of miracles that have
taken place while I was praying for an individual either
alone or with others. I am well aware that I know NOTHING
about healing and that I can't heal anybody. But if I'm willing
and obedient, if I dare to pray when I say I will, dare to lay
a hand on another person who needs prayer, Jesus just MIGHT
show up and heal somebody (request my message "Seven
Hindrances to Healing Prayer"). You see, afflicted people don't
want Jesus to appear in the clouds some day; they want Him
to appear on the scene RIGHT NOW, everywhere they are,
anywhere in the world, all at the same instant and on their
very worst day.

Of this I am certain: if we do nothing, NOTHING will happen.

Several weeks ago, I prayed for a 92-year old woman in a
wheel chair who hadn't walked in 10 years. After I taught on
healing, I felt led to pray for her. She took 10 steps, crying
and praising God as she went.

Recently, after teaching on healing, an 83-year old woman
who was the victim of a stroke, said she believed she could
walk. She hadn't walked in two years. After getting to her feet,
she walked around the end of the table and returned to her wheel
chair. I asked why she was crying and she answered, "It feels
so good...I haven't done this in so long!" She, too thanked Jesus
with each step. Afterward, as I was speaking, she interrupted,
smiled and asked, "Can I do it some more?" Again, she got up
and walked around the table's end and back. What joy we were
all feeling! I reminded those in attendance of their responsibility
to tell others about this, after all, we overcome Satan by the Blood
of the Lamb and the Word of our testimony (Rom 12:11). In retrospect,
maybe I should have prohibited tem from telling anyone what they
saw, in the fashion of Jesus, so that they WOULD run off and tell
others. Hmmm. Now, there's a thought.

Anyway, after I told the head nurse (a Christian) what had happened,
she was amazed and praised God, too, confirming that the woman had
not walked for as long as she had known her.

Funny, but nobody cared what church everybody else attended
in those moments.

As I said, I'm just Mike. As those who know me will attest,
I'm an EXTRA ordinary person (extremely ordinary, in other words).
But this one thing I know: Jesus drew a crowd through healing.
He created quite a stir. Faith grew and people ran off and told
others. I can only imagine how it terrifies the devil to think of
millions of mini-Christ's (literally, the meaning of "Christian")
running around imitating the original.

Aren't we are admonished to "Be imitators of God," (Eph 5:1)?

"Megashift" is a book written by Jim Rutz - a book loaded with
faith-building miracles that are taking place in developing nations
worldwide. My faith grew as I read about illiterate, impoverished
people who were willing to be used by God to heal to the sick and
raise the dead.

These people are my new heroes, along with the persecuted Church.
But if they can do it, we can do it. God is no respecter of persons,
after all.

My advice: Jettison any faith-diluting input and whatever mind-
numbing, powerless flavor of Christianity to which you may be
getting exposed,
and begin to renew your mind to the truth.

Read the book "Megashift."

Study the New Testament stories where Jesus healed.

Marvel at the miracles of Acts.

Talk to people who've been there and done that.

Let's be DOERS and not hearers only. Let's lead Purpose-Driven
lives, purposing to stop participating in spectator religion. Jesus
didn't come to establish a religion or a denomination, after all.

He came to raise an army.

GROWING IN GRACE AND KNOWLEDGE

Second Peter 3:18 admonishes us to "...grow in the grace
and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." The
Greek word for "knowledge" is gnosis, the same expression
of intimacy used in Genesis for Adam "knowing" his wife.
It's a term of intimacy. Into-me-see, one might say.

The prophetic ministry of Graham Cooke opened my eyes
to the fact that the prophetic gifting could be DEVELOPED
and that, subsequently, ALL spiritual gifts could be
developed. There was a "school of the prophets" mentioned
in 1 Sam. 10:5, I had read; if one can be "schooled" in prophecy,
I reasoned, we can be schooled in other aspects of the spiritual
gifts, if one is so led.

Like all education, it starts between our ears. I already believed
what Graham was teaching was true; Graham's teachings
confirmed what I already believed but had never heard taught.
All the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), like any fruit hanging from
a tree branch, do not appear in an instantly mature state. No, they
must develop.

The spiritual gifts must do likewise.

What do we have to lose by laying hands on a sick person? He
might be healed and he might not. It's not my problem; it's God's.
What do I have to lose by praying against a tornado (hear this,
you folks living in Tornado Alley)? Nothing, but homes and property
and lives may be saved if I do. After all, Elijah was a man just like
us (James 5:17) and he prayed for the rain to stop and it did so for
three and a half years. I have found that, because we in the West are
so lacking when it comes to our faith levels, due mainly to poor teaching
on the subject - and poor learning - we must have our minds renewed.
Proper instruction will lay the groundwork which most people require
before they can become receptive to the concept of Divine
Healing. Once the muddy waters have been cleared away - once
the detoxification process is completed - the stage is set for
miracles to take place in any Christian's life, NOT just the one
"anointed for healing."

Anointed? We hear that word thrown around quite a bit in
the Church world. We say things like, "He has a strong anointing!"
Though we know what we mean, the truth is that the ONLY one
who is anointed is Jesus, the Christ, the Anointed One.

Only a King is anointed, friends. The anointing oil, according
to Psalm 133, was poured upon Aaron's head, flowed down his
beard and onto his garments.

Likewise, Jesus is the Head of The Church; we are referred to as the
Body of Christ. The Anointed King dwells within His subjects. That's us!
The Anointed High Priest lives within the Temple in the Holy Of Holies,
our bodies. 1 Corinthians 6:19 (AMP) reminds us of this truth: "...your
body is the temple (the very sanctuary) of the Holy Spirit Who lives
within you, Whom you have received [as a Gift] from God..."

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

Bearing these truths in mind, doesn't it stand to reason that when Jesus
said "I have given you authority and power...over all the power of the
enemy," (Luke 10:19) that He meant it?

Don't you think that when Jesus said "Jn 14:12) "...anyone who has faith
in Me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things
than these, because I am going to the Father"? He also said. "Everything
is possible for him who believes," (Mark 9:23).

Do you believe? I believe we can do nothing without the Spirit of Christ
in us. But because He lives in us, nothing that He directs us to do will be
impossible. We can exercise the authority He gives us; the results are
up to Him.

Log on at http://www.elca.org/evangelism/assessments/spiritgifts.html
by cutting and pasting this link to find a Spiritual Gift Assessment Test.
It may not be the best test of this type, but it was fun and results
were immediate.

When Paul runs down his list of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-11),
the inclination of many is to try and determine which gift they possess.
The test I referred to might help you with this. But if I had taken such
a test ten years ago, I assure you that my answers would have been
much different. The inclination of the Institutional Church has been to
read Paul's list (by the way, it's not exhaustive as there are other
gifts mentioned in Scripture besides these), and to select which gift,
or gift clusters one might have been given.

I disagree with this school of thought. It's too limiting. My contention is,
if you ask me what spiritual gift I have been given my response would be,
"The Holy Spirit Himself." You see, not only have certain gifts developed
over time, but whatever gift I need that is required in whatever situation I
may find that He has placed me, the proper gift WILL be made available.
It's not unlike a carpenter digging through his tool box for that perfect tool
to complete the task at hand. If someone needs healing on their death bed,
what sense would it make to say, "Hang on, brother! Let me fetch someone
with the gift of healing!"

Silly thinking!

Where God guides, He provides. Though someone may have been blessed
with the gift of administration or hospitality, for example, I encourage you
NOT to allow yourself, or anyone else, to pigeon-hole you. Ask for more
and He will GIVE you more. James 1:17 says, "Every good and perfect
gift is from above..."

Be warned! If you entertain this line of thinking long enough -
and I ENCOURAGE you to do so - you may actually act upon it and truly
become an Armed & Dangerous Christian.

You will become Satan's worst nightmare.

You already ARE...only you may not know it yet.

Every blessing,
Michael Tummillo
A servant of God
http://www.YourTown4Jesus.org/

Stick & Stones and Words Now All Break Bones

2007-04-15T16:08:00.001-07:00

The recent media news frenzy about Don Imus and his totally inappropriate remarks have truly revealed what has happened to this country. Boy, if we make it to year 2010, we will be lucky and this is before we accept global warming.

As a young child who was both taller and heavier than her classmates, I can remember coming home many afternoons from schools in absolute tears. Being an ugly duckling among young children who look to tease others because they have learned it makes them feel good is not a good thing.

My mother told me numerous times these wise words: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. I have to be honest as a third grader it took me a long while before I realized the importance of these words. By the time I entered fourth grade, the insults, the taunts and the teasings no longer reduced me to tears. I knew that unless I gave them permission to hurt me with their name calling I would be safe from their endless torments. For words do not break bones.

Now almost 50 years later, I listen to a college basketball coach and girl's college basketball team talk about their leadership skills and accomplishments. Yet, then they share how they have been traumatized by the terrible words of Mr. Imus. Give me a break! Yes, his words were hateful and mean spirited, but they were only words. To believe that some words can rob you of your successes demonstrates that we are not growing the leaders we need.

In all honesty, the negative publicity is probably more than the positive publicity that this team would have received for their athletic accomplishments. For our society in general, especially the news media looks for misery before joy and for scarcity over abundance. Bad news sells just like picking on the ugly duckling.

What is quite pitiful is that the news media is now promoting that words are more serious that physical actions in this case. However when it comes to those who wish to do America harm by their words, we are told by that same news media that they are only words. Come on drive by media – you can't have it both ways!

Don Imus, Rutgers Girls Basketball Team

2007-04-14T05:39:00.001-07:00

Radio talk show host Don Imus calls the ladies basketball team "nappy headed hoes." Apparently Imus didn't go for their tattoos and felt they lacked femininity. Imus, known as the I-man, got the plug pulled on him by CBS and MSNBC who dropped his radio show.

Snoop Dogg and a host of other black rappers commonly refer to women using the exact same terminology. Certainly I do not condone any man speaking to or about women in such a fashion. Yet the hip-hop hypocrites are quite comical to behold when they attack a white man for modeling their very own originated messages full of sexist and racist innuendos.

The Black Caucus leaders, Congress persons, and ministers who are speaking forth have shown themselves to be quite articulate, equitable, and somewhat forgiving. Undoubtedly the African American community could use their leadership year round and not just when a white racial slur surfaces. Perhaps the New Black Panthers and Nation of Islam, along with the above mentioned leadership, can target their efforts toward the predominately black hip-hop heads spewing obscenities across our radio airwaves.

It's always good to start in your own backyard among your own folks before hammering others at a distance. I salute the initiative of Rutgers University and the African American leadership mentioned above to apply pressure to Imus, CBS, and MSNBC. They have proven they have the power to change society when they come together. The nation and media are listening.

Don Imus issued a personal apology as did Michael Richards, best known as Seinfeld's Kramer, for their racial rants. Richards went balistic on two black young men using the N-word and various epithets last November at the Laugh Factory, a famous Los Angeles comedy club.

Imus and Richards will have a lot of time alone to do some much needed soul-searching, as their racial slurs suddenly collapsed their careers.

Racial tensions and hatred run deep in America, the land of the free and home of the brave. They surface at the most unusual times and places. Thankfully, when swiftly identified and dealt with we can overcome them and send a message to society that such slurs will not be tolerated by the mainstream media.

We all need a lot more love, understanding, and consideration of one another. As Jesus said, "As you would have men to do unto you, do likewise to them" (Luke 6:31). If you would not like to hear someone address you or one of your family members in a particular way, than be sure that you yourself don't speak in a similar derogatory manner toward others.

It is time we learn how to forgive, leave peaceably, conduct ourselves honorably, and uphold each other kindly in the spirit of brotherhood. Most importantly, let us guard our hearts and watch our words more closely.

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

2007-04-12T01:37:00.001-07:00

As the writer, Voltaire, wrote – "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Not being a particularly brave person myself I can't say that I'd defend to the death your right to say anything but I will certainly defend your right to free speech as well as I can.

This brings me to my take on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus debacle which is now taking place in our country, in Alaska to be precise. Apparently a senior student at Juneau-Douglas High School, one Joseph Frederick, took it upon himself to make and display a large banner at a school function proclaiming the nonsensical headline "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

It must be argued fairly in Mr. Frederick's favor, that his banner was not being displayed ON school grounds although it could definitely be seen while standing on the school campus. Mr. Frederick asserts that the banner is not pro drug (although I fail to see his logic when the banner clearly states "4" as in "Bong Hits For Jesus").

The school's position is that the banner was being shown during a school sponsored function, albeit off of school property.

This scenario unfolded during an Olympic Torch Relay in 2002. It is just now coming to the attention of the national media thanks to former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr who has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Alaska's Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. Starr filed the petition recently on behalf of the Juneau School District in response to a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court sided with the student, stating that former Juneau-Douglas High School principal, Deborah Morse, violated former student Joseph Frederick's free speech rights.

Frederick was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event. "The principal's actions were so outrageous, basically leaving school grounds and punishing a student for a message that is not damaging to the school," said his attorney, Doug Mertz.

Superintendent Peggy Cowan said clarification is needed on the rights of administrators when it comes to disciplinary action of students who break the district's drug message policy.

This situation is definitely a sticky wicket. How do we proclaim the right of all our citizens having free speech, yet deny our students this same right?

Yes, as a parent who has lost a child to the disease of addiction, I am offended whenever I see signs or hear songs or read anything extolling the virtue of drug abuse. But we cannot give up our rights, so valiantly fought for so many years ago, just because someone is saying something that we don't like or with which we disagree.

Voltaire was spot on. I like to think that if he were alive today he would still defend another's right to free speech. As repulsive as the pro drug abuse issue is to me, the thought of losing our right to free speech is even more repulsive.

The Fifties and Sixties - Happy Times and Bad Juju

2007-04-08T06:17:00.001-07:00

The 50's

Men wearing hats to work and Stepford-type wives discovering Valium. It was all about noir without anyone realizing that it was all about noir. It was "back in the day." Returning servicemen. Happy times. The baby boom was underway... Levittown . . . people could afford single family dwellings and suburbia was born. College. A privilege instead of an entitlement. The smell of burning leaves on a crisp fall day. Schwinn bikes. Drive-in movies. "I like Ike" memories. Happy times.

Terms like dysfunctional families, attention deficit and bipolar disorders were unknown. Those who suffered under them did so in silence without awareness, recourse or remedy. Back then, no one used words like "dysfunctionality" or "depression." Many were consumed by emotions that were kept closeted and could not be articulated.

No graffitified tenements, sinking potholed streets or garbage strewn parks, but the smell of winos and urine in the subways also existed back then and there were plenty of slums to go around.

Chopped and channeled Merc Coupes and rumbling duel pipes. Drag races. Outlaw biker gangs. 1 percenters. Rebels without causes. Leather jackets, engineer boots and skin-tight Levi's or khaki's and loafers. Blue suede loafers. Greasers and mods. "Hollywood" and "Detroit" hair styles or flat tops or crew cuts . . . split the difference with a "Duck 's Ass."

No political correctness back then, You ate what you wanted to eat and smoked where you wanted to smoke. No seat belt laws because there were no seat belts. Lardy chili and greasy bacon and eggs in diners late at night. Apple pie with a piece of American cheese. The Gillette Cavalcade of Sports on the 9' Admiral TV. The Kinsey Report findings. Sexual awareness out of the closet.

City kids went to "Geek" shows in the early 50's that were featured in some of the traveling carnivals that came to the outskirts of urban centers. These geeks, however, were not like today's. Stag films. Precursors to porn.

"The Wild One," "Blackboard Jungle." Brando and Dean, and Sidney Portier calling Glen Ford "Mr. Daddio" in "Backboard Jungle." Joe Louis, Marciano, Joe DiMaggio, Sugar Ray and Ted Williams. Marilyn Monroe, Gable, Bogart s. "Bad Day at Black Rock," Spencer Tracey, Robert Ryan, Ernest Borgnine, Lee Marvin, Anne Francis, and Walter Brennan. The pure noir of "The Killing" and "The Sweet Smell of Success." "12 Angry Men." Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Martin Balsam, Ed Begley, Jack Klugman, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden and Robert Webber all in the same room. "On the Waterfront" . . . .mob violence and union corruption. "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "Death of a Salesman." Heady stuff.

"The Organization Man ", Ayn Rand, "The Affluent Society," "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit." The Martian Chronicles," The Catcher in the Rye, Jack Kerouac, "The Lonely Crowd." Stuff staring to happen. Beats and Beatniks coming out.

Ike, The H Bomb, and a fragile peace. Not everything was Pollyannaish. Some things seemed to have a noir-ish, gangster-ridden quality that had a palpable existence. Modern jazz . . . Bird, Miles, Stan Kenton , Chet; Chicago blues performed by blacks who traveled North from the Delta on the Illinois Central. Little Walter, Howlin Wolf, Jackie Wilson, Fats, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, The Big Bopper, Doo Wop. Honky Tonk. The sound of the harp. Hard bop, rebop, West Coast Jazz and Delta Blues were the 50's.

A time of extreme anti-communism suspicion. McCarthyism became synonymous with demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations. Black lists. The 50's version of the Patriot Act. Decency finally wins out. Senator Joe censured into obscurity.

The Korean War . . . the "Forgotten War," June 1950 - July 1953. Recalled by MASH on television. A footnote in our history. Veterans of that intensive and deadly conflict wore jackets from Rhein-Main, Quantico, Paris Island, Great Lakes, Fort Leonard Wood, and Cherry Point. Tough guys who did their duty without complaint and paid dearly for it.

Racism undergoing subtle changes for the better. Still, it rears its ugly head far too often in the North. Callous cruelty and unfairness commonplace until the 60's. Being called a "kike, mick, "wop" or "polack" an everyday experience. Many first generation Americans suffer quietly. Scary white sheets and burning crosses. Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Then 1964 and civil rights and hope. Martin Luther King. Malcolm. Rosa Parks. The Little Rock Nine

The 50's, a time mixed with equal portions of love, fear and loathing. Of course, looking in the rear view mirror through the prism of nostalgia makes everything look better. The innocence was soon replaced with a grim reality, turbulence and cynicism that manifested itself through the next decade. A Cuban missile crises, Viet Nam , the draft, multiple assassinations, hippies, drugs, protests, riots . . . and racial unrest that exploded.

" . . colleges being nothing but grooming schools for the middleclass non-identity which usually finds its perfect expression on the outskirts of the campus in rows of well-to-do houses with lawns and television sets is each living room with everybody looking at the same thing and thinking the same thing at the same time while the Japhies of the world go prowling in the wilderness..." Jack Kerouac

"I can think of nothing more boring for the American people than to have to sit in their living rooms for a whole half hour looking at my face on their television screens." Dwight D. Eisenhower

The 60's:

The conduit from the 50's carried cheerful optimism. John Fitzgerald Kennedy. "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." Inspiration and hope. Jackie sets the example in class. Fear of nuclear war comes to a head with the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Soviets back down. "Ich bin ein Berliner." JFK at the helm equals comfort and security. Proud to be an American.

Dallas makes it all a bad joke . . . destroys Camelot and justifies cynicism. No more peering through rose-colored glasses. Oswald or a conspiracy? Jack Ruby. Dealey Plaza, the Depository, Stemmons Freeway bring back memories that chill.

The 50's..a time of innocence, laid back. The 60's after 63 . . . full-tilt boogie, balls to the walls. Flashpoints going off like a photographers light bulbs. Too many to track. Riots began on August 11, 1965 in Watts after which blacks are no longer taken for granted. Then, amid coups and assassinations, Vietnam brreaks out in earnest. More justified cynicism. Body bags and Jane Fonda. Vo Nguyen Giap and Westmoreland. Bad juju.

James Meredith becomes first black student at Ole Miss. Violence but also hope abounds. Then Medgar Evers killed by an assassin's bullet amidst voter registration in the South. Bloody Sunday" in Selma. More unrest. More killings. Malcolm gunned down to punctuate the morass.

" I Have a Dream" renewes hope. 1964 Civil Rights Act. MLK awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. " . . . And so I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. My eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord!" But Memphis shatters the Dream. The MLK riots follow. But the unflinching dignity of the civil rights marchers wears down the oppressors. The Dream prevails.

Nation of Islam and Black Panthers, Weather Underground Organization, SDS, Yippies, "Black Power," Berkley . . . .Sexual revolution, Feminism and Gay rights. Flash bulbs going off constantly.

To Kill a Mockingbird, Norman Bates and Psycho, The Apartment, On the Beach, Lolita, James Bond, The Group, In Cold Blood, The Peter Principle, Profiles in Courage, Elmer Gantry Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, In the Heat of the Night, Green Berets, Midnight Cowboy, Butterfield 8, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Easy Rider. Mo Town. Boston Celtics, Green Bay Packers, Clay knockes out Sonny. Later becomes Ali . . . the right man for the right time. Andy Warhol, Surfing. The Beatles hit the big time. Elvis's star fades over the decade. The Pill and the miniskirt. The Space Race permeates.

1968 is the seminal year. Hippies, bell bottoms, Woodstock, acid, LSD, Chicago, Daley, Nixon are all part of the mix. Psychedelic Haight Ashbury. No fear of criticizing society's typical behaviors. Speak out, protest, march. Rebels with causes. Every injustice or perceived inequality is suddenly open game and ripe for examination and protest.

Tet Offensive turbo charges LBJ's decision to say "no more." Bobby then says, "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? More hope. Sirhan Sirhan snuffs out the dream. Amidst mass rioting and chaos, Nixon wins over Humphrey on a "law and order" platform while Chicago police incongruously and brutally beat anti-war protesters.

Woodstock Music Festival at Max Yasgur's farm in August 1969. Jimi does his thing. Manic Depression. Purple Haze. The Who. Joan Baez. Santana. Janis. Sly takes everybody higher. People gather together in the spirit of caring and sharing, Unique and legendary stuff. A new beginning. Men walked on the moon in 1969.

Altamont music festival is held later in 1969. Santana, the Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, and The Stones. Hell's Angels are the Stone's security force. Angels confront the people and violence ensues. The real music becomes Sympathy for the Devil." Unique and chilling stuff. Counterpoint to Woodstock. Fans are held "Under My Thumb." An Angel stabs a man holding a gun in front of the stage. Horror. At the end, cosmic flower children wander across the hills toward home and an uncertain future. Windmills in the background. More bad juju.

A bad way to end the 60's, but it's about a generation that realized it could make a difference just by standing up and being heard. It did just that.

The radical ideas of the 60's gain acceptance in the new decade, and are mainstreamed and assimilated into American life and culture. The 70's prove to be sharply different, but that's another, albeit more tranquil story.

"I like ideas about the breaking away or overthrowing of established order. I am interested in anything about revolt, disorder, chaos, especially activity that seems to have no meaning. It seems to me to be the road towards freedom - external freedom is a way to bring about internal freedom." Jim Morrison

"[In the 60's] there was madness in any direction, at any hour ... You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was `right', that we were winning ..." Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

Our Iraq Veterans – Vietnam All Over Again

2007-04-05T13:48:00.001-07:00

Vietnam veterans see our young, returning Iraq War veterans returning home to almost the same situation that they did. Unlike Vietnam veterans, Iraq War veterans were not drafted into the military since the draft no longer exists. Like Vietnam veterans, however, Iraq War veterans are fighting an unpopular battle.

It is understandable that the military discharges disabled soldiers since they are no longer of any use to the military. However, the military not only discharges them from service, but disowns them from the point of discharge forward. There is no one available when an injured and disabled Iraq War veteran is discharged to assist them with finding help when they need it. Yes, there are Veterans Service Officers available, but many, many young veterans go home without any help.

I spend a considerable amount of time at the VA Hospital and see the older Vietnam veterans forging bonds with the new and younger Iraq War veterans because they have much in common. Both groups returned home from foreign soils to the US and a "so-what" attitude from friends, family and the population in general. World War II veterans, on the other hand, returned home to a grateful nation where strangers put them up overnight, bought them beers and dinners and slapped them on the back as they walked down the street.

Unfortunately, our own government is treating these young veterans the same way. Very few get the help they need to return to civilian life. Fortunately, the news media is publicizing the terrible conditions of the Veterans Administration hospitals which may force the current administration to improve the hospitals. In many cases, the immediate medical care is extremely good, but the follow-up care is terrible. These young vets are patched up and either booted onto the street or in care homes without vocational training or therapy to teach them how to deal with their missing limbs or tortured minds.

Even if you don't agree with the administration's actions in the Middle East, extend your compassion to our young veterans. These veterans have no political point to make. They are simply trying to become a productive citizen again.

Music, Government and Others - Who's Right?

2007-04-03T07:36:00.001-07:00

Shortly thereafter came a public outcry from small independent webcasters that the rates were too high and would put them out of business as they did back in 2002. At first site the rates don't appear to be unreasonable. A closer look reveals a different story.

Per performance rates at the following percentages retroactive for the year 2006.

2006 $.0008 per performance

2007 $.0011 per performance

2008 $.0014 per performance

2009 $.0018 per performance

2010 $.0019 per performance

Add a minimum $500.00 per channel per year retroactive for the year 2006.

Unfortunately when you do the math with these rates you begin to understand their significance and why these small streamers object so strongly. Given the average 16 songs played per hour the royalty rate per listener would be approximately $1.28. If you then multiply that by 100 listeners the per hour rate becomes very expensive indeed. Several 1000% higher than what was previously being paid. The first objection, and it is a valid one, the retroactive rates for 2006. This alone would put a large majority of internet radio stations out of business. The back payment above the royalty payments that have already been paid in 2006. To quote one webcaster with an average listnership of around 1500 during peak hours, "My back payment for 2006 would be $76,000.00. My station barely breaks even now! I'll just have to shut down". This is echoed by small webcasters throughout the United States. Indeed even the National Public Radio (NPR) has voiced outrage and legal action as they too are subject to these new rates. Hearings this week in congress will decide if the appeals on behalf of webcasters will be heard.

Soundexchange and the RIAA defend these new rates. They feel the Copyright Royalty Board made the correct decision by giving them virtually everything they asked for. The Copyright Royalty Board judges emphasized that they cannot guarantee a profit to everyone who enters the market. "To allow inefficient market participants to continue to use as much music as they want and for as long a time period as they want without compensating copyright owners on the same basis as more efficient market participants trivializes the property rights of copyright owners." This statement makes it clear that the small webcaster is not even a consideration in these proceedings, although they provide a large portion of the independent artist content as well as much of the special niche genres unavailable elsewhere. Small webcasters help to pioneer this system of broadcasting, but that would seem to be of no importance. I would also note these small webcasters have been paying royalties at the rate set back in 2002. To some it becomes a question of whether the recording industry top labels simply want to control the listener experience as they have on terrestrial radio, leaving smaller independent artists with no outlet for their music to be heard in light of the recent payola news. This would effectively remove direct competition for the major labels in this new and growing market. Many webcasters play these seemingly unknown artists to provide fresh content to their listeners and remove themselves from the mainstream top 40 play list. Broadcasters, artists, and listeners alike agree that this content is a welcome change. Since the small webcasters generally use a blanket licensing company such as Live365 or Loudcity, they have no direct voice in Washington. On the other hand they do have a voice through their listeners. This is the route they have chosen to use, directing their listeners to contact their representatives. In response to the webcasters grassroots campaign, Soundexchange launched it own campaign asking artists and their fans to contact their representatives in favor of the decision.

The Copyright Board at this time upholds their decision. They agreed to hear arguments for an appeal, although an appeal has currently not been granted. All webcasters are awaiting an outcome to these hearings. The National Public Radio spokesperson has vowed continued legal action if the rates are not overturned. Clear Channel, the largest terrestrial radio owners in the U.S. have also joined in the mix. The smallest webcasters want to see something along the lines of the Small Webcasters Settlement Act enacted by the Lbrary of Congress after the 2002 dispute which allowed the little guys to pay a percentage of revenue rather than a per play rate. That allowed an affordable rate for the smaller broadcasters to survive. All webcasters agree that royalties must be paid, but they do not believe excessive rates should be imposed on this new and growing broadcast industry. These rates figures do not include royalties paid through the other entities like BMI and SESAC. They additionally do not believe that the small webcaster should be squeezed out of existence to make room for big players only. They reject the notion stated by Soundexchange that maybe 10,000 internet stations may be too many. Diversity and choice is offered to the listeners. It seems that it would be unfair to remove these choices from the public.

Some artists have spoken in favor of the new rates, and some have spoken out against the new rates. In a recent interview KK Downing of Judas Priest stated the new rates were ridiculous and didn't stack up. He also stated to his knowledge he had never received a royalty paymet from Soundexchange. JJ French, a guitarist for Twisted Sister upheld the rates on the other hand saying that he applauded the new rates. Another well known artist, Sabrina Korva, recorded one of the public service announcements that webcasters have been playing. There appears to be a lot of disagreement in the music industry surrounding these rates and the role small webcasters play. For some it is a blessing, others feel it floods the market with music choices. There is no clear cut opinion that I have found as many artists seek exposure through any means available to them, while others prefer to stay in the limelight generated by playing the top labels.

My own opinion is that forcing the pioneers of internet broadcasting and small independent webcasters off the net with huge rate increases serves no ones interest. I believe a suitable compromise must be reached, even if the Library of Congress must once again intervene to uphold fairness for all involved. The constitution begins with We the people. I firmly believe the people have spoken out. Many letters have been posted on the congress website opposing the rates. The upcoming days in the internet radio community will be watched intently by the largest and smallest of providers in hopes of finding a common ground for all.

No Sign of Robert Mugabe Retiring?

2007-04-01T08:42:00.001-07:00

The western developed world has no idea what is happening with Robert Mugabe and Zimbabwe. Their expectation that this African country is actually going to play according to European and American values, political principles and rules is so far off the mark, it's not on the same page, in fact not even in the same book. One could almost say that the arrogance with which the west actually wishes to dictate how Africa - by which I mean sub-Sahara Africa - thinks, is very damaging. But the western arrogance is not the point of this post.

It has been entertaining to see the way western politicians seemed to think that because Zimbabwe was in total economic ruin, ordinary Zimbabweans were often persecuted and the opposition party leadership beaten up, that Zimbabweans and Africans would actually push Mugabe off his perch. It goes to show that the western countries have absolutely no clue as to how Africa actually thinks, or what the general opinion on Mugabe is. Do they think that South African president Mbeki supports the view that Mugabe has to leave or that he can and wants to put pressure on Mugabe to step down?

Zimbabweans and Africans think that the reasons for the economic melt down of Zimbabwe is the fault of Europe and America, or more specifically white people. Economic problems in other African countries are also the fault of whites. Any major diseases such as HIV/AIDS may be attributed to the doings of whites. Africans think that whites imported HIV/AIDS into Africa. Now these points may be generalisations in that not every black African thinks this of course, but at grassroots levels they do. These beliefs have been seeded by the leadership in African countries and are nurtured to allow politicians to get away with mismanagement, corruption, brutal dictatorships and any number of other evils that proliferate in Africa. It's the same principle that propped up communism in Russia where the evil West was blamed for anything that wasn't working in Russia.

Why is the black president of South Africa not able to do anything about this situation? After all here is a fairly solid democracy with an adherence to western economic principles - remember they had a balanced budget this year - and an exemplary constitution. The reason is plain and simple, an African leader and country cannot be seen to support the western world. For western world read whites. This does not mean that Africa is not ever so willing to grab at aid that the western world will give them, or to look to western world for military assistance if it suits them. As an aside, I myself agree that many of the problems in Africa may be contributed to the greed with which Europe parceled up Africa and grabbed at the juiciest bits to enrich themselves. But that ended 50 years ago in many cases, and if one sees what Germany has managed in 50 years after getting fairly annihilated during the second world war, then Africa could be doing better. But that's another subject altogether.

It is fairly realistic to say that whatever Europe or America would like to happen in Africa is not going to be heeded in Africa. Africa will muddle through this on their own and will not listen to anything the whites will want to tell them and expect them to do. And Robert Mugabe will have another four or so years as president of Zimbabwe. Nothing the west will say, will make any difference to that. Besides this, Robert Mugabe is a freedom fighter which gives him a legitimacy that overrides anything he might actually do to harm his people and country.

Bush As The President - A Deep Insight

2007-03-30T11:45:00.001-07:00

George W. Bush and his presidency seem to approach heavy disgrace.
After the September 9/11 attack, Bush seems to be ranked as the worst president ever.
While he is seriously going to be ranked, A survey was conducted in year 2004 by history network.

This survey reveled that 82 percent people in US believed that Bush's administration was a failure. Those who considered bush as a successful president, was because of his comparison with the bill Clinton.

This is the reason why the public that once supported Bush with heavy votes, is ready to show him a dismissal attitude now.
No president in the history has ever seen such a low rating.

If we think over it, we can feel how some president's reputation can be so down this way.
The answer is very obvious.

When we look at the old historian presidents, we find them serving the nation, making efforts to change the country.
They all had one common motive, and that was, the service of the nation.

Bush has divided this country and left the country on the verge of worst situations.
He has showed a failure in major key area where the country needed the development.

Almost every president in US history is successful in wining the trust of the nation but Bush has faced a failure.

Just for the sake of a seat, this person threw the country in wars. It seems that the president has less concern for the country and he is interested in gaining votes only.

There's No Such Thing as a Stupid Question, Really?

2007-03-28T13:18:00.001-07:00

Ever since I began teaching (26 years ago), I have heard hundred's of teachers, parents and administrators declare that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I even believed it at one time myself. But the longer I taught and the better I became at my craft, I realized that this statement just wasn't true. There is such a thing as a stupid question.

Now before you rush to get your pitchforks, ropes and torches to lynch me for being a heretic, let me explain my position. After years of teaching and working in the classroom, I have come across students, parents and even teachers who use "there's no such thing as a stupid question" as a justification for opening their mouth and speaking without thinking. Yes, we want to encourage people to not be afraid to ask questions but not at the expense of thinking first. A question that is asked without thinking first is a stupid question.

"Well, what is a stupid question?", you might ask.

A stupid question has many forms. One of the most common stupid questions is the one that asks about something that was just discussed. This shows that person asking isn't polite enough to pay attention to the speaker and should remain silent rather than reveal their rudeness.

Another type of stupid question is the one that is asked in order to get the speaker off task. It is not meant to increase one's knowledge or to clarify a misunderstanding; it has one purpose only and that is to get the speaker off task and away from the subject at hand. This is not only a stupid question but a waste of time.

Then there is the question that could have been answered by the person asking the question, but they are so lazy that they ask rather than look up the answer themselves. The classic form for this type of question is when a student asks what is the homework assignment when they have been given all of the assignments ahead of time. All this question does is confirm that the inquirer is lazy.

So, what should be done about stupid questions?

You should make people aware of them. I take the time to demonstrate to my students and those whom I lecture that there are stupid questions and we should avoid them at all costs. I then give them examples of some popular stupid questions to prevent them from committing such a faux pas.

You are probably thinking that this would prevent my students from asking questions, but that isn't the case. My students ask questions regularly and without fear. They understand what a stupid question is and avoid it. This saves time and keeps us on task. If you wish to increase the frequency in which your audience asks questions verbally reward the inquirer with positive reinforcement. Rewarding them for asking a good question will increase the number of questions asked and the question will be well thought out. Doing this will create great discussions and make your talks more interesting.

Let's be aware that there really are stupid questions and work together to eliminate them from our classrooms, workplace or lecture halls.

Nancy Pelosi If You Had Been President On 9/11/2001, What Would You Have Done

2007-03-26T06:41:00.001-07:00

All the World leaders and leaders of America that cared about the USA were in agreement that Iraq should be attack and now four years later we are in the middle of a civil war that no one could have imagined. A Civil war has erupted because the leader of the Muslim world by the name of Muhammad died so suddenly that there was confusion as to who would be the next ruler of the Islamic state. To this day, the Islamic world is divided because of this issue (Shia vs. Sunni). President Pelosi now has to decide to cut and run or stay in Iraq and finish the job of bringing freedom to the 75 percent of the Iraqis that desire freedom.

It does not matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing - by their own pronouncements - killing all of us "infidels." the peaceful Muslims are afraid to lend a hand. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? In countries without freedom you will be killed.

So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorist Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you do not clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question: What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam.

This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, the terrorist want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan is clearly for terrorists to attack us, until we are neutered and submissive to them. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. The Muslim terrorist fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost!! Thank you President Pelosi and our great Soldiers, I am so proud that "DEFEAT" is one word that you and I do not use. I AM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY EVEN IF YOUR LAST NAME WERE BUSH OR KERRY OR MRS. CLINTON.

African Leaders Mindset

2007-03-23T10:45:00.001-07:00

There are little things some African leaders should be subjected to before taking over power. They should be appreciative, of 'little things', which the creator has bestowed on the continent.

A visionary leadership cannot come to be: going by the unpopular actions and decisions of some African leaders. Without a vision, a people perish. Little things begat great things. They need to sit back and think hard for once especially those countries that are in different shades of turmoil.
As I have remarked elsewhere, no foreign nation outside the fringes of the continent will waste their real resources to chart a path of progress for black Africa. Africans simply have to do it themselves. The intrinsic nature of Man is about self-preservation, survival and opportunism.
Morals? Yes, that could be negotiated. Nobody easily gives you what you deserve until you negotiate.

It is a pity that in most parts of black Africa and I will made bold to say that, what engages many so-called leaders are very 'surface' things, bordering on ephemeral issues.

Elsewhere, secrets of successful human development and nation building are open secrets.
The men of influence in Africa can only bring themselves to discover these secrets if they break things down to basics. The so-called little things they tend to ignore.
Of course, a dose of patience has to be in tow as new structures and values are being put in place.

These little things are part of our essence; they make us complete as part of humanity.

If in doubt, lets take a few moments to reflect and explore the impact of this mindset and values amongst our fellow homo sapiens in those countries; those countries some African rulers rush to, on mere suspicion of even malaria attack- a tropical disease. They gleefully make noise about their departure and arrival during such trips! 'My boss just came back from abroad for general checkup" a Personal assistant would proudly announce to the local press.

Only if we can use God given comparative advantage to have the best of resources including state of the art hospitals- manned by highly motivated personnel- in the continent.

I believe wherever we were born, we did not have a hand in it at procreation. This is accepted. It was not by accident, therefore, we can as well make our own part of the planet a better place.
This goes beyond religion that many African nations now hide behind as a temporary shelter for being ineptitude.
Let us think about 'little things' may be our warped value system will change for the better because the rest of the world is waiting for our real contribution to this global space.

The Day America Was Hijacked

2007-03-18T11:21:00.000-07:00

I am solidly behind the calls for impeachment of Bush and Cheney, even though I have a clear understanding of the fact that impeaching these guys is sort of like firing the waiters in the restaurant where you got food poisoning.

Yeah, they're a couple of really rude scoundrels that deserve to go, but they just serve the food. We should be asking ourselves, What's going on in the kitchen? And who really owns this joint, anyway?

What with public confidence in government going down faster than a priest at a little league game, most of us are feeling as clueless as George Bush at a Mensa meeting.

I mean, what has happened to the dream that was once the republic of The United States of America? Exactly when we did we begin the slide into fascism and totalitarianism?

I'll tell you exactly when. December 23, 1913.

That was the night that congress passed the Federal Reserve Act. It's the night our elected officials handed over the keys to all of our lives by giving the cartel of international banks that IS the federal reserve control over the issuance of our national currency.

The banks and our government effectively became partners in the enslavement of the American people in just a few short moments that fateful night.

It was back in 1693 that the Bank of England became the first central bank of that country of our ancestors. Some really sharp guys who owned that bank back then had figured out you could take over the entire country without firing a shot by doing one thing. Getting the government into debt.

That's right. The creation of debt is the instrument by which the bank effectively took over the government, and that formula works as well today as it did over 300 years ago.

Governments are taken over, and the people of a country become enslaved, when the banks control the government through the governments debts, and the issuance of the national currency.

The trick for the banks of course became figuring out the fastest way to get the government to borrow lots of money.

And this isn't a hard question, folks. What's the most expensive endeavor known to man? Even Dubya knows this one.

War.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the first world war broke out just a short time after the passage of the federal reserve act? It's not. The massive debts incurred gave the banks complete control over our entire country, and that control persists to this day.

The bankers treat government like pushers treat junkies. Give them a taste, make the product affordable and easy to get, and they're hooked for life.

Of course, if you're going to enslave an entire country by turning it's government into a junkie, it would be prudent for you as the banker to figure out a way to make sure the junkie has enough money to buy your drugs, er, I mean service those massive debts.

Enter the passage, make that alleged passage, of the 16th amendment authorizing the income tax.

This isn't the con of the century, folks. It's the con of all time.

The whole scam is actually a perversely beautiful thing in the savage simplicity of it's genius.

So many generations have gone by since that fateful night that The Fed is perceived by almost everybody as the very bedrock foundation of a great economic system, when in fact, it's just the biggest lie ever told.

Yup, the slick SOBs that pulled this off make modern terrorists look like Mother Theresa.

I invite those of you who are intrigued by the notion that our nation was hijacked by a bunch of really rich con men almost a 100 years ago to read the definitive textbook on this subject. It's called The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Read it, and weep.

Then by all means let's fire those obnoxious waiters, and let's sack the cook, and then let's get serious and go after the owners of the restaurant; the banks that have enslaved us all.

We just have do a couple of things. Get a law passed that prohibits government from borrowing, and then take back control over the issuance of our nation's money. Oh yeah, then we get rid of the income tax.

Let's get this junkie into rehab. Cold turkey baby.

Then the insanity that has plagued us for almost 100 years will stop, and America can become the beacon of hope for all mankind that it once was, a very long time ago.

We All Are One - Is There A Comeback

2007-03-16T09:47:00.000-07:00

"We all are one, we are the same person…" wrote Bob Marley, world-renowned reggae singer. But that was nearly thirty years ago, and what exactly has changed? What happened to that profound message of standing in unity and recognizing that we're all human beings with similar needs, feelings, and aspirations?

Very few would argue that all of humanity is connected, and what is happening to one, is happening to another. Globalization has made sure of that. Through the variety of media outlets, we applaud courage, embrace integrity, and defend those who cannot defend themselves. We are the same person -- our achievements, our dreams, our triumphs, are all of ours to share together. We participate in gatherings of all kinds to benefit from the progress that prospers us all. However, when do we stop to notice and change the opposite?

The pernicious doings of others is also our shame and tragedy. As a whole, what we do, or don't do, contributes to the negative realities around us. I watch people criticize and point their finger away from themselves and onto others. I shed tears as I watch a world of people contaminate consciousness by excluding, separating, or destroying. Why do we run into the arms of pretense that bad things and bad people are someone else's problem? I often wonder what has happened to this concept that we are all one.

Then on February 21, 2007, I watched the amazing alliance between Oprah Winfrey, famed talk show host, and guest Bill O'Reilly, the controversial, do-gooder host of the O'Reilly Factor. They joined forces and media power to go after child molesters and predators with a focus on a piece of legislation called "Jessica's Law" in honor of Jessica Lunsford, a 9-year old Florida rape and murder victim. What struck me about the alliance was not only the fact that we needed to band together against these evil predators, but Oprah's final words of acknowledgment that these victimized children were OUR children. She did not separate those children as victims of someone else, children of someone else, but OUR children, and she was right. I felt my spirit come alive with the utterance of a universal truth.

We need to build on that type of expansive thinking. We need to recognize that everything we do in our lifetime contributes to all those we encounter. And all those we encounter influence all those they encounter, and it goes on and on. Everything we do affects us together. If we do nothing, and only focus on our immediate realities, we are contributing and giving permission for others to indulge in all that is negative. Individually, each of us can make a difference.

We are far too connected to escape responsibility. As we have begun to embrace the concept of "shifting consciousness" to enact all that can ever be good for us by shifting from negative to positive; we must also expand our consciousness by shifting it toward responsibility to others. We have the power to positively change a world that is dishonest, cruel, and unjust, if only by shifting consciousness.

TODAY'S SPIRIT urges that we live in spirit and access the power that imagines anything is possible. Shift you consciousness away from "me", and into "ours" to include everyone. We have to do it. We need to get a sense that our community is a world community that is free of exclusion. That is the evolutionary path we are taking to better the world. Every time you dare to imagine a world that is ours together, those thoughts will contribute to evolutionary impulses that will eventually change the world. The results will not be mine, or yours, but ours. This is the sole reason we should remember that we all are one.

What's Worse - A Rogue Male Cop Or Female Cop?

2007-03-14T03:51:00.000-07:00

Greetings again,

Interesting question huh? Well let me put it this way, and by no means I'm suggesting this is true in all situations with every officer. But through working with male officers and female officers, male officers are by far more aggressive and more likely to violate your rights. But here's an interesting thing I have found. If a female officer investigates a domestic complaint, especially a complaint by a female victim against a male victim, WATCH OUT! And if the female officer is the senior officer on the scene, get your hat guys, you're probably going to jail.

I have learned that female cops are no different as officers, than as regular housewives. They tend to be emotional and homey. But as law enforcement officers, they can shoot just as well as males, they can chase you down, and perform any other task as well as their counterparts. The only difference I ever witnessed was on domestic calls.

I would generally want to deal with a female officer than a male officer any day. They simply have a perception of being fair. I'm not knocking the males, but the female officers tend to be more understanding if you run a red light, etc.

I once worked with a female officer that was meaner then a chicken in a fox den. She didn't play. She was so mean that I was scared she would arrest me one day. She gave no breaks or second chances. One day I asked her about this and she stated " That's the law ". She wasn't rogue but stern. Many other times while we were paired together I would observed just how close she became to earning the title of 'rogue' cop. She never earned the title while with me. I earned it later though.

Anyway, this brings me to say, respect honorable police officers. I have to constantly tell myself to commend those who wear the badge with honor, male or female. You should address them as sir or ms. Don't treat them as anything other than what they are, professionals! The only officer that gets plenty press is a 'caught' rogue cop. The good ones rarely gets noticed.

In this article, let me commend all of the good and honorable officers, and I'm sure you have the peoples thanks as well.

Addicted To Myspace

2007-03-12T05:41:00.000-07:00

Ok, I admit I have a problem. A few weeks ago, my Aunt told me how she had been on Myspace.com and how she was having fun adding her friends. I had heard of Myspace but always shunned it because I thought it was for kids and also that any 35 year old man that logged on would feel like an Internet predator. But after talking to my Aunt, I thought it sounded fun and it was also another way to connect with more people and spread the Word. SO, I logged on, created an account, and added all my info. The next thing I did was search for my High School friends. I found several and added them as friends. When you add someone as your friend, that person is sent an email that asks them to accept of reject your outstretched hand of friendship and approve them. It was nice to hear from them because I hadn't heard hide nor hair of them in years. It's always fun to connect with others that you shared a common experience with. There is a kinship there that is very strong.

After I had built a group of about 20 "Friends", the fascination with Myspace began. I devoted many hours to finding and adding people I knew to my "friends" list. This fascination became an addiction because I found myself logging on multiple times throughout the day, to check for any recent additions to High School friends, College friends, and old Army buddies. But as with any fascination, it became a bit mundane because after all of this time spent adding people into my fold, I soon realized that I had found everyone that I personally knew that had an account on Myspace. I was saddened by this, so I decided to add the "famous" folks that have sites. I added new friends such as Jimmy Buffett, Glenn Beck, Todd Agnew, John Couger Mellancamp, every Manchester United Soccer player I could find, and of course, Gary Busey! All of these famous folks were and are now my friends!! I now have a direct connection with all of these folks!!! Maybe I should shoot out an email and see if Jimmy, Glenn, and Gary want to get together this weekend for 18 holes?

Hold it! Tis time to admit that I have a problem. The Oxford Dictionary defines Addict as:

Devote or apply habitually or compulsively.

Ephesians 5:18-20 tells us "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." Whatever the fascination/addiction, we are told in this passage of scripture to instead, fill our self with the Holy Spirit and through Him, the less we will participate in the addiction.

Obviously, this applies to more than a Myspace addiction. This applies to everything from pornography to alcoholism, but I have shown through my Myspace addiction that all of us are vulnerable to addictions of this world that stem from our own flesh and the father of lies himself. So, when you feel the urge to give in to your addiction, reach instead for your Bible. Fill yourself with it and the other will lose its control.

And as for Myspace, don't believe that you really are friends with the famous people you add to your site. Sure, deep down, I want to think that all of the famous folks log and personally add you as a friend, but do they really? Because I am a scientist, I had to do a little experiment. I read in the news yesterday that the British singer Robbie Williams had checked himself into rehab on Monday. But not just any rehab, he checked into a secluded rehab in Arizona where patients have no contact with the outside world. No media of any kind and no visitors either. So, I seized this moment as a way to find out if he is the one running the site or if it's someone else. I found his official Myspace site and added him as a friend on Tuesday. The funny thing was, he accepted my friendship the next day. I am honored that he risked his own sobriety to sneak to a computer in the rehab center and accept me as a friend. Now that is a true friend!

Why Do We Buy Things That Don't Work?

2007-03-10T15:42:00.000-08:00

You probably have a list. I know I do. A list of things that either never work or rarely work as promised. Yet, they continue to be sold day after day. Whether it's an infomercial or a magazine ad for another diet pill or penis enlargement product. Or all the sexual stamina herbs for men and sometimes women. I have a chopper that looked great on the TV ad but is lousy in the kitchen. I guess I should have stuck to chopping soft tomatoes like they did. Anyway, the list goes on and on. So, why do we buy this stuff?

Well, we hate to have to exercise and cut out sweets to lose weight. So the diet pills, or books explaining how to lose fat without any effort, are an easy fix. Sure, it sounds too good to be true, but just what if this one really works? The same is true for any quick solution to our social, albeit, sexual issues. Then there are all the instant-millionaire schemes. Like working at home, buying foreclosures, stuffing envelopes, or starting a website. They are all sure-fire successes just begging for you to buy the details in a DVD, book, or online download. The problem is that when you get it home and read the fine print, it's mostly bullsh*t or a rehash of stuff you already know.

So let's return to the other group; products, foods, and devices. Look at all the exercise items that promise the loss of inches in mere days. They look cheap and are cheap. The models using the machines have terrific abs and perfect bodies. Do you actually think they got that way using the product? Read the fine print which invariably states that: "These results are not typical." When a diet pill offers the same claim, it's further says that; "it works only when accompanied by diet and exercise." So, what's the point of the product?

My chopper was badly designed, but it looked nice. Why do so many of these items end up in infomercials if they are great products? Is it perhaps that no national chain would touch them? After all, Target or Wal-Mart would have to honor the returns for full refunds. These mail-order items have shipping costs that are non-refundable, whether when ordering or returning. So the Ginzu knife or Blue-blocker glasses get you with the additional S & H (shipping and handling) expense. Even when they toss in a few extras, there is always S & H, to offset the freebies. And it's not just mail-order stuff.

From the cheapest pen that never writes to the luxury car that breaks down all the time, we put up with them. I just bought a container of foil-wrapped mints where 50% are stuck to the wrapper and therefore inedible. I have clocks that lose time, calculators that last a month or so, user's manuals that tell me next to nothing and batteries that last only a week. Ironically, my most reliable items are the cheapest. My paperclips, rubber-bands, toothpicks, and scotch tape work pretty well. My one-penny nails are quite reliable. But I can find fault with dozens of products I use daily that drive me crazy.

For instance, my electric can opener, more often than not, doesn't catch on the can's lid. Finally I bought an old-fashioned manual one for three bucks that works every time. This trend is leading us back to a time when life was simpler. Automation isn't always the answer. Soap dispensers can be become clogged, so why not revert to a bar of soap? That type of thing. I understand that we are creatures of habit and like our toys. But we must be wary of false claims not be the guinea pigs for new products. And don't be afraid to return something that fails to live up to the hype. Okay?

Well, I have to admit that I'm writing this article on word processing program off a desktop computer. But I bet I could have done just as well with a pad of paper and pencil. And it would have been less likely to crash, have a virus, give me carpal-tunnel syndrome, or flash a message that announces, "You've got mail!" when it's really just another piece of spam. Nuff said.

Has Lying and Cheating Become the Norm?

2007-03-08T22:45:00.000-08:00

I was looking at Yahoo Answers, a website where anyone can ask and answer a posted question. Many students are posing their homework in search of an easy answer they can turn in as their own work. If you think I'm kidding, there is actually a category called, "homework help." Now I guess that most students figure that Yahoo Answers sure beats having to go to the library or researching the question. But, how many of them think that this is a form of cheating? Do they tell the teacher that they got the answer off that site? The sad fact is that many of the people answering have little or no knowledge about the subject. Heck, they could even using an answer from someone the same age or younger, than the pupil.

I realize that plagiarism has been around forever, which doesn't make it right. But it's just the tip of the issue. Later in life, will these same young adults lie about what or who they are, on a job application? Will they lie to their spouses about where they are at any given time? How will they know the right thing to do if society looks the other way? We tend to justify the lie. When we find little Johnny lying, we make up a slew of excuses for his behavior. He was stressed, under pressure, fearing failure, a product of divorced parents, or just going through puberty. Poor Johnny, he's simply a victim.

A decade later, when he robs a store or shoplifts, he is again a victim of social ills. He lost his job, had to feed his family, or has a bipolar disorder. Poor Johnny. So I have to ask you; when is cheating or lying a sin? We accept the fact that car salesman and politicians make false claims or promises they can't back up. Rebates never arrive as stated. Service people don't arrive on time. We get bad advice from consultants and so-called experts. Store clerks steer us in the wrong direction. Even the IRS people give out the wrong answer over half the time, So, what should we believe about the human condition?

I am somewhat an optimist and hope that the vast majority will do the right thing. In studies where a wallet is dropped on a crowded street, many people will look for the owner. But not all. If you receive too much change back from a clerk, will you point out the mistake and return the correct amount? Are you a good role model for your kids? This not to say that you alone are the mentor. Unfortunately, TV has plenty of shows where cheating is funny. Most recent sit-coms have the husband lying to the wife almost every episode. Then he gets caught, has to make up another lie to cover the first one and hilarity ensues. With this type of situation as our guide, isn't it obvious what we are up against?

Divorce is rampant and mostly due to cheating spouses. Celebrities do it so it must be okay. Having 3 or 4 marriages is no longer a stigma. Priests are having sex with boys and covering it up. Our higher-ranking politicians are getting indicted for lies and deceit. Doctors and teachers are not living up to our expectations. So, where are the formally highly regarded role models? Where do we turn?

Look in the mirror. That's the only one you can trust anymore. It begins right there. Don't worry about the rest of the world. Commit to practicing good morals and ethics in you own life. If you can live a life that is straightforward and above board, then you have done your small part to break the cycle. Your friends and family will benefit from your example and your children will carry forward that legacy, without even knowing it. Ultimately, you are the only one you have to answer to, so be trustworthy and honest. And that deserves a big, Yahoo!

Robert G. Allen Real Estate Scam? Complete Review of the Robert Allen Institute

2007-03-07T01:51:00.000-08:00

Robert G. Allen is a seminar face man who's become popular through his real estate training presentations. Over the span of nearly two decades Robert G. Allen has authored many books on buying property with no money down.

Robert G. Allen has been accused of marketing his materials to people lacking real estate experience. He can make anyone feel like they will be able to profit by simply following his plan. However, much of the info that Robert Allen teaches can be found in disposable e-books.

Allen's past customers have scores of reasons for calling his setup a Robert G. Allen Scam. The Robert G. Allen Institute and his reps use a number of cheap selling tricks at their seminars. I've been told that Robert G. Allen even cries at the podium just to get more people to buy into his program.

Further allegations claim that Allen doesn't make his money from real estate deals but primarily from acting as a seminar front man. Robert G. Allen has also been involved in other marketing schemes. For example he was behind advertising vitamins and a multiple streams of internet income
guide.

I had an opportunity to check out Robert G. Allen's internet learning book. I can say it was not something that contributed to my online business. Throughout the book he focused on how easy it was for him to make close to 90 thousand dollars in one day.

However the thing he skipped over is that he got this done by selling to his opt in list, one that took years and thousand of dollars to create. It's also something that's not readily available to most folks looking to
start an online business.

Overall, Robert G. Allen's bad reputation trails him for a reason, mostly because he's proven to be untrustworthy. There were even rumors going around that his company's bankruptcy was declared to avoid paying increasing refund demands.

Cherokees Deny Memberships of Freed Slaves

2007-03-05T04:56:00.000-08:00

This is what happens in a Democracy! I been kicked out with everybody else?

"Cherokees Pull Memberships of Freed Slaves" The latest news!

That one line says it all? Not on your life! The fact that the Cherokee had a ruling from their own Supreme Court that the enrolled "ex-slaves" descendants could not be cut, lead to a vote! But as you may have mixed feelings about this issue, please be aware, they are probably within their rights to make this event happen! I am not kidding you.

First off, the fact is supposed to be that as many Cherokee owned slaves, they were living inside the reservation. "Reservation" here means; A country within a Country! (see what happened to Israel when they allowed a country to stay within their new Country! Even if they were duped, they should have known better!)

The fact is; as they were living in the reservation, where the Cherokee owned, enslaved, beat, and raped and discriminated against them as a race, they were not originally part of the treaty with the USA. Later, in a second treaty, the USA forced the Cherokee to make a conciliatory codicil to the treaty forcing them to accept the enrollment of ex-slaves descendants then living within the reservation lands. They signed that they would. Gave their word in fact. You know, "they" meaning the Cherokee who forever has said that the "White man has never kept a promise or a treaty!"? That tribe. The Western Cherokee. The tribe in Oklahoma. That one, yeah.

You see the fact is; as Native Americans living in back in the East, they had a reservation there too. The had to give it up. They would not take a few acres and a mule and plow, but wanted to live as hunter/gatherers. (nothing wrong with that) So finally, as the "White" man was taking their lands by force and by plunder, they were moved off by the Government. Thus the "Trail of Tears" event.

The fact is; The Cherokee Tribe is run as a Democracy! That is the way a DEMOCRACY is!

You as an Individual have no rights above the group as a whole. You as an Individual would have rights if the country were a REPUBLIC, which the Western Cherokee Tribe is not. NO they are a DEMOCRACY, the very thing that our politicians want us to accept, by stating that phrase over and over and over! And I'm warning you......if you do begin to see this country as a Democracy, then you too will lose your citizenship!

I SAID;.....You are going to be kicked out of your tribe, your country also! Without a doubt, you will lose, as some now want, your citizenship for any infraction of speaking out against the Government of the United States of America!

Think not? Well just THINKING about certain things will get you a prison sentence! These days all they have to do is believe that you were "Thinking" something in a way that is, to them, criminal, and you will be in the poky so fast that your head will spin! Spit on the sidewalk? Was a Black person nearby? You were thinking disturbing Discriminatory things while breaking the law! You go to prison. You stopped to pray on the corner? Others saw you and joined in? Too bad, there was a Gay Rights Parade going on down that same street! You are breaking the law (assembly without permit) while "thinking" about some Discrimination in regards to other persons close by! That means prison! Period! Oh, you get a trail of sorts, but under what law? The law as the politicians have changed it! Not under the law under which we grew up.

Will the Western Cherokee Tribe get their way? Certainly! And they should I guess, on the grounds that they are a Democracy. But no way are they able to vote to gain or keep their right to self-determination! That sir, is a falsehood! Let me explain.

To vote upon MY right to self-determination, YOU must believe you can do the "determination" of me in some way. Either in a group decision or as an individual decision. Either way is a false-hood. IF I am a free man. IF I am living in a Republic. Then you cannot vote, or hinder me nor my rights of self-determination or citizenship! Self-determination means "self-determination", not "WE as a group have decided......!" Nope. Can't be any other way. Not in a Republic, nor in fact within Society as a whole. To do this is to become Communistic, in a way that some Russians could only dream of!

Self-determination is great. I practice it every day. In fact I change it on a whim! But, if it is not based upon real logic, and that using real truth, then it is not self-determination at all, but a lie!

The fact, of the truth, is; the Western Cherokee Tribe Members are Mulatto! End of discussion. Why do I say that? Because they cannot prove otherwise. You see all the Individual Native American Cherokee, that we know the names of in history, are all interbreed with English; Dutch; French; Spanish. Powhattan and his daughter too, were Mulatto! Pocy' haunt' us' was really saving her grandfather when she saved Smith! She was wrong, but she knew he appeared to be the grandfather! That's history! Look it up.

So the Native American that "invented" the Cherokee Alphabet, Didn't! The painting of him, Isn't!
I know that because his sister said the "White" man cut all his fingers off! And too, he never wore a turban! His letters were not made in the way that is shown! No, the Cherokee writing that was used, painted, scraped, or drawn on all the covered bridges and barns, warning of the disaster of the English and "White" man's taking all the land, was quite a bit different in fact.

The fact, and the truth is; our own Government has made treaties both condoning the addition and the condoning of the discrimination to prevent enrolling of anyone with "one drop" of African blood!
The Charter for the incorporation of the Pamunkey Tribe does not allow persons of African influence to become Pamunkey Tribal Members. And the Western Cherokee treaty and corporation, and they are a Corporation, does. At least as far as the descendants of their slaves it does.

So what is now the fact, and the truth, now? Well, that the Western Cherokee Tribe, voting on an issue to bar persons of African decent from their membership rolls, have just kicked themselves out of their own tribe!

Unions; a Dinosaur

2007-03-02T23:41:00.000-08:00

What is a union? A body of like-minded people. What is a labor union? A body of people seeking rights that laws don't provide. Hmmm. I do agree that in-between the founding of the US, 1492, and today, 2007, we did have periods of time with either no or very weak labor laws existed. When such situations occurr[ed], unfortunately, employers get "High and mighty" too often and disregard employee's needs/rights.

From 1920 through 2006, hundreds of labor laws have been created so that all employees at least, under the law, are treated fairly. One of those laws, naturally, permits employees to unionize. My question is, why would employees want to unionize, with laws that exist to protect them? It is agreed that too many employers still find the need to fill the pockets of the executives of a company AT THE expense of the [lower level] employees. When executives go crazy, it behooves the employees to buy company stock and go to share-holder's meetings and complain and if needed, gain majority positions in the stock and force changes! TV shows and movies have been written about this.

What these movies do not discuss is the negatives of unionizing.

Let me share some of these concerns and negatives with you.

Facts;

When a company is unionized, the union gets a percentage of every employee's paycheck.

While pay equality is supposed to be the idea, it is not. Your author was a retail clerk. A highly skilled retail clerk. While I agree that anyone can be trained to become a retail clerk, anyone can be trained to be anything-that is what schools are for. A meat cutter, a musician and a truck driver earn more money than a retail clerk. That is not equitable or fair. A top truck driver can earn $100,000 a year. An equally trained retail clerk running a department of 15 other employees and $5,000,000 in inventory earns about $15.00 an hour or $24,000 a year, less than 1/5 that of a truck driver!

When a strike occurs at a company by union wanna be's or current union employees, research has shown that the wages lost by the employees is never recovered. Also, a union employee is not more highly skilled than a non-union employee.

When an employee problem exists, rather than solving it on the spot, the union employee has a right to have a union rep on site. Time waster. If the union rep does not like the supervisor's directive, the union rep can call a strike and in US history, it has happened dozens of times.

Next, let's look at what categories of employees are being unionized! Airline pilots. $35,000 to $150,000 a year employees!

Red Cross employees. Entertainers. Some physicians are even considering it. The most highly paid people on earth in some cities of the US are seeking union representation. For what benefit?

Unions, remember, were created to protect employees before the era of worker's rights regarding accidents, fair hearings, and complaints on the job. There are state and federal laws now, to cover all of those employee rights components.

If you were a union officer, what would YOUR main job be? Isn't it "To convert more non-union shops/companies, to union companies-since union employees are paid based on how many conversions are brought into your union; not based on the need of employees.

It is time unions imploded.

Designed By Intelligence

2007-03-01T12:18:00.000-08:00

I studied Microbiology and had helped teach (as a T.A.) Physical Science classes to hundreds of college students. It makes nothing short of perfect sense to me, and, may I add, to my professor, that man may be created by a Superior Intelligence.

That is, to say the least, not illogical to think that the world and man's existence could be planned and brought about by Intelligence. "Intelligent Design," they call it. But I guess all of that is so blatantly non-scientific, offensive, and illegal, that a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district from even reading a statement about intelligent design in biology class, saying, "the concept is creationism in disguise," (AP, 12/20/05).

You see, as early as 1987, our Supreme Court had ruled that states could not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

Now, while it's not my business that people believe that they evolved from apes, ants, and amoebas, when they ban even the mention of a possibility of a Creator in the discussion of man's origin, I think I feel a fit of fury!

One of my favorite t-shirts reads "Designed by Intelligence" and I wear it to protest, to declare my origin, and to teach the science that has been censored. But I do admit defeat…they truly have amazingly managed to get their theory revered by the world and taught to all children as the scientific law of man's origin.

To them I say, you've earned the right and you fully deserve the privilege to put on your t-shirts "Mutated from Inanimate Molecules, Very Primitive Life Forms etc. via an Impossibly Successful Series of Entirely Random Accidents over Many Scientifically-Inexplicable Gaps and Loopholes."

Concerned Citizen, Witness, or Snitch?

2007-02-28T02:18:00.000-08:00

The media play an integral role in the way the world perceives America, especially young black men. It's been said, if you say something enough times, it will become true. Therefore, it is important to put the media on notice when they start to propagate negative stereotypes.
Case in point, Law & Order: CI. I'm a big fan of the show, but I can't let a recent episode go by without registering my outrage and sounding an alarm before mainstream media jumps on the bandwagon of the "stop-snitching" craze, spinning it to portray the black community in a negative light.

The episode, "Flipped," was about a rapper who was killed leaving a radio station. There were several witnesses to the murder. All of the predominantly black characters were afraid of being labeled a snitch and refused to cooperate with the police. Even the black police officer working for the gang unit sanctioned this "don't tell" manifesto. To add injury to insult, there were several young children – about 8 or 9-years-old – who continued to play as if nothing happened, despite the fact that the body of an assassinated snitch flew off the roof landing near their play area.

As a lifetime member of the beloved community, I doubt that there is one neighborhood in America so desensitized to murder that children would continue business as usual amid a dead body; certainly not a black neighborhood. I take offense that Law & Order would devote an entire episode to depicting the black community as a bunch of apathetic hedonists with questionable values, spooked by the thought of assisting the police in any way for fear that they would be labeled a snitch and assassinated.

It is true that snitches are detested in the black community. However, a person reporting criminal activity in their neighborhood is not a snitch. That would be a CONCERNED CITIZEN. Someone that gives an accurate account of a crime is called a WITNESS.

Snitches are the government-made parasites that drop a dime on people for a reduction in prison time, a get-out-of-jail credit, monetary payment, or a hit of crack. When necessary, these foot soldiers in the so-called "War on Drugs" embellish the truth. Quite often, they fabricate stories. Snitches are responsible for nearly 46% of wrongful capital convictions from false testimony, according to a study by Northwestern University Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions. They are also the reason that innocence commissions across the country have concluded that snitch testimony is false and unreliable. Snitches are criminals hustling the system.

Although the media has caught a hold of the "stop-snitching" slogan, the crafty snitch system has also spawned sayings like "Don't Go To The Pen, Send A Friend," and "If You Can't Do The Time, Drop A Dime."

So yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the "stop-snitching" movement, but I refuse to allow mainstream media to frame the issue, creating the illusion that the crime epidemic is fueled by the black community's reluctance to cooperate with police investigations.
The majority of black's are no different than the average American. They want to keep their neighborhoods free of drugs, gangs, violence, and other criminal activities. I'm not saying that incidents of witness intimidation do not occur, but honest people are not conspiring with criminals in some imaginary code of silence.

I will admit that average black is a little closed-mouthed when it comes to talking to the police. That can probably be attributed more to the fear of dishonest police than the fear of retaliation. An honest citizen might offer information one minute, then find themselves in custody for the crime the next minute. They know that when police officers go to court, whether it's on a traffic violation or for a murder trial, they say whatever will guarantee the conviction disregarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

In black and poor communities the police are not trusted, and for good reasons. Police lie, plant evidence, and strong-arm residents more frequently than anyone will admit. Unless the corruption receives major media attention like the Rampart debacle in Los Angeles, the Tulia case in Texas, or the gunning down of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston by police in Atlanta, gun-toting fanatics persist and are rarely held accountable for their abuse.

In the Rampart case, 30 officers and at least three supervisors were accused of framing people. According to the LA Times, the scandal resulted in the examination of more than 3,000 questionable cases. In Tulia, Texas, 46 residents were set up by an unreliable undercover narcotics officer. The victims were later exonerated. In Atlanta, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard is seeking to indict three police officers on murder charges for the botched drug raid at Johnston's home. The magnitude of police corruption cases across the country proves that more than a few law enforcement officers are dishonest.

So let's get it correct. Black people are not a gang of quasi-criminals determined to obstruct justice. They are intelligent people who have learned from the constant injustices perpetrated on black people, that, regardless of our income level, we are presumed guilty even when proven innocent. Minorities and poor white people understand that they are jeopardizing their freedom talking with the police. Very much like the wealthy whites-they call it exercising their Fifth Amendment rights.

To the writers at Law & Order, and any of the mainstream media telling our stories, take care not to present a biased picture of the black community for the sake of "drama." To talk about the "stop-snitching" phenomenon without addressing the unreliable snitch-racket or police corruption is partial and misleading. The black community has enough problems; we don't need a media-driven movement added to the list.

Opposition grows to U.S. militarism

2007-02-18T20:46:00.000-08:00

A report by Sara Flounders

Growing opposition to U.S. militarism is having an impact on the Pentagon’s aggressive war plans far beyond Iraq.

An example of the changing mood can be seen in the mass movement opposing proposed new U.S. bases in the Czech Republic and Poland.

In recent polls a clear majority of the population of those countries is opposed to U.S. bases there. By an overwhelming majority, people are demanding the right to decide on this dangerous escalation in a national referendum.

Thousands have signed their names to petitions and participated in rallies and demonstrations demanding “No to the Bases.”

The petition in Czech Republic states that the bases “would serve to reawaken the Cold War in Europe and could reignite a new arms race. It is unthinkable that a democratic country should make such a decision of such long-range impact, as the acceptance of foreign military bases on its soil, without an open debate. Neither the government nor the Parliament has the mandate to make such a decision alone.”

More than 40 organizations are part of the No to the Bases Campaign formed last July in the Czech Republic.

The approval of the bases seemed a foregone conclusion when the U.S. military started surveying for sites in Poland and Czech Republic four years ago. The missile shield would consist of radar sites and large missile interceptor silos. The radar would have the ability to monitor almost the entire territory of Russia.

Opening a new Cold War

The Pentagon claims that the missile shield is intended as a protection of the U.S. and Europe from missile attacks by what it slanderously calls “rogue states,” such as Iran or North Korea. But the project deals with intercontinental ballistic missiles, which neither North Korea nor Iran even possess. The overwhelming consensus is that the bases are an ominous part of the growing ring of U.S. and NATO bases surrounding Russia.

Russia’s President Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy on Feb. 10 warned of U.S. efforts to open a new Cold War and a new arms race. He denounced the Pentagon’s plans to encircle Russia and place missile sites in Central Europe. The 250 participants at the meeting in Germany included more than 30 defense and foreign ministers.

President Putin said, “The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe.” He also criticized the “almost uncontained, hyper use of force in international relations.”

Outside, as many as 6,000 anti-militarist demonstrators protesting NATO expansion surrounded the building where the conference was underway. More than 3,500 police were used to prevent the protesters from exercising their rights.

On Feb. 7, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, speaking to the U.S. House of Representatives, escalated the threats: “I think we need the full range of military capabilities. We need the ability for regular force-on-force conflicts because we don’t know what’s going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere.”

Belarus, a country of 10 million people located between Russia and Poland, recently expressed its opposition to the expansion of the U.S. dominated NATO military alliance as a clear violation of the NATO pledge not to expand an inch further east if Soviet troops were withdrawn from the East European countries that made up the Warsaw Pact. Nikolai Cherginets of the National Assembly of Belarus was speaking about its southern neighbor Ukraine and Georgia’s move towards joining NATO.

In violation of NATO’s 1990 agreement, NATO has expanded into 10 countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw Pact or into republics that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. The new members of NATO are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. All of these countries have become military satellites of the U.S. and economically dependent on the imperialist West.

Most of these countries have been forced by their relations with the U.S. military alliance to participate in sending troops to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.

Ukraine’s possible admission to NATO would bring Russia’s Black Sea naval base and much of the former Soviet armaments industry within arm’s reach of the U.S. dominated military alliance and it would expand NATO to Russia’s southwestern border. Along with Ukraine and Georgia, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia are on the list of countries waiting to join NATO.

The Pentagon has also moved its largest sea-based missile defense radar in the Pacific from Hawaii to the Aleutian Islands, close to Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula.

In December 2001 Washington unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that it had signed 30 years earlier in order to begin testing a new generation of missiles. These are the weapons that the U.S. wants to put in place in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Now—majority in opposition

U.S. political and economic domination surged forward in Eastern Europe and many of the former Soviet republics after the collapse of the USSR. U.S. and other western-based corporations flooded the region, grabbing and privatizing formerly publicly owned industries and resources. Aggressive U.S. government-funded NGOs set the political and social agenda.

Support for Western capitalist methods is evaporating as millions see the violence and brutality of the U.S. occupation of Iraq and watch with growing apprehension the threats of new and wider wars. The enormous dislocation and insecurity of the capitalist markets has fostered widespread unemployment and low wages while shredding social programs throughout the region.

According to polls in both the Czech Republic and Poland, up to two-thirds of the population oppose the U.S. bases. Both countries, however, are governed by pro-U.S. center-right coalition governments that support the U.S. base proposal.

In the Czech Republic the right wing Civic Democratic Party heads a weak coalition government cobbled together after the country had been without any government for eight months following an election impasse. No political party had sufficient numbers to form a government.

One of the first acts of the new government was to announce that it wants to host the new missile shield system popularly referred to as the “Son of Star Wars.” But the new officials lacked the authority to even enforce a ban on a demonstration of 2,000 “No to the Bases” activists who marched through downtown Prague on Jan. 29.

In Poland, Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski was forced to resign after saying that Poland would take Russia’s concern over the U.S. bases into consideration. Sikorski had also opposed placing at risk the 1,000 Polish troops who will be part of the NATO forces sent to Afghanistan.

Opponents of U.S. bases also criticize the extra-territoriality of the bases, which will become sovereign U.S. territory. Tens of thousands of U.S. forces stationed around the world are not subject to local laws. What actually goes on at a U.S. base, what weapons are stockpiled or are tested, what operations are planned are all secret and not discussed with host countries.

Opposition to U.S. bases has given impetus to a growing political movement that has moved millions of people into militant confrontations with the Pentagon from South Korea and the Philippines to Vieques, Puerto Rico. Even in Italy, on this coming Feb. 17, thousands are expected in a national demonstration to protest the expansion of the U.S. base of Camp Ederle in Vicenza.

The simple democratic demand for a national referendum on the placement of a new generation of weapons and bases in the Czech Republic and Poland is an important struggle against wider U.S. wars and military expansion.

U.S. Says Powerful Iraqi Cleric Is Living in Iran

2007-02-14T00:13:00.000-08:00

A report by Mark Mazzetti

WASHINGTON-The powerful Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has left Iraq and has been living in Iran for the past several weeks, senior Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

With fresh American forces arriving in Baghdad as part of the White House plan to stabilize the capital, officials in Washington suggested that Mr. Sadr might have fled Iraq to avoid being captured or killed during the crackdown.

But officials also said that Mr. Sadr, who has family in Iran, had gone to Tehran in the past and that it was unclear why he had chosen to leave Iraq at this time. Mr. Sadr’s departure from Iraq was first reported Tuesday night by ABC News.

Neutralizing the power of Mr. Sadr, whose Mahdi Army has sporadically battled American forces for the past four years, has been a particular concern for American officials as they try to rein in powerful Shiite militias in Baghdad.

With the new American offensive in Baghdad still in its early days, American commanders have focused operations in the eastern part of the city, a predominantly Shiite area that has long been the Mahdi Army’s power base.

If Mr. Sadr had indeed fled, his absence would create a vacuum that could allow even more radical elements of the Shiite group to take power.

Last year’s election of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki as prime minister enhanced Mr. Sadr’s political stature inside Iraq. Mr. Maliki was elected with the backing of a political bloc led by Mr. Sadr.

American and Iraqi officials have said that recent intelligence points to signs of fracturing within the Mahdi Army, and that radical splinter groups who are not under Mr. Sadr’s control could be carrying out commando-style raids and assassinations.

Officials have suggested that these splinter groups could be receiving orders from officials in Iran, but have not offered direct evidence to back up their claims.

An aide to Mr. Sadr, reached by telephone on Tuesday night, denied that Mr. Sadr had left Iraq and said that the cleric was planning a televised address in the next several says.

Last week, during a raid in Diyala Province, Iraqi forces killed an aide of Mr. Sadr’s who American military officials said had been leading “rogue” elements of the Mahdi Army and fomenting violence against Iraqi civilians and police.

Three days later, Iraqi and American troops arrested the second-highest-ranking official in the Health Ministry, who they said was running a Mahdi Army splinter group and funneling millions of dollars to rogue Shiite militants.

The raids were carried out after Mr. Maliki dropped his protection of Mr. Sadr.

American officials said Tuesday that Mr. Sadr may have seen these operations coming and fled the country to avoid his own arrest.

But military officials in Iraq have also been wary of moving directly against Mr. Sadr, fearing that capturing or killing the militant cleric would further stoke the sectarian violence inside Iraq and turn more Shiites against the Maliki government.

In 2004, American forces arrested several of Mr. Sadr’s top aides and shut down a newspaper allied with the Mahdi Army, setting off bloody clashes in eastern Baghdad and the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

The news of Mr. Sadr’s departure from Iraq came amid an escalating war of words between the Bush administration and top Iranian officials. In recent days, White House and military officials have accused the Iranian government of supplying Shiite militias with the materials to make deadly roadside bombs.

Iranian officials have denied the charges.

Marc Santora contributed reporting from Baghdad.

Some Cubans Welcome Relations With U.S.

2007-02-07T22:53:00.000-08:00

A report by By JOHN RICE

HAVANA -- Some Cubans welcomed a poll released Wednesday showing that most Americans favor renewed diplomatic ties with the communist-governed island.

Cuba's government had no immediate reaction to the poll, but acting President Raul Castro, who took power in July after his brother Fidel became ill, has said at least twice that his country wanted better relations with the United States.
While the AP-Ipsos poll showed 64 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Fidel Castro, 62 percent said the United States should re-establish diplomatic ties broken off in 1961. Only 30 percent said it should not.

The poll, which had a margin of error of 3 percentage points, also showed that 48 percent favored continuing the U.S. trade embargo of Cuba while 40 percent wanted to end it. The embargo -- which Cuban officials call a "blockade" -- sharply restricts U.S. travel to Cuba as well as trade.

Cubans interviewed in the streets of Havana -- while told about support for the embargo -- tended to assume that renewed diplomatic ties would mean a broad range of closer ties. And they liked that idea.

"People have family there, they will be able to come," said Eduardo Pedreira, a 49-year-old parking lot worker who said he has cousins in the United States. "It's been years since I've seen them."

A co-worker, Carlos Luis Haro, said restored relations "would be very beneficial for both" countries.

A block away, self-employed cobbler Roberto Sanchez Cruz, 38, sat at a table in the doorway of a crumbling building, mending a stack of torn shoes with a thick needle. He said he thought new relations would lead to more visitors from the United States and a boost for the island's economy.

"There's a lot of work here, but no money," he said, and dismissed the idea of embargoes and broken relations: "That's all politics. The working people are the ones who suffer."

In December, a Gallup Poll survey conducted without government approval in Cuba's two biggest cities found that those surveyed were most likely to cite the United States as the "ideal partner" for increased commercial ties with Cuba.

The scant contact between the two countries is now handled through Switzerland or via low-level diplomatic offices called interests sections.

On Aug. 18, Raul Castro said in an interview with the Communist Party newspaper Granma that Cuba was open to normalized relations with the United States, though he rejected "impositions and threats" from the U.S.

In a Dec. 2 speech, he repeated that theme: "We take this opportunity to once again state that we are willing to resolve at the negotiating table the long-standing dispute between the United States and Cuba" as long as the U.S. respects Cuba's sovereignty.

"After almost half a century, we are willing to wait patiently until the moment when common sense prevails in Washington power circles," he added.

U.S. law might have to be changed to achieve full relations with Cuba's current government. Statutes restrict ties so long as either of the Castro brothers is in power.

Empty Words From the U.S. Senate

2007-01-28T21:02:00.000-08:00

A report by Michael Barone

Sometimes, it's useful to take politicians at their word. George W. Bush has announced that he's sending an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq, to provide security in Baghdad and Anbar province. Gen. David Petraeus in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee said that it's impossible to achieve that goal without additional troops. He also said, in response to a question from Sen. Joseph Lieberman, that a congressional resolution disapproving of the additional troops would not have a positive effect on military morale.

We don't know whether this "surge" of troops to Iraq will achieve its goal, but we do know that Petraeus is held in high regard. Armed Services voted unanimously to confirm him.

With that in mind, let's look at the decisive words in the resolution approved with a 12-to-9 majority by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and which seems sure to be approved by a majority of the Senate. "The primary objective of the United States strategy in Iraq," reads the resolution, "should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq." Compromises with whom? The al-Qaida forces? What compromises would satisfy them? With the Baathist Sunnis? Ditto. With Sunni and Shia militias? Maybe some would be satisfied by "political compromises." But some probably won't.

Sometimes, the only way to stop the bad guys is to capture or kill them or threaten credibly to do so. It's not a bad idea to pressure the Iraqi government to act against the sectarian killers -- there's evidence it's already doing so. But if they don't have enough military strength to stop the violence -- and no one says they do -- those efforts could be too little.

Here the resolution fudges. "The United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces." It also says it is "not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by increasing the United States military force presence in Iraq."

So we shouldn't fight any harder, and we shouldn't send in any more troops to accomplish something -- the restoration of order in Baghdad and Anbar -- that Petraeus says can't be accomplished without more troops and different tactics.

This seems to envision that we keep doing just what we've been doing until the Iraqi forces grow stronger -- the same course of action that these senators say has failed. Then we should hand over responsibility to the Iraqi government "under an appropriately expedited timeline" -- classic bureaucratic language, which can mean in practice anything you want it to. And then everything will be fine.

Or at least if others cooperate. The resolution states that "greater concerted regional and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation" and "the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq."

Yes, it would and should. But it would and should also help the average porcine altitude if pigs could fly. Like the Iraq Study Group, the senators supporting the resolution are expressing pious hopes that very unlikely things will happen, that the governments of Iran and Syria will nurture tranquility and democracy in Iraq, that the French or the United Nations will come up with a recipe for Iraqi reconciliation that has somehow eluded us unsophisticated Americans. The pigs are up to 30,000 feet now.

"The main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq," reads the resolution, "should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq and accelerate training of Iraqi troops." Another bureaucratic fudge word -- "transition" -- which means that the resolution leaves the timeline for these things entirely open.

So the upshot of the resolution is that we should keep doing for some undetermined period of time pretty much what we have been doing, though it hasn't been working, and we should not do the different things that Petraeus thinks have a chance -- he's not guaranteeing success -- of working.

What the resolution tells us is that most members of Congress, echoing what they think is the view of most voters, yearn to return to the holiday from history that we thought we were enjoying between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Sept. 11, 2001. And that they have no idea at all of how to get there.

Hillary and the Politics of Children

2007-01-23T22:12:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton chose to kick off herpresidential campaign by invoking images of -- what else? -- children. Her healthcare policy would target "millions of children whose families today cannot afford care." Not the families of the children. Hillary prefers to work directly with the children themselves rather than their parents.

"We are talking about health care for children in need, which is about as safe an issue as there is," said Ken Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College.

Safe for a candidate perhaps, but safe for the children and our nation it is not. In casting her questionable health care ideas as a measure “for the children,” Hillary is returning us to the darkest days of her husband’s administration, when a broad range of intrusive government measures were cynically couched as concern for children.

This is more than just another politician kissing babies. It represents one of the most destructive (and successful) strategies of the feminist Left in recent years: the exploitation of children as political weapons.

Hillary is not alone. "Democrats across the board are putting children at the center of their imagery and message," according to the Washington Post. "Earlier this month, Rep. Nancy Pelosi made a vivid impression by assuming the House speakership surrounded by a squadron of young grandchildren. Sen. Barbara Boxer recently questioned whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not having family of her own, could understand the stakes in Iraq." And, of course, a Democratic California assemblywoman wants to criminalize spanking.

The trend may be traced to Hillary’s mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, who admitted she founded the Children’s Defense Fund in the early 1970s upon realizing that the country was weary of the broader New Left agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” Edelman’s achievement was “to put children squarely in the front of almost every domestic policy debate,” according to the late Barbara Olson. In her book on the former First Lady, Olson writes, “For Hillary, children are the levers by which one forces social change.”

Largely through Hillary, this motif dominated Bill Clinton’s presidency. “Children,” wrote liberal columnist Richard Cohen, “have been an obsession for this administration.” His point is borne out by the words of its officials. “Government has got to ensure that parents are old enough, wise enough, and able to care for their children,” Attorney General Janet Reno insisted. Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala was especially zealous for government child-rearing, envisioning a future kindergartener who “will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States.”

One does not have to be a Clinton-basher to see this eerily close to Aldous Huxley’s prophecy of a totalitarian dystopia. Praising Hillary's book, "It Takes a Village," for its message that "each of us -- society as a whole -- bears responsibility for all children, even other people's children," professors Stewart Friedman and Jeffrey Greenhaus insist that we "must be prepared to make the most of the brave new world lying in the future."

"Success in the brave new world." they add, "requires skills found more among women than men."

This is far from harmless, either for public policy or for children themselves. Political scientist Jean Bethke Elshtain writes that “The replacements for parents and families would not be a happy, consensual world of children coequal with adults but one in which children became clients of institutionally powerful social bureaucrats and engineers of all sorts for whom they would serve as so much grist for the mill of extra-familial schemes and ambitions.”

This is precisely what is suggested in Hillary’s aphorism: “There is no such thing as other people’s children.” Hillary rejects the notion that “families are private, nonpolitical units whose interests subsume those of children” and believes instead in “the status of children as political beings.”

Feminist-influenced legal practitioners now openly advocate that traditional parental authority be replaced by bureaucrats: “For those who would like to have the State use its power and resources to improve the lives of children, parental rights constitute the greatest legal obstacle to government intervention to protect children from harmful parenting practices and to state efforts to assume greater authority over the care and education of children.”

These words are published in the California Law Review, a mainstream journal that asks “why parents should have any child-rearing rights at all.”

“Parental child-rearing rights are illegitimate,” declared attorney James Dwyer. “No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.”

A popular joke holds that within the family mom makes the minor decisions, such as how to raise the children, while dad concerns himself with important questions, like how to achieve world peace. This joke is now grimly writ large in public policy. Conservatives who allow their attention to be monopolized by foreign policy and government finance and leave family policy to liberals from the “Mommy Party” will discover only once it is too late the power of “the hand that rocks the cradle.”

Political Parties of United States

2006-10-17T22:41:00.000-07:00

Today, the United States has two major political parties. One is the Democratic Party, which evolved out of Thomas Jefferson’s party, formed before 1800. The other is the Republican Party, which was formed in the 1850s, mostly by people in the states of the North and West who wanted the government to prevent the expansion of slavery into new.

Most Americans today consider the Democratic Party the more liberal party. By that they mean that Democrats believe the federal government and the state governments should be active in providing social and economic programs for those who need money to go to college.

Republicans are not necessarily opposed to such programs. They place more emphasis on private enterprise and often accuse the Democrats of making the government too expensive and of creating too many laws that harm individual initiative. For that reason, Americans tend to think of the Republican Party as conservative.

There are other, smaller parties in the United States besides the two major parties- Communist party and other Marxist Socialist parties.

Where are America's New Leaders

2006-02-06T02:04:00.000-08:00

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself; where are America’s New Leaders? Well many of us have and you are not alone in your inquisitive nature at all. So where are the new leaders? Well, unfortunately we are crushing the best ones due to over litigation in our society and over regulation.

The most honest ones find themselves bogged down in ridiculous rules and regulations even doing local community things. The best entrepreneurs we call crooks and harass for not filling out forms. And the rest we sue into oblivion because they have made the grade and some lawyer who produces nothing decides they can use the law; the law that they and their fellow lawyers have hijacked to take it from them.

So, where are America’s new leaders? Well, they most likely have quit or they do not want the job, in fact we probably owe them an apology really. We need to go back and find these diehards who care about our nation and re-recruit them to join in the common cause for the forward progression of our great nation and civilization.

In doing so it would be the best for all concerned and we would all be the better for it. In fact we might find that we have some superstars amongst us, who have the ability, intelligence and possess enough savvy and perseverance to take us to the next step. Please consider all this in 2006.