Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Giant Free Speech Zone In Crawford, TX? is splashing this breaking news.

" just spoke with Karen Bernal, Volunteer Coordinator at the the Crawford Peace House who confirmed that the arrests began at around 9:30 AM this morning. Hadi Jawad co-founder of the Peace House tells us that 15 people were arrested, including Daniel Ellsberg and Dede Miller, Cindy Sheehan's sister.

Three months ago, McLennan County Texas passed an unconstitutional ordinance banning parking or standing on hundreds of miles of rural roadway. This is the equivalent of a giant free speech ban, mirroring similar freedom destroying free speech zones used across the country to stop protestors from getting information to the media."
The Real Effect
To early to say exactly what is happening, but when former diplomats are being arrested for protesting on a rural public road paid for with our tax dollars, something isn't right.

Edited for appearance and labels on 3/23/2010.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

EU to Set Up Spy Satellites

For your edification, I submit the following.

Earlier this week it was announced that the European Union is setting up it's own set satellites to be used
"in guiding relief work after disasters or providing real time images of forest fires or oil spills."
Riiiiiiight, a multi-billion dollar system to help with forest fires and oil spills. Can we get the truth please?
Known as the "Global Monitoring for Environment and Security" (GMES)" , "...a commission memo also acknowledged that GMES would play a key role in the "implementation, review and monitoring of EU policies", including watching for agriculture and fisheries fraud and boosting "internal security".
The Real Effect
Wow, they aren't hiding their final objectives anymore are they? The GLOBAL Monitoring for Environment and Security. Watch for an increase in centralization of power shifting from the United States to Brussels and the European Union, setting up the scene for the forth-coming global prince. There is a strong chance that we will get a glimpse of him in June of next year, but more on that, later.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Regarding Democracies

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths. ~ James Madison, Federalist Papers (# 10) 4th president of US (1751 - 1836)

FTAA and Paris

The weekend has come, gone and with it, much of the world's sanity and common sense.

In France, the 10th day of rioting by French Muslims has gone by resulting in thousands of cars being torched and massive civil uprising. It would appear that having a large (10%) population that is not being 'melted' into the culture has resulted in a level of "jihad".

In Brazil this weekend to push the American Union, err...I mean free trade, was President Bush.

The Washinton Post, reports the following -
"President Bush challenged Latin American leaders on Sunday to choose between competing visions, one that would ensure social justice through democracy and free enterprise and another that would reverse progress by eroding democratic institutions and heightening fear."
Soooooo, it's the old speech from 9/11, 'if you're not with me, than you're against me.' In addition, by directing the comments at the supposed Venezuela dictator Hugo Chavez, it further polarizes the argument. Why, if you're not with Bush, then you're with Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Now let's do something that we rarely like to do in this sound bite, media driven country. Think.

According to the Post's version of Bush's rhetoric, we get the following:
  • There are ONLY two options, that, surprise, surprise are in diametric opposition to one another.
  • HIS vision ensures social justice and democracy. (I am reminded of a bumper sticker that I recently saw, "It's a REPUBLIC, George!")
  • Not accepting his vision 'heightens FEAR' and erodes democratic institutions.
The Real Effect
Now follow me here.

With regards to immigration and the border, many conservatives talking heads have good takes on much of this information. However, I believe they come up short of realizing the total intent of those that push these machinations of supposed "free trade" upon us.

They view the open American border as a result of spineless inaction on the part of Republicans and cold calculation on the part of Democrats.

I believe the truth is far more insidious. BOTH sides want the border wide open because they create a base/incentive for creating an American Union. This creates the instability needed to usher in 'regulations' needed to control all peoples in all nations. I believe we are starting to see a culmination of this practice taking place in France right now. And we are seeing the same thing occurring in the so-called border war here at home.

This leaves all observers to basically come to a few possible conclusions -
  1. Our leaders are inept, if not incapable of doing their constitutional and elected duties and as such should be removed. Immediately.
  2. Their intent is less than honorable and they stand benefit financially and politically. They fully intend to sell us out in order to sell us their 'solution'.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Why Today's Conservatives Are Yesterday's Liberals - Part I

Part I - Definitions

Today's modern conservative moment has become an empty shell of what used to be a powerful movement.

By definition, the term 'conserve' seeks to preserve something that currently exists. For instance, if I have $50 and seek to be conservative, I would spend as little of it as possible. Or if I am conservative with my car, I would seek to prevent damage to the systems that make my automobile what it is.

There was a time and place in this country where conservatism in this country meant a strict adherence to the law enumerated in the Constitution of the united States and the legal laws that were enacted after. Today, it has come to mean little more than 'not liberal', a severe bastardization of the true intent of conservatism.

It takes little reading of supposed bastions of conservative thought to realize that they have far less in common with conservative ideals than a monkey has with a Honda Accord. Juggernauts of thought 'dance with the devil' and betray their motives to their base as they consistently excuse and even times encourage the bureaucrats to steal their liberty to defeat those who merely appear more dangerous today. Common sense is thrown down the drain as today's movement seeks to out-Clintonize William Jefferson Clinton.

But in order to understand this, first we must understand what it is that we are conserving.

Despite the incessant rhetoric, our country is NOT a Democracy. It never was and prayerfully, never will be. It is a Constitutional Republic. Put simply, this means several things:

  1. You and I possess all rights that are inherent in being human.
  2. We PAY servants (not officials) to represent us in the making of laws. We GRANT our representatives the right to officiate on our behalf. We reserve the right to remove them if need be, by vote or other methods if necessary.
  3. These servants make the laws that govern our land with our input.
  4. They are constrained by the chief law, the Constitution, which they are legally bound to obey.
So, by definition, a conservative would seek to conserve what is already in place, the very things that has allowed our country to become great. When one seeks to change it into something it is not, that person leaves behind the definition of conservative.

For instance, President Bush passed a law which would provide prescription drug care coverage to senior citizens on Medicare. Nowhere in the law (Constitution) does the Congress or the President possess this authority to enact this type of law, yet it is done anyhow.

By definition, this act in itself is unconstitutional(against the law) and should be viewed as a crime. No servant (especially the Federal government) has the right to grant itself rights.

Let's explore this idea for a second.

If I go through a drive-thru at my local restaurant and order some food, when I give my cashier my credit card, there are strict rules which govern the transaction. Despite the cashiers pay status, he cannot grant himself a raise at my expense. Nor does he have the right to confiscate my food and give it to the homeless. We have a word for that. Theft.

We rightfully jail people for doing that and yet every day legislation is debated and passed which is against the law and is little more than coercive theft. Congress cannot (legally) decide that suddenly it has a vested interest in producing carpet and decide that they need to regulate the industry as it been granted no rights to do so by it's constituents, namely you and I.

The Real Effect
So in truth, what we have in Washington is a group of professional sham-men that continue to tell us that the best course of action for our lives is that we let them run it. They have done this on many levels, some albeit minutely legally and the vast majority, illegally.

Here are just a few: Education, Welfare, Agriculture, and Transportation.

Just because we are used to the stench of bureaucratic filth does not mean it is good. I for one, no longer tolerate being told what to do by my paid servants. I suggest you do the same. Because if you fail, you are no more conservative than many were in 1930's Germany.

Edited for spelling, appearance and labels on 3/19/2010.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Bird War 2006!

In a move that throughout the ages has been used to enslave a given population in the name of saving them, the Associated Press reports -
"President Bush outlined a $7.1 billion strategy Tuesday to prepare for the danger of a pandemic influenza outbreak, saying he wanted to stockpile enough vaccine to protect 20 million Americans against the current strain of bird flu."
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we trying to conserve money at this point? We are even going to the point of cutting school lunches to conserve money, namely $3.7 billion. Can someone please call Bush and ask him these two questions:
  1. Since when does the federal government have the constitutional authority to administer a vaccine program?
  2. Does cutting $3.7 billion in one place and spending $7 billion more in another equal a reduction in spending?
"The fact is, our country is going broke," said Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio. "We're spending money we don't have and passing it onto our kids, and at some point, somebody's got to say, `Enough's enough.'"
Really. I agree completely, but perhaps we need to stop overall spending, not just pet projects that will get your own party slaughtered in the 2006 elections.

The Real Effect
I see this as nothing more than attempt to line the pockets of the makers/shareholders of the proposed vaccine. More specifically, according to Global News Matrix, Donald Rumsfeld, George P. Shultz, Lodewijk J.R. de Vink, and Bilderberger chairman Etienne F. Davignon.

We have no threat, yet we are most likely going to spend billions on a non-existent virus.

Edited for appearance and labels on 3/19/2010.