The Presidential Debate was like a heavyweight match up among both candidates of John McCain and Barack Obama. In my opinion Obama won the first half of the debate, while John McCain came back at the end. It was a tie in my perspective (This doesn't reflect my views on their policies, but on how they described their personal objectives). Now, the first part of the debate was about the economy. Obama accused McCain of having tax breaks for the rich, promoting loopholes, and being a continuation of the the Bush policy on economic affairs. McCain responded to Obama that Obama will raise taxes in many arenas (from corporate taxes and others in our country). McCain said that raising taxes in an economic recession isn't feasable to develop economic prosperity. Obama believes that middle class tax cuts with a raise of those who are rich (what he deems as those who earn $250,000 or more) is necessary. It's ironic that many Americans don't pay income taxes at all. The narrator of the debate was angry that each man didn't say which program they would cut to solve the economic crisis. Both didn't say anything, because of course they didn't want to offend their constituents of seniors, taxpayers, or interest groups. A person wanting to radically cut entitlements (overtly in a campaign) is taboo among many in the political establishment. McCain was on the defensive in the economy portion of the debate. Both McCain and Obama support FISA, the Patriot Act, and the war on terror. McCain came back during the foreign policy debate. John McCain and Barack Obama accused each other of outlining risky proposals that threaten to not improve the stability of our foreign policy agenda. McCain said that Obama would make defeat a possibility in Iraq. Obama responded that the present Bush policy have cause more Shia agitation in Iraq to cause violence. Barack Obama desires military attention should be made into Afghanistan (which he feels is a breeding ground of the forces of al-Qaeda). They are both wrong. Afghanistan and Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 whatsoever. Al-Qaeda is a CIA sponsored organization with Western intelligence ties spanning decades. The Middle East is more unstable with the neo cons attacking both nations (and McCain wants to agitate Iran with no real dialogue without preconditions. Obama saying that he wants to fight Pakistan if "Osama" was there is wrong as well. These are wise decisions, because fighting either Iran and Pakistan will violate their soverignities and will cause even more agitation in the region). Each man outlined their concern over the lives of the military (when both admitted that they have bracelets of the victims of war).
The Bailout is close in getting an agreement. Many quarters have legitimate reservations about the proposed bailout costing over 700 billion dollars. The problem with the bailout is that is gives the FED too much power, and it doesn't adequately address the causes of the financial mess. It doesn't really help out the taxpayer to encorporate real economic relief (except in limited ways). Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said that the only information he had received about the bailout was what talking points to use on the American people and that he had been thrown out of meetings for not blindly supporting the bill. According to some, U.S. banks borrow $188 billion per day on average in the lastest week from the Federal Reserve. Now, that means that the FED loans more than the Treasury's proposed bailout in just one week. Reuters reported on this situation. The $700 billion number was simply pulled out of thin air by the Treasury. The Treasury’s fact sheet about the bailout states, “The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.” In other words, the Treasury wants to have the sole power in deeming any asset bad and seize it if they want to (under the consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve). The government and the FED is giving even more power to do whatever it wants to the economy (with little oversight of the FED itself). Right now, the Paulson bill is not reviewable in court, which is another problem with it. Actually, it isn't a bailout. It's welfare or a giveaway to the same insiders that caused the problem in the first place (or socialism for the rich and little for the rest of us). It's an unprecendented transfer of power to the Executive branch (and to the global corporate elite). The problem occured decades before Bush (with the fiat currency, the revision of the CRA law in 1995 that didn't cause oversight to prevent banks to give risky loans to people in having mortgages, how some Democrats were funded by Fannie Mae, etc.). Also, the Bush administration aggravated the problem with their war on terror (expanding the budget deficit and having record debts), missing money (like the trillions from the Pentagon and other 9 billion dollars of taxpayers missing through the Coalition Provisional Authority), and overspending. The only solution is a retooling of our present economy system. There should be cuts in money from the war on terror (billions of dollars would be saved) and a focus on creating jobs (especially in our infrastructure which can be established). There should be fair trade deals and relief to those who suffer from home foreclosures. There ought to be no bailout for any criminals involved in this mess. The executive branch ought to never this much economic power at all (Power should be decentralized making more fairness in our political system). You want our money currency to be based upon real assets like gold, silver, etc. not bounded unto fiat currency (i.e. there ought to be no nationalized central banks owning our money via private banks utilizing fractional reserve banking. This unfairly allows private banks to create money with decreasing value. There are about 1 quadrillion of derivitatives. Derivatives are financial instruments which can be risky). Also, people have a right to re-negiotate their mortgage contracts. There is nothing wrong with competing currencies bounded by gold and silver. Full reverse reserve banking should reign, so money value can be preserved.. There is nothing wrong with legitimate accountability and oversight though. There is nothing wrong with tax cuts (especially toward the middle class and the poor. Even Bernanke admits that the bailout is not aimed at helping taxpayers who have their homes foreclosed specifically). On the other hand, tax cuts alone with over spending doesn't equal to economic growth at all. You need to build up economic development via building jobs, having incentives for our growth, etc. Even over 100 economic scholars (and most Americans by polls) from across America oppose the bailout proposal as it stands (not to mention that Congress is passing a 1 trillion dollar defense budget recently. That's a disgrace). The crisis is a means where the elite are utilizing in order to merge the economies (globally) into one. That is why Jeffrey Garten (who is a Council on Foreign Relations member and former policy planner under prominent Bilderberger Henry Kissinger) has penned a piece in the Financial Times of London calling for a 'new global monetary authority' that would have the power to monitor all national financial authorities and all large global financial companies. It's as simple as that.
Eugenics never died with WWII. It's a sick scourge that keeps on going today. Now, eugenics is the pernicious lie that that there are supreior and inferior human beings on Earth (Therefore, the inferior human beings must limit to kill the amount of so-called "inferior" human beings on Earth). Eugenics is one of the motivations of why the Nazis and other globalists do what they do. It's about dehumanization and a succint disregard of the beauty including the uniqueness of all human life. That's true regardless of their ethnic group or background. One supporter of genetics named James Watson said racist comments which he was forced to apologize for that. James Watson also advocated genetic screening of the unborn and abortion for those deemed so-called "genetically unfit." Now, he's a eugenicist accepting pro-Nazi lies plain and simple. Think Progress from Friday, on September 26, 2008 described on how a Louisiana lawmaker faults the media for focusing attention on his eugenics proposal. He's right people should focus on poverty. Yet, LaBruzzo's policy is nothing more than a promotion of eugenics. Louisiana State Rep. John LaBruzzo (R) advocated a form of eugenics (via sterilization) to decrease the number of the poor. He made the sick point that he doesn't want a massive financial responsibility tied to the state. He wants to pay poor people to be sterilized, while giving tax incentives to the rich to encourage procreation. He said that taxpayers are tired of paying welfare program. I really don't care if taxpayers are tired of that. That is still no justification for sterilization. Decades ago in America, people were sterilized by forced for silly reasons like report card grades or the color of their skin. This lying person LaBruzzo should invest in education, mentorships, and other means to build up communities to fight against poverty not sterilization. He also blamed illegals for the economy loss (when actually it's the multinational corporations that allow illegal immigrants to come here along with the FED's policies creating this economic crisis. The illegal immigrants are breaking the law, but are scapegoats for the real players). The real players (found in the Vatican, the Pilgrims, etc.) exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor and political agitation. Welfare is a drop in the bucket as compared to corporate welfare, subidies, and the military budget. LaBruzzo rejected education reforms or helping families as primary solutions. He wants this eugenics plan. He should be ashamed of himself. Here's the truth. The Census Bureau has stats form 2006-2007 saying that in Louisiana the poverty rate for adults with kids is 17%. While the poverty rate of adults without kids are 23%. Therefore, in Louisiana, poverty is not greater among adults having children at all. This information refutes LaBruzzo's lies alone.
Chuck Norris is a different person. I suspected that he was a conservative since his attitude reflected that from his shows and movie. I agree with him a lot of issues, except on the war on terror. In the Human Events website, he criticized the political establishment. He criticized John McCain because of his policies and expressed support for Ron Paul (I guess he doesn't realize that Paul supported John Paul II, refuses to support 9/11 Truth, etc.). Norris is right that there is a big Revolution in Texas and across the nation. People feel an embrace of real liberty. There is an upswing in the acceptance of Constitutional values among tons of Americans. This love is differently in resistance to John McCain's policies. This love of liberty is reflected in folks from across the political spectrum including Evangelicals and conservatives. Chuck Norris is right to call for most politicans to be replaced, because they are the ones who brought us the rut that we reside in today. Norris is also correct that we should cut government waste, not permanently borrow money from nations like China, stop imperialism plus nation building, and bring production in our American commerce. Certainly, the people's rejection of big government (look at Homeland Security), higher taxes, and violations of our civil liberties is at an all time high. Hence, a recommitment to our principles is necessary to getting any solutions done in this society. If you don't have hope, you probably can't do anything. Yet, if you have faith in God, things are possible. The challenges of life shouldn't make us dismayed, but inspired to carry on that tradition of strength of character along with the promotion of authentic liberty in our world.
The Supreme Court is being asked about an abortion issue. Steven Ertelt from LifeNews.com on September 26, 2008 outlined that the Supreme Court will do something today. They will decide on whether or not they will hold a hearing on an appeal in an case dealing with an abortion practitioner (who misled a woman). The abortion practitioner Sheldon Turkish told the potential abortion patient Rose Acuna that her unborn baby was "nothing was blood." The case is being heralded by some pro-life attorneys, because the Supreme Court might for the first time in 35 years to decide whether abortions kills a human beings. Of course, unborn babies are human beings because they have DNA, it grows, it has development, it's one cell or more in size, and it's unique. The New Jersey Supreme Court said in November that it won't reconsider the decision it handed down in September against Acuna. Her attorney filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The case is about a 1996 aobrtion. Acuna said that Turkish misled her about it. The New Jersey court ruled that Turkish didn't have to tell Acuna that the abortion would kill her baby. A kidney disorder made Acuna's pregnancy difficult and Turkish advised her to have an abortion. She was about six to seven weeks pregnant at the time of the abortion. According to the lawsuit, Acuna asked if "the baby was already there" and Turkish replied that it's "nothing but some blood." Acuna sued Turkish, saying the abortion caused psychological trauma including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosexual dysfunction. She was hospitalized for an incomplete abortion weeks later and a nurse told her that Turkish had left parts of the unborn child inside her. A deposition outlined that Turkish admitted that he regularly told pregnant mothers the lie that unborn children were nothing but some tissue. The question is whether a doctor can tell a patient false information during a pregnancy. Acuna was told false information obviously and the Supreme Court might handle the case.
Torture is a big evil. DAVID DISHNEAU from the Associated Press on September 26, 2008 wrote that a contractor says that they are immune from Iraqi torture lawsuits. The CACI defense contractor believes that they should be immune from lawsuits. These lawsuits are about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. CACI claims that they were doing the US government's work as a supplier of interrogators. CACI is based on Maryland and it (along with its sister company named CACI Premier Technology) said in court documents that they will ask for the chages to be dismissed next week. Eleven U.S. soldiers were convicted of breaking military laws in the Abu Ghraib scandal, but no contractors have faced charges. CACI and another contractor, L-3 Communications, are accused in separate lawsuits of a conspiracy to torture detainees in 2003 and 2004. Plaintiffs attorneys said the company’s claim of immunity has no merit. The truth has to come out about this issue. We do know that what happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong. Also, many military people were convicted of their crimes. Some believe that higher up generals endorsed such a policy. Later, we found out that torture memos from the government does exist. Even John Yoo (who is a White House official) caused for little children to torture in a grosteque way. There have been protests about torture and the war on terror from across the world. "Taxi to the Dark Side" is a movie describing the controversy of American torture policy. It's wild to see this. Although, there is nothing new under the sun. Torture is evil from the Papal Inquisition, Pol Pot, Josef Mengele, the Vietnamese assaulting American GIs, and today.
Free Speech and some in the Obama campaign are being conflicted. The situation is that the NRA issued an ad criticizing Obama about his Second Amendment views. These ads are going on in Missouri. Now, the Obama campaign want to illegally impede free speech by wanting folks to go into jail if they so-call "lie" about Obama. The truth is that even ads with some deception have been going on in American politics for decades. Yet, no one is advocating jail time for them back in the day. It's nothing more than a promotion of censorship against ads that the Obama campaign dislikes. This is wild, because this campaign doesn't want ads criticizing McCain banned. Also, both John McCain and Barack Obama aren't above criticism at all. Neither of these men are Messiahs nor gods, they are human beings. The campaign also sent ‘threatening’ letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama’s gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association. World Net Daily reported on this story. The truth is apparent. Obama recently said that the Second Amendment is an individual right for citizens and that people have a right to bear arms. Yet, simultaneously Barack Obama has supported anti-gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning guns. It's a classic example of doublethink. Here's examples of this. He once supported the DC handgun ban then supported the Supreme Court's decision to end it. He was on the board of the Joyce Foundation (which is a large funder of anti-gun groups). Barack Obama even opposed the commonsense right to carry firearms that has lowered crime in places like Florida and Texas. Obama voted for a bill that would “expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition” and “support[ed] banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons,” including 223 and .308 caliber bullets, the most common rifle ammunition. He supported the Illinois Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) Card, mandatory for residents when they buy any firearm in the state (plus raising taxes on guns, and against the usage of firearms for self defense in homes while he was in the Illinois Legislature). To be fair, Obama didn't directly support this censorship, but his supporters did. Restricting campaign ads is fine in dictatorships, but it shouldn't exist in America. So, John McCain and Barack Obama supporters can never intimidate me, because the truth is that they are funded by the same corporate interests they supposedly criticize. Their intimidation and anti-free speech tactics are hypocritically. It's time to promote our Second Amendment rights not pick an choose which Amendments we respect.
The Jesuits connection to the Lord of the Rings book series is becoming more apparent. J. R. R. Tolkein wrote of the Lord of the Rings series. It's popular among children and its movie has sold heavily in the box office. Is their a bigger agenda behind it? There is. Tolkien once told a Jesuit friend: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work... the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." Tolkein was even a strict Roman Catholic. "The Lord of the Rings" book was written in Stonyhurst College in England. Stonyhurst is a notorious college of Jesuit people in them. His story talks about River Shirebourn, when ironically the Shireburns built Stonyhurst. Jesuit Marquette University has the collection of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien's manuscripts. JRR Tolkien was a well known professor of English Literature at Oxford from 1945-1959. His literature was about many ideas, but he was most famous about describing fictional stories (which dealt with wizards, elves, and other magical tales). Tolkien's eldest son was trained to be Jesuit priest at Stonyhurst. Jesuit Robert Murray SJ was Tolkien's friend. Tolkien has another Jesuit friend named David Kolb. Some place parallels between his work and the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and Aristole. The point is that the Jesuits have heavy influence in the world. They have even now in the 21st century. Historically, one of their goals was to destroy the Protestant/Baptist influence in society, because many Protestants plus Baptists have done many contributions in the world (via inventions, abolitionism, etc.
Headlights is obsessed by some in Europe. Ray Massey from the Daily Mail on Thursday, at September 25, 2008 reported on how Europe wants to force people to keep their headlights on all day long. Drivers will face to pay up to £160 a year more for fuel because of an EU directive forcing them to keep their headlamps on all day. This is oppressive and authoratarianism. The European Commission wants all new passenger cars and vans to have lights that stay on while the engine is running. This will estimate to increase fuel consumption by about 5 percent. The directive, which is being sent to the European Parliament for final approval, would come into force in February 2011. They will give truck and bus manufacturers an extra 18 months to meet to the new specifications. Timothy Kirkhope, Tory transport spokesman in the European Parliament, said daylight running could make roads more dangerous. ‘If all cars have lights on, there is a concern that drivers start looking out for lights, rather than pedestrians or cyclists,’ he said. He said that this might cause more consumption of resources. Britian opposed such a measure. Yet, they can't block it because a majority of EU nations were in favor of it. This plan isn't subject to veto as well. The news article predicts that heavy goods vehicles would see costs shoot up by 260 pounds a year. Some green campaigners said that will waste fuel. It will waste feul and create a heavy burden on basic industry services in Europe. It will cause a rise in feul. This is another example of the EU having unnecessary powers against the people of Europe. The European Union wish to achieve their goals even if certain nations reject such a proposal.
Laurie Roth, Ph.D. wrote about Iran. She described about the recent visit of Ahmadinejad into America. It's ironic that religious groups supported his visit like the American Friends Service Committee, Mennonite Central Committee, Quaker United Nations Office, Religions for Peace and the World Council of Churches. The WCC is notoriously globalist and is support of the new world order and harbors other extremist tenets. Ahmadinejad came to a meeting in September 25, 2008 at New York. He was honored by these groups. I don't believe in a war with Iran, but a man like Ahmadinejad is a crooked puppet in my eyes. He was known as the executioner of Evin Prison. He killed tons of political prisoners and he was nicknamed "The Terminator." He was the top commander and head of he Qods Force, in the late 1980s which was a vicious terrorist group. This clique masterminded the assassination of Iranian dissidents around the world. He is an extremist who even called for global government in one of his speeches. Yet, his strings are being pulled by the Ayatollahs of Iran and other interests. We have issues in America, but Iran still has public executions. To be fair, the neo conservatives have exaggerated the threat of Iran. Iran has no nuclear weapons, yet Pakistan and India does. Just because a nation has nuclear weapons, doesn't make them a direct threat to America or Israel. If there must be a dialogue with Iran (without the development of a war), it should be mutual criticism of the bad policies in America plus Iran. We should work together to reform our nations, but not at the expense of denying the evils that continue to exist in Iran.
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment