Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Former FLDS Member Reveals the Truth Behind the Headlines in a New Book
GFA Leaders in India Join Dharna and Peace March Against Persecution
“A Reality Check for the HPV Vaccine” and Couric
Who is Carl Maynard?
This is from Eric's own site
IMPORTANT NOTE: Author Michael Collins Piper is closely associated with the
American Free Press (AFP) – i.e., the old "SPOTLIGHT". Piper has authored
numerous books, including Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK
Assassination Conspiracy (1998), in which he points a finger of blame for
the assassination of JFK in the direction of Israel, the Mossad, and a few
American Jews; yet he FAILS to inform his readers that MANY of the folks
involved in the assassination of JFK, and in the subsequent cover-up, were
JESUIT-controlled KNIGHTS OF MALTA and JESUIT-controlled high-level
Freemasons! -Darryl Eberhart
Now, I'm Truthseeker24 and here's link I've written about this issue:
|Michael John ("Mick") Collins (Irish: Mícheál Seán Ó Coileáin; 16 October 1890 – 22 August 1922) was an Irish revolutionary leader, Minister for Finance in the First Dáil of 1919, Director of Intelligence for the IRA, and member of the Irish delegation during the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations.|
The IRA used to be the Irish Republican Brotherhood.
Because Eric's work is becoming too popular and thus too strong. It's time for the discredit, discourage campaigns to come forth to try to calm this popularity. This will not work because the intelligent see through all the veils now. Silly remarks about Zionism do not wash. One has to understand definitions and the Bible which is based on scriptures way older than Labor Zionism which is very different. But alas people don't know true history or word definitions. They lack these skills and are therefore easily manipulated as we see today. When one highlights the truth to them, they continue on the Profane path. Well let them fall down the cliff when the path ends is what I say. The Pope will be proud of them and their aiding his control. Curt Maynard who? What a bloody idiot! Enough said. These are the people behind the pirating of Eric's work. They wish to cripple his sales and businesses in a disinformation campaign and pirating scheme. Use your heads folks and see through the nonsense. When one gives real truth which is hard to hear then one takes hassles more so from his own as gatekeepers for the system as usual. Silly, ignorant and dumb gatekeepers protecting what they think they understand. Once again falling back into yet another layer of the stinky onion conspiracy, never peeling back far enough to the center.
I've had this one nut on a Christian board call me a Muslim, a Catholic, an unbeliever, ad nauseum.
The knight of malta which controls Michael Piper is Willis Carto. Carto and the John Birsch Society are both SMOM puppets as this article shows.
Pearson, a member of the British Eugenics Society, was educated at the London School of Economics, which was funded by fellow eugenicists Henry Ford and the Fabian Society for the purpose of training an elite caste to govern a new social order: "Obtaining his bachelor of science in anthropology from the University of London in 1951 and his master's in economics in 1954, Pearson showed an early interest in eugenics...He wrote several books on the subject, including Eugenics and Race and Race and Civilization." 30. Pearson was relocated to the United States in 1965 by Willis Carto, head of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby, and became editor of Carto's magazine, Western Destiny.
|QUOTE (Alex @ Oct 1 2008, 12:01 AM)|
|People if you search Michael Collins Piper on the net,he is actually a ROMAN CATHOLIC|
So I was browsing some 2006 archives of the Mike Piper show and check out this one episode from September 2006 for mp3 download.
Monday, 18 - [ MP3s : 1 ]
On tonight's broadcast Michael Collins Piper correspondent for American Free Press (see americanfreepress.net) was joined by Mark Glenn (of crescentandcross.com) and Hesham Tillawi (of currentissues.tv) to discuss the controversy surrounding recent remarks by Pope Benedict that have inflamed the Muslim world. Piper, whose father was a member of a devout Roman Catholic Irish-American family, and Tillawi (a Palestinian American Muslim), and Glenn (a Roman Catholic of partial Lebanese Christian Arabic descent) all agreed that the Pope's comments appeared to be the work of Zionist influence inside the Vatican designed to cast an appearance that the Catholic Church is aligned against the Muslim world. Ironically as all noted there is more commonality between Islam and Christianity than there is between Christianity and Judaism (mass media propaganda notwithstanding). Piper expressed his opinion coming from a position generally supportive of the Roman Catholic Church that for some 40 years since the days of the Vatican II conclave, the Roman Catholic Church and the various Popes have been involved in a multi-level chess game with global Zionist influence. The Zionists have used their media power to try to push the Roman Catholic church in a direction supportive of Zionist interests despite the fact that there remain many traditional genuine Catholics at all levels within the church who are opposed to Zionist influence. In the meantime, elements within the Church that do oppose Zionism are often forced to "play ball" with the Zionists to preserve what influence the church does have on a global level. Now however that the Zionists are determined to make a final push for a New World Order a key facet of which involves the destruction of the foundation of the Islamic faith and the evisceration of Muslim republics around the globe, they are determined to push the Catholic Church into the center of the conflict and use it as a wedge against Islam. Mark Glenn predicted with trepidation that some act of violence against the Vatican or some Catholic leader, such as the Pope, may be utilized by the Zionists (blaming it on "the Muslims") to intensify Catholic opposition to Islam and the Muslim people. Piper, Glenn and Tillawi encouraged grassroots Christians (particularly Catholics) and Muslims to avoid allowing the mass media to provoke a "clash of civilizations), particularly between Catholics and Muslims, which could spark a world war.
So if you talk about media control - what is your take on Rupert Murdochs honor as a catholic Knight of Malta?
And what about Bloomberg, Henry and Clare Booth Luce, Sumner Redstone, Sig Mickelson, Joseph Peter Grace for starters?
Oh - There can be shown much more of it - but you have to be willing to look.
Maybe one should start out by looking at the content on Eric Phelps owns homepage http://www.vaticanassassins.org first. For starters I encourage you to look at the link named "Jesuit General Ledochowski" and read through it.
But Eric Phelps is not the only one out there:
Forum on everything Jesuit and SMOM by Craig Oxley
More details on the Jesuit Powerstructure
Insight into SMOM network in a blog by Philip Jonkers
The copy of an important thread
Another page about Jesuit and Catholic powers by Thomas Richards
And what about the work of good old Bill Cooper - did anyone of you really understand what he presented?
How can you attack someone because of his work, when you not even bothered to give it an hour of exploration?
Would you, dear reader at least by weight of evidence be willing to consider these factors when establishing your view of current and historic world events?
Regarding the diamond matter a quote from Eric Phelps himself:
"That makes me laugh. I do not trade in diamonds or cellphones. My wife is a jeweler (GIA) and on her behalf I arranged a wholesale connection for diamonds who resides in Israel---a totally legitimate business deal via
Thus, if these individuals cannot refute what I say, then they must defer to an "ad hominem attack" which, in my book, is a victory for me and thus ends the debate."
As said often enough I don't see why there are fights about these facts. Everybody has a right to his own oppinion - but throwing out all these historic facts just to proof that one thinks to have found the final stage of power handlers? Shouldn't one have learned to get a broader view of events?
I just posted this following short reply to start - let's see if it will be put online and if there will be discussion instead of dismissal.
Superb response. I don't know if those pigs swilling in mud will ever begin to appreciate pearls of wisdom & diamonds of truth! ;D Be interesting to see their response.
To tell the truth I didn't know much about the diamond industry apart from the "it's all bad" crowd. Having done some research just now, I can see that there is some morally/ethically bad sources, but that's not the whole story. It seems that since 2003 there have been steps taken to ensure that by & large "conflict diamonds" or "blood diamonds" getting into the US are mostly kept to a minimum.
Coffee & chocolate industries are almost all brutal slave-like conditions, unless you go fair trade (which I do), but bet that most people knocking Eric's arrangements here do. Also they are probably buying US products (along with the Chinese ones) & don't associate those with supporting the US Government, so why make equate doing business with Israelis as being the same as doing business with the Israeli government, which Eric ceaselessly criticizes & rejects when he discusses them?
Still its easier to b___ & speculate than do research & consider the facts.
Bearing all that in mind & knowing the responses of the "conspiracy crowd", I guess that such a "find" is inevitably going to be used as the number one weapon in a campaign to knock Eric & the Jesuit/Vatican expose researchers.
Here's some links to brush up on the diamond industry in a balanced manner. Quite interesting:
Feel free to repost this at that forum, I'm in the middle of a few things at the moment & don't know how long the registration process would take, etc.
In truth & awareness -
New York Defends Handgun Database
More Religious News about Rick Warren, Etc.
Economic Destruction of America: It’s All Osama’s Fault
September 30, 2008
Osama bin Laden was a few decades late. “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden declared from the grave back in 2004, or rather from the video studios of the CIA. According to Osama, the “real loser is… the American people and their economy.”
|Back in 2004, they dragged out Osama and ascribed blame. Now as the banker engineered destruction of America is approaching terminal velocity, they may blame the dead nemesis again.|
Over the last few weeks, like victims of a drive-by shooting, we have witnessed the ongoing process of this bankruptcy as it now reaches terminal velocity.
The Evil and Elusive One may have taken credit for wrecking the economy and thus taking down the U.S. government, but in fact this process began when the government was dissolved on March 9, 1933 by the Emergency Banking Act. On June 5, 1933, the 73rd Congress passed a joint resolution to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause and thus dissolved the sovereign authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States governmental offices, officers, and departments. Since that fateful day, the U.S. government has existed in name only.
Before Democrat James Traficant was thrown in prison, he said:
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund.
In other words, Hank Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, takes his marching orders from the World Bank, the IMF, and the international bankers. The banker bailout that supposedly went down in flames the other day — soon to rise cosmetically modified like Phoenix from the ashes — will eventually herald the next phase of the takedown: privatization. Bankers have engineered the crushing federal deficit and will use it as a truncheon to usher in wholesale privatization of social security, medicare, prisons, schools, water, the Federal Aviation Administration, Amtrak, welfare services, public power utilities, the federal postal service, etc., on and on.
How to best accomplish this? Get us all in hock up to our eyebrows. The banker bailout plan — coupled with the massive price tag of the neocon invasions and occupations — will do this magnificently. Now they want to add a “New Deal” to this staggering debt. It’s a New Deal for the bankers, a New Serfdom for the rest of us.
“Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan,” explains Traficant. “Since the federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their ‘economic slaves’, the U.S. citizens as collateral against the un-payable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.”
It’s a feudal system engineered by the international bankers and their instruments — the IMF, the World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, and the Federal Reserve System.
Thomas Jefferson’s admonition is coming true: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
It is a sick joke they dragged out the dead CIA sock puppet, Osama bin Laden, and ascribed blame to him and al-Qaeda. Chances are they will blame him again before it is all over.
Bill Maher: America 'Extremely Religious Because We're Young and Dumb'
Hickory, NC officials agree to respect constitutional right to share faith
3 Pirates Believed Dead in Shootout
The Pentagon in Africa and Jesse Ventura
The Political paradigm
LEFT WING... LEANS TOWARDS SOCIALISM.. +COMMUNISM.. and likes it.
RIGHT WING... leans towards traditions american values derived from the constitution... like private ownership.. private land.. private everything.
(mislead... because the constitution is not in effect and most dont know it)
FASCISM... IS WHERE.. the state desides.. what is right... and you better believe it to.... or else...
not nessasrily.. left or right...
just that they.. the fascists are right... and everyone must get on board.
COMMUNISM... one massive commune... where no one owns anything, and everything is owned by the state, and everyone buys into a belief system where wealth and greed and capitalism is bad... and causes poverty... which it does..
and where everyone makes little money... but they dont need money either, because they get free rent, and food, and social services.
where the economy is controlled.. and the value of the currency has nothing to do with market values.. or any such nonsense.
no one gets rich.. and so... its hard to buy toys.
but no one is starving or homeless either.
and instead of wealth... people can have power... which is like being rich.
and... the police force is typically 10 times larger... to allow the government to maintain those controls.
SOCIALISM... IS WHERE THE governent owns most large buisnesses, and the taxes are high on everyone... but rents are low and price controlled.. all prices.. are price controlled... and the people have various levels of job security and housing security but not as much as communism.
and.. it is possible to own and run buisnesses.. but not really big ones, and the taxes are high.. so its harder to get rich.
-MMAT (Mosheh Thezion)
Read it like a graph with an x-y axis.
It's very simple; democrats want a nanny state, republicans want a police state. We want a free state.Another way to put it is; democrats want the government to be your mommy, republicans want the government to be your daddy, we want the government to treat you like an adult.
The x-axis has to do with economic liberties and the y-axis is about civil liberties... someone who is a socialist wants the government to have lots of control over the economy and the power to re-distribute wealth as it sees fit (ie heavy taxes, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor), and wants the government to control key industries like energy and healthcare, etc. Someone on the conservative side of the axis wants government to have little control over those things, low taxes, no social handout programs, etc. The y-axis is more self-explainatory, someone on the libertarian side believes in personal freedom and privacy from government intrusion into parts of life that don't have to do with money, they would tend to oppose such things as the patriot act and warrantless wiretapping, tend to oppose wars, want total freedom of speech and of the press, etc.Republicans are generally in the top-right quadrant; they want economic freedoms (they don't really but they pretend to) but aren't as concerned with civil liberties. Democrats are the opposite, they are the bottom-left quadrant, believing in civil liberties (which they also only pretend to do) but don't like economic individualism.
The problem is, when the republicans take power, they hammer away at our civil rights but don't do much to protect our economic freedoms, and then when the democrats take power, they hammer away at our economic freedoms but don't really do a whole lot to protect our civil rights (notice how they are protecting Bush from being impeached, and they aren't taking any steps to repeal all the Big Brother crap Bush signed into law over the past 7 years). The result is that the long-term trend is one that is moving towards the upper-left quadrant on the graph, the worst one of all, where the government has power over everything and the people have no freedom at all. This is the goal of the New World Order.
Take the test !!!!!!!!!!http://www.politicalcompass.org/
A conservative means a traditionalist.
Conservatism by definition is neither good nor bad.
In history there have been both royal conservatives - pro-monarch and constitutional conservatives- pro-constitutional republic. Granted you could argue pro and con for either or.
An authoritarian-conservative would be a "strict constructionist" towards the constitution.
A libertarian-conservative would be a "loose constructionist" towards the constitution.
A fascist-conservative makes excuses to "suspend" the constitution and makes plans for continuity of government.
The authoritarian-liberal always pushes for a nanny-state/safety-net functions of government offices. Citing the more corrupt aspects of capitalism, in many aspects of an individual's life. You could argue which is good and which is bad. OSHA, CPS, EPA etc.
A libertarian-liberal accepts the constitution but wants only necessary rules and few regulation in one's personal life.
Anarchists - Have no use for any central government authority, in a pragmatic sense, totally unsustainable.
The x-axis is about how much economic freedom people have, in that context "conservative" means people have maximum economic freedom, ie, low taxes, no IRS, no federal reserve, no government bailouts or socialist programs, etc. Conservative in general doesn't mean wanting things to stay the same, it means wanting to go back to the traditional values our founding fathers embraced, such as following the constitution.
The republican party claims to be "conservative" because that's a marketable word, but they are not conservative at all, because they want big centralized government, empirialism, want a police state and don't respect the constitution. Hence we call them "neo-conservatives" or neo-cons for short which is a way of saying they are fake conservatives, they act like they are conservatives when they are really fascists.
SOCIALIST "BAILOUT" COULD SPARK COLLAPSE
China's new empire in Africa
Monsanto being Exposed via Videoa
If you are outraged at the EPA allowing these poisions to be in our water, PLEASE take a few minutes to protect your family by watching the follwing that has been BLACKEDOUT from all forms of media, even places LIKE inforwars because Monsanto threatens to take action.
-FOX Reporters FIRED for truth:
Monsanto’s PUS Milk-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1pKlnhvg0
-Seed of Death-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5jU3S9BinI
-Monsanto: End of Life- (This video also lists the FDA, EPA, and Government officials who were/are also top Monsanto personal (starting at 2:27 in video)This is the most blatant criminal conflicts of interest I have ever seen, but main stream media refuses to inform the people.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJcZLXX39KA
-Monsanto Patent for LIFE (Pt.1 of 5)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o
-Media BLACKOUT, Wake up America!-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0iGIFd0BTg
Bailout by Stealth
Bailout by Stealth
The Corbett Report
September 30, 2008
The media is falling all over itself to report on every minutiae of the so-called Wall Street "bailout bill" and its rejection by Congress yesterday (just a few of the thousands of examples can be seen here and here and here and here). And why not? The media’s breathless coverage of the bill has produced a furious backlash by the public and hysteria on Wall Street in a self-justifying feedback loop that makes the media attention seem merited.
The startling truth which the controlled corporate media is not reporting, however, is that a bailout is actually taking place right now, completely out of the public spotlight. This program has already pumped trillions of dollars into Wall Street (compared to the mere $700 billion proposed in the legislation that the media is focusing on) to help prop up the faltering investment banks and promises to pump in even more, every dime of it to the detriment of the taxpayer though the public will have no stake in its success. Why, then, is this program not being talked about in the media?
Slipping under the radar last week amidst the hullabaloo in Washington over the bailout bill was this story noting that in the past week alone, the Federal Reserve had pumped an astonishing $188 billion per day into the system in the form of emergency credit. This means that in just four days, the Fed injected as much money into the system as the entire $700 billion bailout proposal. After the proposal was rejected, the Fed responded by immediately announcing it would pour another $630 billion into the global financial system.
The Federal Reserve, of course, is America’s central bank and although the above story conjures the reassuring image of a national bank lending out some of its vast reserves to help Wall Street weather the storm, the fact is that the Federal Reserve is not Federal and has doubtful reserves. In fact, the trillions of dollars that have been lent to the banks in the last few weeks were created out of nothing by the privately-owned Federal Reserve. When the Federal Reserve "lends" money to a bank through repurchase agreements (repos), credit auction or other method, it is not actually lending out money from its vaults. It is simply creating the money it "lends" out as electronic credits created in the recipient banks account. It is literally money out of thin air.
That the general public is on the hook for this money created out of nothing is not an exaggeration. It is paid for in a dimly-understood mechanism often known as the "inflation tax."
Inflation is nothing more than an indication that the ratio of money to products that can be purchased with that money has been increased. Since the overall number of dollars has gone up without any corresponding increase in economic production (as happens when the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air), the value of each individual dollar goes down. That means that the value of the money in each individuals’ bank account (not to mention their pension and social security dividends) can be reduced simply by the flick of a pen of a Federal Reserve paper-pusher. (Unless of course that individual just happens to be a billionaire investment mogul or a Vice President who can divest themselves of U.S. dollars in time for this inflation not to affect them.) This is sometimes known as an inflation tax because its overall effect is the same as if the government came in and took that value out of the individuals’ bank account. Watch Ron Paul explain the inflation tax in the video below:
The most insidious part of this inflation tax is that the inflation does not begin until the new money begins to circulate in the system. In other words, the first person (or, more likely, giant corporate conglomerate) to use the money receives its full value, while those at the bottom of the pyramid retrieve the diminished returns of a devaluing dollar.
Why, then, is the public not furious about this stealth bailout, now taking place at the blistering pace of nearly $1 trillion a week, and all to the taxpayer’s detriment? The obvious answer is that the media is not whipping the public into a frenzy about it, instead focusing its attention on a $700 billion program and allowing the public to feel like they scored a blow against Wall Street when the program gets rejected. If so, it’s time the public got wise to how the system is really being run by and for the benefit of private bankers and at the expense of the average taxpayer. Otherwise, the fleecing of the public will continue unabated even as the public thinks they’ve won the battle.
Cyber Security Expert: Hackers Planning To Steal Election For McCain
Planned Parenthood Continues Trashing Sarah Palin on Abortion, Rape Kit Lies
A Critique on James Dobson
Bill would ban suspicionless laptop searches
Bill would ban suspicionless laptop searches
September 30, 2008
Bill would require ‘reasonable suspicion’ before DHS electronics search
Any customs agent who wants to go poking around your laptop’s hard drive is going to need a legitimate reason to do so, if legislation proposed Monday is adopted.
As it stands, the Department of Homeland Security has virtually unfettered authority to search, copy and archive the contents of laptops, cell phones and digital cameras travelers carry into the US. Sen. Russ Feingold wants to change that.
Feingold (D-WI), who has criticized DHS’s policy, introduced the Travelers Privacy Protection Act along with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA).
“Most Americans would be shocked to learn that upon their return to the U.S. from traveling abroad, the government could demand the password to their laptop, hold it for as long as it wants, pore over their documents, emails, and photographs, and examine which websites they visited – all without any suggestion of wrong-doing,” Feingold said. “Focusing our limited law enforcement resources on law-abiding Americans who present no basis for suspicion does not make us any safer and is a gross violation of privacy. This bill will bring the government’s practices at the border back in line with the reasonable expectations of law-abiding Americans.”
Last year, DHS reversed a two-decade old policy that required reasonable suspicion before Customs and Border Patrol agents could search a travelers’ documents, including the contents of laptops, cell phones, digital cameras and other devices. The new policy also made it easier for DHS to share information it collected with other law enforcement agencies, a provision civil liberties advocates could let those agencies use DHS to conduct warrantless searches on their behalf and subvert the Fourth Amendment.
Feingold’s legislation would require “reasonable suspicion of illegal activity” before DHS agents could search travelers’ electronics, and it would prohibit the agency from holding onto the electronics or copies of files for more than 24 hours without a warrant. It also limits what DHS could share with other agencies.
Civil liberties advocates hailed the legislation’s introduction.
“Congress cannot allow DHS and CBP to turn our borders into Constitution-free zones,” added Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel. “Americans have the constitutional right to privacy, and that includes the sensitive and personal information we keep on electronic devices. DHS has been rolling back these privacy safeguards, and doing so without proper oversight and public review. Senator Feingold’s much-needed bill seeks to restore our fundamental protections. Furthermore, it allows for overdue congressional oversight and a public discussion concerning our border security.”
The bill also would prohibit profiling visitors based on their race, ethnicity, religion or country of origin.
Amir Khan, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, previously told Raw Story that he has been singled out for additional screening every single time he has returned to the US from trips to Europe or Pakistan. The California resident estimates he has been detained for at least 20 hours, during which his laptop and books were examined by border agents.
“I asked many times, ‘What can I do to resolve this?’” he said. “They told me there’s nothing I can do.”
DHS revealed the expanded authority granted to Customs and Border Patrol Agents earlier this summer in documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by two civil liberties groups.
The agency also previously released its border search policy following to a subcommittee hearing on the laptop searches this summer. No one from the agency would show up to explain the policy during the hearing before the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which Feingold chairs.
Bill Maher and Conan O'Brien on Sarah Palin
Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer
Monday, September 29, 2008
Jesuit Related Pictures
Who is Hank Hanegraaf (from the Christian Research Institute)
Bailout information by Joseph Farah
The Massacre of Innocence (Exerpt)
Chalmers Johnson, The Pentagon Bailout Fraud
Bailouts and Big Updates
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.
Presidential debates are a stitch-up
Presidential debates are a stitch-up
September 29, 2008
The idea that the presidential debates are “high-risk TV” in which the candidates can be questioned “on any subject matter” is laughable (90 minutes in TV spotlight that will make or break candidates, September 26). The debates are profoundly undemocratic. The “private” corporation that organises them, the Commission on Presidential Debates, was established by the Republican and Democratic national committees in 1986 and serves their interests.
Before the debates take place, the two-party organisations jointly draft debate “contracts” which define exactly what will happen during the “debate”. This includes screening which topics will be discussed, who can attend the debates, who can ask questions, how long each candidate will have to answer and that there be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rubuttals and no follow-up questions.
Moreover, the CPD has set criteria that deliberately exclude third-party candidates from taking part. To join the debate, a third-party candidate must be able to demonstrate that they expect to receive 15% of the public vote. This is three times greater than the 5% political parties must achieve to receive major party status and receive public funds.
The polls used to determine expected support are not required to list candidates other than those from the two main parties. This stage management does not lead to a debate but a glorified press conference.
Dr. Maria Ryan
University of Nottingham
Financial crisis? Not to worry. President Bush says he’s on top of things. What could possibly go wrong there?
Massapequa, New York
Mormonism Freemasonry And The Occult
The Baphomet and the Fleur-de Lis
The Power Elite Playbook
The Ruling Class-Sponsored Race War and the Balkanization of America Part Four: Rushdoony's Bastards and the Hijacking of the Ron Paul Revolution
Note by Me: This is a must read.
Extra Bailout News
State Legislatures Considered More Pro-Life Bills in 2008 on Abortion, Bioethics
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough breaks We Are Change camera in confrontation
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough breaks We Are Change camera in confrontation
September 29, 2008
MSM Propagandists Joe Scarborough & Mika Brzezinski meet We Are Change
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough broke a We Are Change camera phone after losing patience with questions directed his way about 9/11 truth.
Scarborough was accompanied by co-host and fellow “mainstream propagandist” Mika Brzezinski, who was met with statements introducing her to the surrounding crowd: “This is Mika Brzezinski. Her dad started al Qaeda.” Scarborough piped up, “Is that what they say?” “That is really what they say,” We Are Change members responded.
Joe Scarborough roundly dismissed and refused to answer to why he and other MSM pundits have conflated 9/11 Truthers with terrorists. Scarborough himself called for Truthers to be tasered after Bill Clinton was confronted during a speech. One of his co-host then added: “hopefully taken to one of those secret prisons in eastern Europe and never to be heard from again… I hope we have a special prison for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.”
Moments later, Scarborough was questioned again after he and Brzezinski thought they had escaped the crowd.
Matt Lepacek posed a question about WTC7’s unexplainable collapse inside the building, and Scarborough simply talked down to him, feigning some fake response about baseball before slapping down the iPhone camera Lepacek was holding. Apparently, the media not only won’t report the facts, but don’t take well to questions either.
The camera, worth approximately $500, fell beneath the elevator and was only later recovered with the help of the building staff. Though the memory card and footage was intact, the screen was shattered. Scarborough walked away, leaving Mika Brzezinski in the elevator.
My Response to Sandra
September 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I quit getting my daily dose of Rush Limbaugh after the raid on Waco and the murder of those people. No I’m not “religious” anymore but those people were murdered and their constitutional rights were violated. The week that happened Rush Limbaugh defended Janet Reno and that decision. That told me right there that Limbaugh saw the republicans taking over in the near future and he wanted them to have that kind of authority.
From your post I think it should be clear that it’s high time to keep the wall of separation between church and state intact; to shore it up even stronger than it’s ever been. That goes for the global religionists you mentioned. I live in a town of 5000 people and it’s covered with churches so that is the appropriate place for public expressions/endorsements of religion not to mention the FACT that religion has never been outlawed in schools, kids have always been able to privately pray to their god; but the constitution is clear that the government itself is to remain neutral and not promote any one religion. Churches can paint the 10 commandments on a sign and put it up in the churchyard but not one church in this town has that “display”…and yet, they make a political issue out of trying to put them up in courtrooms or the courthouse lawn (and they make millions of more dollars from the people by whipping them into a frenzy over this unconstitutional attempt)) Give me a break! When I was a christian I prayed everywhere all the time and nobody even knew it because I kept it private…..just like the bible says in Luke 6:5 and 6:6. You don’t give James Dobson enough credit, when he says jump millions of evangelicals ask “How High” and his deal is to make evangelical beliefs the law of the land. Grassley did nothing illegal, he was violating nobody’s civil rights yet that is exactly what Dobson and other leaders accused him of and it looks like that’s the “spin” you’ve bought into. I refuse to stop critizing them because they need more citizens to vocalize what they’ve been doing to our country; they’ve opened themselves up for citicism; they sling mud, tell lies, spread rumors then try to say they’ve got “superior morals”….but cry FOUL everytime they come under any scrutiny. Well, it’s time for that little arrangement to come to an end.
You can vote for who you want to. I voted for Howard Phillips in 1996; I’m just saying that in the big scheme of things we have a two party system and like I said nobody is gonna make everybody happy all the time but one man (GWB) who I voted for in 2000 hasn’t done one damn thing to make me happy. The democrats need to grow a backbone and stand up to the right but they act like they’re scared….but the right is scary because they have SO much power with the common people by manipulation their religion. Any time they’ve [democrats] attempted to move the country in another direction the far-right pudits have had their flock call, call, call and bitch, bitch, bitch until they back down from the pressure. I’m hoping that if Obama wins this election the democrats will see that they don’t have to go along to get along…in fact, they need to fight back. The democrats need to start shoring up “their base” and stop worrying about the criticism they’ll get from the right because the right will always critisize the left even when the left caves to their demands.
My fear is that since the Bush administration has set a prescedent with executive order after executive order to bypass congress, not showing up for supoenas like you or I would be expected to, answering “I don’t recall” everytime they do happen to make an appearance, secrecy on top of secrecy…..and spending more time on ensuring that their party alone will have ultimate power…that the democrats [if they win] will become drunk with power and do the same thing, knowing that since Bush has gotten away with it they will to. I hope that doesn’t happen but only time will tell.
I’m stating facts about evangelicals, you can call it a steortype if you want. Obama did not do the things that the NRA accuses him of in that ad though. And frankly, there does need to be some “rules” to gun ownership, just as there needs to be “rules” for wall street; otherwise, you’ll have chaos and anarchy in a society. — The far-right sure as hell wants rules on people’s private, legal behavior (their sex lives) which is none of their business as long as they’re not breaking any current laws…….and yet, they can’t keep their own pants zipped up or their own panties on. But on the flip side (in order to get their way on social issues) they’ve supported no rules on the uber wealtlhy which is why we have this financial crisis going on today. Now there’s a match made in “hell on earth”.
I'm glad you quit Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh isn't even a true conservative, because he denies the existence of the new world order, supports the torture in Abu Ghraib, and loves the anti-conservative Bush policies. Rush Limbaugh thinks that the Patriot Act is fine when it violates individual liberty and the concepts of warrants. Waco was wrong and the Feds murdered innocent men, women, and children in that incident (along with CS-gas). Rush Limbaugh is a neo con who rarely discusses about real issues (from GM problems, the flouridation of our water supply, etc.). Republicans and Democrats have committed errors. So, nothing unusual is about that. Now, I will answer your words one by one. The seperation of church and state doesn't exist at all in the Constitution. There is an establishment clause. Now, this clause says that the government can't have a national church (or establish a religion). Yet, it should perserve religious expression. There has been violations of religious liberty all over the place in America. You are in error by denying that. During the 1990's, the Supreme Court tried to stop some of the religious violations going on in schools. Religious expression has been restricted heavily in schools from children not mentioning the name of Jesus in a speech to California nearly banning homeschooling. You need to get that clear. Also, the Philadephia 11 involved innocent Christians being arrested for promoting their views peacefully in 2004.
It was so immoral that the court in PA threw the charges out of court. Now, the seperation of church and state was promoted by the Supreme Court explicitly in the 1940's. You being from a small town doesn't deny threats to our religious liberty. A lot of our religious liberty violations occur in urban locations. Doctors who are Pro Life have to use the ADF (or the Alliance Defense Fund) to protect themselves from others wanting to force them to commit abortions. Yes, there should be a distinction between church and state. Although, this distinction doesn't warrant violation of our liberties. The 10 Commandments publicly displayed is as legal as the images of Moses holding the commandments on the Supreme Court pediment. Also you using Bible verses is ironic since you reject religious views. Now, private prayer is fine. Yet, Jesus spoke the Sermon of the Mount in front of a multitude of people. You forgot about that. Also, banning public religious prayer means missionaries could be banned. I concede to you that Grassley did nothing illegal in his prode. Yet, me talking about religious liberty issues isn't spin. You spin with you claiming the religious conservatives are monolithic. You spin by obsessing with blaming religious people while wanting to deemphasize religion (Also, many atheists have committed crimes from Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot).
You spin by sucking up to Democrats in spite of both major parties being funded by the same corporate forces. Now, I don't cry foul. In fact, the anti-religious zealouts cry foul constantly, but ignore innocent religious people being jailed and imprisoned in Canada, England, other nations of Europe, etc. for just peacefully expressing their views religiously. Now, James Dobson is an establishment puppet. He is a threat by sucking up to the anti-conservative John McCain. The answer to him isn't more stereotyping of religious folks. It's the education of people that McCain doesn't have the interests of people on many issues (from his support of anti-First Amendment Laws, his advocacy of the war on terror, and McCain's support of FISA). I will criticize apostate religious people as you do, but I won't be naive and refuse to expose radical anti-religious extremists from many sides as well. The WCC is just as wrong as Dobson. Your voting is interesting. Democrats should have a backbone, but I'm not into the 2 party monopoly any more.
There are many Democrats and Republicans who love liberty though. Bush having too much executive power is true. I abhor the White House's secrecy on many accords. We agree on many things. Calling Bush a conservative Christian is a myth though. Bush is a Skulls and Bones member, loves the occult Bohemian Grove, respects Ecumencialism, etc. He is as much a conservative Christian as Al Sharpton is. Therefore, Bush isn't one. Now, Chuck baldwin, Cutting Edge Ministries, etc. are conservative Christians who have exposed the Bush administration for years more stronger than you have. You need to understand that. Also, there is nothing wrong is not being ashamed of your religious beliefs. It's great, but that shouldn't be a justification to promote a theocracy. Bush's policies being far right in fantasy. Bush has supported over spending and little oversight in the economic affairs. Bush has increased government more than any President in American history (with NORTHCOM, Homeland Security, etc. This is bigger than LBJ's "Great Society" agenda). That's hardly conservative. With the massive bailouts, Bush is an economic socialist. Oversight and accountability is very conservative and liberal principles, so Bush being far right is silly. Bush expanded government, want illegal wars, have nation building, and pass laws which violate individual rights. That is not conservative. That's anti-conservative. You need to comprehend that. He supports the interests of multinational corporations not the American people specifically. The economic crisis we have existed for many decades among both Republicans and Democrats (who supported the CRA revisions and refused to regulate Fannie Mae in the early part of this decade).
The NRA ad was mostly accurate about Obama. Obama haven't called for just simple, little restrictions as you claim (which I don't support, because all citizens have a right to own any gun they want as long as they don't commit a crime with it. Law abiding citizens owning any gun they want along with the law stopping criminals is hardly choas at all). Obama has support big gun restrictions. Here's examples. It's a fact that Barack Obama opposes common sense right to carry laws. It's a fact that Obama opposed in Illinois the right of citizens to use guns for self defense purposes while they reside in their home. It's a fact that Obama supported high taxes on guns, the restriction of certain ammunition, and the hatred gun rights by supporting the DC gun ban. He only supported to outlaw the DC gun ban when the Supreme Court stopped the DC gun ban. Now, Obama may say that he agrees with the individual right of citizens to own guns, but his record doesn't bear that out completely. So, you can't refute that at all. Hence, Obama did do some of the things the NRA accused him of (Although the NRA made some errors). You can't refute that at all unless you use deception. This ad is apart of the First Amendment and some of Obama's supporters wanting to ban it is hypocritically and disgraceful. You talking about sex lives is silly. Roe v. Wade is the epitome of the federal government dictating how people conduct their reproductive lives. Even libertarians oppose Roe since it federalizes abortion laws. Abortion is murder and it should be opposed of course. Now, many conservatives and liberals are moral people. Immorality exists among any human being irrespective of party. Not to mention that legitimate laws do exist that regulate sexual behavior from rape, incest, and pedophilia. So, in most cases, it should be none of your business except if these actions harm another human being or violate moral principles. You should reject these silly stereotypes of yours. Sandra, I told you to bring it. I will bring the facts continuously toward you. Sandra, I've answered you.