On my last blog, Thoughts on the Primaries (1?), I typed about the threat of our current status quo. Our politicians are nothing other than puppets or marionettes, for the Establishment. : ( We must stop this tyranny. The first (and most important) action is to protect the voting process. We should either have the ballots counted by hand. Another idea, is to give every voter an anonymous identity of number (and this will be done at the precinct level). And, if a vote really is miscounted, the voter could bring up his case (and a governmental check will be done). All in charge of counting votes will be bipartisan. The federal government shall ensure bipartisanship and a lack of conflict of interest(s), while the local area (probably individual precincts) will actually be conduct the process. Before even this can happen, we must prevent fraudulent votes (hence one of the reasons why we need to stop illegal immigration). Contrary to what the Establishment says Diebold, and the ilk, are not the solutions; they actually leave RIGGED elections, a possibility!
The next move is to crack down on lobbying and campaign contributions. We need to limit money that can be donated to politicians from multinational corporations. There shall be no money laundering (such as Wal-Mart giving money to a purely domestic company, to "softly" give money to political campaigns. States should do this, when and where the Federal government can't (and shouldn't for some). Also, when politicians retire, they may not become lobbyists (for f0r-profit organizations). They same applies to the Board of Directors (of for-profit companies).The only exception is if they receive below $100,000, on an annual salary (retirement coverages for the firms shall also be scrutinized. If they do so (without an exception) they will lose congressional pensions and health care coverage. There will also be a very higher tax rate (enough to make a profit from the lobbying firm, rather meager). We must wean our politicians off of the teat of Multi-national corporations, if our nation is to survive.
The third move is to bring anti-trust laws (and strengthen current ones we have). Our major broadcasting channels and whole news-media, shall be localized. Corporations with a commercial conflict of interest (to deemed by a bipartisan commission), will be forbidden from owning media outlets. Newspapers will be localized (not everybody should be reading the New York Times; read your own local newspaper! The more local, the better.) Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and the like will have major decentralization in the media. For example, Fox News, inc. won't be able to control what all of its viewers see (especially on political matters) what all of its viewers could and would see from New York to Los Angeles, from Canada (and Alaska) to Mexico. Think: Decentralization! On top of this, Rupert Murdoch won't be able to control his former channel, as he already has the Conglomerate's collection, in combination with corporate interests. His power, "trust," monopoly, must be destroyed. This is just one case in point. Channels should stop "Poll Results" for the Presidential Campaigns. They are being used by a channel to subtlety endorse a candidate. Broadcaster: "Hi, everybody! [The other week, we totally fixed the Presidential debate, purposefully to prop our choice candidates.] It looks like Huckabee is the most popular candidate, right now. He has the highest approval ratings. Everybody says he won at our hosted debate. He is great! Now, here is America's favorite, Pastor Falwell, Jr. Hi! Mr. Falwell, Jr." Falwell, Jr.: Hi, just so you know, everybody, Huckabee is a great guy! He is a fiscal conservative, and most importantly a 'man of God,' endorsed by our protecting Establishment!" B: "Yes, indeed. ........." And they go on, and on, with this propaganda, with a "Huckabee is winning and many think God is hand-picking him, so let's spend the whole time building his name recognition, while ignoring the others, especially Ron Paul. And here is one of the very few times they talk about Paul (which only occurs when he is doing well, so as to discredit his success): "Ron Paul is a nut! He thinks the North American Union is desired by our bosses in the Establishment! He wants the terrorists to win! He wants to get rid of the whole Federal Government! He is a Racist, a White Supremacist! He wants to let innocent foreign non-Whites die! He hates Abraham Lincoln; he might even be happy, he died! His supporters are loonies!" This is just the tip of the iceberg, as they try to deface his name, and misrepresent everything he says. All they can do is throw fallacies. Because, people tend to pay so little attention to politics (they just listen to the "major" issues) they tend to know little about political matters (except Britney Spears' latest shopping spree, and such!). They also rely too much on emotion, and what they are told to believe. The corporate-owned media knows this! And everything is staged! So, rationally speaking , one could well accept that Ron Paul meant "I just wish Civil War could have been settled diplomatically first," but the paid broadcaster equates this statement to actually opposing Lincoln's legitimacy. I greatly admire Lincoln for what he did, but even from the perspective of Ron Paul disagreeing with Lincoln, that is the whole point of democracy. People are supposed to have their own views, if they wish. This is the whole point of our Democratic Republic, which itself legitimized Lincoln's election. So, therefore, Paul couldn't have been challenging Lincoln's legitimacy. He is actually protecting what truly legitimizes him! But I digress! My whole point is that people need to dig into the information, themselves, and not rely on corporate interests, to tell them everything!
Maybe those who can't think for themselves, shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's one reason why minors can't vote, they would just vote whomever their parents supported; just like people vote for whomever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh tell them to. The same thing is happening in the Democratic party, with Barrack Huessin "Osama" Obama.
Take care, and have a nice weekend!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Thoughts on the Primaries: 1/8/08
I have noticed the national presidential primaries have been acting rather strange. Obama won, and Huckabee, a.ka.a "Huckster," won Iowa, for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. According to what I heard, Mitt Romney won Wyoming. Yea! America wants Obama and Huckabee!
But wait; there is a catch! Only about 200,000 Democrats voted (which is a record high for Iowa; and it was very nearly a perfect 3-way split), roughly 20%ish of the Iowa Democratic Party. But it's really a given that the main three (Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards) were the leading 3, although almost (or about) 80% of Iowa's Democratic voters didn't vote! That leaves a lot of room, for those 3 leaders. What happened is just that Obama's turnot was higher. It's possible (though far from confirmed) that if all Iowa Democrats had voted, Obama may have lost. But whatever the case, he just got the most turnout, and that is all that matters (even though a relatively small percentage of a million voted for him, out a few million).
Wait, again! Republican turnout was even smaller. Republicans had almost as little as half of the turnout, as the Democrats did! (This doesn't look good for the GOP, come General Election time.) Mr. Huckabee won Iowa, for the Republicans. Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong, but I believe Huckabee got only less than 40,000 votes! A population smaller than some college campuses! And this is for the whole state of Iowa! I attribute his victory in Iowa, to two things:
1. massive "MSM" media exposure. Ever since the debate in St. Petersburg, FL (in early November), the corporate media has been fixated (and "sucking up" to) the "Huckster." It has said "Huckabee's poll numbers are so high!", "Iowa wants Huckabee!", "America wants Huckabee!" So my question is, is the corporate media really so accurate in predicting the elections, or is it influencing it (how do we know Huckabee didn't have increased turnout from die-hard supporters and those on fence (voting for him, only because the media told them to))? Name recognition is actually more important than positive/negative statements. I can't explain how much it helps, how important it is, even for me, and I consider myself politically alert. Now imagine about those who "just don't give a darn," or are too preoccupied. There is a reason why Ron Paul didn't fare better than he did. What the media did was make the public vote emotionally (i.e. Iowa, which is supposedly over 97% White, gave the highest number of its Democratic votes to a Black man, who has a White mother. I honestly don't know all of the voters' intentions, and I am not pretending to. However, it's very likely that some Whites felt guilty. They felt morally superior, by voting for a Black man (regardless of the issues, as long as his policies are anti-White); they just had to elect a black man. Many (if not almost all) of this type would promote massive race-mixing (involving Whites, of course), even if it meant European (includes "Whites" in the U.S. and Canada) extinction; but I digress.) Most American registered voters (and obviously those elgible to register to vote) don't vote. And many don't pay much attention. The only ones voting in very high numbers are people who feel very passionate about their candidate, their issues, and/or democracy (in principle). But for the ones who payed vague attention, probably understood things as "Ron Paul says Abraham Lincoln was an awful President!" (which is false. I actually support Lincoln's decison to go to war but the media is misrepresenting what he actually said. What he really said was that Lincoln should have tried diplomacy first. But That is not what matters in politics. What matters is that much of the American population is mad at Ron Paul, because of what the media claimed "he said."Negative emotions ran high, because of a corporate media- induced misconception. It also painted Ron Paul as a "nut." It also made him look "anti-American" and "pro-terrorist," because he opposes oppressing countries, just because a few terrorists might reside in them. Emotions win the day, again! Huckabee also stole Paul's message (as well as Dwight D. Eishenhower's campaign slogan, to a degree. Remember of or heard of "I like Ike." for Dwight. Well, Huckabee has "I like Mike." (for Huckabee; How original?). Paul and Huckabee are the only two (0f two or three) candidates acceptable to the Religious Right. And the corporate media wanted Huckabee to take Paul's votes, before the latter could pick up steam (and have a chance at winning). It has apparently worked!
2. His supporters were just more enthusiatic. I remeber observing somebody's local campaign, not because he wasn't the best candidate, but because the winner belonged to a major church group! The media gave latter the most attention (by far); and as turnout was low (less than 10,000 voters out of over 135,000 registered voters actually voted), he had a large group of direct supporters (as a result of one church). Less than 10% voted. And the winner had less than 10,000 votes. But a biased media, and a well connected group of wacky people (who connected to very large groups of other "Theocrats") won him the election!
To be honest, I have mixed feeling about universal voting (in Democracy) for every single citizen. Turnout is always absymal, and a very large percentage (often enough to swing individual elections) of the voters happen to be excessively radical (and crazy). I think there should be an IQ test and/or a civics knowledge test given, where maybe only those who are half-intelligent (0r more, obviously) and/or those who have a clue to the election's candidates, can vote.
On those who do vote, voting on emotions is dangerous. Our Republic can survive, only if we, the voter, vote on the basis of reason, and not pure emotion. The corporate media can easily influence the emotional. It's much harder to manipulate people well grounded (anchored) with reason. If our Democratic Republic survives, it will be because of us upholding reason's supremacy!
But wait; there is a catch! Only about 200,000 Democrats voted (which is a record high for Iowa; and it was very nearly a perfect 3-way split), roughly 20%ish of the Iowa Democratic Party. But it's really a given that the main three (Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John Edwards) were the leading 3, although almost (or about) 80% of Iowa's Democratic voters didn't vote! That leaves a lot of room, for those 3 leaders. What happened is just that Obama's turnot was higher. It's possible (though far from confirmed) that if all Iowa Democrats had voted, Obama may have lost. But whatever the case, he just got the most turnout, and that is all that matters (even though a relatively small percentage of a million voted for him, out a few million).
Wait, again! Republican turnout was even smaller. Republicans had almost as little as half of the turnout, as the Democrats did! (This doesn't look good for the GOP, come General Election time.) Mr. Huckabee won Iowa, for the Republicans. Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong, but I believe Huckabee got only less than 40,000 votes! A population smaller than some college campuses! And this is for the whole state of Iowa! I attribute his victory in Iowa, to two things:
1. massive "MSM" media exposure. Ever since the debate in St. Petersburg, FL (in early November), the corporate media has been fixated (and "sucking up" to) the "Huckster." It has said "Huckabee's poll numbers are so high!", "Iowa wants Huckabee!", "America wants Huckabee!" So my question is, is the corporate media really so accurate in predicting the elections, or is it influencing it (how do we know Huckabee didn't have increased turnout from die-hard supporters and those on fence (voting for him, only because the media told them to))? Name recognition is actually more important than positive/negative statements. I can't explain how much it helps, how important it is, even for me, and I consider myself politically alert. Now imagine about those who "just don't give a darn," or are too preoccupied. There is a reason why Ron Paul didn't fare better than he did. What the media did was make the public vote emotionally (i.e. Iowa, which is supposedly over 97% White, gave the highest number of its Democratic votes to a Black man, who has a White mother. I honestly don't know all of the voters' intentions, and I am not pretending to. However, it's very likely that some Whites felt guilty. They felt morally superior, by voting for a Black man (regardless of the issues, as long as his policies are anti-White); they just had to elect a black man. Many (if not almost all) of this type would promote massive race-mixing (involving Whites, of course), even if it meant European (includes "Whites" in the U.S. and Canada) extinction; but I digress.) Most American registered voters (and obviously those elgible to register to vote) don't vote. And many don't pay much attention. The only ones voting in very high numbers are people who feel very passionate about their candidate, their issues, and/or democracy (in principle). But for the ones who payed vague attention, probably understood things as "Ron Paul says Abraham Lincoln was an awful President!" (which is false. I actually support Lincoln's decison to go to war but the media is misrepresenting what he actually said. What he really said was that Lincoln should have tried diplomacy first. But That is not what matters in politics. What matters is that much of the American population is mad at Ron Paul, because of what the media claimed "he said."Negative emotions ran high, because of a corporate media- induced misconception. It also painted Ron Paul as a "nut." It also made him look "anti-American" and "pro-terrorist," because he opposes oppressing countries, just because a few terrorists might reside in them. Emotions win the day, again! Huckabee also stole Paul's message (as well as Dwight D. Eishenhower's campaign slogan, to a degree. Remember of or heard of "I like Ike." for Dwight. Well, Huckabee has "I like Mike." (for Huckabee; How original?). Paul and Huckabee are the only two (0f two or three) candidates acceptable to the Religious Right. And the corporate media wanted Huckabee to take Paul's votes, before the latter could pick up steam (and have a chance at winning). It has apparently worked!
2. His supporters were just more enthusiatic. I remeber observing somebody's local campaign, not because he wasn't the best candidate, but because the winner belonged to a major church group! The media gave latter the most attention (by far); and as turnout was low (less than 10,000 voters out of over 135,000 registered voters actually voted), he had a large group of direct supporters (as a result of one church). Less than 10% voted. And the winner had less than 10,000 votes. But a biased media, and a well connected group of wacky people (who connected to very large groups of other "Theocrats") won him the election!
To be honest, I have mixed feeling about universal voting (in Democracy) for every single citizen. Turnout is always absymal, and a very large percentage (often enough to swing individual elections) of the voters happen to be excessively radical (and crazy). I think there should be an IQ test and/or a civics knowledge test given, where maybe only those who are half-intelligent (0r more, obviously) and/or those who have a clue to the election's candidates, can vote.
On those who do vote, voting on emotions is dangerous. Our Republic can survive, only if we, the voter, vote on the basis of reason, and not pure emotion. The corporate media can easily influence the emotional. It's much harder to manipulate people well grounded (anchored) with reason. If our Democratic Republic survives, it will be because of us upholding reason's supremacy!
Monday, January 7, 2008
New Hampshire Primaries
New Hampshire Primaries start tomorrow; Iowa and and (I believe) Wyoming have already voted.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
http://www.republicoflakotah.com/
JAN 1, 2008
Notice to All Foreign Governments and Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah
TO:
The United States of America;
The States of: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska;
The County and Municipal Governments Operating within the Republic of Lakotah; and All Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah
Lakotah, through its government, have appointed representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America.
Lakotah, through such representatives, have formally withdrawn from all agreements and treaties with the United States of America. The reinstitution of our freedom and independence is found in law.
Lakotah has reclaimed sovereignty as a nation and over its traditional lands.
Despite many years of repeated bad faith on the part of the United States government towards the Lakotah People, the Lakotah hold no animosity toward the American people, most of whom have had no part in the actions of their government. We wish to deal with the American people in good faith and in a win-win manner.
While we have the right to impose liens on all of the real estate in our country, we prefer to come to resolutions with you all with out resorting to such measures. Accordingly, at this time, we are only declaring liens on real estate held by governments foreign to the Republic of Lakotah, but not on real estate held by private parties.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties substantiate this freedom.
Lakotah welcomes the opportunity to meet and discuss this matter. We are in the process of scheduling meetings and will issue public invitations. Should you desire input with regard to scheduling these meetings, please contact us at the above.
Russell Means, Chief FacilitatorProvisional GovernmentRepublic of Lakotah
JAN 1, 2008
Notice to All Foreign Governments and Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah
TO:
The United States of America;
The States of: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska;
The County and Municipal Governments Operating within the Republic of Lakotah; and All Private Owners of Real Estate within the Republic of Lakotah
Lakotah, through its government, have appointed representatives to withdraw from all the treaties with the United States of America.
Lakotah, through such representatives, have formally withdrawn from all agreements and treaties with the United States of America. The reinstitution of our freedom and independence is found in law.
Lakotah has reclaimed sovereignty as a nation and over its traditional lands.
Despite many years of repeated bad faith on the part of the United States government towards the Lakotah People, the Lakotah hold no animosity toward the American people, most of whom have had no part in the actions of their government. We wish to deal with the American people in good faith and in a win-win manner.
While we have the right to impose liens on all of the real estate in our country, we prefer to come to resolutions with you all with out resorting to such measures. Accordingly, at this time, we are only declaring liens on real estate held by governments foreign to the Republic of Lakotah, but not on real estate held by private parties.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties substantiate this freedom.
Lakotah welcomes the opportunity to meet and discuss this matter. We are in the process of scheduling meetings and will issue public invitations. Should you desire input with regard to scheduling these meetings, please contact us at the above.
Russell Means, Chief FacilitatorProvisional GovernmentRepublic of Lakotah
Thursday, January 3, 2008
11/2/08 News Blog!
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59466
'MS-13' vandals deface Vietnam memorial.
Fox News also excluded Ron Paul from debate! : (
'MS-13' vandals deface Vietnam memorial.
Fox News also excluded Ron Paul from debate! : (
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Happy New Year's Day!
Happy New Year's Day!
(image can be found at http://echeblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/happy-new-year.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)