Elephants Sending Text Messages in Kenya!

Kenyan elephants have been texting local wildlife rangers warning them that they are heading towards the crops of neighboring villages! The elephants from the Ol Pejeta conservancy have been equipped with mobile phone SIM cards on their collars which automatically send text messages if they head towards local villages. The bull elephants, which are almost extinct, have previously raided villagers' crops during the harvest, sometimes wiping out six months of income at a time.
As a result, the Kenyan Wildlife Service has reluctantly had to shoot five animals that have been particularly persistent. But now a virtual fence has been set up using a global positioning system that mirrors the boundaries of the conservatory.
Kimani is one of the bull elephants with a SIM card. Whenever he approaches the virtual fence, his collar sends a text to rangers, who can head him off using spotlights to frighten him away. Kimani has been intercepted 15 times since the project began. Once almost a nightly raider, he last went near a farmer's field four months ago. The idea, drawn up by the Save the Elephants group, is now a huge relief to the small farmers who rely on their crops for food and cash for school fees.
31-year-old mother-of-two, Basila Mwasu, lives near the conservancy fence. Once an elephant stuck its trunk through a window into a room where her baby daughter was sleeping and the family had stored some corn. She was forced to beat it back with a burning stick. On another occasion, one of the elephants killed a neighbor who was defending his crop. "We had to go into town to tell the game (wardens) to chase the elephants away or we're going to kill them all." said Mwasu.
The founder of the Save the Elephants project, Iain Douglas-Hamilton, said the project is still in its infancy, and is not without problems. The collar batteries wear out every few years and with Ol Pejeta having five full-time staff and a standby vehicle to respond when a message flashes across a ranger's screen, the project has been very expensive. It is however a great success, as the villagers now feel safe.
"We can live together", said Mwasu.
"Elephants have the right to live, and we have the right to live too", she added.
Adam H. Bolton is an International News Researcher based in the UK

Invisible Clothing Fit For Harry Potter

What would you do if you could become invisible? Answers to that ever popular question range from the criminal (rob a bank) and obscene (spend a day in a women's locker room) to the political (super-efficient government spies) and bizarre (walk around naked in public). To many the question is rhetorical; it doesn't matter what they would do because it's never going to be possible. But for scientists hard at work on developing cloaking devices, the question is more pertinent.
In an article on cnn.com, Elizabeth Landau looks at two groups of scientists working on separate invisibility projects, both of which have achieved moderately promising results. Graeme Milton, a mathematician at the University of Utah, is working with a team of scientists based in Australia on invisibility models that use a superlens, a device that makes objects seem to disappear. Seeming to disappear is very different from actually becoming invisible, and so far the theory only applies to small objects, such as clusters of dust particles. This is a long way from invisibility as Harry Potter and his marvelous cloak know it.
So far Milton and his team have only been able to prove their theories mathematically, however, back in 2006 a Russian professor, Oleg Gadomsky, actually patented his method of optical camouflage. Gadomsky used his knowledge in quantum and optical electronics to arrange gold nanoparticles in a stratum that "cloaks the image of an object to the other side of the stratum". Wearing a parka-like garment, Gadomsky demonstrated his "invisibility cloak" to great success and can even be viewed on a video that has done the rounds on the internet.
On a completely different tack, SkinScan has used all available technology to develop fabric that mimics skin tone to create the illusion that the fabric is in fact not there. Jerold Kritchman & Co., the creators of Almost Invisible™ Clothing hold fast to their belief that the natural tones and colours of women's skin is inherently glamourous and go by the politically correct motto of "My colour is my sensuality".
SkinScan™ Technology records skin tone and reproduces it on a number of different fabrics, which can be used in the cut and design of a number of different products customised to individual needs. Kritchman hopes that clothing that looks invisible when worn will open up a whole new area for clothing fashion designers to explore.

Comparing and Contrasting Indebtedness - Japan Versus the United States

In Japan, cash is king; in contrast, American consumer spending appears to revolve around plastic credit cards. At the root of the difference in attitude is the notion that a lack of cash translates into a foregoing of immediate gratification in Japan, while by and large American holds the monopoly on instant gratification with the help of plastic. While avoidance of debt may be a virtue, the underlying though processes speak of a reluctance to be indebted to anyone, whether a bank or a foreign country; when comparing this attitude to American sentiments, it becomes obvious that the latter do not share in this notion and the country as a whole finances its excesses by selling off bonds which the former are eagerly buying.
Whether it is a mistrust of the banking system or a cautious holding on to tangible riches rather than paper promises of stocks owned, Japan's consumers refuse to risk their financial health while American consumers are almost playing Russian roulette with the loans they willingly take on.
It has been said that Japan's love of cash is rooted in its willingness to value stability over risk taking, while America's unwillingness to let go of plastic may be traced directly to its ability to engage in even the riskiest behaviors if the odds look like the gamble may pay off. While not a stigma per se in the States, bankruptcy in Japan is considered to be shameful enough for many debtors to take their lives when faced with the option. It is not surprising that what the people practice at home is being practiced on the national level as well. While America is selling treasuries to fund its spending, Japan is buying them and thus controls in many ways whether the United States economy will remain afloat or take a dive.
Polling Site: Presidential polls.

Bomb Blasts in 2008! Is India Going the Iraq Way?

If barely a day goes in Iraq or Bosnia without military attacks and car bombings, you can assume that it is a peaceful day for them. India, one of the peaceful countries is the world is suffering from the highest number of terrorist attacks and bombings the country has ever seen in 2008.
Flashback to the serial bomb blasts on March 12' 1993 in Mumbai which gave rise to the term 'serial blasts'. Since then intermittently, there has been terrorist attacks in various parts of the country, mainly in Mumbai, the commercial capital of the country, the second biggest one being the one on July 11, 2006 where bombs exploded in the first class compartments of suburban Mumbai trains, resulting in heavy loss of life and limb.
Two years later in 2008, India been plagued with bomb threats and bomb blasts by terrorists who resort to emailing TV stations before and soon after commuting the act. Though the terrorist call themselves Indian mujahedeen, Indian police have deciphered IM as a non entity working under the garb of SIMI(Students Islamic Movement of India. Take IM of SIMI and you get Islamic Mujahadeen. The police are taking bomb threats very seriously and are on the massive manhurt to nab the terrorists of the Delhi blasts At the time of writing, an email has been sent to media organizations in Mumbai to blow up three railways stations before the end of the day. As a result, Mumbai is witnessing the highest security check, it has ever witnessed in its history today. Even if it is a prank, the police cannot afford to take any chances.
Here are the recent ten bomb blasts and terrorist attacks that shook the country in three years (sourced from DNA and Outlook India)
October 29, 2008: A series of powerful explosions ripped through crowded market areas in New Delhi, killing at least 50 people as shoppers in the Indian capital were gearing up for a major Hindu holiday.
July 26, 2008: Serial blasts in Ahmedabad kill close to 45 and injure over 100
July 25, 2008: Seven blasts strike the IT city of Bangalore killing at least two people and wounding at least 20.
May 2008: Eight serial blasts rock Jaipur in a span of 12 minutes leaving 65 dead and over 150 injured.
January 2008: Terrorist attack on CRPF camp in Rampur kills eight.
November 2007: 15 people killed in seven well-synchronised explosions near court premises in three cities of Uttar Pradesh -- Lucknow, Varanasi and Faizabad.
October 2007: 2 killed in a blast inside Ajmer Sharif shrine during Ramadan, in Rajasthan.
August 2007: 30 dead, 60 hurt in Hyderabad 'terror' strike.
May 2007: A bomb at Mecca mosque in Hyderabad kills 11 people.
February 2007: Two bombs explode aboard a train bound from India to Pakistan, burning to death at least 66 passengers, most of them Pakistanis.
September 2006: 30 dead and 100 hurt in twin blasts at a mosque in Malegaon.
July 2006: Seven bombs on Mumbai's trains kill over 200 and injure 700 others.
March 2006: Twin bombings at a train station and a temple in Varanasi kill 20 people.
October 2005: Three bombs placed in busy New Delhi markets a day before Diwali kill 62 people and injured hundreds.

On Preventing Terrorism

September 11 was an an emotional day for all of us. It is the anniversary of the day that our country was brutally attacked by terrorists and many innocents were killed. Today many are left without husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, best friends, and the list goes on and on. Nobody with a conscience can help but have tears on a day like this anniversary. We have made it through seven of them now.
I used to work in the north tower of the World Trade Center so it not only brings up many emotions for me, but memories as well. I remember how relieved everyone felt to get out of the "dangerous" subway everyday and into the pristine "safe" walls of this meticulously built building. I was only twenty-eight years old and learning the corporate environment through an internship.
I remember the day I saw it fall, and how my innocence was lost, yet again, a knife pierced through my thoughts of "safe boundaries". What was once safe, no longer held much meaning. The walls of the WTC seemed so safe, such a great barrier against the "mean streets of New York" every morning getting off the subway which took us right to the main entrance.
I didn't watch most of it on the news when it was occurring. I was recovering from a heart attack, and many of the people whom I'd befriended, loved, eaten dinner and gone out to drinks with, were now gone. It was too much to watch. I eventually, with a friend by my side, months later, turned watched several videos of it. It took months before I could do so. It was hard enough to read about it in newspapers and on the net, but I did, just to keep up with it. It was impossible to watch the video after once however, and would take months before I could do so again.
I often wonder how the families of those lost cope. I know that time heals, and my feeling today is one of "less fear and sadness" than seven years ago this day.
It tests everything I ever learned about forgiveness. It causes a great inner-conflict. How does one forgive the people who did this? I believe in forgiveness, try to practice it (for self and others) but honestly, and I am sorry if I might be considered "a sinner", it is not in me, and I don't know that it ever will be, to forgive this.
I do not blame the Moslem religion for this; in fact, feel sad for them that they were hijacked by a few powerful misguided renegade fanatics. Those who blame Islam for it are misguided as well. I don't believe Mohammed Ali or Kareem Abdul Jabbar (nor millions of others) would have endorsed this event. In fact I know they wouldn't.
Wars are what happen, and happen rapidly, when a few fanatics with power and/or money get together and decide a higher power is talking to them to save the world, or, that everyone must think, feel, and believe like them, or they must die.
It has happened since the beginning of time, and unfortunately may happen again. But that is no reason to "put life on hold" and wait for it. Everyone can do their little part in helping it "not happen so often". One way is to dis-empower, by ignoring, and not voting for (if they are running for office) warmongers and/or fanatics of any kind. I avoid friendships with them at any cost, no matter what their philosophies (or lack thereof). It can happen on a small scale, and it can happen on a large scale. The trick is to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Avoid fanatics of any sort (religious or not) who "give you the opportunity" to be a part of "their cause". I am not saying "ignore that they exist and keep an eye out on them" , only to ignore their cause and that sends a very strong message of your non-support".
There is strength in numbers and the less numbers they have, the less chance they have of doing damage in the world. Many have money and will attempt to "buy you". This is a good time to walkaway from that money. A fool and his/her money is soon departed.
The less people, power, friends, and money a terrorist, or would-be terrorist has, the less chances he/she has of doing damage. We can start in our own communities by simply not "buying into" fanaticism of any kind.

The Future Period With Nuclear Terrorism is Coming, Actually it is Here Now!

Some ask what happens when Iran becomes a nuclear power and has nuclear weapons able of destroying Israel, would they actually use them or would they know better? Indeed, the Iranian Leadership has already promised to blow Israel off the map and threatened nuclear terrorism in the United States if the US attacks its nuclear weapons making facilities.
Well, if this is the case, then apparently, the Western World and the Middle Eastern World has a serious problem on their hands and there is really nothing to talk about, until Iran stops making nuclear weapons and sponsoring international terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which hijacked Lebanon and started a war with Israel, albeit a short war. If Iran gives Hezbollah 100 million dollars a year then surely it will give them nuclear weapons to use on Israel in the future.
If the International Terrorists have demonstrated their joy in blowing up civilian targets throughout the world, then surely they would use a nuclear weapon anytime they could get one in close proximity of such a soft target whether it was in the US, Israel, Spain, Bali, Philippines, London or any other such place. Most nations are very vulnerable to nuclear weapon attacks, and that is a scary thing for intelligence folks.
Why is the US so Vulnerable to Nuclear Terrorism?
Well, I guess it goes without saying that if 30 million illegal aliens can sneak over our borders and 100s of tons of drugs can come into the US each week, that getting a nuclear weapon into the country is not so difficult. Likewise there are ways to seal containers to sneak a nuclear weapon into the US without it's detection. No, no one likes to talk about this, but there may very well be several weapons already here and waiting for a future attack now.
Al Qaeda is a Nuclear Terrorist Organization Before, During and After Their Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons.
Al Qaeda has access to black market nuclear weapons and the US has enemies that would supply them with such weapons. Al Qaeda is also near the North West Border of Pakistan and there are nuclear power plants in the region. Al Qaeda is a nuclear terrorist threat before, during and after they get their hands on nuclear weapons. Just their ability to do so makes them a serious nuclear threat and they may have trouble getting such a weapon into the US, but getting it into one of our allied nations wouldn't be that tough. What
Would the US do in Response to a Nuclear Terrorist Attack?
Provided that the US knew who gave the nuclear weapons to the terrorist that launched an attack on the US Military, the Green Zone in Iraq, one of our military bases abroad or actually in our country, the US would have no choice but to take action. Still, do you attack another nation because it has criminals in official government capacity that allowed nuclear weapons to get into the hands of the terrorists, or do you hunt down the terrorists that did it?
Well, nuclear material has a signature and there is a good chance that we would indeed know where such a nuclear weapon came from if it went off, whether a dirty bomb, an EMP device or an actual nuclear bomb full-scale. So, there is a good chance we would get to the bottom of it quick enough and then take action. It will not be pretty and it will be a horrible day for humanity. Think on this, we are.

Volunteer Work With Children Brings Benefits at Every Stage

Many high school and college students these days are finding teen volunteer work to be interesting and satisfying, with more and more teens getting involved all the time. There are even some high schools that make volunteer work with children, and other types of volunteer work, part of their basic curriculum. Often you can catch some energetic teens engaged in charity work with a variety of charitable agencies that provide services for children and adults.
There are now many teen volunteer work programs that a young person can decide to get involved in. Some young people make themselves useful by helping to build new homes for the Habitat for Humanity organization. Others enjoy working in the US National Parks through the Conservation Corps program, and still others are gaining a great deal by being involved in various political, social, economic, and environmental causes and the volunteer work for teens programs that are available through such venues.
Many teens find themselves most drawn to participating in volunteer work with children. In many cases, children who are in a situation where they need the help of volunteers seem to respond better to teenagers, probably because they are nearer to their own age. When a kid is very shy around adults, often a teen who is participating in student volunteer work can get the child to open up.
Many students are very intuitive and have a positive impact on children, even if the work is something as simple as reading the child a story or helping them with their homework. These positive instances of student volunteer work help to make the teenagers feel better about themselves and more confident, in addition to helping the child with the situation they were facing.
It is interesting to observe that while many teenagers these days seem to be more self-centered and materialistic than any previous generation, the level of teen volunteer work has increased. One reason for this is that there are more voluntary charity organizations who understand how valuable the efforts of teens can be and have gone to great lengths to create volunteer work for teens within their volunteer programs.
When teens get involved in summer volunteer work programs or various student volunteer programs in their communities, it seems that many of the materialistic and self-centered attitudes fade away, as the students set aside their designer clothes, their fancy iPods and cell phones, and other high-tech goodies for the time being. In many cases, when these social trappings are set aside, it gives teenagers their first real opportunity to look outside themselves and focus on the needs of the person or the community that they are rendering service to through their teen volunteer work.
It really does not matter what sort of volunteer activity a teen is participating in, from doing volunteer work with children, to being an orphanage volunteer or doing hospital volunteer work; these endeavors bring benefits to everyone at every stage. Certainly, the people receiving the service work benefit from the efforts of teen volunteers, the charitable agency benefits from the energy and enthusiasm of their youthful participants, and the teens themselves feel great about doing their part.

Security Dilemma Issues a Case Study of Iraq And Iran

As long as the concept of a unified world government is an ideal, the essential feature of international politics will remain as the state of anarchy. The theories of" Security Dilemma" and "Balance of Power," which result from that anarchy, are still playing important roles in international politics today.
The Term was coined by John H. Herz in his 1951 book Political Realism and Political Idealism. At the same time British historian Herbert Butterfield also described the same situation in his History and Human Conditions, but referred to it as the "absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma"
The core argument of the security dilemma is that, in the absence of a supranational authority that can enforce binding agreements, many of the steps pursued by states to bolster their security have the effect -- often unintended and unforeseen -- of making other states less secure. The anarchic nature of the international system imposes constraints on states' behavior. Even if they can be certain that the current intentions of other states are benign, they can neither neglect the possibility that the others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves will remain peaceful. But as each state seeks to be able to protect itself, it is likely to gain the ability to menace others. When confronted by this seeming threat, other states will react by acquiring arms and alliances of their own and will come to see the first state as hostile. In this way, the interaction between states generates strife rather than merely revealing or accentuating conflicts stemming from differences over goals. Although other motives such as greed, glory, and honor come into play, much of international politics is ultimately driven by fear. When the security is even rebuffed, then also the problem of security dilemma arises drastically, because of a common fear which exists between two nations about their own security concerns and one might feel insecure due to the conditions existing in time. Now we can look into some of the case studies which may be existing in recent times.
IN IRAQ Anyone following events in Iraq could be forgiven for thinking that we know relatively little about the dynamics of communal civil wars. In addition, anyone who remembers Bosnia and the rest of the "ugly nineties" has observed that the list of countries that have ripped themselves apart in communal civil wars seems to be growing. At the same time, resolving these conflicts is now seen as a deeply intractable problem. In almost every region we observe, communal civil wars are at or near the top of US policy agendas, most of all in Iraq, but also in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Darfur.
In fact, we have learned quite a lot about civil wars. Before the conflict in Bosnia, the conventional wisdom was that multi-communal states that had been torn apart by war should be put back together by power-sharing between communities or electoral reform. Such initiatives, it was reasoned, would compel politicians to appeal to all communities, not just their own, as well as to third party aid for reconstruction. Unfortunately, these approaches have rarely worked well. The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements.
A study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following: • The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.
• On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime's perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.
• Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.
• State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000. IN IRAN
Since the fall of Mohammed Reza Shah in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has remained politically isolated from the United States and the West. After eight years of brutal war with Iraq, Iran has embarked on a major effort to rebuild its devastated military. A major element of its military reconstruction has been the acquisition of advanced weapons systems with strategic applications, such as long-range bombers, submarines, advanced underwater mines, and ballistic missiles. Iran is also suspected of pursuing the development and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Given Iran's latent hostility towards the United States and its past willingness to engage in terrorism, these activities are a most serious concern.
One of the most significant such dilemmas is the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the gravest threat to Iran's security, followed by the Taliban government and its brand of Sunni extremism. The United States removed both threats. Iran should, therefore, feel that its security position has improved significantly. This in turn should reduce Iran's perceived interest in acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities.
However, many Iranians see the same reality from an entirely different viewpoint. Instead of Saddam Hussein's regime, Iran now confronts on its western and eastern borders the most powerful military in the history of the world and a radical ideological government in Washington bent on overturning governments like Iran's. The American presence surrounding Iran has not improved security but rather has put a dagger to Iran's front and back. If ever a country needs nuclear weapons to deter a stronger adversary, it is Iran.
But perhaps the crucial dilemma for Iranian and American officials concerns the question of regime change. Iranian citizens essentially have voted for regime change several times and have not obtained it. The unelected Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamene'I, as well as the judiciary and security apparatus he controls, have prevented the elected president and parliament from directing the state. Unfortunately, these unelected men determine whether Iran will seek nuclear weapons, conduct terrorism, or recognize Israel's right to exist. Few inside or out of Iran believe the US can or should remove this regime. Thus, if vital international problems need to be resolved now, there is little choice but to deal with the people who have power in Iran.
CONCLUSION
Thus this article has inspected into the newer issues regarding the concept of security dilemma. The author has tried to give an unbiased view regarding the Middle East. The position of Iraq and Iran are largely volatile and very sensitive. The author has tried his best to look at the position carefully so as to avoid giving any radically different or hurting views towards anyone. The security dilemma is a popular concept with cognitive and international relations theorists, who regard war as essentially arising from failures of communication. Functionalist theorists affirm that the key to avoiding war is the avoidance of miscommunication through proper signaling.
1. Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), p. 74. 2. For the classic text on this score, see Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 58-116. Also see Robert Jervis, "Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma," World Politics 30, no. 2 (January 1978). 3. Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics. 4. For the most complete account of the spiral logic in World War I, see Stephen Van Evera, "The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War," International Security 9, no. 1 (summer 1984): 58-107. 5. For the theoretical distinction between deterrence and reassurance, which I believe to be a false one, see Richard Ned Lebow, "Deterrence and Reassurance: Lessons From the Cold War," Global Dialogue (autumn 2000): 119-132. For the application of similar ideas to China, see Peter Hays Gries and Thomas J. Christensen, "Correspondence: Power and Resolve in U.S. China Policy," International Security 26, no. 1 (fall 2001): 155-165. 6. Harvard International Law Review 7. Yale Law Review 8. Seth Weinberger article on Security Dilemma

Searching Public Criminal Records - How to Do it the Easy Way

In the last couple of years, conducting online background checks has become increasingly popular. You can look up public criminal records with relative ease with the online options nowadays. There are a couple of options that you can go with for conducting a comprehensive background check.
The very first option is hiring a private investigator that has a license allowing him access to databases that you would otherwise not have access to. However, using their services can be expensive as they charge roughly $100 for just a single report. Most of these private investigators often charge their fees on hourly basis.
You should ensure that you've collected the person's first name, correct last name, exact locations, and his/her earlier residence. Different countries have different public criminal records information on a particular individual. For example, if a person has been charged with guilt in one country, the database of another country may show the same person as innocent. This also varies state by state. Generally, the more details you know about the person already, the more detailed information you can acquire on the person with more accuracy.
The most comprehensive option is an FBI search. The problem is, you need the fingerprints of the person, and many require even more information. They sometimes even ask the permission of the individual undergoing the search.
When it comes to the easiest and fastest option, I would suggest using an online background check. You can easily run a public criminal records on a person and pull up details including divorce decrees, court cases, mortgages, birth and death certificates as well as public criminal records.
We've taken it a step further and compiled a list of customer reviews of the best public criminal records services.

Our Founding Fathers' Guns

When we consider the Second Amendment to the Constitution, it may be difficult to separate our critical faculties from the continual onslaught of media bias. The efforts to ban guns in the United States garners support from those who feel that if there were no legal way to buy a gun then there would be less violent crime. The truth of the matter is that in all countries where guns are commonplace, crime rates are lower. In countries where guns are illegal, the innocent have no way to protect themselves against those who obtain guns illegally. Weapons are the great equalizer. It does not matter if you can physically restrain someone or not if you have a 9mm pointed in their face. Sure, a burglar and a home owner may shoot one another, but they could have also beaten each other's heads in with clubs. The heart of the matter is much deeper than the debate about crime and defense. The debate goes all the way back to the founding of our country.
Our founding fathers understood what it meant to be oppressed. They understood it so well in fact that they wrote arms protection into the Bill of Rights so Americans could defend themselves against intrusive government. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with chasing away common burglars. It has to do with chasing away legalized burglars in fancy hats. All governments strive for more power. It is the nature of government. The militias of the several states stood with our founding fathers to stop the ever increasing encroachment of the British.
Today, the idea of pulling a gun on a government official is quite taboo. Generations of media bias have led us all to believe that this is an atrocity. I counter with the notion that a situation where the government has gathered enough power to force you to do anything is an atrocity. Liberty is blind. Fancy hats and uniforms do not override your rights. Your rights are characteristics of you just like a brick can be described as heavy. You can't take the heavy out of a brick. You can't take rights from an individual. Rights must be defended, however. We find ourselves in our current situation where you can hardly do anything without government intervention because several generations did not stand up for their rights. We are now deceived into contracts with the government that force us to pay taxes, obtain licenses and permits to perform legal actions, register property, and submit to official authority.
The Revolutionary War was not debated in council. The militia defended the people against government oppression. The first shot came from a patriot standing up for his rights and the rest of the country just joined in. The history books can spout their opinions all they want, but history is written by the politicians in power and they do not want you to know that the local militia fought the armed forces of the king of England ... and Won. They even tried to disarm the people to prevent rebellion because they could sense the unrest. Gun ownership insured against government malfeasance.
Your own personal liberty lies in how far you are willing to go to defend your rights. Just because someone wears a badge and a fancy hat does not give them authority over you. We have to keep our guns. If we do not keep them as crime deterrents then we should at least keep them as oppression deterrents. Mark my words. If guns are made illegal, liberty will disappear

Barack's in Town - His Big NYC Events Explained

With the November election not far away the presidential hopefuls are gearing up their campaigns with a number of events occurring in NYC to woo the swinging and undecided voters. The Barack camp is throwing a number of events in New York from fundraising activities to voter registration drives. While Barack holds a comfortable lead over McCain in NYC, he can't afford to become complacent during the election campaign. Obama must continue to keep up with his busy schedule of events which keeps him in the nightly news. It's a massive challenge for any candidate to be everywhere at once but, Barack seems to be able to do it better than McCain.
With NYC and Washington controlling much of the countries media services along with LA, it makes sense for the candidates to have a lot of their events in this city. I've put together a list of up-and-coming events for Barack and not all the events are invite only.
Broadway United for Barack (Fundraising), September 15, venue The Metropolitan Room, NY. A one-night only benefit concert for Senator Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign in New York City
Support Barack (Fundraising), September 16, venue Weitzner/Parr Residence, NYC. Cocktails and stimulating political conversation.
Shot at Being President, (voter registration drive), September 25 at 6:00 PM, venue Porkys, NYC. Opportunity to sign-up new members. The event costs $15 and it includes an open bar.
Art for Obama Reception XII (Fundraising), October 2, venue Nabi Gallery, NYC. Join Hosts Val Schaffner and Beverly Griggsby and other Obama Supporters. Help Obama get into the White House.
Basement Bhangra for Barack at SOB's (Meeting), September 4, SOB's NYC. Join DJ Rekha and South Asians for Obama, Asian Americans for Obama and New York Latinos for Obama.
NYC Events are a great opportunity for people to give feedback to the party and a chance for campaign organizers to get their message out to new and existing members.
James has recently moved to New York City and he loves all the options the city has to offer. There are so many events on every night of the week the only problem is choosing which events to go to. He's recommends using Metro212 which he believes is a good source for all NYC events and nightclub listings including dating services.

Nixon Administration Tried to Prevent Israel From Having Nuclear Bombs Too

Currently the United States of America and the Bush administration want to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs including possible military intervention. The President of Iran has said that they will continue their nuclear weapons program so they have a deterrent against attack from other nations in the region.
The Iranian President also says that Pakistan, Israel, India and many other nations well within striking distance already have nuclear weapons and the nation of Iran have the right to protect them selves. The Iranian President says that the world allowed Israel to have nuclear weapons.
But actually before Israel crosses the nuclear threshold the Nixon administration planned on confronting the Israeli government on this issue and senior Nixon administration officials had discussed if it was even feasible to politically or technologically stop their program. Even the CIA was involved for possible intervention. Once Israel crossed the nuclear threshold the Nixon administration wished to set up ground rules to ensure that Israel would not use nuclear weapons against its neighbors do to all the conflicts of the time. We know from history that they did not use nuclear weapons on their Arab neighbors.
Perhaps the question today is can we trust Iran with nuclear weapons, knowing full well that they currently sponsor international terrorist groups. Also knowing that they have already promised to blow Israel off the map. This apparently is a much different situation with Iran then when it was with Israel during the Nixon administration. Israel had the atomic bomb by 1967. The Nixon administration realized this was going to be a significant problem between 1968 in 1969. Henry Kissinger did a national security study in 1969 in how to deal with the Israeli nuclear advancements.
Recently the Iranian President has stated that Iran now has the technology to make nuclear weapons and now that they have the technology they can never go back. Obviously the Iranian President is using a bit of history to help his case with the IAEA and the United Nations. To his credit Iranian President or should I say they uranium President does know his history however, he also is bluffing himself into a war by using these mirroring rhetoric statements to bolster his fundamentalist support while slipping in to his speeches such statements. The Iranian President is playing on his own chessboard and is not playing with the international community and the international community's rules. The nation like that which sponsors international terrorism can never be trusted with the nuclear weapons.
The Nixon administration in July of 1969 had Secretary of State Elliott Richardson and Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard meet with the Ambassador to Israel to discuss an agreement with Israel on their new nuclear weapons. In the current situation the hostile political intentions and ambitions of the Iranian President make negotiation nearly impossible, as the United States of America has a policy not to negotiate with terrorists and that would include the nation states would sponsor them. We seem to have a political impasse with Iran and it does not appear the bridge can be gapped without assistance or diplomatic help from neighboring Arab nations and major trading partners such as either Russia or China.
It looks as if the United States of America and her allies will be forced to strike Iran. But when they do they will have to go after other assets besides just the nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities such as but not limited to all military offensive assets, long-range missiles and take out the large chunk of its military. War is inevitable and this situation is highly unfortunate.

When They Use Our Constitution Against Us

Many folks believe that the Bush Administration has been too quick to put aside the Constitution in their pursuit of International Terrorists. Most of this noise is coming from the opposition party that also wishes to put aside various points of the Constitution to support their own agenda. Thus, we have hypocrites in the midst and politics as usual.
Indeed, we do hear a lot from the opposition party that the Presidential Administration is somehow circumventing the US Constitution and really it does not matter who is the President at the time, as the other party loves to place blame that way. So, whereas, we end up accusing our own President of circumventing the checks and balances or making an unconstitutional political move, we often forget that our enemies use our Constitution and freedoms against us, to exploit our nation and subject their own political will upon us.
Now there is a famous quote that states; those who give up liberty for security; will have neither. And well, that is a scary quote indeed, still, we must understand that we live in a free and open society and that makes it completely vulnerable to international and domestic terrorism. Something that threatens all we are and all we have built. So, we must be on careful guard and understand that the very freedoms we grant ourselves will be used to exploit our civilization.
Let's all understand that our own Constitution is being used against us and be very careful to label our own team traitors of the Constitution when they put in place safeguards to protect life, liberty and property. Think on this.

Synthetic Opinion

The creation of the television in the 1920s serves as a milestone in our modern society, but it did not change the world. Sweeping change did not take place until the implementation of Broadcast Television in 1941. The world has become of different place since then. Even though newspaper media was controlled by internationalists much further back through history, that medium could only target those who read for enjoyment. Broadcast radio came next and the era of targeted marketing really took off. Corporations ratcheted up the hype and made the people want what they were selling. Being a marketer myself, I really can't hold this particular peccadillo against them.
Then broadcast television came on the scene. It didn't take long for the robber barons to notice how powerful a tool this medium presented. Following the chains of ownership on all major media outlets, you'll find that those in control are those who have a vested interest in your belief that the nightly news will tell you everything of importance that goes on in the world. Quite the opposite is true however. Dumbing down the population remains the number one goal of the majority of broadcast television. However, social manipulation didn't just pop up with the advent of television, it just took it to new heights.
Even in the 'smart' shows we see propagandize opinion in the fringes of the plot lines. As an example, I'll use one of my favorite TV shows, 4400. This science fiction flight of fancy features main characters who work for the Department of Homeland Security. The very existence of the DHS is a travesty that puts every civil right at risk and a TV show now exists extolling the virtues of DHS style justice. I recall a moment when a man was arrested and told "You do not have the right to remain silent, you do not have the right to an attorney, you will be treated as an enemy combatant." Another scene showed the director of the local DHS branch telling a radio producer that "in the old days it would have taken a warrant to have you followed or to listen to every one of your phone calls. It's not the old days anymore". I recall a scene from Law and Order where someone, not even a suspect, was threatened with being proclaimed and enemy combatant and locked away if he didn't tell them what they wanted to know. My best hopes are that showing these things will help people to realize the civil rights issues involved, but I seriously doubt it. Habeas corpus and probable cause don't cross people's minds much. Examples like these in popular media examplify the desensitization of the populous against civil rights infringements. If it happens every week on TV, it must be OK. Most people are too concerned about who is going to be the next American Idol or whether Britney is wearing underwear to take notice of any real issues.
When abhorrent legislation passes Congress, is a rallying cry broadcast on the nightly news? Of course it isn't. When third party candidates enter the presidential race, are they given serious media coverage? No they are not. If the candidate is not Republican or Democrat, the media blackballs them and implies that a third party vote is wasted. This once again colors the viewer's opinion. I hear 'wasted vote' every day when I speak of third party candidates. The real wasted vote is voting for one of the two parties that have stopped representing you and protecting your rights.
The Church Committee investigation of 1975 even revealed a CIA program called Operation Mockingbird whose purpose was to influence domestic and foreign media. The government has stepped in to controlling information as far back as the 70's for sure and probably further. Propaganda films in World War II were quite common. I for one trust little that I hear on mass media. It is all propaganda of some sort. It tells you what to eat, what to wear, and how to live. It tells you nothing of ever increasing police powers, government malfeasance, or the erosion of your civil liberties. One would be well served to switch to alternative media. Your mind would be released from opinion manipulation.

The Dangers of Barack Obama

Currently, Barack Hussein Obama is on track to be the next president of the United States. With voters becoming increasingly frustrated at the Bush administration, people are calling for a change in party in the oval office. Unfortunately, this change may take its form in the most left-wing president in United States history.
Calling Obama's political stance liberal is an insult to standard liberals. His political views are more akin to a black panther left-winger. Let's review some of his more outrageous positions:
Economics
Obama is a socialist through and through. He wants to raise taxes, primarily on wealthier Americans. While many may think "oh, this doesn't affect me," the tax rates he wants to implement are highly punitive, especially against small business owners. In addition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire, Obama wants to uncap the social security payroll tax. Small business owners will effectively be paying over half of their income in taxes to the federal government.
This clearly reduces the incentives for small business owners to invest and grow their businesses. With more struggling small business comes fewer jobs and economic stagnation. This is ok to Obama though. Obama believes in restoring 'fairness' to the system. If everyone is poorer, that's ok as long as the rich-poor gap has been ever-so-slightly reduced.
Foreign Policy
Obama took a lot of heat for arguing that he would meet with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions. Many chalked this up to a novice error. The heart of the matter is that, as a left-winger, he has a very pacifist view towards the world. Since he and other left-wingers are puppy dogs at heart, they assume everyone else is too. They believe countries like Iran and North Korea can be made into friends with a friendly chat over brunch. It's a belief that their hostility is the result of our hostility towards them, rather than something on their side.
Unfortunately, this naive view can backfire big time. The most clear case was the accomodations Western nations made to Hitler, allowing him to invade countries and expand his power just prior to the outbreak of World War II. A soft stance towards a country like Iran may feel nice, but what do we do when they develop nuclear capabilities and sell them to terrorists?
Race Issues
While a sensitive topic, this one needs to be addressed. How can Obama explain his friendship with left-wing preachers like Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. Obama called Wright a close personal friend and mentor and gave him $27,000 in charitable contributions in 2007. While many have seen Wright's anti-American tirades on television, those fiery sermons just scratch the surface. Wright believes the US government purposefully created the AIDS virus to destroy inner city blacks. How on earth can Obama stand by and support a man that is so clearly demented?
Pfleger is very similar to Wright. Obama was able to secure over $200,000 worth of earmarks when he was in the United States senate. Like Wright, Pfleger blames all of society's ills on white people. If these views are accepted by Obama, will he view all of the world's problems as rooted in American whites?
While America may want a democrat to be president, voting strictly based on party can be dangerous in this election.