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.