Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
V: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Welcome Back The Spotlight 'O Terror
Green - Low: This setting is here just as a reference point. DHS will never use it because it would mean we didn’t need them anymore.
Blue - Guarded: This rarely used setting on the Stoplight ‘O Terror could indicate things like an undocumented worker within 3 square miles of the president.
Yellow - Elevated: This is the standard level of fear. Don’t expect to see anything lower than this as long as the Regressives are in office. Be scared, but not too scared to vote Republican.
Orange - High: Chertoff heard that someone in the CIA’s brother’s boss’ nephew’s sister-in-law heard about a plan to blow up Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne Indiana. It’s ok to pee your pants at this level.
Red - Severe: A terror attack was recently narrowly averted. We can’t release any details but just be thankful we saved your asses. Used frequently before midterm elections. See October Surprise. (Oh My God, Take Away My Freedoms and Protect Me From Them There Terrorists, Like Osama Hussein!!!)
Welcome to my Blog, enjoy your stay!
Congressman Ron Paul, MD - We've Been NeoConned
1984 radio broadcast:
Yesterday, on the Hugh Hewitt show, former PA Senator Rick Santorum made references to learning the lessons of 9-11 and the recent 'attacks' in England. Then when asked by Hewitt whether he felt the leading Republican Presidential candidates were speaking with enough "seriousness" about the war, Santorum proceeded to say that alot was going to change in the next year.
"You know, I've talked to all three of the major candidates, that I think will be the major candidates, and that's Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. I think those will be the three major candidates when we head into the final analysis. And I think all of them understand the issue very, very well, they understand particularly the importance of Iran, and confronting Iran in the Middle East as an absolute lynchpin for our success in that region, and I think they are committed to that. And while it may not be a popular thing to talk about right now, and I know public sentiment is against it, they understand the importance of the national security of this country, and they also understand that between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public's going to have a very different view, and part of it will be the education that these three men will be imparting on the American public during the course of this campaign."
 |
full transcript is here
Hewitt responded by saying "I hope you're right."
Well, I both hope and work to make him wrong. We, the patriots of the 9-11 Truth and Justice Movement want neither more "unfortunate events" nor "the education that these three men will be imparting on the American public." This kind of rhetoric is treasonous in that it gives aid and comfort to our enemies, both within and without. Although Mr. Hewitt expressed his desire and belief that no more attacks be perpetrated, his complete and utter collusion with the massive, state-sponsored, violently racist myth of the official 9-11 conspiracy 'theory' helps synthesize the endlessly expanding cycle of destruction that is the Global War on Terror, or, as Borat so presciently says, the "War of Terror." It is time to confront the big terrorists with the idea that this Republic is founded upon, the rule of law. We need to bring those that commit high treason and mass murder to Justice.
Yes Mr. Santorum, much will change between now and the presidential elections, but it will have alot more to do with the force of Truth and Justice brought forth by We the People than "unfortunate events" and "education" from 'men' such as Giuliani. And for men such as Hugh Hewitt who pimp out the people's airwaves to war and fear mongers, it is about past time to look at the hard facts and choose, with eyes and heart fully open, which side of History you will march on.
Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.
The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.
The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.
The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.
The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.
Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.
Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.
In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.
But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.
SF Chronicle July 8, 2007
Christopher Booker
Federal agents do not need a search warrant to monitor a suspect's computer use and determine the e-mail addresses and Web pages the suspect is contacting, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
In a drug case from San Diego County, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco likened computer surveillance to the "pen register" devices that officers use to pinpoint the phone numbers a suspect dials, without listening to the phone calls themselves.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of pen registers in 1979, saying callers have no right to conceal from the government the numbers they communicate electronically to the phone companies that carry their calls.
Federal law requires court approval for a pen register. But because it is not considered a search, authorities do not need a search warrant, which would require them to show that the surveillance is likely to produce evidence of a crime.
They also do not need a wiretap order, which would require them to show that less intrusive methods of surveillance have failed or would be futile.
In Friday's ruling, the court said computer users should know that they lose privacy protections with e-mail and Web site addresses when they are communicated to the company whose equipment carries the messages.
Likewise, the court said, although the government learns what computer sites someone visited, "it does not find out the contents of the messages or the particular pages on the Web sites the person viewed."
The search is no more intrusive than officers' examination of a list of phone numbers or the outside of a mailed package, neither of which requires a warrant, Judge Raymond Fisher said in the 3-0 ruling.
Defense lawyer Michael Crowley disagreed. His client, Dennis Alba, was sentenced to 30 years in prison after being convicted of operating a laboratory in Escondido that manufactured the drug ecstasy.
Some of the evidence against Alba came from agents' tracking of his computer use. The court upheld his conviction and sentence.
Expert evidence in Alba's case showed that the Web addresses obtained by federal agents included page numbers that allowed the agents to determine what someone read online, Crowley said.
The ruling "further erodes our privacy," the attorney said. "The great political marketplace of ideas is the Internet, and the government has unbridled access to it."
Prison Planet July 9, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
Live Earth's half empty stadiums and lackluster TV viewing figures were preceded by another embarrassment after one of the propaganda bandwagon's kingpins and a top global warming advocate responded to a question about solar-system wide climate change by claiming that Jupiter, Mars and Saturn were closer to the sun than Earth.
David Mayer de Rothschild is the youngest child (born 197
of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, of the British wing of the Rothschild banking family.
Rothschild's recent book, 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Changes, calls for ordinary people to limit outward behavior and even work at home and was used as part of the PR blitz to accompany the Live Earth project.
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show this past Friday, Rothschild reacted to a point about massive climate change at every point of the solar system and its relation to natural sun cycles by claiming Mars, Saturn and Jupiter were closer to the sun than Earth!
Here's a brief transcript of the exchange.
ALEX JONES: "The polar icecaps of Mars are receding at several miles a year, much faster than ours and that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting, in fact several of their moons were ice and are now liquid seas - how are SUV's causing that David Rothschild?
ROTHSCHILD: "Because those planets are closer to the sun, my friend."
ALEX JONES: "No, Jupiter and Saturn are not closer to the sun and neither is Mars."
Rothschild then quickly changes the subject and when the point is raised again later in the show, he makes no effort to correct himself.
Click here for the clip. Listen to the full MP3 of the interview by clicking here .
Last time we checked, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were all orbiting the sun at a greater distance than Earth.
Rothschild's hilarious screw-up is yet another example as to why the general public remain unconvinced by the error-strewn apocalyptic admonitions of the climate cult .
A Mori poll released last week found that a majority of the UK population were still skeptical about man-made global warming and believed the threats were being exaggerated for political purposes and to make money.
Throughout the radio appearance, Rothschild parrots empty sound bite platitudes about there only being "one earth," while failing to address recent scientific analysis which reveals that the oldest plant DNA ever discovered showed that "the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed," again underscoring the fact that climate change is a routine and natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout earth's history.
Although Rothschild stresses the existence of just one earth on numerous occasions, it appears as though he thinks there is another one earth orbiting the sun - at a greater distance than Saturn or Jupiter!
He also glibly repeats the charge that the radio station he was appearing on, the Genesis Communications Network, was bankrolled by the oil industry and that was the reason for challenging the monopoly on truth that the man-made global warming crowd attribute themselves.
Deliciously ironic therefore it is that big oil men like the chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland are fanning the flames of global warming hysteria in order to create artificial scarcity and drive up prices, while also getting fat off the peak oil scam, another charade manufactured by the oil companies and gleefully embraced by phony environmentalists.
General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, also recently called for the elite to, "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide," (global government).
In addition, it was the Rothschild family itself that helped fund the Rockefellers to create the first giant trusts and oil monopolies in the late 19th century.
Every time a public figure or scientist dares to question the global warming orthodoxy, they are savaged as being in bed with oil companies and yet it is the oil company chieftains that are pushing climate change harder than anyone.
 Madonna, owner of 6 evil gas-guzzling cars and producer of 440 tonnes of CO2 during her Confessions tour, performs at Live Earth in London. |
Rothschild's red-faced gaffe was allied with an embarrassingly lukewarm response to this weekend's Live Earth propaganda extravaganza, at which we saw hypocritical pop stars perform to half-empty stadiums around the world.
The television audience also fell way below expectations and the event was branded a "foul-mouthed flop" by newspapers. Just hundreds turned up to one of the events held in Washington at which Al Gore appeared.
"Organisers of the global music concert - punctuated by swearing from presenters and performers - had predicted massive viewing figures," reports the Daily Mail .
"But BBC's live afternoon television coverage attracted an average British audience of just 900,000. And the peak audience, which came when Madonna sang at Wembley, was a dismal 4.5million. Three times as many viewers saw the Princess Diana tribute on the same channel six days before."
"Two years ago, Live 8 drew a peak television audience of 9.6million while Live Aid notched 10million in 1985."
As more jet-flying celebrity hypocrites lecture us on changing our lifestyle and as more "experts" fail to get even the most basic facts correct, expect more acolytes to desert the cause and for global warming to be consigned to the dustbin of scientific theory, just as the "global cooling" scare of the 70's quickly evaporated under widespread ridicule
Kevin Thompson is the Constitution Party candidate for the Massachusetts 5th District Congressional seat. This is a special election and a special opportunity for the voters to send a clear message to Washington - bring back our 
Constitution! For too long both Democrats and Republicans have been trampling over our founding documents and our Founders' dream of a government beholden only to the people from whom its powers are derived. Our rights are endowed by our Creator, not given by Washington. Republicans and Democrats have controlled Washington too long. Now, it is your turn!
Kevin Thompson is running for Congress because someone needs to stand up for the voters. Too often candidates for high office avoid real solutions for fear of political reprisal or the scorn of special interests. Kevin Thompson wants to be one of the few voices to sound the alarm. We must restore the Republic and bring our government back to its constitutionally limited role. Our government is far too intrusive.
The people of Massachusetts' 5th district suffer from attacks on the traditional family, oppressive taxes, big brother government, an illegal immigration crisis, and the loss of American jobs. Our leaders are out of control. Let's send Kevin Thompson to Congress - the only candidate in this race willing to stand up for your liberty!
For more information about Kevin's campaign, as well as to find out how you can also help to restore our nation, be sure to visit his web site - http://www.thompson07.com
DOCTOR NO, THE 3 MUSKETEERS & THE 7 DWARFS
PART 1 of 2
By Mary Starrett
July 7, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
There’s reluctance among conservatives to see the ideological flaws of the current crop of president-wannabes but unless we’re willing to line up each one of the 11 Republican contenders and strip off his 3 piece posturing to look deep into his political past, we’ll simply be fooling ourselves (again) when it comes to supporting a candidate for president.
Much like a woman who wants to get married so badly she ignores those ‘deal-breaking’ flaws, when it comes to the Republicans vying for the nomination, we just don’t want to face the truth, because well, it would hurt too much to say, once again, “He’s not for me,” and move on, when there might not be anyone else to move on to. That kind of thinking always leads to desperation and ultimately disappointment.
For those who’ve been saying “he’s good enough, you can’t have everything” I offer the following perspective of the Republicans in the ’08 lineup.
Mitt Romney: Nice hair, easy on the eyes, good suits, and lousy standard-bearer for the pro-life, pro-family, pro-limited government constitutionalist crowd.
First off, Romney’s lightning bolt conversion to a pro-life candidate isn’t fooling many. His RomneyCare health plan, which he signed into law just over a year ago, forces the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay for the gruesome slaughter of thousands of pre-born children in the state each year.
Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group. Regarding his position on abortion he said: “… 
hen asked, will I preserve and protect a women's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes.”
If, after hearing Romney wax conservative in the recent GOP debates you're confused about Romney's stand on abortion, marriage, gun control, gay rights or immigration, don’t feel too badly. Up until recently he was a hard core liberal on all of those issues.
Now Mitt’s hoping people will pay attention to what he says these days, not to what he did while governor of Massachusetts. While in office, Romney:
- supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions
- opposed the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual scoutmasters
- refused to endorse original Massachusetts’ constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman
In 2002 Romney had this to say about some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” Mitt said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you’ve come to know through the TV series “Law and Order” is not who you’d like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.
Thompson’s “Pro-Life” position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.”
After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:
1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law to silence grassroots conservative groups.
2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market, NAFTA was a first step toward open borders in North America and the North American Union.
3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 199
4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit debacle.
Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq. (Freemarket news.com) Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.
Newt Gingrich: Not even close… In 1995 the 104th Congress’ House of Representatives, led by Speaker Gingrich was made up of 73 spanking new representatives who had their sights set on reducing the size, scope and cost of the federal government. They weren’t allowed to. Gingrich saw to that.
Remember Newt’s “Contract with America?” While it was portrayed as a way to fix our country’s problems it did nothing of the sort. The policies therein were unconstitutional, NATO was expanded, the feds got more control of law enforcement, laws affecting children and more. Within a year Gingrich’s approval rating had tanked. CFR member Gingrich tried to portray himself as a true ‘conservative’ twelve years ago, now he’s doing it again as a possible candidate for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
Gingrich’s globalist pedigree was evident back in 1994’s lame-duck session of Congress. His cheerleading for GATT and the WTO made sure the votes on those two sovereignty-bludgeoning tools got a pass. The vote on GATT should have been held off for a month when a more conservative Congress convened in January of 1995. GATT, that 120 member trade alliance that now dictates our trade policies has become part of the underpinning for the implementation of the North American Union. Thanks, Newt. (Seeing a pattern here?)
Gingrich, in 1978, supported the creation of the Department of Education. Our kids have been paying for the expansion of federal control over schools ever since. Can you say: “way down the list of industrialized nations in math, science and literacy scores?” Sure you can!
After that, Newt went on to support giving taxpayer money to the evil power that is Communist China, then voted to approve most-favored-nation trading status for the regime so fond of murdering political dissidents and harvesting the organs of those they’ve deemed “criminals.” This, from the man labeled one of America’s foremost “conservatives.”
Sam Brownback: Kansas Senator, elected in 1996 to the seat held by Bob Dole. On marriage Brownback said: “The right to marry is not the right to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”
Brownback is staunchly pro-life saying: “Abortion ends a human life.” His votes have resulted in a 0% rating by NARAL. However, Senator Brownback softens his otherwise pro-life stance by saying he could support a pro-abortion nominee for president.
A voting record indicative of the senator’s decidedly unconstitutional political positions include:
1. YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
2. YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (NATO does nothing to protect the United States and again, brings us into foreign alliances our Founders warned against)
3. YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (If you liked what NAFTA did for the US economy you’ll love CAFTA!)
4. YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.
5. YES on funding GOP Medicare prescription drug debacle.
6. YES on reauthorizing the un-patriotic PATRIOT Act.
7. NO on getting troops out of Iraq by July 2007.
Disappointingly, Senator Brownback voted to send American troops to fight in Iraq. He’d do well to read the Constitution; not just because he sits on a House subcommittee regarding that august document, but, like his colleagues, he swore an oath to uphold and defend the principles therein; chief among them, no unauthorized wars. Brownback said that he never read the National Intelligence Estimate (the justification for the war) in advance. This lack of preparation is inexcusable.
Mike Huckabee: Governor of Arkansas for over 10 years, a Southern Baptist preacher, he’s pro-life, unapologetically Christian and is vocal in his rejection of the theory of evolution.
Huckabee:
- has been criticized for raising taxes but says he cut taxes 94 times while in office.
- says he would have made the decision to go to war in Iraq if he were president.
- supports a guest worker program and has commented that "racism" could be responsible for those who oppose it.
- signed one of the highest minimum wage laws in the region.
His “nanny-state” tendencies are evident in his consideration of a law to ban pregnant women from smoking and his support for laws that require school children be weighed for obesity.
These state-level policy decisions are an indication Governor Huckabee takes a ‘more-is-better’ approach to the federal government’s role. Those who subscribe to a constitutionally-sound political ideology could not support Huckabee for president.
“How’s that working for you” is a phrase TV psychologist and author Dr. Phil is fond of asking those he counsels. After listening to those troubled by chaos and failed relationships, Dr. Phil asks the simple question to make a simple point: Continuing certain behaviors that have repeatedly failed to produce a desired outcome is just plain nuts. Yet that is what American voters are considering when they register approval for candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
John McCain: Anger issues aside, John McCain sponsored a major piece of legislation so destructive to the republic it’s mind-boggling that the man could still be considered a “conservative.” These two words should send chills down the spines of every liberty-loving American: McCain-Feingold.
The result of this and most ‘campaign finance reform’ was to make sure that only the richest people would even consider running for office. By making it so that a wealthy person couldn’t give more than a couple of thousand dollars to anyone running for office except himself, now only rich people will go for it.
The New York Daily News came up with this estimate of the candidates’ finances: Mitt Romney $250 million, Rudy Giuliani $70 million, John Edwards $62 million, John McCain $25 million, Sen. Hillary Clinton $15 million, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson $10 million.
What makes the McCain-Feingold bill even worse, much worse, is it effectively restricts the content of political speech through advocacy groups.
The Senator from Arizona, one of the states most affected by the flood of illegals, has totally ignored the folks back home and the severe impact illegal immigration is having on their daily lives by leading the effort for the Bush amnesty plan.
Other inexplicable behavior which should give those contemplating supporting a McCain candidacy in ’08 pause includes McCain’s opposition to tax cuts in 2001. McCain sounded like a true Marxist when explaining why he opposed the cuts saying: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief." For part 2 click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
© 2007 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Mary Starrett was the Constitution Party candidate for Oregon governor in November, 2006, a TV news anchor and talk show host for 25 years and a radio talk show host for 5 years.
Executive Director, Oregonians for Life, Board of Directors, Christian Family Adoptions.
She is currently the Communications Director for the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is the fastest-growing minor political party (www.ballot-access.org) and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.
E-Mail: mstarrett@constitutionparty.com
bravenet.com