Rick G's Blog

Do you support President Bush's policy in Iraq?

No........71%

Yes.......29%

 

Will the Iraq war be a factor in your vote?

Yes.......81%

No........19%

 

214,000 votes

Observation: One out of three polled that support the President's Iraq policy also consider the Iraq war to be a factor in their vote.

 

With two weeks to go before the elections the rehetoric from the candidates covers everything except the issues.  I've heard opponents called ugly, corrupt, unpatriotic, fascist, etc.  I have seen very little discussion about the things that concern us, their electorate.

Here are some issues that I would like to hear discussed:

The War in Iraq

How to deal with North Korea and Iran

America's role and standing in the world

Health care costs /  Prescription medicines costs

The Fair Tax Act

How to improve National Security

How to restore our Bill of Rights

Alternative sources of Energy

...And other topics relevant to John and Suzy Q. Public and their progeny.

Topics such as gay marriage are the very least of our concerns as a country.  These "hot button" issues are nothing other than distractions and further attempts to destroy the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  They have no place in Congress or politicial debate.  Congress is hired to represent us in running the country and not our personal lives.  Our country should be the focus of debate, not the individual citizens and their values or faith.

The "she's ugly / he's corrupt, I have moral values / he doesn't" type of talk isn't going to solve our nation's problems and does not give the voter a clue as to where they stand on real issues.  Unfortunately we never really know where they stand until after they're elected.

This is so desparate that it defies logic. 

Thirty conservative right-wing radio talk show hosts were invited to the White House at 5:30 this morning for extensive coaching as to how to get the White House agenda across to their already faithful listeners.

Push Limbaugh takes his marching orders and accuses Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson's Disease.

Take another painkiller, Push.  Throw the mud when you have it washed off your own face first you hypocritical scum sucking b***ard.

You have successfully insulted a lot of people in this country that have a real disease.  I would love to see Muhammed Ali kick your ass off the airwaves and into the oblivion of the padded cell where you belong.  Your disease is drug addiction and stupidity.  I can understand the addiction but the stupidity is intolerable.  Karma's going to be brutal to you, pal.

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/bush-advisers-blitz-radio-airwaves/20061024171509990001?cid=2194

http://journals.aol.com/thefeedblog/AOLNewsTheFeed/#Entry2297

You know what makes me sick to my stomach?  To hear a politician in a political discussion invoke the words "Jesus Christ", "My Lord", "Family Values", Christian Values", "Faith-based", "Contract with America", etc., ad nauseam.

These politcians have proven time and again that their morals, values and "religion" is no better than yours or mine.

It is simple pandering to get votes.  It is shameful and rather than promoting these values it is demoting them because not a single one of them are free from sin and therefore they are not the self-appointed standard bearers that they think they are.  Their loud proclamations and hypocrisies are as meaningul as the writing on a stall wall at a Greyhound bus station.  Those who shout the loudest are usually those who practice it the least.

There are many verses in the Bible from a true master of the subject that support this view.

If anyone thinks this is directed solely at the Republican Christian Right politicians, they are wrong.  This blog was inspired by a Democrat running for the US Senate from the state of TN.  Ford is his name.  I just listened to an interview with him and he couldn't squeeze his Christian morals into the conversation enough times.  I guess there are no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists  living in TN.

Religion belongs in the churches, our hearts and our lives.  It does not belong in our government.  A moral person can have a positive effect on our government.  That does not necessarily apply to a "religious" person.  We have seen where these so called religious "values" can lead countries.  (Iran for example, where there is no separation of church and state).  'Thou shall not kill' is one of the most revered Commandments of the Christian religion and yet it is one of the least observed by that same group.

The hypocrisy will catch up to us when the scales are weighed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment             
(This is an interesting refresher course of all that is encompassed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.)

40% of 2004 voters for President Bush have changed their minds.

 

A.)  Roughly 49% of the 2004 electorate put President Bush back into office.   

B.)  His approval ratings have been hovering around 35% for months.

C.)  Conclusion:  There was a 49% approval rating in 2004 and a 35% approval rating today.

      This represents a real drop in approval rating of 40%.  [ (49 - 35) / 35 ]

Source:  Rense.com



81 Year Old US WWII Veteran
Warns Of Bush-Nazi Similarities
From Paul Walker - Aftermath News
pjw56@hotmail.com
7-15-2

This is important email for anyone to read. It is brief, simple and to the point and we need to hear more of these voices of people who experienced firsthand the results of Hitler's dictatorship. It is a response to another man's very accurate depiction of the sorry state of the Union. I know others this man's age who also fought in the Big One and they don't like what is happening either. And they are the Greatest Generation, far more noble and honorable than we are today and I am very sad to see them passing as the years go by. We should all take our hats off to the good men and women of that era when America was still a proud and moral nation, still ruled by law and still a Constitutional Republic. Now that is all but gone.
 
Now a dictator, puppet of the Eastern Establishment Skull & Bones Nazis, a minion of the New World Order globalists and yes, a co-conspirator with Communists at the top level in Red China and the USSR, has seized power using the oldest trick in Hitler's playbook--TERROR. Terror and subcontract-terrorists that his cronies, including his old man, have funded and fomented, shepherded and protected all along the way to 9/11. Carefully manipulating people with such fear, he comes dressed up as an angel of light on a white steed to appear to save us from the Evil Ones, as he calls them. Instead he is presiding over the destruction of America and the systematic repression of all our freedoms under the pretext of "Homeland Security" modeled after the Gestapo and the Security Service of Nazi Germany. I don't think I need to say more about that, but please make strong efforts to inform others of this who are still afflicted with mass-media brainwashing. Keep throwing the facts in their faces until they can no longer dispute you. We cannot take our country back unless the people are educated and quick!
 
And thank you Mr Lancaster. I salute you! We need more of your generation to speak up now more than ever.
 
Paul Walker

 
From Jack Lancaster
aiken@internetcds.com
7-14-2
 
I am 81 years old and a veteran of WW2. I remember what the Nazi's were doing in Germany very well. Here in America our government is getting dangerously close to acting just like the Nazi's were in Germany and the Germans were doing it for 'better security' as we are doing.
 
The Germans got more and more paranoid (of their own people) and began watching all Germans and tightened security, and made Germans carry and show identity papers whenever the police and soldiers wanted to see them. They had German kids telling on their parents. It was a horror.
 
We are starting down the same path. The excuse is that we need to do this to protect our Citizens but the trouble is more and more of our freedoms are going and we are beginning to be like a gigantic outdoor prison.
 
It is not like the America I love and fought for. I fought for the freedom of Americans and not for a selfish United Stated Corporation which is more interested in money and power than it is in the People of America.
 
I don't look and see a kindly Uncle Sam anymore. I see a bullying Big Brother. Sorry to be so blunt but it is how I feel....
 
Jack Aiken Lancaster,
 
Founder,
People for Freedom. Grants Pass, Oregon.
 
 
From Carl F. Worden
7-14-2
 
About this Bush Administration...
 
Turn off the sound on that television, and stop reading those quotes in the newspaper. Take a step back and watch what they do, then compare that to what you know is true. Now begin to form an analysis.
 
I did, and here is what I considered:
 
There are a relatively limited number of people of Middle-Eastern origin here in the United States.
 
We know that terrorist acts carried out on our soil on 9/11 and since have been committed by Middle Eastern men who were not citizens of the United States.
 
We know that it would be relatively easy to locate and deport Middle Eastern persons who are here illegally, visiting on a visa or here on a green card, and we know there is no serious effort on the part of this administration to locate and deport them.
 
In the meantime, this administration has pushed through both the House and Senate the so-called "Patriot Act" which violates and indeed rapes, some of the most basic and fundamental rights afforded the citizens by the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights. We know it allows the government to search a person's home without his/her knowledge, and to withhold from the victim the reason for the search, among other atrocities.
 
We know this president has used an unconstitutional Executive Order to reclassify two United States citizens as "Enemy Combatants" following their arrest on American soil, although they were never involved in combat with American troops or their allies, and we know the so-called War on Terror is not a war that has been legally declared -- nor can it be, since no enemy nation can specifically be named unless we declare war on most of the Arab nations and Iran. The War on Terror is merely a federal government operation of no greater legal significance than the so-called War on Drugs.
 
As Enemy Combatants, those two citizens have been denied legal counsel, a trial and their right to face their accusers. Further, the alleged evidence against the two has never been presented to the American public, allegedly for "security" reasons, which means the evidence may not even exist, and yet the two are to be held in prison indefinitely. We know this administration could use the same tactics to incarcerate any citizen at any time right now, and that no general outrage has been expressed by the American public to date.
 
Okay, now on the basis of the above, does it appear the United States government is taking solid action to prevent further terror committed by non-citizen men of Middle Eastern origin? On the basis of the above, was the Patriot Act and the Executive Order to reclassify American citizens an Enemy Combatants limited to a foreign enemy known to have committed terrorist acts since 9/11? You know the answer.
 
It was just announced today in WorldNetDaily that:
 
"The Bush Administration aims to recruit millions of United States citizens as domestic informants in a program likely to alarm civil liberties groups."
 
"The Terrorism Information and Prevention System, or TIPS, means the US will have a higher percentage of citizen informants than the former East Germany through the infamous Stasi secret police. The program would use a minimum of 4 per cent of Americans to report "suspicious activity"."
 
You don't need that many snitches to identify and deport the relatively few Middle Eastern non-citizens in this country who pose the most immediate threat to American lives and infrastructure. Are you with me so far?
 
My analysis of these acts, regardless of the government rhetoric to the contrary, is that these actions have been taken to hinder a massive general uprising in the American population that this administration is anticipating. I do not specifically know their concerns, but I do believe they are anticipating something that they are not divulging at this time.
 
Carl F. Worden

http://www.rense.com

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

There are already law enforcement deployment intructions in our cities today in anticipation of civil unrest.  You are driving by them unknowingly every time you drive down a busy street.  I'll get into that later when I have better documentation and links for the doubting Thomases.

But even without that information, anyone driving in a metropolitan area knows that there are cameras posted at all busy intersections, toll booths, etc.  These were installed to "catch people running red lights" and "skipping through toll booths".  In my neighborhood these intersection cameras were installed a couple of years before the announced program of "catching red light runners" and before 9/11.   In IL we have to have a transponder to go through a toll booth and if we don't have one, we have to pay .80 to go through that booth when the normal charge is .40.  Our transportation is being monitored as well.

Some will say that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.  I'm never doing anything wrong and I feel we that we have a lot to worry about.  What you think is wrong and what they think is wrong are different under the new "laws".

-  Rick G.

This article describes the similarities to the 1994 and 2006 midterm elections. The results of the 2006

election will be decided for the same reasons as it was in 1994 when a disaffected American Public decided

to "throw the bums out". - Rick G.

______________________________________________________________________________

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222977,00.html

 

Friday   , October   20, 2006

   

By G. Terry Madonna and Michael Young

       

           

       

"All politics is local," famously intoned legendary U.S. House Speaker Tip O'Neil — to whose wisdom must be appended, "except when it isn't all local." And it isn't all local right now. And therein hangs a tale — a tale of two elections, two different political parties, two different presidents, but one common fate.

The tale begins in 1994, the last time the midterm elections were largely nationalized in American politics; we can say the 1994 elections were nationalized because voters were primarily motivated by their judgments about federal issues and national politics.

The "nationalization" of congressional elections is infrequent in mid-term elections. In the more typical or "normal" mid-term, voters cast their ballots on the basis of how well their own local member of Congress is performing or on the basis of some state issue — rather than on the basis of some overriding national or international issue. This is what O'Neil's maxim really means; most of the time, voters tend to vote nationally but think locally.

   

But when an election becomes nationalized, it has profound significance for both national and state politics. The old rules and trite formulations no longer apply in trying to understand or analyze the election.

As historians are well aware, parallels with the past are never perfect, but sometimes they provide important clues to future events. And nowhere is this truer than with the current parallels being drawn between the 1994 midterm elections and the one currently underway. In both situations, presidents had low approval ratings, scandals were attached to the congressional majority, and nagging national issues made the voters ripe for change.

In 1994, the Republicans played successfully on two themes. The first was an attack on President Clinton and the Democratic Congress for ethical shortcomings, attacks that were made credible by Clinton's low approval rating and instances of Democrat duplicity with the post office and bank scandals. The second was the Contract with America, a specific set of reform proposals signed onto by 370 Republican candidates for Congress.

It was brilliant strategy but Republicans couldn't have made it work without some help from Democrats. Indeed, it was serious Democratic mistakes that paved the way for the Republican victory, including Hillary Clinton's disastrous healthcare plan, the distracting debate over gays in the military and persistent allegations of ethical problems in the administration and Congress. Republicans captured both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years.

The Democrat carnage was not limited to Congress. The nationalization of the mid-term races also helped make it possible for the Republicans to make a clean sweep in Pennsylvania state government, thus setting the stage for a decade of political domination. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won the US Senate election and the governorship, while increasing their edge in the state senate and gaining control of the state house by a single vote.

But now exactly 12 years later, the gains made possible by the conservative 1994 revolution are in jeopardy in another midterm election. Nationally, Republicans in 2006 are in the throes of an electoral meltdown just as Democrats were in 1994.

As in 1994, the U.S. House and possibly the Senate seem increasingly likely to switch parties. As in 1994, an unpopular president and his unpopular policies are feeding the fire engulfing his party. And as in 1994, it is desertion of the ruling coalition by moderate and independent voters that provides the crucial catalyst that may sweep the ruling party from power.

Most striking in the parallels between 1994 and 2006 is this defection of core centrist voters. In 1994, the GOP coup de grace was delivered when conservatives turned out in record numbers while the turnout of dispirited Democrats sagged. In 2006, what presages a Democratic victory is the lassitude of Republican core voters who seem ready in some numbers to sit this election out.

Pennsylvania illustrates the national trends. To win elections in Pennsylvania, Republicans have always required the votes of more moderate suburban Republicans. But recently, these moderate voters threaten to desert the GOP in several important suburban congressional elections. In Pennsylvania, as nationally, it's the unpopularity of the war in Iraq and the president's low approval ratings that are the short term problem. But longer term, it is the reaction of the suburban Republican voters to the activism of the social conservatives in their party that is at the root of Republican problems.

Nationally, Republicans are struggling in both congressional and statewide races. Also in Pennsylvania, similar trends are apparent. Both the Republican U.S. Senate and gubernatorial candidates are running behind their Democrat opponents. More shockingly, as many as four GOP U.S. House seats seem vulnerable and as many as 15 GOP state House seats may be in play.

Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race between incumbent Rick Santorum and challenger Bob Casey has become a metaphor for the national election. In 1994, Santorum was the up-start, anti-establishment Republican who railed against the Democratic establishment, against big government programs, and against excessive spending.

But now in 2006, the ex-firebrand no longer challenges the prevailing Washington orthodoxy, and is comfortable in the very political culture he once battled to win both his seats in the House and in the Senate.

Santorum — who lives in an upscale Washington suburb, defends an embattled president, and holds a high leadership position in the Senate Republican Conference — has become the very embodiment of that once reviled establishment. The former revolutionary has become defender of the status quo.

In 2006, it is instead his challenger Bob Casey who plays Santorum's 1994 role and borrows from the Santorum 1994 version playbook, arguing for a new Washington direction, and running against the congressional establishment, against big spending, against deficits, and against the sleaze culture that seems to dominate so much of Washington.

As goes the Santorum-Casey match, so goes many of the competitive national races. Almost everywhere, incumbent Republicans are on the defensive. Buoyant Democrats are on the attack. The flamethrowers of 1994 have become the fire department of 2006 — furiously trying to keep together a wobbly coalition that may have seen its last hurrah.

As we enter the final days of the campaign, more and more, the 2006 election looks like the mirror image of 1994; the 1994 Republican hunters have become the 2006 hunted and resurgent Democrats are increasingly confident they will bag many of them.

                                                                                                                                      d

In the late 60's and early 70's there were hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets to protest the Viet Nam War.  The Nixon government response at the time was very similar to the government response to dissent today.  The FBI infiltrated student groups opposed to the war, marched in demonstrations with them and took pictures of demonstrators.  Backgrounds were scrutinized and files were kept.  There were probably illegal phone taps as well.  The paranoia on the college campuses was deep and widespread.  Students who wouldn't have normally become involved suddenly sat up and took interest in what their government and local police authorities were doing.  That paranoia was child's play.  In those days the Bill of Rights was still a part of the Constitution and any half-witted lawyer could get you out of trouble for peacefully participating in a demonstration. 

In October, 2006, if you were to march in protest against the Iraq War, you could be considered an enemy combatant, stripped of all legal rights, transported to a foreign country for interrogation and/or incarcerated for years without a charge being filed against you.  That is how open to interpretation the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is.  No lawyer can get you out of it because it is law and you won't even be able to see your lawyer in the first place.  Perhaps the Act could have been worded better?  Yes, but I think they worded it exactly how they wanted it to give them as much leeway as possible in circumventing the Bill Of Rights.

This is true, this is fact.  If you are against the Iraq War you CAN be considered as an enemy combatant according to the exact wording of this Act.  As it stands, one-half of the American population could be considered enemy combatants.  And who makes the decision if you are an enemy combatant?  The Executive Branch of the US Government...one man.

Now that's REAL paranoia.

Your right to freedom of speech has been officially rescinded. Keep your political thoughts to yourselves or risk your lives.

 

Government Targets American Bloggers As Enemy Propagandists

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/171006enemypropagandists

 

Military, Homeland Security, Bush White House strategy sharpen knives against anyone critical of the "war on terror"

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 17 2006

Recent scientific polls that show around 84% don't believe the government's explanation behind 9/11 and others confirming the fact that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low have led the Bush administration to sharpen their knives against the new breed of perceived "enemy propagandists," bloggers, journalists and online activists who dissent against the "war on terror." As Raw Story reports, CENTCOM announced earlier this year that a team of employees would be "[engaging] bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information." So when you're wasting your time arguing the finer points of the collapse of Building 7 or the quagmire in Iraq with someone who seems unable to grasp basic principles, your foe could well be sat behind a plush U.S. government desk in a uniform. CENTCOM is infiltrating blogs and message boards to ensure people, "have the opportunity to read positive stories,"presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans. The CENTCOM website features a useful section, "What Extremists Are Saying," which provides a full catalogue and showcases the diatribes of US government agents Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, Ayman al-Zawahiri and their sympathizers - rhetoric that CENTCOM hopes surfers will seek out in order for them to grasp a true understanding for the necessity of bombing another broken backed defenseless country in the name of "freedom." The jaw-dropping hypocrisy of a regime and its military attack arm that has engaged in the most gargantuan of deceit and propaganda purges against the American people then pointing the finger at inquisitive bloggers for "aiding the enemy," is alarming to behold.   President George W. Bush looks up as he signs the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in the East Room of the White House in Washington. The bill effectively nullifies nine of the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution and ends the "great experiment" known as The United States of America.

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society. In a speech given Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills." Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool. How long before influential online writers, bloggers and journalists like Greg Palast, who was charged with aiding the terrorists when filming "critical U.S. infrastructure," are arbitrarily gunned down on the street like in Russia or the newly "free" Iraq? The Bush administration's media mouthpieces have also been mobilized to stereotype any kind of critical thinking as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," a recent case in point being Fox News' Bill O'Reilly calling for the FBI to investigate the 9/11 Scholars organization for possible ties to terrorist organizations. Will we witness a "night of the long knives" to silence any and all dissent as the official dictatorship is announced or does the chilling effect of simply threatening to treat bloggers and journalists as terrorists go far enough to intimidate enough people to keep their mouths shut? A combination of this chilling effect and moves to license websites, impose "hate speech" restrictions and kill off the old internet in favor of a government regulated, China-style "Internet 2" are the tools in the arsenal of the neo-fascists who wish to continue their domestic and imperial bloodletting under the mandated consensus of total obedience.     

Here's a way to play your combos to try and nail the straight.

Let's say your pick is 1-2-3.

Consider the three pairs, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3.

First, find which of these pairs came in most recently.  Play it in the opposite order it came in.  Then look to see if the remaining digit came in before or after that pair.  If it came in before, it will be the first digit of the combination.  If it came in after, it will be the last digit of the combination.

Example, last three draws:

224
103
273

The 1-3 pair is the most recent of the three pairs.  The sequence was 1-3 so you will play it as 3-1 today.  The remaining digit 2, came in after the pair so it will be the third digit of the combination.  The straight choice would be 3-1-2.

This is based on personal observation that a majority (60+ %) of the time a pair will appear in reverse order next time.

Hope this helps someone and....g-o-o-o-d luck! 

These are the most idiotic and illogical accusations I have ever seen in my entire life:

The Democrats are responsible for Republican Mark Foley acting as a pervert. Bill Clinton is responsible for Kim Il Jung testing a nuclear device. Jimmy Carter is responsible for everything else wrong in the world.

How f-ing stupid do you people think we are for C-sake??? Do you honestly believe that everyone in this country is a total imbecile?

Is your control over our lives so tenuous that you have to resort to NewSpeak?

What a joke. I can hardly wait until the American Public is allowed to speak its mind via the voting booth and when that fails again, mark my words, it will go to the streets.

HOW DARE YOU!

 

We've all been enthralled with prophets through the ages.  Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce are my favorites.  But there's a new boy on the block and he's not a prophet per se, but an author.  Good old George Orwell wrote a book in 1949 entitled "1984" which I'm sure most of you have read.  50 years later his prophecy is coming to pass.

Sure, this subject has come up a lot lately.  Many people are making comparisons of George Orwell's police state and current events.  But it had been a while since I read it and decided to give it another read.  We used to laugh at the phrase "Big Brother is watching you".  Now it's not quite so funny.  It's all been very subtle and has taken time to progress thus obscuring its presence and inevitability.

Cash transactions are becoming a thing of the past.  Most transactions are conducted by credits and debits with the use of magnetic strip cards or Social Security numbers.  These transactions are all monitored.

Countries are uniting into mega countries.  What was once 200 individual sovereign countries is fast becoming 3-4 mega unions.  The European Union was the first such union.  Now they're talking about a North American Union.  National currencies are replaced by Union currencies.  National sovereign power is ultimately being transferred to the power and control of the Union.

Personal identification is being transformed from "papers, please" to retina scans, mandatory DNA samples and ultimately into scannable computer chips being inserted into our bodies upon birth.  ("For the good of the child", they'll say).

Surveillance cameras are everywhere imaginable and the film can be confiscated by law enforcement agencies at will...street corners, restaurants, stores, bars, etc. (Ask anyone living in London about the coverage of public place security cameras...and this was before the subway bombings).  The next step is that they must be installed in our homes and a direct feed from ALL cameras must be provided to the proper authorities.

Illegal search and seizure is a commonplace occurrence, as is illegal detainment.  But because we've been brainwashed that it's for our own good, we've become immune to its implications.  You can't blame the terrorists and 9/11, this trend has been going on for 20 years.  Now there's an excuse to accelerate it.

Of course all of these modern "conveniences" are being attributed to the godawful excuse of the "common good".  And as lambs to slaughter, we are all buying into it.  As we blankly stare at our sitcoms, the power, money and control over our lives is being funneled into a tiny handful of people and ultimately to one world leader with full authority over what happens on this planet.  This isn't science fiction.  This is happening quietly today right under our noses.  I think they took their lessons right from the book.

I would urge all to give that book a second read and start to take note of what's happening around you.  We can change it, but first we must recognize it for what it is.

AOL might be considered a left wing membership.  There are no political requirements to be a member and it is the largest ISP in the US.  The members might lean to the left but that is as far as you can take that.  So adjust poll results to 10% plus or minus for accuracy instead of the 3-4 % in typical polls.

After 9300 polled:

Which party do you want to control congress? 

DEM...65%..........REP...35%

Which party do you think will control congress?

DEM...62%..........REP...38%

How important are these elections to you?

Very...84%........Somewhat...13%.......Not at all...3%

Do you know who you're voting for?

Yes....88%.........No...12%

 

We'll see what happens in November.  Polls don't foretell the future but they've proven to be very accurate in the past. 

 

 

Interesting poll of 1150 Iraqis and a State Department poll. Both polls would seem to be accurate assessments of the situation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

· Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

· About 61 percent approved of the attacks - up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

· An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

· Three-fourths say they think the United States plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

· A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

              
The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The State Department, meanwhile, has also conducted its own poll, something it does periodically, spokesman Sean McCormack said. The State Department poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to The Washington Post. McCormack declined to discuss details of the department's Iraq poll.

"What I hear from government representatives and other anecdotal evidence that you hear from Iraqis that is collected by embassy personnel and military personnel is that Iraqis do appreciate our presence there," he said. "They do understand the reasons for it, they do understand that we don't want to or we don't intend to be there indefinitely."

Iraqi officials have said Iraq's security was improving and expanding throughout the country, and most U.S. troops might be able to leave eventually.

Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani told the United Nations that coalition forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqi security forces are "capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security."

9/28/2006 08:24:36
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. "

This document could be considered the cornerstone of democracy.

Please read the statement carefully.  The writers spent much time making sure each word and phrase would be interpreted literally and as it was intended.

From the Declaration of Independence, "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends [i.e., Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it..."

Notice this statement refers to governments (plural) instituted by men (the plural of all people).  It refers to the people being governed in their own country having the right to alter or abolish their own government and not to people or governments of other countries having the right to alter or abolish their government.  The intent of this statement was to prevent imposing one government's will and form of government upon another country.  It is up to the governed in each country to decide its own government, no one else. 

We had a revolution in this country over this issue 212 years ago.  The United States was born because we believed in this statement.

The words are very clear and simple and it is democracy at its finest as it was intended to be.  Any variation from this is a variation from democracy.

"Spreading democracy" was NOT what our founding fathers had in mind.  Any rational being with a rudimentary understanding of the English language could discern that from this Declaration. 

We were forced to memorize this Declaration as schoolchildren because of its importance.  Let's not trample on those basic beliefs that created this great country.