A still relatively relevent, relatively long, quote

"The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly. It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society. It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties. It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor. It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities. Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of. The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America. Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." - Dr. Thomas Sowell

12/15 Debate

With the last official debate of 2011 in the books, here are my observations and opinions about what went down.
Starting from the left, Rick Santorum. I'm not a huge Santorum fan, and his performance and answers tonight did not change that. I don't know about anybody else, but I have a hard time listening to him without losing focus after 30 seconds or so. I do agree with his policy decision about Iran, but then again the policies for that crazy country are the same for all of the candidates except for Paul.
Next comes Rick Perry. Perry performed about as well as I expected him to. I enjoyed him poking fun at himself and admitting that he is not much of a debater. Although, he seemed surprisingly loose, getting in a few crowd-pleasing one-liners. What I did not like was his stupid Tim Tebow analogy. I feel like I can't escape the guy. Before I turned on the debate, I was watching ESPN and they were running a story on how kids in New York got suspended for Tebowing during school. As a Seminole, I can't stand Tebow. Sure I concede he is a great leader, a talented athlete, and he brings faith to the game, thats fine but for the love of G-d please stop talking about him. Perry's analogy made plenty of sence, the "Tebow of The Iowa Caucauses" but it just made me grimace.
Mitt Romney shined tonight. He really had a great debate, he spoke very well, and he defended himself well. He also did something that everyone wanted to hear, including myself, which was attack Obama. All candidates did this especially well tonight, and one of my fears for a long time now has been than the candidates are attacking eachother rather than Obama. So when the potential candidate faces the President, he (face it, Bachmann aint winning) will be at a disadvantage because he has already been cut down by his competitors. I believe Brett Baier actually adressed this as well which made me happy.
I love Newt Gingrich the historian. Newt gingrich the politician has got some work to do though. I think for the most part he debated pretty well, he caught a lot of flak about his tIme advising Feddie Mac. I personally don't have a problem wih this because they came to private citizen Newt Gingrich not Speaker of the House.
Gingrich defended himself just fine against the barrage coming from the candidate to his right, Michelle Bachmann He stated that her information was simply false. She then proceeded to whine about how she is a serious candidate, wah wah. I don't like Michelle Bachmann, she creeps me out with all her make up, and here abnormally slow blinking. Also I think she is way to serious, I understand that running for President is a serious thing, but lighten up, will ya? But, like I said before, I do agree with her foreign policy.
I just realized I skipped over Ron Paul, oops. Thats okay, he didn't speak much after he got roasted for his foreign policy towards Iran. I like a lot of what Ron Paul does, especially with the the cuts he wants to make to our budget, government, and to a certain extent, military. But I think this stance on Iran will be he end of him. I have been saying that he could win Iowa, which is still possible. But I don't think he can hold up outside of that. Granted, if he were some how able to win the nominee, I don't think the stance on Iran would make much of a difference because it's not like the republicans are going to vote for Obama.
And last but not least, Jon Huntsman was finally able to join us at a debate. If anybody missed Herman Cain's universal problem solving answer, 9-9-9, they can appreciate Jon Huntsman. To Huntsman, everything, whether it be foreign policy, the keystone project, or talking about the supreme court judges, it all circled back to the economy. Now I realize the economy has been a hot issue for a while now, but seriously? It got a little heavy-handed after a while. I was actually able to answer questions for him about a quarter way through the debate.
So those are my thoughts for the time being, I love Newt, but after this debate, if I had to vote right now, my vote goes to Mr.Romney. I will probably post a lot more in January with the caucases on the 3rd, New Hampshire primaries on the 10th, and another debat on the 16th, so be on the look out for more posts from me.

Occupy vs. Tea Party

I wrote a comparison between the two movements for a mini article in my yearbook.

The Occupy Wall Street movement took the United States by storm on September 17, 2011. Protesters set up camp in Zuccotti Park in New York City to protest various issues, the most popular being that the 1% (the “fat cats” on Wall Street and other wealthy Americans) hold too much wealth and too much power. One could say that the Occupy movement is the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party movement that started in 2009. For those who don’t know, the Tea Party movement was a resurgence of paleo-conservative beliefs in America after the Bush era.
  The two movements are similar in that they both started as peaceful protests, a right we have had as Americans since the Constitution was adopted in 1788. They both started out with clear grievances, reasons for their protest. They have also both had their share of extremists as well. The similarities end there.
  The Occupy movement was unorganized from the beginning, with rag-tag protests popping up around the country. The Occupiers were able to amass incredible amounts of protesters The Tea Party movement was organized and able to put together mass rallies with ease. The Tea Party was also able to do something that no other group of protesters in our history were able to do, not the Anti-Federalists, not the Whigs, not the Anti-Masonics, and not even the Rent Is Too Damn High party. The Tea Party was able to make the Republican party change to fit them. The GOP changed to fit the Tea Party beliefs, and even got people, such as Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Christine O’Donnell, elected to office.

Washington's Beard

So there is this new podcast that is just starting up, episode number 2. They are going to post new shows every Monday. I have listened to them both, I am definitely a subscriber. Check it out: http://feeds.feedburner.com/thebeardpodcast or find them on itunes: Washington's Beard Podcast

My God...

Vice President Joe Biden says we must pass President Obama's new job bill or more women will get raped...

Steve Jobs

   Sadly, the former Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, passed away today at age 56.  Jobs is credited with being the man behind some of the most popular devices on this planet. He started the company in 1976 with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne and built it into one of the most powerful companies in the world today. Jobs was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer since 2004 and had a liver transplant in 2009. Jobs was 56.

Massachusetts Man Wants to Ban Pledge of Allegiance

   A man from the state of Massachusetts wants to ban the Pledge from all public schools in the state. He states that there is "no educational value" in it at all and the 'uncomfortable' state it puts kids in makes his "skin crawl". Really? No educational value? Or is it because you have a hard time hearing people say Under God. And not educational? It has been a part of our history, being recited in school since 1892. That's before he was born.
I hate things like this...

Boehner Says No

   So, in case nobody knows, President Obama just came back from a wonderful vacation on Martha's Vineyard. And when he got back he decided that he needed to call a joint session of congress. He wanted this meeting on Wednesday September 7th, the same day as the Republican Presidential debate, which was booked months in advance. This is a petty move on Obama's part in my opinion. He knew that the debate was that day, but wanted to give his speech that day anyway because he wanted to do it soon because it is so important. If he thinks it is so important, why not do it Tuesday? Or better yet, he could have come back from his vacation early and delivered it a week ago. Any way, Speaker Boehner said, "Let me think about it..uh, NO." don't quote me on that, though. But the most surprising thing, the white house actually rolled over and said, "okay, our bad, we will do it Thursday," don't quote me on that either. Here is something that is quotable though:
   Former Clinton administrator David Rothkopf said, "This childish gamesmanship...reconfirms...that Washington is a sandbox full of petulant children who don't play well together."
   It's crazy how this Obama is the same guy that, on the campaign trail, said that he was going to change Washington for the better, change how things are run. It's changed alright, but if anything, it is worse than before. He just got steamrolled by Boehner and a congress that has some of the lowest approval ratings ever, that goes to show how powerful and mighty our president is.
   I don't even understand how this could happen. Obama said he was going to give this jobs speech, but then he went on vacation. All of a sudden he comes back and it is urgent that it gets done? Confusing.

War of Words

   As of late, the rhetoric that is going from the Democrats to the Tea Party has been getting increasingly severe. Recently, Senator John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden have called the Tea Party a bunch of terrorists and extremists. Also, Congresswomen Maxine Waters said that the Tea Party "can go straight to Hell" and Congresswomen Frederica Wilson says "the true enemy is the Tea Party". All of this is unacceptable. I can't stand the name calling, especially from these folks. I realize that I may be a little bit biased but the fact of the matter is, nobody, Republican or Democrat, should be name calling like little grade-schoolers. I think that the party's platforms should be able to stand on their own and speak for themselves. I hate smear campaigns, I think they are annoying.
   On a related note, I was watching Hannity yesterday and he was running a story about how, in 2008, the then Senator Barack Obama called President Bush's irresponsibility with the federal budget "unpatriotic". Bush spent 4 trillion in 8 years. And as of right now, now President Barack Obama has spent 4 trillion in little over two and a half years! Who's unpatriotic now Mr. President? Not that I condone name calling or anything. Haha. No but really I don't like it, no matter who it is coming from.

Not Guilty. Wait, What?

It's been quite a while....
Well, the Casey "OJ" Anthony trial has been quite a doozie. I, for one, am extremely upset with the verdict.
   For those who do not know Casey Anthony was accused of killing her 3 year old daughter Caylee Anthony in June of 2008. Starting around mid-June 2008 Casey's parents started asking to see their granddaughter, with Casey almost always replying that she was with her nanny, Zanny, at theme parks, or the beach, etc. Yes you heard that right, Zanny the Nanny. You Know, if I didn't know any better I would have thought she maid that up, oh wait... Zanny actually does exist, her name is Zanaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, she lives in an apartment complex in Orlando, but get this, she has never even met Caylee, or Casey, or her parents, or her friends...
   Things got weird when Casey's parents received a letter  saying her car was impounded. So her dad went down to the lot to get her car. He and the worker there noticed an awful smell coming from the trunk of the car, and when they looked, they found nothing but claimed the back smelled like rotting flesh.
   So after this event, Case decided that a month is long enough and that she should probably report her daughter missing. The police took her in for questioning, and when they got to the question about her place of employment, she said  Universal Studios. So the cops took her to Universal to have her show them where her office was. Casey kind of led them around for awhile then finally admitted she was lying. It went like this:
   "Ms. Anthony, please show us to your office."
   after a while of meandering around...
   "Ms. Anthony please show us where you work."
   "Oh, you wanted to know where I worked? I thought you were asking me....oh never mind I made this all up. You're all on Punk'd. Ashton? Come out here and tell 'em...Yeah that's a lie too. What? You're arresting me? Why?"
   I will admit that may not be exactly what she said, but it's pretty darn close. So finally in December of 2008, Caylee Anthony's remains were found in a wooded area a few blocks from her home. Fast forward to now, here is the evidence against her:
   She lies to the police constantly.
   She has been in and out of jail for other small crimes unrelated to this, throughout this whole ordeal.
   A decomposed hair found in the back of Casey's car matches Caylee's decomposed hair on her skeleton.
   An air sample from the trunk of the car shows traces decomposition and chloroform.
   Their was an exorbent amount of searches on her computer about "neckbreaking" "chlorform" and "death".
   The same types of laundry bags, duct tape, and plastic bags found at the crime scene, were also in her house. As well as Caylee's Winnie the Pooh blanket, which was missing from the home and found at the crime scene with the body.
   And the Icing on the cake: a journal entry dated June 21, which if in 2008, is a few days after the supposed murder, "I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. I hope that my happiness will continue to grow– I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people – I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change." 
   The defense tried to say this was from 2003, before Caylee was born, but the diary in question was not manufactured until 2004.
All of this spectacularly incriminating evidence was obviously not enough for the outstanding jury that was put together for this trial because, after deliberating for two days, the only charge they found her guilty of was lying to police. It calls for up to four years in prison but since Casey has already spent more than two in lock-up, they might just let her walk. Unbelievable. She deserves capital punishment, and she may walk. We will find out on July 7.

on an unrelated side-note, Big thank you goes out to Steven for keeping this site going since some other writers, myself included, kind of slacked-off for awhile.

 

Barack Obama Declares Reelection Campaign

Great... So the audacity of hope has been revived for another campaign. The initial goal: raise 1 billion dollars, more than any other campaign in history. Ridiculous, as is the idea that anyone would vite to reelect this man for another four years. He is, for lack of a better word, not a great president. THough we can argue about his individual policies (healthcare, Libya, etc.), one cannot shy away from the fact that behind that charismatic smile lurks an conniving, cold, cunning, calculating (insert other negative word that starts with a "c"), and just overall a dangerouds man. Opinions?

Florida: 48th in Public Edyoocashion.

As of now, Florida Public schools are the 48th best in the United States. The 2 that are behind us are Arizona and Nevada (respectively). Recently, our Governor Rick Scott passed a bill that gives teachers bonuses based on merit.

What this essentially means is that teachers will receive their regular paychecks, and an additional bonus based on how well their students did that year in class. I personally believe that this is Rick Scott's second attempt at running this state like a business. Being a business man himself, I'm sure he believes that all success is derived from business-like actions.

The first example of this is him recently passing a bill that was deemed unconstitutional back in 2004 when Crist was in office. The bill makes it mandatory for all state employees to get drug tested. Ironically, a company called Solantic, a widely known privatized clinic that specializes in drug screenings, is owned by (drumroll please) Rick Scott! Seems like a real Dick (Cheney) move if you ask me.

But back to education and merit pay. Some friends of my family are actually teachers at the local elementary school. When I talked about the subject to them, they laughed and pretty much told them that they're going to teach to the test that determines their pay, and nothing else. This is furthered by Vivian Troen and Katherine C. Boles. In the article "How ‘Merit Pay’ Squelches Teaching" in the Boston Globe on September 28, 2005, it says that "The idea of merit pay, sometimes called pay for performance, was born in England around 1710. Teachers' salaries were based on their students' test scores on examinations in reading, writing, and arithmetic. The result was that teachers and administrators became obsessed with financial rewards and punishments, and curriculums were narrowed to include only the testable basics. ... So drawing, science, and music disappeared. Teaching became more mechanical as teachers found that drill and rote repetition produced the 'best' results. Both teachers and administrators were tempted to falsify results, and many did. The plan was ultimately dropped, signaling the fate of every merit plan initiative ever since."

Secondly, it's going to completely undercut essential cooperation between educators. The United Teachers of Los Angeles wrote on November 9th, 2007 that "Teacher unions have historically resisted merit pay proposals because they undermine one of the core principles of teaching and learning: collaboration. Whether it is the informal discussion that takes place in the lunchroom or the more formal exchanges based on grade level, department, or small learning communities, these are only successful because as teachers we understand teaching is about working together to help our students, not competition for better pay."

Thirdly, according to Education-Portal, "Some Teachers are Punished ... Should a teacher who chooses to teach at a large school, an inner city school, or a special needs school where tests scores are generally lower be punished? Definitely not, but that is exactly what some merit pay programs threaten to do." Merit pay really does punish hard working teachers that have bad students, which leads me to another point, that student performance does not represent teacher performance.

My personal favorite is this one: Merit pay creates an incentive for teachers to cheat, by improving student test scores so that they can appear to be doing better as a result of the teacher's work, resulting in bonuses and higher pay. Obviously, the resulting differences in pay would not be fair. In actuality, as a student, this doesn't completely stink. My teachers are going to help me Ace all of my tests, standardized or not. My grades are going to go up, and I'm not going to learn a thing!

But, if that isn't good enough for you, we can turn to past examples and see how it worked out for them. The Boston Globe on September 28th, 2005 wrote an article called "How Merit Pay Squelches Teaching." In it, they wrote "Merit pay comes in many forms and flavors -- including extra bonuses for student achievement gains, satisfactory evaluations by principals or committees, acquiring additional duties, gaining new skills and knowledge, and serving in hard-to-staff schools. We've looked at dozens of plans in North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Guess what? None of them, past and present, has ever had a successful track record. None has ever produced its intended results. Any gains have been minimal, short-lived, and expensive to achieve."

Sources, mentioned and additional:
Jay Mathews. "Merit Pay Could Ruin Teacher Teamwork". Washington Post. October 6, 2008
Vivian Troen and Katherine C. Boles. "How ‘Merit Pay’ Squelches Teaching". Boston Globe. September 28, 2005
"Report Highlights Risks of Teacher Merit Pay". Education Week. May 20, 2009
"The myth of private-sector performance pay". Economic Policy Institute. May 13, 2009
"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007
Joseph Legueri. "Iron Range view: Merit pay proponents fail to understand facts of teaching". Duluth News Tribune. May 19, 2009
"No merit to merit pay". United Teachers Los Angeles. November 9, 2007
"Merit pay ain't the way". No Fish No Nuts. March 11, 2009
"Say no to merit pay". Letter to the Editor of the New York Teacher. Apr 2, 2009
"the final word on why merit pay is bullshit". Journeys of Jack Tripper. April 29, 2009
"Merit Pay for Teachers". Creating Lifelong Learners.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/21/study-merit-pay-teachers-doesnt-improve-student-test-scores/ <---This one is by Fox News, so I usually wouldn't promote using this as a reliable source. They quote a Vanderbilt Study though, so it has to be somewhat legitimate.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/22/earlyshow/main6129624.shtml
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/the-uncertain-impact-of-merit-pay-for-teachers/

In actuality though, this isn't going to happen. Florida's Education System can't even afford to give Florida Teachers a 1% raise, let alone pay some of them more than 1% their salary for a "good" performance. In 2012 when this bill is supposed to take effect, Florida will realize that we don't have the money for it (or anything else), and repeal it immediately. Then, they (hardworking teachers) will keep having their crappy paychecks which are less than that of a "grass cutter" or a "stock clerk."
Source: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/education/fl-school-jobs-20110326,0,3562023.story
Or, if you don't want to click on that and read the whole thing, read the first three paragraphs (the important stuff) below:
The Broward County School District last year paid about 34 of its painters and 24 of its roofers at least $59,000 – more per day than it paid teachers with 16 years of experience.

Seventeen stock clerks earned $52,000 or more, while 18 grass cutters and three pest-sprayers were paid about $50,000 – each making more per day than most 10-year teachers.

Taxpayers also paid two mail clerks about $49,000, more per day than many 7-year teachers.

For years, the district refused calls from school activists to reconsider what it pays for services.

A Conversation I had with a Classic Zombie

The following is a transcript of a discussin I had via text message about President Obama's handling of the situation in Libya with a friend of mine who will remain unnamed for provacy purposes. Though intelligent, this friend's wisdom has much to be desired. Before we begin, some background info: Unfortunately, I was unable to watch President Obama's speech last night, and was given false information pertaining to the concept of troop withdrawal from Iraq and insertion into Libya. I apologized at the immediate start of the convesation. Read on, and be sure to leave your opinions below: Friend: "What were you talking about?Obama never said he's sending troops into Libya. Conservative propaganda" Me: "Lol @ conservative propaganda. A girl in my Spanish class, a liberal I might add. told me he said that in his address. Sorry about the misinformation. Nevertheless, we've had CIA and special forces on the ground since airstrikes started. There's a clip from the O'Reilly Factor that I was just watching which discusses it in length. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq4Bh-hlUWA&amp Friend: "They're brainwashing you." Me: "Did you actually watch the clip, becasue you couln't have in that time period..." Friend: "I watched at 2x speed." Me: "Lol if you say so. You ought to actually listen though, because there are troops on the ground. No matter whether or not Obama was trying to protect them, he blatantly lied to us." Friend:"Technically the CIA are not troops. They are civilian intelligence officers." Me: "'You're talking about military' 'yes and they [combat air controllers] have the mission of making sure the missiles reach terminal targets' start at 2:48" Friend:"@4:21 'the primary mission is intel.' No soldiers besides airforce and navy ones are in active combat in Libya." Me: "That doesn't matter. There are 'boots' (as opposed to the CIA's 'shoes') on the ground. Do air force and navy soldiers not count as troops if they aren't in a plane or on a boat? He lied." Friend:"A plane is in the air and a boat is on water. Neither are on land. (p.s. if you want to start labeling you might as well call Newt Gingrich and half the republicans in congress hypocrites)" Me: "That's not the point I was making. What I meant was, these soldiers are on the ground, and you were trying to insinuate that the navy and air force didn't count, becasue they weren't normally ground troops, even though it was explicitly stated in the videothat we have both CIA and military secial forces on the ground. Now, you're trying to put up some straw man wwith the labeling issue. I never once claimed to support Newt Gingrich or the Republicans. I agree with some odf his positions, but I also agree that he is a hypocrite. That has nothing to do with Obama lying to us..." Friend: "The air force, navy, and CIA do not count. That's established. As to the special forces, when a person talks about ground forces, special forcesusually are not included. While they are technically soldiers in Libya, you cannot take every word one says absolutely literally. When he says that its absolutely out of the question for U.S. ground forces to be used in libya, he means on a scale that would basically constitute an invasion a la Iraq, which he directly refers to after he says that." Me: "Why should I not take his words literally when any troops on the ground would constitute military action that necessarily must go through congress to be constitutional. So are you, like Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, suggesting that President Obamahas violated the U.S. constitution, an impeachable offense? Either way that's true. But, I digress. Special forces or not, its troops. Call me a stickler if you must. And thanks for dropping the labeling argument. Let me ask you something. Do you support this attack?" Friend: "Special forces as well as the CIA are in scores of countriesthis very moment and not a single one of their missions has gone through congress. That's how its been for the history of the country. Obama has done nothing different. If you claim that he circumvented the constitution, then basically so has every president." Me: "The CIA is a different story. Military spec ops troops of the type specified here are not in scores of countries. They are in allied countries, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. You agree with me that the CIA iss a civilian group. They operate independently of constitutional authority. The military should not. This is the first time that a president has not even approached congress but has acted merely off of a UN mandate, which, though you may or may not want it to be, is not the law of the land here. Additionally, at this point you concede that troops are on the ground, and that he lied. If you want me to say that Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush are all at fault for similar offenses, then the are." Friend: "and JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, as well as others. All have had special forces in other countries without us being at war with them." Me: "Give me specific examples please. As far as I know, JFK, Bush Sr., Reagan, Clinton, and LBJ all went to congress before starting military action. They had the CIA in the countries before consulting congress, but that's a different story. Even Bush Jr. did this to an extent. Do not confuse this with a formal declaration of war, which has not been done since WWII. Obama is the only one to have not even addressed congress, or us, until long after the events started in Libya. And so he did lie to us as well, going back to the original discussion. And, aside from that, Barack Obama still lied, because in his campaign he promised no mare wars. JFK promised things like, we will defeat the communists, etc." Friend: "JFK: In the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, congress had no part. Special forces in Cuba and the CIA in Florida set the stage for the 'invasion.' 8 U.S. bombers bombed cuban airfields w/o congressional assent a la Libya. LBJ: The U.S. had special forces in Vietnam since 1950, well before the start of the war. They had been supporting the French and other rebels without congressional assent. Bush Sr.: Operation Desert Shield never had congressional approval.It was a wholly defensive operation just like Libya. Clinton: The battle of Mogadishu was a special forces mission with absolutely no approval from congress.Reagan: The U,S. invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) was ordered directly by the president without congressional assent. I guess they should have all been impeached." Me: "I guess so. Unless, of course... Bush Sr: Announced to congress that he would put troops in before commencing. He did not wait for approval, but he told them, and thus had 90 days before the congressionally approved Desert Strom. Sketchy. Possibly an impeachable offense. LBJ: "Wasn't president, until '63. Eisenhower had US troops in Vietnam as part of Operation Passage to Freedom, however this was a navy endeavour - no troops on theground. JFK: The cuban militia was trained exclusively by the CIA, and fell under Cold War doctrines of covert ops, as did all of the previously mentioned. ops.This is in contrast to the overt op of operation Odyssey Dawn. Clinton: Congresse was approached before action was taken, did not approve, but allwoed the90 day window. Reagan: The threats at the airport in Grenada near a facility with American medical studentswas described to congress in '83 by Ron Dellums. Reagan told congress he would invade immediately preceding. The difference between these and Obama's invasion of Libya is that Obama doesn't get 90 days because he told congress after it happened. Even if there is no approval, the president has 90 days if he tells congress. Obama didn't." Friend: "In regards to JFK, the cold war is not an excuse just as the War on Terror is not an excuse. Clinto addressed congress in septemberwhen his op began in August. Ron Dellums actually described the opposite. He thought the operation was unwaranted absurd, and patronizing. LBJ greatly increased the # of military 'consultants'. They were in no way only navy and there were definitely grounfd troops there." Me: "Lol. Eisenhower put in only navy, which was a response to you saying LBJ did stuff in the 50s. I'll responfd to this when I get out of the shower." Me: "Okay, so, Johnson did increase the number of 'consultants,' mostly CIA immediately before and after the declared military action in Vietnam.Many viewed this as an impeachable offense. One of the reasons Nixon was elected in a sweep was becasue of ublic opinion towards LBJ's treatment of the war.I would understand why he could be impeached, just as I understand why Obama could be impeached, though I lead towards Obama's offense being of a greater magnitude. Don't assume that I wuld defend any of our other presidents as I attack Obama. Wilson, for example, I view as a dirtbag." friend: "The United States is not at war though. You said yourself we have not formally declarewd a war on another sovereign state since WWII.The constitution talks about declarations of war." Me: "... Okay, lets start over. The constitution does talk about declarations of war. We have not formally declared war since WWII.Yes. But, the War Powers Declaration, signed into law by congress, states that the president has 48 hours to consult congress, and then has 60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period, if congress says no. Obama has yet to formally ask congress because he is still operating under the pretext that this is a political and not a military action thanks to the UN mandate specifying a no-fly zone. Nevertheless, we have gone beyond the bounds of the resolution, and this is obviously military, and congress was not asked within 48 hours." Friend: "The operation has not gone outside the bounds of the UN resolution. THe resolution said countries could do anything necessary to protect civilian casualties. I just saw a guy on last night's Daily Show from Benghaziwho's fmily was 2 miles away from Qaddafi's soldiers. If the US and NATO had not intervened, there would be over 25,000 casualties by many estimates." Me: "1. That us beside the point of Obama lying to us. 2. We should still have not intervened. This is not a slaughter of civilians by the military, but a provoked civil war by a militant groupof rebels. The rumors that Qaddafi strafing civilians were proved false. It is hypocritical that we intervene here and not the many otehr places whuch have far worse enocide, and the idea that we would automatically back an unknown grouop of rebelsis ridiculous. Furthermore, Obama's declaration that we will always back rebels is foolish.Should we have backed rebels in Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, and many African nations? The same idea stands here. As al Qaeda publicly supprts the rebels on and off the battlefield. Additionally, Qaddafi tried to bargain for a ceasefire, but rebels continued to attack his bases. I don't like him, but the portrait being painted of him by the media is false." Friend: "I completely agree that we should never have intervened. My point was that Obama's actions had not violated the UN resolution." Me: "Nevertheless, the UN resolution should not dictate American policy. And Obama lied about troops on the gorund. I'm tired though. THis was fun. We should do it again sometime. Seeya tomorrow." So, towards the middle and end my views really weren't wholly what I was expressing, and just started debating for an intellectual exercise. Regardless, this discussion, raises many interesting points. I find myself conflicted over US military action throughout the 20th century for example. I'll refrain from providing initial opinions, but would love to hear yours.

Moammar Gaddafi...

...is crazy...

The Brushfires of Freedom are Burning: Ron Paul Wins CPAC 2011

For the second year in a row, the Congressman from Texas, Dr. ron Paul, has owon the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Straw Poll, with 30% of the total vote, the question eing, "WHo is your first choice for a 2012 presidential candidate?" Mitt Romney came in second place, with 23%, and various other presidential hopefuls trailed with 6% or less. The audience, aside from a few Romney fanatics, gave a thunderous cheer for Congressman Paul after the announcement of his victory, as shown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgTKHozcFLA

This leads me off on a small tangert actually, which twill tie in well to the overall theme of this artiicle (eventually.) FOX News' coverage of Paul's victory made me lose much respect for the network, which purposefully worked to dupe the American public, ignoring both CSPAN's and their own live feeds. The network put up footage from last year's CPAC, in which their microphone was right in the middle of Mitt Romney's gang of supporters. When Ron Paul won in 2010, all of the Romney supporters booed him and the microphone made it seem as if the whole crowd was doing the same. They played this footage and then asked Dr. Paul what he thought of being booed. Despicable. Additionally, I was extremely angered by Donald Trump's declaration that "Ron Paul could never become president." How dare he? Yes, he's a powerful businessman, but he ahas absolutely no policy experience, and, in reality, is kind of a schmuck.This fact leads me to the fact that it seems as the entire media seemed to write off Paul as nothing more than a minor threat, and I personally believe that this downplay of the congressman's victory shows the true fear of the establishment that a true patriot, one who is adherent to the constitution, might depose either Barack Obama. However, moving on, let's look at the speech.

"THe Brushfires of Freedom are Burning" is what Ron Paul's speech has come to be labeled as, and though it admittedly was not as eloquent as it could have been, it got the points across. Dr. Paul concisely and charismatically attacked the endless spending of the Federal government, promised to vontinue trying to audit and limit the power of the Federal Reserve, and warned that we ought to listen to the founding fathers and the constitution. He went on to say that we as a nation should stay out of the internal affairs of other nations, stop providing foreign aid, and ltimately limit outr military presence abroad. A personal favorite line of mine was something long the lines of, "all foreign aid is is making poor people poorer in the United States abd making rich people richer abroad." One rarely finds truer words, and even if you don't agree with Dr. Paul, you cannot deny that it is quite admirable that he tells it like he sees it. However, the speech itself is much better than my commentary on it, so I invite you to view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM8d_Arjz6g

And, what we need to rememebr as we head into 2012 is that after CPAC, Ron Paul can truly be considered a frontrunner in the republican primaries. Realize that Ronald Reagan won the straw poll in 1976, 1980, and 1984, immediately preceding his presidency, and that George W. Bush won in 2000. So, watch out for Paul, as despite what FOX and the Donald say, he can take Obama. On a side note, Rasmussen and Gallop polls have Paul ahead of Romney, Sarah Palin, and, in many cases, President Obama by more thn a few percentage points. Happy thinking!

Live long, prosper, may the force be with you, and most improtantly, fare well.

~ Jeffrey

Egypt and Friends

So, by now, I'm sure that you've all heard of the recent political unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia, and in my mind there are really two major questions that everyone has to ask themselves. First, why now? What events andsocial platforms have led to the launch of such across the board, revolution (if I may call it that). Second, what will be the results? How will these upheavals affect the society of the countries in quesstion, and how will the United States, and the global community, deal with this recent turn of events?

My logic dictates that in order to understand a situation, we must first understand its roots. So, I'll first be providing a brief analysis of what I feel are the prime factors which led this to happening. The first is quite simple: hunger. 40 percent of the population lives on the equivalent of $2 USD per day, and use the Egyptian equivalent of the food stamp system. When this program was cut with so many others recently, the conditions were ripe for turmoil. Second, of course, is the constant "State of Emergency" (glorified marshal law) imposed on Eg\pt since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has used his power to act in a dictatorial sense, only putting on the show of running for election, just as Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. Many claim that Mubarak was generally benevolent, and I'm sure as far as dictators go he was quite the standup guy, but that's like saying he was the best looking car in a junkyard. He still isn't worth much. His State of Emergency has led to wrongful imprisonment, abuse of the Egyptian justice system, a curfew, and stifled personal freedoms. So, as we see, without going into too much detail, the Egyptians had reason enough to dislike their leader.

Now, to the present. Multiple factions are now vying for control of the tumultuous Egyptian state. Student protestors peacefully hold mass gatherings in the street. Egyptian citizens, taking ideas from their Tunisian counterparts, have used self-immolation as a means of calling attention to the situation. Many believe that a more violent approach must be taken. This leads me off on a necessary tangent. I find it appaling that most U.S. news networks fail to protray the brutality of these protests,and continue to claim that they are nonviolent. People were and are machinegunned down in the streets. The military stands by, yes, but the local police forces, corrupted by so many years of evil, have resorted to killing protestors. It's truly a shame to have to resort to Al Jazeera and Egyptian YouTubers to get real information, but when Anderson COoper gets punched in the face ten times in ten minutes, and CNN continues to call the protests "rowdy" and "tumultuous" instead of "violent," we are duped into believing something that just isn't true. And so, back to the present, we have the Muslim Brotherhood trying to gain control as well, and we have the loyalist pro-Mubarak forces. So, it's looking more and more like a revolution, with molotov cocktails, bullets, and rocks, flyiing through the air.

And finally, the future. We caan only hope that this revolution creates a State which actually affords freedoms and lberties, but at the same time moderately deals with its neighbors. And though it's been done in the past, such as with the Czech Republic, East Germany, and of course the U.S.A. (each one adding its own twist to the term "revolution), the hope here is still quite fleeting. The Muslim brotherhood wants to enforce its own brand of radicalized Sharia Law. Student protestors could win out and provide a liberalized democracy, the more moderate to conservative Egyptian citizens could ain a foothold and establish a Republican State, and of course, though Mubarak has stated he will not run for reelection, he has also said that he wishes to remain in an advisory role.

As with all things, only time will tell the results of this revolution. The West seems to back former UN Atomic Energy Council Director General (that's a mouthfull) Mohamen ElBaradei has stated he would take over a transitional government, but in reality, many protestors do not like ElBaradei. The effects of a new Egyptian state on Israel, Arab neighbors, Norhth African and European neighbors, and of curse the U.S. has yet to be seen. We can only wait and see what happens as the protests unfold.
I'll be posting my thoughts on the restriction of rights in Egypt and how they relate to rights restrictions here in the U.S. in the ocoming days, so stay tuned. Byut, until then, live ling, prosper, and may the force be with you.

~ Jeffrey

State of the Union

If I were to give Barack Obama a grade for his State of the Union address, It would be a 70%. Obama is a very talented public speaker, but his state of the union speech just wasn't nearly as impressive as some of his other speeches, such as his campaign speeches or his inaugural speech. Certain things that were said bothered me. For example, when making allusions to immigration  the president never actually gave his own plan with what to do, he just said something needs to change. But something he did say made it sound like he wanted to keep immigrants and give them amnesty. Also, Obama was trying to force the same agenda he has been trying to push through for two years now, right back at us. Especially infrastructure and internet, and not extending tax cuts for the top 2%, which will promote class warfare. Mr. President also talked about our "sputnik moment" as an analogy to say to say that he wants to see that kind of progress for our country today, that it had at the height of the space race. However, at least in my opinion, building high speed railroad, providing high speed internet or hiring more teachers, is no apollo project. One last thing, senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina said on his facebook page " When your car is spinning out of control off of a cliff, you hit the break, not cruise control." Hitting cruise control was exactly what Obama did when it comes to freezing spending, which he says will be result in a saved $400 billion is merely a drop in the bucket when an administration spends $5 trillion dollars in its first two years like his did. C-

The System

So, the new congress takes office today, and that fact spurred me to write another article, this one merely showing my thoughts on the current state of affairs, in general, of U.S. politics. To get atraight to the point, our two-party system needs serious reform, by which I mean, that we need a diferrent system. What's happened in this country since the dawn of the current two-party system is a sort of false schism, a sheer mockery of true ideological differences. Though I prefer not to go into, cliches about the political engineering of this country, the fact still (supposedly) stands that we live in a place where different views are encouraged and accepted, and the current state of affairsin Washington and across the country allows for none of this.

I feel as if I'm rambling quite a bit here, so forgive me.

More coherently: We have here "Republicans" and "Democrats." Starting on the "right," the GOP, started as an anti slavery party, with foundations in classical liberalism and fiscal conservativism, has turned into a mockery of itself, a bloated group of corporate payoffs who get nothing done that doesn't suit the true heads of this country. Democrats are the same way. Started as a party of the common, blue collor man, the politically correct elite, like the maggots on the carcass of a dead animal, have infested the Democratic party and made it a mere shadow of its former self. The result is a group of career politicians who don't represent the will of the people, or even conflicting views at all beyond the key buzzwords of the current day. All the senators and representatives chat and have coffee at "The Monocle" on D Street, play golf together and accept their corporate sponsorships, and then when congress is in session they sit and argue about nothingness. They stop beneficial progress and encourage detrimental policies. They all fight for their own agendas, or those of their handlers, and any true "man of the people becomes so caught up in parliementary procedures so antiquated that even the British Parliament no longer utilizes them that no real discussion ever happens. The mojority of the time the will of the people isn't even expressed. It's a sham, and they've duped everyone into believing it.

Which leads me to an easy solution: fire congress. It's the only way. Fire congress, and start over. Draw, from the common man, a politician that represents the will of the people, and that will stand and protect those interests when challenged. The way to achieve this, you ask? Easier said than done I suppose. However it starts by embracing the third party, and giving them equal ability hold office. Stop stigmatizing them as "third party." Call them by their names! Those parties that the people don't particularly enjoy will be weeded out, yet it's as if in the current state of affairs they never had a chance in the first place. They're muzzled, and when they finally are allowed to speak out, the big players make them, like so much else, a mockery of true thought. The rent is too damn high, but that never means I would vote for Jimmy McMillan, and when people like him comedically steal the show from anyone with real thought, they do make things hilarious (which is always necessary), but also allow the big players to move their pawns into place. In New York, Cuomo, the main man, who had family in politics, and who has possible mafia ties, was elected. I wonder why. Paladino, who had a 6 point lead, self destructed, and the insertion of ridiculous candidates like McMillan stopped not only him from reclaiming ground, but also the legitimate Green, Libertarian, and other candidates to be even remembered, let alone considered for election. We need to start over, elect actual pooliticians (not pawns), and return to the foundations of the system, for though some like to believe that progress is necessary for greatness, even if true, progression from a shoddy foundation leads to structural insecurity, and untilmately, destruction.

It will be difficult though. To quote comedian George Carlin: "The owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have *owners*. The *own* you. They own everything. They own all the important land and all of the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for Senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets and own all the big media corporations. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars a year lobbying. Lobbying for what they want. And we all know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don't want. They dont want a population capable of critical thinking...It's a big club and you and I ain't in it...The table is tilted. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hard-working people: blue collar, white collar, it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on, continue to elect these rich ****suckers who don't give a **** about them. They don't care about you at All! At all! And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The owners of this country know the truth. It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."' A bit more optimistic than Mr. Carlin, though of an agreeable nature, I believe we still have a chance to disband the big club, and beat the owners at their own game. I don't now how just yet (help me out if you want), but it starts with us, the people, fixing the system which has become so corrupted, on both sides of an aisle which shouldn't exist, which should be an arena, where people can enter equally from all sides. That's the way to fight back. HTinking critically, stopping this garbage.

I end on a positive note. A new congress, comes into office today. A new congress, which has the same pawns of the big players, the same people who like us Americans to be a willfully ignorant working body, the gears of a well oiled machine, pacified by fake arguments and trivial nothingness. Hopefully though, we can find a few gems, athe few politicians who have not yet been corrupted, and who could hopefully be the front lines of a fight for freedom

Until next time, I bid you fare well, and may the force be with you, always.

~ Jeff