"Well on the way,
Head in a cloud,
The man of a 1000 voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him,
Or the sound he appears to make,
And he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round."- The Beatles
Well here i am, my night off and i can't sleep of coarse. And what's keeping me awake? Well, work of coarse! No, really shit at work is changing and almost rapidly it's crazy.
The last 4 or 5 months i've really been struggling within my own mind on whether i want to keep the job i currently am doing right now or if it might be a good idea to move on within Safeway while i have the opportunity and pursue something else.
Last week while my boss was on vacation and i was covering for her, i heard through the grape vine that a lot of the people that normally have been helping us, don't want to help us anymore.
Which i thought was totally funny cuz i've been going back and forth in my mind whether i want to do my job anymore. I feel completely stuck in it, Eileen totally and completely depends on me. She's been talking about retiring in the next year or so and that completely freaks me out, cuz so help me, i do not want her job. Shit i'm starting to have issues with it just working part time!
So hearing from the girl who helps me while my boss is on vacation, hearing her tell me that she's pissed that she pretty much has to work 2 jobs now cuz Eileen depends on her so much now when either I go on vacation or my boss.
Which i totally don't blame her, when i was a cashier and i was just helping Eileen 2 nights a week, whenever her backup went on vacation i had to help Eileen. The only difference between me and this other chick who's helping us now, is that back then i was trying so hard to get to be Eileen's backup. The girl who's helping us now is kind of being forced into it, and she totally doesn't want to do it.
In fact I go on vacation in 2 weeks and this girl went behind Eileens back and talked to our store manager (who retired now, his last day was last friday) about going on vacation the same week i'm going, cuz she already knew if she talked to Eileen about it there would be no way in hell she'd be able to get that week off. So our store manager at the time approved it and said he'd get Tina, Eileen's old back up, the girl who used to have my job before me, to help Eileen.
Which was funny shit to begin with cuz Tina and Eileen the last couple years have grown to completely hate each other.
Anyhow, so Tina was supposed to help Eileen the week me and this other girl are on vacation (Eileen still has no idea this girl is leaving the same week i am) but now we found out this week that Tina is transferring to another store closer to her home cuz she lives all the way out in Thornton, and her last day is Sunday!!!
So yesterday me and this girl were talking about that at work and kind of freaking out about it cuz Eileen is pretty much screwed and she doesn't even know it yet, cuz the week i'm taking off it's gonna be a busy week and she will need all the help she can get. And from what i can gather she's only gonna have one person to help her for one night that whole week!! She's gonna need at least 5 people helping out that week, which is what we normally get on a busy week.
Oh well, it's pretty fucked up what this chick is doing to Eileen, taking off without letting her know, but like i said she's real pissed about having to work 2 jobs now and she's having to schedule her vacations around mine and Eileen's.
And anymore every single time i work with my boss she bitches and moans about the same fucking shit every fucking time and it's getting very, very old. She has a very negative attitude lately you can tell she just wants to retire soon.
But anyhow, i've been looking more and more into the bakery at work and i'm really contemplating after Eileen gets her 2 weeks vacation in coming here in July, i really think after those 2 weeks, maybe even during those 2 weeks i'm gonna call around to different stores and see if i can't get a job in the bakery.
Who knows what will happen. That's really what's keeping me from sleeping tonight. I totally want to do it, i really think i'd like it. I watch those people work back there and they are constantly busy, when they take breaks it's real quick, maybe 10 minutes at the most.
That's what i'm talking about! I love work where it just keeps you busy and you're not standing around twiddling your thumbs for hours on end like with what i'm doing now.
I mean seriously, i have nights where for 4 hours out of my 8 i have sat around playing Tetris all night!!
And on slow weeks i don't even get all my hours i'm scheduled for, i either go home early or i get sent home early for the simple fact that there isn't anything to do.
Now when i'm busy, i'm fucking busy as shit! On the weeks that Eileen is on vacation it can get very stressful, i mean her job is filled with tons of responsibility. I mean all the prices in the entire store are your job basically and if some shit rings up wrong, automatically its blamed on you. Really that's what's motivating more than anything to leave what i'm doing now while i still can. I just don't want to get stuck with my boss's job when i absolutely just stress out completely when she's on vacation and i have to be in the driver's seat. I've been really lucky this year so far cuz she's taken weeks off that have been very slow and i've needed very little help.
But the weeks she takes off when it's a lot of price changes and it's crazy busy i get very stressed out. And when i get stressed out i get bad migraines and then i'm stuck at work with a migraine that makes me feel like i have to vomit.
I mean it's bad, does that sound like fun to you? No it's not!
Now i've been weighing out the pros and cons of all this. On one hand if i go to the bakery i get the opportunity to get one foot in the door of getting some professional experience of working with pastry.
On the other hand i've grown to become really fond of working alone and not having anyone bug me, now if i go to the bakery there's no guarantee i'll get the "donut fryer" position, which is pretty much the night job. There is a chance i'll have to go back to working days, which means i have to deal with customers again, which sucks, i fucking hate having to deal with people, that's the whole reason why i didn't want to be a checker anymore was cuz off all the asshole customers i had to deal with on a daily basis.
Then on the other hand i'm not sure if my hours i'm getting now will shrink or if they will stay the same. This other girl i work with who is a front end head clerk has been talking about transferring to another store cuz in August our store is getting another remodel. She said she talked to the our old 1st assistant who got her own store over on Kipling and Jewel, and she said she talked to her about possably transferring to her store but her hours would be cut.
That might very well happen with me. I am only part time, and there is a good chance that if i go to the bakery i'll only be getting 20 to 24 hours a week. Anymore i need at least $300 plus a week just to make it through the week. My job now i average a good 32 hours a week on a busy week. I do have my weeks where i only work 24 hours, but usually by the time those weeks come i've been working so much i actually welcome the reduced hours just to get a break.
That's another reason why i want to get out of price changes, i found out in August when we get our remodel that they are planning on making it like the store on Mineral and Broadway, minus the liquor store! I remember when i walked into that store, my first thought was,"Jesus i'd hate to be their file maintenance!" So they're planning on turning our store into a fucking nightmare for file maintenance, and i stress out now when our store is pretty little. No fucking way am i doing my job in a giant store where even on a slow week it'd be crazy busy. No fucking way!
All i know is, the last few months i've really been almost to the point of depression when it comes to my job. Like i was telling this chick at work, it's just not fun anymore. I did love it for a good 2 years, but this last year i've gotten really sick of it. there are aspects of it i still really like, like the fact i can come and go whenever i want and management doesn't give a shit, just as long as i get my shit done they really don't care when or how long i work. And like i said before working alone i really do like, the only way i could see that happening in the bakery is working the "donut fryer" position which would mean i'd still have to work nights. From what i can gather from looking at our stores bakery the least experience you have, the more likely you'll get to work nights. For some odd reason it looks like the bakery manager works until the bakery closes at 6.
there has been a part of me that is getting sick of working nights too, but it's really the only time i can work until Adara starts going to school all day but she's just barely going into kindergarten in the fall, and that will only be half days, or 3 full days then the rest of the week she'll be home.
I just hate the nights i have off and i can't sleep, like today for example. Plus sleeping during the day really sucks, it's never restful sleep.
Oh well, we'll see what happens in the next month....
Friday, June 20, 2008
Nancy Pelosi Is A Traitor!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
Paul: Pelosi spiked Iran bill
Congressman Ron Paul charges that Pelosi "deliberately removed" part of a bill, which would have blocked the U.S. from attacking Iran without approval from Congress, at the behest of AIPAC.
by George Dance(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A one-minute audio clip of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is currently sweeping the blogosphere (with 35 separate stories in less than a week), but so far receiving no notice in the mainstream media. In it, Paul charges that House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) removed a section from a bill, which would have barred the U.S. government from going to war without a congressional vote, at the behest of the "leadership of Israel" and "AIPAC" (the American Israel Public Affairs committee). Paul made the allegation at the Future of Freedom (FFF) conference, 'Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties', earlier this month in Reston Virginia. Paul, who was awarded the FFF's Lifetime Achievement Award on June 6, addressed the conference that day on "A Foreign Policy of Freedom." (His speech, which was recorded by C-SPAN, can be ordered using the link at the end of this article.) The audio excerpt has Paul declaring:
The Democrats finally win the election in 2006, and it was a mandate, the Republicans get thrown out; what's the first act that Pelosi does? There was a supplemental bill that had a bill of ours we had gotten put in, and the bill said -- you shouldn't need a bill like this! -- it said, you can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress. And she removed it, she removed it deliberately. And then, the astounding thing is, they asked her why, and she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in the Washington Post, that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."
(1)A quick search of newspaper accounts of the bill -- which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush -- from that time reveals only one, in the strongly pro-Israel Washington Times, that mentions AIPAC at all:
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appopriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran.
(2)However, Paul's allegation is corroborated by a contemporary account (from the Asia Times), which cites a different congressional source:
In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it - because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option "off the table". The provision was killed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] said this was due to AIPAC.
(3)John Nichols of The Nation also covered the story at the time, as did Patrick Buchanan of The Conservative Voice. Here's Buchanan's take:
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran....According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."...Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war....Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
(4)Salon reporter Ben Kamiya also mentioned the incident, in his 2007 report on that year's AIPAC conference:
AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.
The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line. (5)
---------
Sources (1) "ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel," You Tube, Jun. 8, 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
(2) "Foreign policy adrift?", Washington Times, Mar. 18, 2007. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/18/20070318-094754-3807r/
(3) Pepe Escobar, "And the winner is ... the Israeli lobby," Asia Times, Jun. 3, 2008. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html
(4) Patrick J. Buchanan, "The AIPAC Girl," The Conservative Voice, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23622.html
(5) Gary Kamiya, "Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?", Salon.com, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
Paul: Pelosi spiked Iran bill
Congressman Ron Paul charges that Pelosi "deliberately removed" part of a bill, which would have blocked the U.S. from attacking Iran without approval from Congress, at the behest of AIPAC.
by George Dance(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A one-minute audio clip of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is currently sweeping the blogosphere (with 35 separate stories in less than a week), but so far receiving no notice in the mainstream media. In it, Paul charges that House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) removed a section from a bill, which would have barred the U.S. government from going to war without a congressional vote, at the behest of the "leadership of Israel" and "AIPAC" (the American Israel Public Affairs committee). Paul made the allegation at the Future of Freedom (FFF) conference, 'Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties', earlier this month in Reston Virginia. Paul, who was awarded the FFF's Lifetime Achievement Award on June 6, addressed the conference that day on "A Foreign Policy of Freedom." (His speech, which was recorded by C-SPAN, can be ordered using the link at the end of this article.) The audio excerpt has Paul declaring:
The Democrats finally win the election in 2006, and it was a mandate, the Republicans get thrown out; what's the first act that Pelosi does? There was a supplemental bill that had a bill of ours we had gotten put in, and the bill said -- you shouldn't need a bill like this! -- it said, you can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress. And she removed it, she removed it deliberately. And then, the astounding thing is, they asked her why, and she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in the Washington Post, that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."
(1)A quick search of newspaper accounts of the bill -- which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush -- from that time reveals only one, in the strongly pro-Israel Washington Times, that mentions AIPAC at all:
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appopriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran.
(2)However, Paul's allegation is corroborated by a contemporary account (from the Asia Times), which cites a different congressional source:
In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it - because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option "off the table". The provision was killed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] said this was due to AIPAC.
(3)John Nichols of The Nation also covered the story at the time, as did Patrick Buchanan of The Conservative Voice. Here's Buchanan's take:
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran....According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."...Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war....Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
(4)Salon reporter Ben Kamiya also mentioned the incident, in his 2007 report on that year's AIPAC conference:
AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.
The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line. (5)
---------
Sources (1) "ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel," You Tube, Jun. 8, 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
(2) "Foreign policy adrift?", Washington Times, Mar. 18, 2007. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/18/20070318-094754-3807r/
(3) Pepe Escobar, "And the winner is ... the Israeli lobby," Asia Times, Jun. 3, 2008. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html
(4) Patrick J. Buchanan, "The AIPAC Girl," The Conservative Voice, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23622.html
(5) Gary Kamiya, "Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?", Salon.com, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Military choppers fly over Denver during top secret drill
David Edwards
Raw Story
June 17, 2008
A half-dozen military helicopters flew low over parts of Denver Monday night as part of a security drill organized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Denver police said they were aware of the operation, but could provide no details.
The secret drills coincided with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Denver in late August. The Denver Post reported that the military aircraft “buzzed above the Pepsi Center,” the site of the convention.
A military spokesman, though insisted to the Rocky Mountain News that the military drills were unrelated to planning for the convention, which is expected to draw thousands of protesters as did the 2004 party conventions in Boston and New York.
“It’s nothing more than Special Operations Command training with local authorities,” said Lt. Nathan Potter, with Special Operations Command, which has authority over special forces from all branches of the military.
Potter would not say which branch of the military was flying the choppers over Denver.
The training has nothing to do with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Denver in August, Potter said.
“It’s routine preparation for the global war on terrorism,” he said.
The Rocky Mountain News also reports on further efforts by police to stock up on equipment to suppress potentially unruly protesters, including pepper-spray guns that fire plastic pellets filled with “power that’s ‘like a combination of cayenne pepper and baby powder,’” according to the manufacturer. The city itself is refusing to disclose details of its security preparations.
The city received a $50 million federal grant for security. A senior adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper has said the city plans to spend up to half that amount on equipment, with the rest going to pay officers.
But the city has refused to disclose how it is spending the money, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union last month to file a civil lawsuit. …
Some organizers of protest groups believe police are buying extended-range Tasers and weapons that incapacitate people with high-intensity sound.
David Edwards
Raw Story
June 17, 2008
A half-dozen military helicopters flew low over parts of Denver Monday night as part of a security drill organized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Denver police said they were aware of the operation, but could provide no details.
The secret drills coincided with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Denver in late August. The Denver Post reported that the military aircraft “buzzed above the Pepsi Center,” the site of the convention.
A military spokesman, though insisted to the Rocky Mountain News that the military drills were unrelated to planning for the convention, which is expected to draw thousands of protesters as did the 2004 party conventions in Boston and New York.
“It’s nothing more than Special Operations Command training with local authorities,” said Lt. Nathan Potter, with Special Operations Command, which has authority over special forces from all branches of the military.
Potter would not say which branch of the military was flying the choppers over Denver.
The training has nothing to do with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Denver in August, Potter said.
“It’s routine preparation for the global war on terrorism,” he said.
The Rocky Mountain News also reports on further efforts by police to stock up on equipment to suppress potentially unruly protesters, including pepper-spray guns that fire plastic pellets filled with “power that’s ‘like a combination of cayenne pepper and baby powder,’” according to the manufacturer. The city itself is refusing to disclose details of its security preparations.
The city received a $50 million federal grant for security. A senior adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper has said the city plans to spend up to half that amount on equipment, with the rest going to pay officers.
But the city has refused to disclose how it is spending the money, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union last month to file a civil lawsuit. …
Some organizers of protest groups believe police are buying extended-range Tasers and weapons that incapacitate people with high-intensity sound.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Monday, June 09, 2008
Friday, June 06, 2008
FOR GOD SAKES GOOGLE BILDERBERG!!! AMERICAN SOVERNTY DEPENDS ON IT!!
In case you didn't know, starting yesterday 125 of the world's most powerful elite are meeting in secret on U.S. soil for the first time since 2002 in Chantilly, Virgina. It was reported today that Obama and Clinton held a "secret" meeting last night... hmm, being someone who doesn't believe in coincidences and the speculation over Clinton attending the Bilderberg meeting in 2006 in Canada, and the sheer fact that Bill Clinton attended in 1991 and recently publicly admitted to attending after We Are Change confronted him about it, hearing this story made my jaw drop. So this is freedom eh?
Press Let Rip At Obama Spokesman Over Exclusion From Secret Meeting
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, June 6, 2008
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance in Northern Virginia was a last minute rearrangement.
It has emerged that Obama’s press entourage were not informed of his secret meeting with Hillary Clinton in Northern Virginia until they were literally locked inside a plane that was taxiing down the runway on its way to Chicago.
The press reacted angrily to the way in which Obama’s campaign organizers covered up the meeting, which is now suspected by many to have been planned in conjunction with the secretive 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting of around 140 corporate and political luminaries.
Reporters were duped into believing that they were getting on a plane back to the campaign headquarters in Chicago with the presumptive nominee, while in reality Obama’s motorcade instead sped off in secrecy to Northern Virginia.
"Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?" one reporter asked Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs in a heated exchange that was caught on camera by CNN.
"Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way and that is what we are doing." Gibbs replied.
"Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting" asked another reporter.
"I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting." Gibbs fired back.
Gibbs denied that the secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance was a last minute rearrangement.
"There was a desire to do some meetings tonight, he was interested in doing them, others were interested in doing them, and to do them in a way that was private." Gibbs repeated.
“If the president goes bike riding, we go with him. If he goes out to dinner or goes to visit a friend three blocks up the road, we go with him in the motorcade,” another reporter told Gibbs. “That’s the expectation in a general election, and that’s the way it’s been with previous candidates…That’s the way it is done.”
"You could tell the media you’re having a private meeting and give them the option of not getting on the plane." came another comment. Of course, had this transpired, the media would most probably have connected the location of the Obama/Hillary meeting with that of the Bilderberg group.
The last thing the Bilderberg elite would have wanted was a confused and inquisitive mob of journalists at their Marriott hotel doorstep, along with scores of protesters and alternative media reporters such as Infowars’ Alex Jones, American Free Press Editor Jim Tucker and We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski.
Following an unusual solitary press release this morning, a full list of the attendees of this year’s Bilderberg meeting has been released. It would hardly be surprising to find Obama and Clinton rubbing shoulders with the likes of Condoleeza Rice, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, former White House advisor Richard Perle and former Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz.
Also in attendance is Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson, who, as we reported last month, will select Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.
It is now seems increasingly likely that the secret meetings with Bilderberg this weekend will herald the decision to name Hillary Clinton as Obama’s VP candidate.
This is a History Channel program that even talks about Bilderberg! Yet every year when they meet you don't hear one single word from the press.
Press Let Rip At Obama Spokesman Over Exclusion From Secret Meeting
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, June 6, 2008
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance in Northern Virginia was a last minute rearrangement.
It has emerged that Obama’s press entourage were not informed of his secret meeting with Hillary Clinton in Northern Virginia until they were literally locked inside a plane that was taxiing down the runway on its way to Chicago.
The press reacted angrily to the way in which Obama’s campaign organizers covered up the meeting, which is now suspected by many to have been planned in conjunction with the secretive 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting of around 140 corporate and political luminaries.
Reporters were duped into believing that they were getting on a plane back to the campaign headquarters in Chicago with the presumptive nominee, while in reality Obama’s motorcade instead sped off in secrecy to Northern Virginia.
"Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?" one reporter asked Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs in a heated exchange that was caught on camera by CNN.
"Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way and that is what we are doing." Gibbs replied.
"Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting" asked another reporter.
"I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting." Gibbs fired back.
Gibbs denied that the secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance was a last minute rearrangement.
"There was a desire to do some meetings tonight, he was interested in doing them, others were interested in doing them, and to do them in a way that was private." Gibbs repeated.
“If the president goes bike riding, we go with him. If he goes out to dinner or goes to visit a friend three blocks up the road, we go with him in the motorcade,” another reporter told Gibbs. “That’s the expectation in a general election, and that’s the way it’s been with previous candidates…That’s the way it is done.”
"You could tell the media you’re having a private meeting and give them the option of not getting on the plane." came another comment. Of course, had this transpired, the media would most probably have connected the location of the Obama/Hillary meeting with that of the Bilderberg group.
The last thing the Bilderberg elite would have wanted was a confused and inquisitive mob of journalists at their Marriott hotel doorstep, along with scores of protesters and alternative media reporters such as Infowars’ Alex Jones, American Free Press Editor Jim Tucker and We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski.
Following an unusual solitary press release this morning, a full list of the attendees of this year’s Bilderberg meeting has been released. It would hardly be surprising to find Obama and Clinton rubbing shoulders with the likes of Condoleeza Rice, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, former White House advisor Richard Perle and former Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz.
Also in attendance is Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson, who, as we reported last month, will select Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.
It is now seems increasingly likely that the secret meetings with Bilderberg this weekend will herald the decision to name Hillary Clinton as Obama’s VP candidate.
This is a History Channel program that even talks about Bilderberg! Yet every year when they meet you don't hear one single word from the press.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Stand up We shall not be moved Except By a child with no socks and shoes
If you've got more to give then you've got to prove
Put your hands up and I'll copy you
Stand up
We shall not be moved Except by a woman dying from the loss of food
If you've got more to give then you've got to prove
Put your hands up and I'll copy you
We still don't understand thunder and lightning
Flash back to when we didn't fund the dam
Didn't fund the damn levi?
No wonder man
Now our whole damn city's torn asunder man
Under water but we still don't understand
We see hurricane spills over on the land
Through gaps you couldn't fill with a 100 tons of sand
No we still don't understand
We've seen planes in the windows of buildings crumbled in
We've seen flames send the chills through London
And we've sent planes to kill them and some of them were children
But still we crumbling the building
Underfunded but we still don't understand
Under god but we kill like the son of Sam
But if you feel like I feel like about the son of man
We will overcome
This goes to show how little i pay attention to the local Denver music scene, it took Alex Jones all the way in Austin, Texas to introduce me to the local Denver band The Flobots. I bought their album yesterday, and I love it! It's different from what i've heard in a while, and the message they're trying to convey is awesome!
I'll post their most popular song "Handlebars" but i personally like the last track "We are Winning", well, really the entire album is fucking sweet, i have fallen in love with it. Their music is real political, hench why they were on the Alex Jones Show.
When the band was on Alex Jones they said they were partly influenced by Tool and a combination of a whole bunch of different styles of music. On their MySpace site they list Saul Williams, Rage Against The Machine, Common, The Roots and Public Enemy as an influence as well. I love the lyrics to the songs, "Stand Up" is also a very good one.
"We Are Winning" By The Flobots
Rival gangsters sit down to plan an after-school program
A religious fanatic posts footage of an interfaith service project
A group of teenage boys watches a video of a father playing catch with his son
An adult film star paints thumbnail portraits of elderly couples, fully clothed and smiling
A record executive records a demo of his apology
A policeman makes reverse 911 calls instructing residents to take to the streets
A patriot reports for duty
She's wearing an orange jumpsuit and holding a picket sign
She's ashamed of her birthplace
But retreat is not an option
Women and children
Frontline
Logon
Tune in
Stand and be counted
Wounded
Stationed
In the belly of the vulture
Watch your back
Theres no civilians
Women children
Frontline
Listen
Consider this a distant early warning
The fires imminent
Pollution gathering dust particles
Funneling through smokestacks
Airwaves
Bandwidth
Disinformation tube fed
Check the label
Delete the virus
Alert the masses
Butterfly wing crosswinds send black hawks toward hurricane survivors
Roses sprout from empty lots and sidewalk cracks
Pacifist guerrillas move undetected through concrete jungles
New forms are beginning to take shape
Once-occupied minds are activating
People are waking up
The insurgency is alive and well
Rise of the flobots
Portrait of the new american insurgent
Rattle and shake the foundation of the world order
Assembly line consent
Resist
Refuse
Inform
Create
Direct loved ones to the trenches
Suit up
Forge rubble into fortresses
Plaster
Cloth
Aluminum
Broken porcelain
Rusted platinum
Burn bloodstains from decompressed diamonds
Hammer the battlecry into braille-studded armor
We are building up a new world
Do not sit idly by
Do not remain neutral
Do not rely on this broadcast alone
We are only as strong as our signal
There is a war going on for your mind
If you are thinking you are winning
Resistance is victory
Defeat is impossible
Your weapons are already in hand
Reach within you and find the means by which to gain your freedom
Fight with tools
Your fate and that of everyone you know depends on it
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
"There's a hole in the world like a great black pit and it's filled with people who are filled with shit,And the vermin of the world inhabit it."
I should really be going to bed. I just got off work and i have an appointment at 1:30, i should really be getting as much sleep as i can so i'm not a zombie tonight, but i have the night off so oh well.
I haven't been wanting to blog for a while now, cuz all i ever want to post on here is the fucked up news going on, or to rant and rave about this fraud election that is going on.
But i've recently discovered an old musical that has taken away some of the stress of everyday life. And i'm not someone who likes musicals, in fact i'd say The Nightmare Before Xmas and Mulin Rouge are just about the only musicals i like.
But i discovered Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber From Fleet Street.
I LOVE IT!
The story is really very dark, it's about how the desire for revenge eats you up. The play is coming to Denver in June and i can't wait to see it, i'm very excited. For Mother's Day Justin took me to Best Buy and told me to pick out something, so i got the dvd of the play from back in the day. I still haven't watched all of it, but the Tim Burton version is a little better just cuz he cut out all the dumb shit with Anthony and Johanna.
That and i think i like Helena Bonham Carter's version of Mrs. Lovett better than Angelia Lansbury's portrayal.
The music itself with the exception of a few i really love. It's very dark, especially the song "A Little Priest" cuz they're singing about using dead bodies to fill up Mrs. Lovett's meat pies.
I really like the song "Epiphany" were Sweeney goes off and sings,"They all deserve to die!" Fucking great shit, it's how i feel from time to time when shit in the news makes me mad. Not that i want everyone to die, but i get mad easy. There's also a very beautiful song, but again like all the songs, is very dark. "My Friends" is the name of it, Sweeney sings to his razors when Mrs. Lovett gives them back to him. It's a very demented song, he tells his razors,"soon you'll drip rubies" of coarse referring to the blood from cutting people's throats. In that song at certain points in the Johnny Depp version i think he sounds like David Bowie!
"Epiphany"
Todd: No I had him!
His throat was there beneath my hand.
I had swear I had him!
His throat was there and now he'll never come again.
Mrs. Lovett: Easy now, hush love hush
I keep telling you -
Todd: When? Why do I wait?
You told me to wait -
Now he'll never come again.
There's a hole in the world like a great black pit
And it's filled with people who are filled with shit
And the vermin of the world inhabit it.
But not for long...
They all deserve to die.
Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why.
Because in all of the whole human race
Mrs Lovett, there are two kinds of men and only two
There's the one they put in his proper place
And the one with his foot in the other one's face
Look at me, Mrs Lovett, look at you.
Now we all deserve to die
Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why.
Because the lives of the wicked should be made brief
For the rest of us death will be a relief
We all deserve to die.
And I'll never see Joanna
No I'll never hold my girl to me - finished!
Alright! You sir, you sir, how about a shave?
Come and visit your good friend Sweeney.
You sir, you sir? Welcome to the grave.
I will have vengenance.
I will have salvation.
Who sir, you sir?
No one in the chair, come on! Come on!
Sweeney's waiting. I want you bleeders.
You sir - anybody.
Gentlemen don't be shy!
Not one man, no, no ten men.
Not a hundred can assuage me -
I will have you!
And I will get him back even as he gloats
In the meantime I'll practice on dishonorable throats.
And my Lucy lies in ashes
And I'll never see my girl again.
But the work waits!
I'm alive at last!
And I'm full of joy!
I haven't been wanting to blog for a while now, cuz all i ever want to post on here is the fucked up news going on, or to rant and rave about this fraud election that is going on.
But i've recently discovered an old musical that has taken away some of the stress of everyday life. And i'm not someone who likes musicals, in fact i'd say The Nightmare Before Xmas and Mulin Rouge are just about the only musicals i like.
But i discovered Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber From Fleet Street.
I LOVE IT!
The story is really very dark, it's about how the desire for revenge eats you up. The play is coming to Denver in June and i can't wait to see it, i'm very excited. For Mother's Day Justin took me to Best Buy and told me to pick out something, so i got the dvd of the play from back in the day. I still haven't watched all of it, but the Tim Burton version is a little better just cuz he cut out all the dumb shit with Anthony and Johanna.
That and i think i like Helena Bonham Carter's version of Mrs. Lovett better than Angelia Lansbury's portrayal.
The music itself with the exception of a few i really love. It's very dark, especially the song "A Little Priest" cuz they're singing about using dead bodies to fill up Mrs. Lovett's meat pies.
I really like the song "Epiphany" were Sweeney goes off and sings,"They all deserve to die!" Fucking great shit, it's how i feel from time to time when shit in the news makes me mad. Not that i want everyone to die, but i get mad easy. There's also a very beautiful song, but again like all the songs, is very dark. "My Friends" is the name of it, Sweeney sings to his razors when Mrs. Lovett gives them back to him. It's a very demented song, he tells his razors,"soon you'll drip rubies" of coarse referring to the blood from cutting people's throats. In that song at certain points in the Johnny Depp version i think he sounds like David Bowie!
"Epiphany"
Todd: No I had him!
His throat was there beneath my hand.
I had swear I had him!
His throat was there and now he'll never come again.
Mrs. Lovett: Easy now, hush love hush
I keep telling you -
Todd: When? Why do I wait?
You told me to wait -
Now he'll never come again.
There's a hole in the world like a great black pit
And it's filled with people who are filled with shit
And the vermin of the world inhabit it.
But not for long...
They all deserve to die.
Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why.
Because in all of the whole human race
Mrs Lovett, there are two kinds of men and only two
There's the one they put in his proper place
And the one with his foot in the other one's face
Look at me, Mrs Lovett, look at you.
Now we all deserve to die
Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why.
Because the lives of the wicked should be made brief
For the rest of us death will be a relief
We all deserve to die.
And I'll never see Joanna
No I'll never hold my girl to me - finished!
Alright! You sir, you sir, how about a shave?
Come and visit your good friend Sweeney.
You sir, you sir? Welcome to the grave.
I will have vengenance.
I will have salvation.
Who sir, you sir?
No one in the chair, come on! Come on!
Sweeney's waiting. I want you bleeders.
You sir - anybody.
Gentlemen don't be shy!
Not one man, no, no ten men.
Not a hundred can assuage me -
I will have you!
And I will get him back even as he gloats
In the meantime I'll practice on dishonorable throats.
And my Lucy lies in ashes
And I'll never see my girl again.
But the work waits!
I'm alive at last!
And I'm full of joy!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Coachella Day Three: Roger Waters...
Rolling Stone
There was no moon in the Coachella sky as Roger Waters stepped onstage for the final headline set of the festival on Sunday, bringing his own airborne props, exploding fireballs and the elegant, mind-expanding music of Pink Floyd. Embedded in Waters’ set was Floyd’s entire 1973 album Dark Side of the Moon, still one the best-selling albums ever, with songs of madness, hope and outrage.
At 64, Waters may have been an unexpected choice to headline a festival with roots in the alternative nation, but Floyd’s soaring waves of forward-looking sounds have been echoed in different ways by the likes of Radiohead and Massive Attack, both Coachella alums. And as huge clouds of stage-fog drifted across a field packed with festival-goers, Waters strummed an acoustic guitar for “Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun,” a song from Floyd’s earliest days, accompanied by old black and white footage of the band wandering an English beach. The tune marked the beginning of a major theme of the evening: the genius and tragic breakdown of founding Floyd leader Syd Barrett, who died in 2006 after spending three decades fading into drug-damage and madness.
During “Shine On You Crazy Diamond,” blurry psychedelic images of Barrett appeared behind Waters as he wailed, “You were caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom . . . come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine.” Waters turned “Wish You Were Here” into a British folk ballad, sitting with a guitar, his vocals clenched and deeply felt. The dreamy “Brain Damage” had Waters singing softly “the lunatic is on the grass . . . There’s someone in my head and it’s not me” as the image of multicolored pills tumbled across the big screen.
Waters’ other main obsession had a geopolitical bent, emerging on “Mother” (from 1979’s The Wall), asking “Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb? . . . Mother should I trust the president?” to a roar from the crowd before stepping back and mouthing the words “No fucking way!” He spoke of a Lebanese family that once took him in as a young traveler, leading into “Leaving Beirut,” an Internet-only solo release in response to the invasion of Iraq. And he did two songs from his final album with Pink Floyd, 1983’s underrated The Final Cut, on which he railed against the foreign policies of that moment: Reagan, Thatcher, a war in the Falkland Islands, nukes everywhere.
Perfected after a week of rehearsals at the Forum arena in Los Angeles, all of it was matched with the sort of special effects and spectacular images Waters and Pink Floyd are known, like the giant inflatable pig covered in graffiti (”Don’t be led to slaughter”) that floated above the crowd during “Sheep” to explosive sparks of electric guitar by Dave Kilminster before being allowed to break free as spotlights crisscrossed the sky. Waters’ night ended with songs from The Wall, with fiery virtuosic soloing by violinist Lili Haydn taking over Gilmour’s original leads on “Comfortably Numb.” During “Run Like Hell,” a pair of dudes in baggy shorts responded on the grass with a lengthy interpretative dance — falling to one knee, finger pointed in the air, stepping forward and back, bowing and swinging their hips — a routine no doubt practiced back home between multiple bongloads.
Monday, April 14, 2008
I haven't really read the news in a while and while catching up, i saw the video of when Ron Paul questioned David Petraeus. Ron Paul has been in the news kind of a lot, I love the article he wrote recently about the loss of the 4th Amendment. Again it made me sad that Ron Paul points out the obvious and the media still ignores him. I watched some of the people who questioned Petraeus but never saw Ron Paul. Of coarse when Obama was questioning him it was broadcast on every main stream media channel. And Obamas questions, quite honestly, look and sound pathedic when you listen to what Ron Paul had to say!
Ah, i love it, Ron Paul rules! He basically made these two look like the warmongers that they are.
It was also posted on Gambling911.com today that Ron Paul and Barney Frank are introducing a bill this week to get rid of the prohibition of on line gambling. It's the light of my world to read among all the depressing news about Ron Paul because everything he does is for the cause of liberty.
It was also posted on Gambling911.com today that Ron Paul and Barney Frank are introducing a bill this week to get rid of the prohibition of on line gambling. It's the light of my world to read among all the depressing news about Ron Paul because everything he does is for the cause of liberty.
Here's also the article Ron Paul wrote in Free Market Man about the erosion of the 4th Amendment. It's a quick read, not long at all...
Free Market Man
April 7, 2008
Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.
Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.
The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.
We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?
In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.
We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.
Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.
The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.
We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?
In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.
We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.
In my entertainment news, ironically 2 weeks before the Denver Roger Waters concert, which i have tickets to :),
I came across a little blurb about Roger Waters talking about the Presidential election and said that "Ghastly Hillary will invade Iran"
Roger Waters: 'Ghastly Hillary Clinton Will Invade Iran'
Jason Gregory
Jason Gregory
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters has attacked democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton – calling the senator from New York “ghastly”.
Waters, who admits to being a fan of Clinton’s rival for the democratic nomination, Barack Obama, said that Clinton would invade Iran if she was elected America’s next president.
“I was so disappointed the other night when the ghastly Hillary got Texas and kept the whole thing going," he told the Independent.
"Please God, let's not have this woman! Hillary will want to make her mark and show that she can be just as good as a male president, and she will fucking invade Iran.
“Trust me. She voted to declare the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organisation!"
Despite being ineligible to vote, Waters, who lives in New York, said he would “buy a whole page in The New York Times” in order to “fly Obama's flag”.
“But I would be terribly afraid they'd go, 'This is that pinko shitbag who's attacking our President in time of war',” he added.
Clinton and Obama next face off against each other in the Philadelphia primary on April 22nd.
The eventual winner of the democratic nomination will go head-to-head with Republican John McCain in the battle to become the country’s president in November.
Waters, who admits to being a fan of Clinton’s rival for the democratic nomination, Barack Obama, said that Clinton would invade Iran if she was elected America’s next president.
“I was so disappointed the other night when the ghastly Hillary got Texas and kept the whole thing going," he told the Independent.
"Please God, let's not have this woman! Hillary will want to make her mark and show that she can be just as good as a male president, and she will fucking invade Iran.
“Trust me. She voted to declare the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organisation!"
Despite being ineligible to vote, Waters, who lives in New York, said he would “buy a whole page in The New York Times” in order to “fly Obama's flag”.
“But I would be terribly afraid they'd go, 'This is that pinko shitbag who's attacking our President in time of war',” he added.
Clinton and Obama next face off against each other in the Philadelphia primary on April 22nd.
The eventual winner of the democratic nomination will go head-to-head with Republican John McCain in the battle to become the country’s president in November.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Watching Ventura go out and promote his book and talk to all these disgusting pundits is great to watch!
The Colbert Report interview was good too, but Ventura makes Hannity look like even more of an ass in this interview.
I don't agree with Ventura on everything, but he's got guts to go out on t.v. and tell the truth, and that's all that matters to me.
The Colbert Report interview was good too, but Ventura makes Hannity look like even more of an ass in this interview.
I don't agree with Ventura on everything, but he's got guts to go out on t.v. and tell the truth, and that's all that matters to me.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Jesse Venture Questions Official 9/11 Story
This was a fucking great interview! He kicked off his book tour yesterday by going on Larry King. The Larry King interview is great too, but of coarse on Alex Jones people tend to be more honest.
This was a fucking great interview! He kicked off his book tour yesterday by going on Larry King. The Larry King interview is great too, but of coarse on Alex Jones people tend to be more honest.
i don't give a damn about pro wrestling, and i never really listened to what Jesse Ventura had to say, i always just brushed him off as that guy from "The Predator".
Turns out he's just mad as hell too, i'm definitely going to buy his new book "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me", he's going on his book tour now and he's calling for peaceful revolution, just like Ron Paul. Infact on The Larry King Show when he was talking about the war he said he agrees with Ron Paul, that we just marched right in, we can march right out.
He also talked about the JFK assassination, which i love to hear any one's opinion about. That subject is just such a fascinating subject to me, i love it.
Turns out he's just mad as hell too, i'm definitely going to buy his new book "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me", he's going on his book tour now and he's calling for peaceful revolution, just like Ron Paul. Infact on The Larry King Show when he was talking about the war he said he agrees with Ron Paul, that we just marched right in, we can march right out.
He also talked about the JFK assassination, which i love to hear any one's opinion about. That subject is just such a fascinating subject to me, i love it.
By the way, Jesse Ventura isn't just some actor, some celebrity, he's ex Navy, he was Governor of Minnesota. Let's not forget this, he is a prominent guy.
He tells about how after he took the office of Governor the CIA came to interrogate him when the CIA has it in their own charter they are not allowed to operate inside the United States!
He talks about how his wife found out their phone was bugged!
I have a sneaking suspicion Alex is trying to get Johnny Depp on his show, i listen to his show everyday and he's been hinting at it here and there. Just the other day he was saying something about "actors making pirate movies going public". Alex also made a remark not too long ago when they were covering the Oscar winning Best Actress when she said the government probably did 9/11, he said she was doing a movie with Johnny Depp right now, and he went on to say,"I wonder what Johnny Depp thinks about 9/11" and then he just laughed and said,"I'm gonna shut up."
After the Ventura interview yesterday he went on about how he's so close to getting "one of the top 3 actors" on the show.
I'm almost positive it'll be Johnny Depp.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Step away from the window and go back to sleep....
Wow, i really ranted and raved on my last post eh? Well, i'm mad. I'm mad and i'm confused and i just have this overwhelming melon collie type feeling.
It's a lot of things and the political realm we live in doesn't help either.
Yes, the food thing has set me over the edge a little bit. It's upsetting. Here i am, i found a pure passion in my life which is cooking food, food itself, from seed to my dinner plate.
Then i find out that our food is contaminated with chemicals and shit, the water we drink isn't even safe. I've been feeding myself and my kids this crap for years, and now i'm trying to wean them off of it, including myself and it's been hard. For myself it's been great, i feel so much better now, i'm not as lazy and i have more energy, i have mental clarity like i never dreamed. But enough on that i've already talked about that before.
Our criminal government has actually approved the production of cloned fucking meat! And there's people actually saying it's a good thing! The corn and wheat in this country is grown from genetically modified, which is so toxic and awful it ruins the soil from where the plants grew!
My career path has been all bummed out. My boss is getting ready for retirement, she's been hinting at it more and more. I would guess in the next 2 years she'll probably retire, so that leaves me next in line for her job and i really have mixed feelings if i want the job. All in all, i do really love my job right now where i'm at. I can listen to my ipod my whole shift, i don't have to deal with asshole customers. But i started thinking if i really wanted to do this my whole life. And that thought really scared the shit out of me! Do i wanna be like my boss and be the file maintenance for Safeway for the next 30 years? Plus i'm at the point where i'm stuck with the job i have now, and it would be completely stupid to just up and quit with the way the economy is going.
I really want to go to culinary school but at the same time i have huge reservations about that as well. There are certain things i just don't think i could cook. Then i thought maybe i could be a pastry chef, but then i thought yeah, i do like to bake but not enough to do it all the time.
Plus if i wanted to do that i could just work in the bakery at safeway! Ha!
The presidential election has me all pissed off and bummed out. The way the media treated Ron Paul, the way we're deceived by telling us we have a choice when we really don't. Hillary is the anointed one plain and simple, and if you can't see that your fucking blind.
The fall of society has me all pissed off. Anyone who's read this blog from the very conception knows i can't stand the way women are looked upon nowadays. If we're not pretty and skinny as a rail we're painted as ugly and fat. Or if your fat and have a pretty face your looked upon as "fat but with a pretty face." We're expected to be like porno "stars" Girls Gone Wild type shit.
We're no longer looked upon as motherly loving creatures who protect and nurture the family, we're just looked upon like sex objects. I told my boyfriend a long time ago, i don't even want to know what he thinks about women because it's so upsetting to me.
If you have ever seen the movie "Idiocracy" i mean that is totally what i see our society turning into.
Alex Jones says it all the time, the majority of Americans can't even find the United States on a map, and they don't know the first 5 amendments to the Bill of Rights.
What percentage of Americans has even read the Constitution? I know i bitch about this all the time, but it's the law of the land! Any other law that is written that violates the Constitution is null and void, and look what we have! An illegal income tax where the government just steals a portion of your income, and illegal Fed that is counterfeiting. A president who has completely shit all over the Constitution and has on paper declared himself dictator if a "crisis" were to come to our country. Presidential Directive 51.
Cameras are being put up fucking everywhere in the name of safety and security. What we are living in now is like 1984 on steroids! The government just illegally listens to you and reads your e-mails. The fourth amendment is gone cuz they have the public so scared that terrorists are hiding under the bed. Comcast recently came out and said on their DVR's they have a camera in them to watch you!
I actually work with two women, one of them being my boss who have told me they want a microchip planted inside of them in the name of, surprise, surprise, security! My boss even wants her 6 year old granddaughter implanted with a fucking chip! And she even said, for when if they ever go shopping and she wanders off and she loses her granddaughter in a store, they can find her!!! That's just crazy, crazy loony fucking shit to me! These poor women live in such fear everyday, that they probably don't even know they have a better chance of getting killed in a car crash then they do getting abducted by some nut and being killed.
The other girl i work with who is married to a cop said she wants one in case she ever gets killed by some psycho they can find her body!
I know i gotta stop dwelling on this shit so much, but i see it everyday on T.V., just the moronic shit they air, to the news in the paper, the fucking lies and dumb ass public worrying about what Brad and Angelina did today! It's enough to make me wanna cry...
I gotta go to sleep, maybe i'll feel better when i wake up....
Wow, i really ranted and raved on my last post eh? Well, i'm mad. I'm mad and i'm confused and i just have this overwhelming melon collie type feeling.
It's a lot of things and the political realm we live in doesn't help either.
Yes, the food thing has set me over the edge a little bit. It's upsetting. Here i am, i found a pure passion in my life which is cooking food, food itself, from seed to my dinner plate.
Then i find out that our food is contaminated with chemicals and shit, the water we drink isn't even safe. I've been feeding myself and my kids this crap for years, and now i'm trying to wean them off of it, including myself and it's been hard. For myself it's been great, i feel so much better now, i'm not as lazy and i have more energy, i have mental clarity like i never dreamed. But enough on that i've already talked about that before.
Our criminal government has actually approved the production of cloned fucking meat! And there's people actually saying it's a good thing! The corn and wheat in this country is grown from genetically modified, which is so toxic and awful it ruins the soil from where the plants grew!
My career path has been all bummed out. My boss is getting ready for retirement, she's been hinting at it more and more. I would guess in the next 2 years she'll probably retire, so that leaves me next in line for her job and i really have mixed feelings if i want the job. All in all, i do really love my job right now where i'm at. I can listen to my ipod my whole shift, i don't have to deal with asshole customers. But i started thinking if i really wanted to do this my whole life. And that thought really scared the shit out of me! Do i wanna be like my boss and be the file maintenance for Safeway for the next 30 years? Plus i'm at the point where i'm stuck with the job i have now, and it would be completely stupid to just up and quit with the way the economy is going.
I really want to go to culinary school but at the same time i have huge reservations about that as well. There are certain things i just don't think i could cook. Then i thought maybe i could be a pastry chef, but then i thought yeah, i do like to bake but not enough to do it all the time.
Plus if i wanted to do that i could just work in the bakery at safeway! Ha!
The presidential election has me all pissed off and bummed out. The way the media treated Ron Paul, the way we're deceived by telling us we have a choice when we really don't. Hillary is the anointed one plain and simple, and if you can't see that your fucking blind.
The fall of society has me all pissed off. Anyone who's read this blog from the very conception knows i can't stand the way women are looked upon nowadays. If we're not pretty and skinny as a rail we're painted as ugly and fat. Or if your fat and have a pretty face your looked upon as "fat but with a pretty face." We're expected to be like porno "stars" Girls Gone Wild type shit.
We're no longer looked upon as motherly loving creatures who protect and nurture the family, we're just looked upon like sex objects. I told my boyfriend a long time ago, i don't even want to know what he thinks about women because it's so upsetting to me.
If you have ever seen the movie "Idiocracy" i mean that is totally what i see our society turning into.
Alex Jones says it all the time, the majority of Americans can't even find the United States on a map, and they don't know the first 5 amendments to the Bill of Rights.
What percentage of Americans has even read the Constitution? I know i bitch about this all the time, but it's the law of the land! Any other law that is written that violates the Constitution is null and void, and look what we have! An illegal income tax where the government just steals a portion of your income, and illegal Fed that is counterfeiting. A president who has completely shit all over the Constitution and has on paper declared himself dictator if a "crisis" were to come to our country. Presidential Directive 51.
Cameras are being put up fucking everywhere in the name of safety and security. What we are living in now is like 1984 on steroids! The government just illegally listens to you and reads your e-mails. The fourth amendment is gone cuz they have the public so scared that terrorists are hiding under the bed. Comcast recently came out and said on their DVR's they have a camera in them to watch you!
I actually work with two women, one of them being my boss who have told me they want a microchip planted inside of them in the name of, surprise, surprise, security! My boss even wants her 6 year old granddaughter implanted with a fucking chip! And she even said, for when if they ever go shopping and she wanders off and she loses her granddaughter in a store, they can find her!!! That's just crazy, crazy loony fucking shit to me! These poor women live in such fear everyday, that they probably don't even know they have a better chance of getting killed in a car crash then they do getting abducted by some nut and being killed.
The other girl i work with who is married to a cop said she wants one in case she ever gets killed by some psycho they can find her body!
I know i gotta stop dwelling on this shit so much, but i see it everyday on T.V., just the moronic shit they air, to the news in the paper, the fucking lies and dumb ass public worrying about what Brad and Angelina did today! It's enough to make me wanna cry...
I gotta go to sleep, maybe i'll feel better when i wake up....
Monday, March 24, 2008
"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." -John Adams
I wasn't gonna post this video on here at first, but it really got to me. Alex Jones did this show on his birthday this year on February 11th, and my heart just bleeds when i watch it.
It sums up what a lot of us feel about what's going on today, and it definitely hit a nerve with me because i've had a lot of things that have just almost driven me to the point of insanity.
The media only reports what they are allowed to report on the television, the presidential election is a fucking joke, we can't even eat food without it having some chemicals in it that cause major health problems. It's no wonder we're so unhealthy as a nation now and diabetes is shooting through the fucking roof. Our doctors now are nothing more than drug dealers.
The food thing has really set me over the edge here lately. I can't believe we don't even have the basic human right not to have chemicals and dangerous additives put into our food. And then when you go all organic it's so expensive it's almost imposable!
When live in a country now where you can't even ask our elected officials, who we pay their salary by the way, about his membership in the secret society Skull and Bones without getting tased by fucking orcs that call themselves cops!! DON'T TASE ME BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And people were actually happy that he got tased!!!
What the fuck have we become?!!
JFK warned us about secret societies in 1961, 2 years before he got his fucking head blown off in Dallas!!!
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."-JFK
Then at a Hillary rally we have Hillary supporters beating up a protester, then the protester gets arrested for exercising his first amendment right!!! Then when it's reported on the news the commentators say the protester should be taken to a secret prison and tased! Then they don't even report it right, spinning it saying the protester was beating up Hillary supporters, when the local fucking paper said he was across the street holding a sign and yelled "9/11 was an inside job" at Bill Clinton, then like mindless orcs, the Hillary supporters go and beat him up and tear up his sign!
IS THAT LIBERTY? Is that what we're being sold on that that fucking bullshit is LIBERTY?!?!
Like Ron Paul has said the founders would be ashamed of what we're putting up with!
I don't care what people think about me anymore. Call me a nut, call me a conspiracy theorist! I don't fucking care anymore!
We're not living in the country the founding fathers intended for us anymore, we're not living under real liberty anymore, and the only way to make people see the tyranny is to educate them.
READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!!!
When we have a presidential election where the only man running who is calling for peace and calling to bring all of our troops home from not only Iraq but around the world, and then he gets demonized and called a racist when that is the exact opposite of the libertarian philosophy!!!! And complete fucking morons who don't know history trout around calling Ron Paul an isolationist and that it's policies like that that brought about the rise of the Nazi's!! I mean i am living in fucking Wonderland where people actually believe shit like that!
And just this weekend on Easter all the churches around the world prayed for world peace, and you go and name call the only man actually advocating peace??????
What have we become when the media picks who should be allowed in presidential debates and who shouldn't???
Ok i gotta stop...
So i love this video! Go Alex, i totally feel ya....
I wasn't gonna post this video on here at first, but it really got to me. Alex Jones did this show on his birthday this year on February 11th, and my heart just bleeds when i watch it.
It sums up what a lot of us feel about what's going on today, and it definitely hit a nerve with me because i've had a lot of things that have just almost driven me to the point of insanity.
The media only reports what they are allowed to report on the television, the presidential election is a fucking joke, we can't even eat food without it having some chemicals in it that cause major health problems. It's no wonder we're so unhealthy as a nation now and diabetes is shooting through the fucking roof. Our doctors now are nothing more than drug dealers.
The food thing has really set me over the edge here lately. I can't believe we don't even have the basic human right not to have chemicals and dangerous additives put into our food. And then when you go all organic it's so expensive it's almost imposable!
When live in a country now where you can't even ask our elected officials, who we pay their salary by the way, about his membership in the secret society Skull and Bones without getting tased by fucking orcs that call themselves cops!! DON'T TASE ME BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And people were actually happy that he got tased!!!
What the fuck have we become?!!
JFK warned us about secret societies in 1961, 2 years before he got his fucking head blown off in Dallas!!!
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."-JFK
Then at a Hillary rally we have Hillary supporters beating up a protester, then the protester gets arrested for exercising his first amendment right!!! Then when it's reported on the news the commentators say the protester should be taken to a secret prison and tased! Then they don't even report it right, spinning it saying the protester was beating up Hillary supporters, when the local fucking paper said he was across the street holding a sign and yelled "9/11 was an inside job" at Bill Clinton, then like mindless orcs, the Hillary supporters go and beat him up and tear up his sign!
IS THAT LIBERTY? Is that what we're being sold on that that fucking bullshit is LIBERTY?!?!
Like Ron Paul has said the founders would be ashamed of what we're putting up with!
I don't care what people think about me anymore. Call me a nut, call me a conspiracy theorist! I don't fucking care anymore!
We're not living in the country the founding fathers intended for us anymore, we're not living under real liberty anymore, and the only way to make people see the tyranny is to educate them.
READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!!!
When we have a presidential election where the only man running who is calling for peace and calling to bring all of our troops home from not only Iraq but around the world, and then he gets demonized and called a racist when that is the exact opposite of the libertarian philosophy!!!! And complete fucking morons who don't know history trout around calling Ron Paul an isolationist and that it's policies like that that brought about the rise of the Nazi's!! I mean i am living in fucking Wonderland where people actually believe shit like that!
And just this weekend on Easter all the churches around the world prayed for world peace, and you go and name call the only man actually advocating peace??????
What have we become when the media picks who should be allowed in presidential debates and who shouldn't???
Ok i gotta stop...
So i love this video! Go Alex, i totally feel ya....
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."- Thomas Jefferson
This guy that debated Ron Paul is a fucking moron! Ron Paul said the most important part in the first minute of his argument! The Fed is illegal, it's not authorized in the Constitution and the Fed are nothing more than counterfeiters! We use to hang people for counterfeiting and now it's our form of currency!
If only people would actually READ the Constitution!
This guy that debated Ron Paul is a fucking moron! Ron Paul said the most important part in the first minute of his argument! The Fed is illegal, it's not authorized in the Constitution and the Fed are nothing more than counterfeiters! We use to hang people for counterfeiting and now it's our form of currency!
If only people would actually READ the Constitution!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Marines Throw Puppy Off Of Cliff
This is fucking awful. I'm no PETA activist or anything, not even really a animal lover, but i do love dogs and seeing this was heartbreaking.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
3/1 CNN Your Money: Talks of Great Depression Coming
Wow, a rare glimpse of CNN actually reporting the news.
Friday, February 29, 2008
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers." - John Adams
Thought this was a great article about Obama....
Counterpunch
February 29, 2008
Barack Obama is truly the corporate candidate and any “change” he delivers will be in the interest of the corporate oligarchy.
Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here’s why:
Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.
Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here’s why:
This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.
But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.
THE WAR IN IRAQ
Since taking office in January 2005 Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.
Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.
This is hardly a position to get excited about.
Since taking office in January 2005 Obama has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.
First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."
Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.
Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.
And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?
Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.
At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.
This is hardly a position to get excited about.
CLASS ACTION REFORM:
In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.
By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the "reform" was a thinly-veiled "special interest extravaganza" that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers."
Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: "On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide."
Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people ( Or the people of Hunter Point suing Lennar) to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?
By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the "reform" was a thinly-veiled "special interest extravaganza" that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers."
Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: "On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide."
Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people ( Or the people of Hunter Point suing Lennar) to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?
CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:
For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.
Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.
Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.
Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.
Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.
Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.
LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:
These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.
In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.
In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.
MINING LAW OF 1872:
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.
The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.
Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News "Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him," November 14, 2007).
Obama has taken contributions from executives and employees of Exelon, a nuclear plant where radioactive leaks have occurred. ve put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.
Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News "Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him," November 14, 2007).
Obama has taken contributions from executives and employees of Exelon, a nuclear plant where radioactive leaks have occurred. ve put forward, totaling over $300 billion.
REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:
The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.
The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:
"Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."
As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: "Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers."
The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:
"Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."
As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: "Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers."
ENERGY POLICY:
On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t "green" according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. "It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)
So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capital of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capital of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.
SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.
Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, "Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."
Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, "Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:
Regardless of Obama’s rhetoric against Clinton on NAFTA, in his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more such deals.
Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers."
Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as "pole-vaulting" over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum wage," and other worker protections.
Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers."
Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as "pole-vaulting" over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum wage," and other worker protections.
SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:
On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.
Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)
Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)
On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.
It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.
Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president ("Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words "I’m amazed at Democrats cowering with this president’s number’s so low." Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.
Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)
Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)
On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.
It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.
Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president ("Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words "I’m amazed at Democrats cowering with this president’s number’s so low." Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.
CONCLUSION:
Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.
I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
2-23-08 Austin meets Ron Paul Part 0: Introduction
This was very refreshing for me to watch. Watching the Hillary/Obama fight gets very old after a while. Viva la revolution!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Taxi To The Darkside Trailer
I was so happy to hear this movie won Best Documentary the other night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)