Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Does the Press Pick Our Presidents-Helium
Yesby Julia WisdomPrint
Invite a writer™
view all
A A A The media definitely must be bought off by anyone who hopes to win the presidency. But, the way it works is more like the media picks a candidate that promises to uphold their special interests and donates to the candidates campaign. This was recently the case with Hillary Clinton. Rupert Murdoch probably most famously known as the owner of Fox News invested in Hillary Clinton, normally Ruppy puts his money on conservatives, so this should tell people that Hillary is not a liberal or a conservative to American politics, she's willing to see that the New World Order is put into play. Because Mr. Murdochs money is on Hillary, I'd bet a paycheck that she WILL be our next president. Rupert Murdoch owns more of everything that we are permitted to read, view, and listen to. He's huge, not that the other four CEO's who decide what we know aren't, but Rupert Murdoch owns the most.
Let's look at what George W. Bush's presidency has done for these media moguls. General Electric not only owns NBC and a number of sister companies but it is also a defense contractor. Think NBC was pro-Bush or covered up for the Bush administration on September 11th because they liked Bush the man? No. It's not that simple. General Electric the media was making sure that General Electric the Defense Contractor was going to be raking in the big bucks for all of them. Rupert Murdoch owns more media than he should because Bush bent the rules using Michael Powell (Colin Powell's kid) as the FCC head. Plus Rupert Murdoch belongs to pro-Israel lobby groups and Israel is very happy about Americas troops being in Iraq. And what CEO has his goals set on just national these days, its all about international. Globalization, big economy, ruling the world, Bush is a dream for any big corporation who wants to be tbe world leader of the product it supplies.
Plus the media is the government's mouthpiece. Hillary Clinton's campaign started in the late 90's with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. That wasn't to expose Clinton as a liar, it was to promote Hillary as a strong woman who could handle what most wives could not. It was also the tool the media used to divide the Clinton's into just Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton two separate and independent strong leaders who don't need each other but just happen to be married. Think about it, would you elect or even think about electing any other first lady? No. Because of who they are married too.
So, yes, the press, the media and the government are like an anaconda orgy and they do manipulate the public to get their way.
Invite a writer™
view all
A A A The media definitely must be bought off by anyone who hopes to win the presidency. But, the way it works is more like the media picks a candidate that promises to uphold their special interests and donates to the candidates campaign. This was recently the case with Hillary Clinton. Rupert Murdoch probably most famously known as the owner of Fox News invested in Hillary Clinton, normally Ruppy puts his money on conservatives, so this should tell people that Hillary is not a liberal or a conservative to American politics, she's willing to see that the New World Order is put into play. Because Mr. Murdochs money is on Hillary, I'd bet a paycheck that she WILL be our next president. Rupert Murdoch owns more of everything that we are permitted to read, view, and listen to. He's huge, not that the other four CEO's who decide what we know aren't, but Rupert Murdoch owns the most.
Let's look at what George W. Bush's presidency has done for these media moguls. General Electric not only owns NBC and a number of sister companies but it is also a defense contractor. Think NBC was pro-Bush or covered up for the Bush administration on September 11th because they liked Bush the man? No. It's not that simple. General Electric the media was making sure that General Electric the Defense Contractor was going to be raking in the big bucks for all of them. Rupert Murdoch owns more media than he should because Bush bent the rules using Michael Powell (Colin Powell's kid) as the FCC head. Plus Rupert Murdoch belongs to pro-Israel lobby groups and Israel is very happy about Americas troops being in Iraq. And what CEO has his goals set on just national these days, its all about international. Globalization, big economy, ruling the world, Bush is a dream for any big corporation who wants to be tbe world leader of the product it supplies.
Plus the media is the government's mouthpiece. Hillary Clinton's campaign started in the late 90's with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. That wasn't to expose Clinton as a liar, it was to promote Hillary as a strong woman who could handle what most wives could not. It was also the tool the media used to divide the Clinton's into just Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton two separate and independent strong leaders who don't need each other but just happen to be married. Think about it, would you elect or even think about electing any other first lady? No. Because of who they are married too.
So, yes, the press, the media and the government are like an anaconda orgy and they do manipulate the public to get their way.
Friday, June 8, 2007
All Americans support a conspiracy theory.
The Theories about 911 (Chapter 6 p.80 by Daniele Ganser)
It is important to stress that all of the theories about 911 are conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is a secret agreement between two or more persons to engage in a criminal act. Conspiracies are nothing unusual or new in the field of historical research. Al least since the assassination of Julius Ceaser in classical Rome more than 2,000 years ago, conspiracies have been the element of the political fight for influence and power. As 9/11 was a criminal act which was definitely not planned and carried out by one single person alone but by at least two or more persons who agreed on the plan before it was implemented, 911 must be classified as a conspiracy. Once we realize that none of the theories can be dismissed on the grounds that it is a "conspiracy theory," the real question becomes: Which conspiracy theory correctly describes the 9/11 conspiracy?
It is important to stress that all of the theories about 911 are conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is a secret agreement between two or more persons to engage in a criminal act. Conspiracies are nothing unusual or new in the field of historical research. Al least since the assassination of Julius Ceaser in classical Rome more than 2,000 years ago, conspiracies have been the element of the political fight for influence and power. As 9/11 was a criminal act which was definitely not planned and carried out by one single person alone but by at least two or more persons who agreed on the plan before it was implemented, 911 must be classified as a conspiracy. Once we realize that none of the theories can be dismissed on the grounds that it is a "conspiracy theory," the real question becomes: Which conspiracy theory correctly describes the 9/11 conspiracy?
Monday, June 4, 2007
Quote from 911 and the American Empire
"I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholley useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious...I believe in complete freedom of thought and speech alike for the humblest man and the mightiest, and in utmost freedom of conduct that is consistent with living in an organized society. I believe in capacity of man to conquer his world, and find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress.
But the whole thing may be put very simply. I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe it is better to be free than a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
H.L. Mencken
H. L. Mencken, was a twentieth-century journalist, satirist, social critic, cynic, and freethinker, known as the "Sage of Baltimore." He is often regarded as one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century.
But the whole thing may be put very simply. I believe it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe it is better to be free than a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
H.L. Mencken
H. L. Mencken, was a twentieth-century journalist, satirist, social critic, cynic, and freethinker, known as the "Sage of Baltimore." He is often regarded as one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Rosie O'Donnell versus Elisabeth Hasselbeck:
Who is right?
Rosie
I never watched The View. I had no idea why the media was making such a tadoo about the Donald vs. Rosie war, nor did I care. Until recently I couldn't stand either Donald Trump or Rosie O'Donnell. Why? Donald Trump is disgusting and annoying, his entire persona rubs me wrong and I'm entitled to feel that way. Rosie O'Donnell lost my respect back when she was on NBC pretending to be straight with a massive crush on Tom Cruise. It made me mad that Rosie was willing to insult my intelligence to appease NBC. Ever since I've avoided anything that her name was associated with, including The View.
It was quite by accident that I happened upon a clip of her being hassled by Hasselbeck for pointing out that if Americans wanted the truth, they better look past the monopolized American media, and that the truth was the government attacked itself as an excuse to wage wars on oil rich countries (not her exact words but the gust of what she said). It's my opinion that Rosie committed career suicide that day, and because of that she has gained back all my respect for the Tom Cruise caper.
Any American who would sacrifice what she sacrificed that day is a patriot in my book. Rosie may have a sharp tongue and a quick wit that a lot of people don't appreciate but she cares about each and everyone of us more than she cares about being on The View. She gave Americans two important facts that could save their lives that day; #1. 911 was an inside job. #2. The media is monopolized by a handful of CEO's who may or may not share the same goals which means you can't trust the news as a source for facts! Rosie has been asked to leave the View or she was forced to resign too by the way, her last appearance will be sometime in June.
It's my opinion that Elisabeth Hasselbeck represents one side of America. The side that refuses to believe the government would lie to, or kill its own people to dominate the globe. She is dangerous and so are the rest of her kind. Because burying our head in the sand will not save our asses. Rosie represents the other side that is appalled at the obviousness of the attacks and the governments involvement and she's willing to express her concern, fear and anger in hopes we can stop it from happening again.
Stumble It!
Rosie
I never watched The View. I had no idea why the media was making such a tadoo about the Donald vs. Rosie war, nor did I care. Until recently I couldn't stand either Donald Trump or Rosie O'Donnell. Why? Donald Trump is disgusting and annoying, his entire persona rubs me wrong and I'm entitled to feel that way. Rosie O'Donnell lost my respect back when she was on NBC pretending to be straight with a massive crush on Tom Cruise. It made me mad that Rosie was willing to insult my intelligence to appease NBC. Ever since I've avoided anything that her name was associated with, including The View.
It was quite by accident that I happened upon a clip of her being hassled by Hasselbeck for pointing out that if Americans wanted the truth, they better look past the monopolized American media, and that the truth was the government attacked itself as an excuse to wage wars on oil rich countries (not her exact words but the gust of what she said). It's my opinion that Rosie committed career suicide that day, and because of that she has gained back all my respect for the Tom Cruise caper.
Any American who would sacrifice what she sacrificed that day is a patriot in my book. Rosie may have a sharp tongue and a quick wit that a lot of people don't appreciate but she cares about each and everyone of us more than she cares about being on The View. She gave Americans two important facts that could save their lives that day; #1. 911 was an inside job. #2. The media is monopolized by a handful of CEO's who may or may not share the same goals which means you can't trust the news as a source for facts! Rosie has been asked to leave the View or she was forced to resign too by the way, her last appearance will be sometime in June.
It's my opinion that Elisabeth Hasselbeck represents one side of America. The side that refuses to believe the government would lie to, or kill its own people to dominate the globe. She is dangerous and so are the rest of her kind. Because burying our head in the sand will not save our asses. Rosie represents the other side that is appalled at the obviousness of the attacks and the governments involvement and she's willing to express her concern, fear and anger in hopes we can stop it from happening again.
Stumble It!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The bias of mainstream media
by xxxxx xxxx
view all A A A Is the mainstream media biased? To answer this I looked up the definition of bias in Miriam Webster on-line: [a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others]
Yes. The mainstream media is most definitely biased. For one thing every thing you listen to on the radio, watch on television or buy from the newsstand and read, no matter what the publication title is, no matter which of the 100+ channels it is on, or if its AM or FM, is owned by only one of six corporations (i.e.: (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates)
1. Advanced Publications Corp
2. Disney Corp
3. General Electric Corp
4. News Corp
5. Time Warner Corp
6. Viacom Corp
Some may think, six CEO's might not share the same agenda, that shouldn't cause bias in the media. True until you stop to think about the product they sale. Information. What information is the most sought after by consumers? Current events. Who has access to the most up to the minute information on current events? The government. Rather its the local police, courts, the State Capitol, or Congress, the White House or the Pentagon, all belong to one entity the U.S. Government.
An example of media bias orchestrated by its main supplier of information would be the recent shooting that occurred in Virginia; since the man who killed over 30 people at Virginia Tech, I have had to stomach listening to Katy Couric on CBS report on the need for more security and more gun control on our campus' all week long. Does Katy Couric want gun control and more cops on our campus' I don't think she gives a damn. I doubt even her bosses care about gun control or more cops on our campus' but I can guess who does want both; our government.
Prior to this horrible event there was a similar campus shooting spree that took place in the same state at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA. What made that incident newsworthy was that the shooter was subdued by several students who themselves were carrying guns. Most newspapers instead of reporting the fact that the rescuers had guns used the incident to editorialize their opposition to handguns and the need for more gun control.
Many would blame the above example on "the liberal media". Many people also assume that the government is required to talk to the press and give interviews. No. The government is not required to give press conferences. They are required to share information with the public through the FOIA. However, the up to the minute information that the media supplies its consumers with, can only be had by playing nice to the government. They don't have the right to talk to Tony Snow, that's a privilege. The liberal media bias we hear so much about is the "one hand washes the other" that goes on between the government and the media. Or you could say the government and the media have each other by the balls.
view all A A A Is the mainstream media biased? To answer this I looked up the definition of bias in Miriam Webster on-line: [a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others]
Yes. The mainstream media is most definitely biased. For one thing every thing you listen to on the radio, watch on television or buy from the newsstand and read, no matter what the publication title is, no matter which of the 100+ channels it is on, or if its AM or FM, is owned by only one of six corporations (i.e.: (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates)
1. Advanced Publications Corp
2. Disney Corp
3. General Electric Corp
4. News Corp
5. Time Warner Corp
6. Viacom Corp
Some may think, six CEO's might not share the same agenda, that shouldn't cause bias in the media. True until you stop to think about the product they sale. Information. What information is the most sought after by consumers? Current events. Who has access to the most up to the minute information on current events? The government. Rather its the local police, courts, the State Capitol, or Congress, the White House or the Pentagon, all belong to one entity the U.S. Government.
An example of media bias orchestrated by its main supplier of information would be the recent shooting that occurred in Virginia; since the man who killed over 30 people at Virginia Tech, I have had to stomach listening to Katy Couric on CBS report on the need for more security and more gun control on our campus' all week long. Does Katy Couric want gun control and more cops on our campus' I don't think she gives a damn. I doubt even her bosses care about gun control or more cops on our campus' but I can guess who does want both; our government.
Prior to this horrible event there was a similar campus shooting spree that took place in the same state at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA. What made that incident newsworthy was that the shooter was subdued by several students who themselves were carrying guns. Most newspapers instead of reporting the fact that the rescuers had guns used the incident to editorialize their opposition to handguns and the need for more gun control.
Many would blame the above example on "the liberal media". Many people also assume that the government is required to talk to the press and give interviews. No. The government is not required to give press conferences. They are required to share information with the public through the FOIA. However, the up to the minute information that the media supplies its consumers with, can only be had by playing nice to the government. They don't have the right to talk to Tony Snow, that's a privilege. The liberal media bias we hear so much about is the "one hand washes the other" that goes on between the government and the media. Or you could say the government and the media have each other by the balls.
9/11 and the towers
by xxxxx xxx
view all A A A There are two conspiracy theories regarding September 11 and the twin towers. Americans believe one or the other. One side who believe the Fox News conspiracy theory that terrorists who were religious extremists crashed planes into the towers causing the two that were hit two fall within minutes of each other in the same fashion; and when they are asked about building 7 they believe that heat from the fires that caused the structural failure of the two fallen towers located across the street caused this 50 story bldg to fall into its own footprint as well.
Then there's the other conspiracy theory which is that the attacks were an inside job, carried out by those in power in our own government.
It really doesn't matter which side is right or wrong because neither side will ever know. Regardless of who was responsible for committing mass murder that morning, the incident itself was a crime. It should have been treated as a crime scene and the evidence should have been collected and preserved like it is in any other murder or crime scene. Had it been, there would be no need for theory's because the evidence would prove who the guilty party was.
America will never have its day in court, justice will never be served to the guilty parties because it is impossible to prove a case when the evidence was immediately destroyed.
For those of us who just can't give Osama bin Laden and a bunch of his religious fanatical friends the kind of power the Fox Conspiracy theorists are so willing to give them; no NIST report based on theories of what the buildings could or could not withstand, or a report that gives FEMA's theory, or the opinions of a bunch old guys who call themselves a 911 Commission Members is going to suffice. EVER. First of all, this would be like those of us who believe the government was behind the attacks asking terrorists like Bin Laden to give their expert opinion and present it to those who think it was Al Qaeda that killed 3,000 people as proof that it wasn't. NIST, FEMA, DHS, DOD, are not credible to anyone who believes that the U.S. government attacked itself, to go to war anywhere it pleased for the next 10 to 100 years.
Regardless of what you believe happened that day or what I believe happened NO ONE will ever know for sure unless a confession is made or a reliable witness presents tangible evidence to back up his or her testimony.
view all A A A There are two conspiracy theories regarding September 11 and the twin towers. Americans believe one or the other. One side who believe the Fox News conspiracy theory that terrorists who were religious extremists crashed planes into the towers causing the two that were hit two fall within minutes of each other in the same fashion; and when they are asked about building 7 they believe that heat from the fires that caused the structural failure of the two fallen towers located across the street caused this 50 story bldg to fall into its own footprint as well.
Then there's the other conspiracy theory which is that the attacks were an inside job, carried out by those in power in our own government.
It really doesn't matter which side is right or wrong because neither side will ever know. Regardless of who was responsible for committing mass murder that morning, the incident itself was a crime. It should have been treated as a crime scene and the evidence should have been collected and preserved like it is in any other murder or crime scene. Had it been, there would be no need for theory's because the evidence would prove who the guilty party was.
America will never have its day in court, justice will never be served to the guilty parties because it is impossible to prove a case when the evidence was immediately destroyed.
For those of us who just can't give Osama bin Laden and a bunch of his religious fanatical friends the kind of power the Fox Conspiracy theorists are so willing to give them; no NIST report based on theories of what the buildings could or could not withstand, or a report that gives FEMA's theory, or the opinions of a bunch old guys who call themselves a 911 Commission Members is going to suffice. EVER. First of all, this would be like those of us who believe the government was behind the attacks asking terrorists like Bin Laden to give their expert opinion and present it to those who think it was Al Qaeda that killed 3,000 people as proof that it wasn't. NIST, FEMA, DHS, DOD, are not credible to anyone who believes that the U.S. government attacked itself, to go to war anywhere it pleased for the next 10 to 100 years.
Regardless of what you believe happened that day or what I believe happened NO ONE will ever know for sure unless a confession is made or a reliable witness presents tangible evidence to back up his or her testimony.
Is Osama Bin Laden still alive?
by xxx xxxx
view all A A A Is Osama Bin Laden still alive? 27,000,000.00 says he's not.
Twenty five million dollars is a lot of money to most people. That is the reward for information leading to the capture of Usama Bin Laden according to the FBI's 10 Most Wanted website. If he is still alive it should be important to anyone who needs 25,000,000.00 and knows his whereabouts.
According to Usama's wanted poster which was posted June 1999 and REVISED in November 2001 (after the attacks on September 11th), "Usama bin Laden is WANTED in connection with the August 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania,and Nairobi Kenya. In addition Bin Laden is a SUSPECT in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." There is no mention of the leader of Al Qaida being a wanted man for the September 11th attacks. So the writer who said it wouldn't matter because we may not have enough evidence to tie him to the 911 attacks was right; at least according to the crimes listed in the WANTED poster.
Another interesting and contradictory item on his WANTED poster is that the actual amount of the REWARD was raised to twenty seven million dollars, the Airline Pilots Association and Air Transport Association created a program in order to offer two million more dollars for information leading to the capture of this unique looking individual. It's contradictory because the Bin Ladens have won contract bids for the construction of International Airports throughout the Middle East. They were promised 335 million dollars in consideration of construction of the Yemen Intl Airport. This money was financed by the World Bank.
My personal response to this question is that Bin Laden may as well have died in 1999 after he committed his last KNOWN terrorist attacks according to the FBI.
view all A A A Is Osama Bin Laden still alive? 27,000,000.00 says he's not.
Twenty five million dollars is a lot of money to most people. That is the reward for information leading to the capture of Usama Bin Laden according to the FBI's 10 Most Wanted website. If he is still alive it should be important to anyone who needs 25,000,000.00 and knows his whereabouts.
According to Usama's wanted poster which was posted June 1999 and REVISED in November 2001 (after the attacks on September 11th), "Usama bin Laden is WANTED in connection with the August 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania,and Nairobi Kenya. In addition Bin Laden is a SUSPECT in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." There is no mention of the leader of Al Qaida being a wanted man for the September 11th attacks. So the writer who said it wouldn't matter because we may not have enough evidence to tie him to the 911 attacks was right; at least according to the crimes listed in the WANTED poster.
Another interesting and contradictory item on his WANTED poster is that the actual amount of the REWARD was raised to twenty seven million dollars, the Airline Pilots Association and Air Transport Association created a program in order to offer two million more dollars for information leading to the capture of this unique looking individual. It's contradictory because the Bin Ladens have won contract bids for the construction of International Airports throughout the Middle East. They were promised 335 million dollars in consideration of construction of the Yemen Intl Airport. This money was financed by the World Bank.
My personal response to this question is that Bin Laden may as well have died in 1999 after he committed his last KNOWN terrorist attacks according to the FBI.
Ideas for combating voter apathy
by XXXXX XXX
view all A A A The idea that comes to mind for combating voter apathy is give us choice. Real choice. The last six years have especially exposed that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. It's become apparent that its the same as good cop, bad cop. A game played by police to get information they want from suspects or witnesses. It's a manipulatory tactic they use to get convictions on suspects. Our government uses it mainly to get votes especially at election time.
Take Nancy Pelosi for instance and Hillary Clinton while we're at it, two democrats that were both outspoken about what's wrong with Iraq while on the campaign trail, but once they won the voters they both have proven that they share the same goal as the republicans. If they didn't, they'd be doing something to get us out.
More and more people are coming to the realization that the words democrat and republican mean the same thing in actuality and have been used over the years to create an illusion of change, and make us believe we had a choice.
Voter apathy will only continue to get worse if voters are only given two choices. There should be at least a third party that the media cannot taint by not giving it any airtime. Americans who do believe in the two parties are simpling voting for one or the other because they have the money to get recognition. A true democracy would give voters more than two choices because everyone knows there is no such thing as just black and white in government. If Americans were given more choices to take seriously they might turn out and vote on election day.
view all A A A The idea that comes to mind for combating voter apathy is give us choice. Real choice. The last six years have especially exposed that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States. It's become apparent that its the same as good cop, bad cop. A game played by police to get information they want from suspects or witnesses. It's a manipulatory tactic they use to get convictions on suspects. Our government uses it mainly to get votes especially at election time.
Take Nancy Pelosi for instance and Hillary Clinton while we're at it, two democrats that were both outspoken about what's wrong with Iraq while on the campaign trail, but once they won the voters they both have proven that they share the same goal as the republicans. If they didn't, they'd be doing something to get us out.
More and more people are coming to the realization that the words democrat and republican mean the same thing in actuality and have been used over the years to create an illusion of change, and make us believe we had a choice.
Voter apathy will only continue to get worse if voters are only given two choices. There should be at least a third party that the media cannot taint by not giving it any airtime. Americans who do believe in the two parties are simpling voting for one or the other because they have the money to get recognition. A true democracy would give voters more than two choices because everyone knows there is no such thing as just black and white in government. If Americans were given more choices to take seriously they might turn out and vote on election day.
Who says Clinton actually had inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky?
by xxx xxx
view all A A A This is a good question. Another good question is if he did, why was it made into a national problem at the time? I remember thinking, who cares if he got oral sex or any kind of sex with her? What man with power doesn't? To me Clinton's semen on a blue dress was about as newsworthy as Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. What if Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky never really had an inappropriate relationship? What if the whole thing was for Hillary's benefit? Think about it America, when all was said and done did you still look at them as Bill and Hillary the way you did Ron and Nancy, or Barbara and George or even Laura and George W.? No, Hillary became her own woman after the Monica Lewinski scandal.
What if you still thought of Bill and Hillary as a husband and wife team the way you think of our other presidents and first ladies? Would you even consider electing Laura Bush for president, or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan just two terms after George and Ron left office? I know I wouldn't. A lot of people are considering Hillary Clinton though. Hillary may be married but she stands alone now because of Bill's indiscretions. Not only does she stand alone but the public was amazed at how composed she remained and that she didn't leave him like so many wives would have. Some consider her an ice queen and some consider her a strong woman for her handling of that sordid affair. Could this have been just a massive PR ballyhoo for Hillary's eventual run for president?
A book I read written in 1997 by a whistle blower stated that Hillary would follow George Jr as president and that this has been planned by those who want to achieve new world order since the late 80's. Think about it, they had plenty of time to plan this if it were an outrageous media stunt.
view all A A A This is a good question. Another good question is if he did, why was it made into a national problem at the time? I remember thinking, who cares if he got oral sex or any kind of sex with her? What man with power doesn't? To me Clinton's semen on a blue dress was about as newsworthy as Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. What if Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky never really had an inappropriate relationship? What if the whole thing was for Hillary's benefit? Think about it America, when all was said and done did you still look at them as Bill and Hillary the way you did Ron and Nancy, or Barbara and George or even Laura and George W.? No, Hillary became her own woman after the Monica Lewinski scandal.
What if you still thought of Bill and Hillary as a husband and wife team the way you think of our other presidents and first ladies? Would you even consider electing Laura Bush for president, or Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan just two terms after George and Ron left office? I know I wouldn't. A lot of people are considering Hillary Clinton though. Hillary may be married but she stands alone now because of Bill's indiscretions. Not only does she stand alone but the public was amazed at how composed she remained and that she didn't leave him like so many wives would have. Some consider her an ice queen and some consider her a strong woman for her handling of that sordid affair. Could this have been just a massive PR ballyhoo for Hillary's eventual run for president?
A book I read written in 1997 by a whistle blower stated that Hillary would follow George Jr as president and that this has been planned by those who want to achieve new world order since the late 80's. Think about it, they had plenty of time to plan this if it were an outrageous media stunt.
Cindy Sheean's campaign against the War in Iraq shames dead son's heroism
by xxx xxx
view all A A A I watched Cindy Sheehan on CSPAN at a hearing committee a couple of years ago, before anyone knew who she was. Although she was a grieving mother, she was poised and elegant and delivered her message well. I'm not sure what happened to Ms. Sheehan, but I have a feeling it has to do with the media.
I'm not sure if she has been brainwashed and used by the likes of Michael Moore to act radically, or if she's been demonized by the Fox News liars, maybe its a combination of both. It's hard to say what made me change my mind about Cindy Sheehan.
I don't know much about Marines and what makes them heroes so I'm not going to say that she shames her son in that respect. I believe that she loved her son and was a good mother and that she has been used by the media and by politicians who want to further their own agendas.
I feel bad for Cindy Sheehan and I think she should lie low and quietly fight for change instead of doing it in front of the cameras because her reputation has already been tainted by "friend's or foes" not sure which in high places.
view all A A A I watched Cindy Sheehan on CSPAN at a hearing committee a couple of years ago, before anyone knew who she was. Although she was a grieving mother, she was poised and elegant and delivered her message well. I'm not sure what happened to Ms. Sheehan, but I have a feeling it has to do with the media.
I'm not sure if she has been brainwashed and used by the likes of Michael Moore to act radically, or if she's been demonized by the Fox News liars, maybe its a combination of both. It's hard to say what made me change my mind about Cindy Sheehan.
I don't know much about Marines and what makes them heroes so I'm not going to say that she shames her son in that respect. I believe that she loved her son and was a good mother and that she has been used by the media and by politicians who want to further their own agendas.
I feel bad for Cindy Sheehan and I think she should lie low and quietly fight for change instead of doing it in front of the cameras because her reputation has already been tainted by "friend's or foes" not sure which in high places.
Why Bin Laden has not yet been captured
by Julia Wisdom
view all A A A Who am I to tell the CIA how to do its job? When I heard that Bin Laden has kidney disease and needs dialysis I asked my mother who worked for one of the few companies in the United States who sold kidney dialysis solution; How many companies were there, world wide that sold it? She didn't know the exact number but she said it wasn't very many.
Her job was rewarding and yet stressful because her patients must have the solution on a regular basis in order to stay alive. Making sure that they had it, contacting them if they forgot to call and order it, was not just a typical customer service job for my mother. It was a life or death matter for her customers.
So when I heard that Bin Laden had kidney problems that required him to be on dialysis, the first thing I thought was to find out which of the few companies world wide provided him with the solution he must have to stay alive. That shouldn't be too hard. Then, track the shipment to whatever sterilized cave it was being sent off to, in Pakistan or Afghanistan (because you have to be in a sterilized setting when you get your treatment of course) and catch the illusive 6ft 5in terrorist who walks with a cane and has very distinct features that no one in the world could miss.
This should work. Shouldn't it? If anyone knows someone who works in intelligence maybe you could ask them.
view all A A A Who am I to tell the CIA how to do its job? When I heard that Bin Laden has kidney disease and needs dialysis I asked my mother who worked for one of the few companies in the United States who sold kidney dialysis solution; How many companies were there, world wide that sold it? She didn't know the exact number but she said it wasn't very many.
Her job was rewarding and yet stressful because her patients must have the solution on a regular basis in order to stay alive. Making sure that they had it, contacting them if they forgot to call and order it, was not just a typical customer service job for my mother. It was a life or death matter for her customers.
So when I heard that Bin Laden had kidney problems that required him to be on dialysis, the first thing I thought was to find out which of the few companies world wide provided him with the solution he must have to stay alive. That shouldn't be too hard. Then, track the shipment to whatever sterilized cave it was being sent off to, in Pakistan or Afghanistan (because you have to be in a sterilized setting when you get your treatment of course) and catch the illusive 6ft 5in terrorist who walks with a cane and has very distinct features that no one in the world could miss.
This should work. Shouldn't it? If anyone knows someone who works in intelligence maybe you could ask them.
10 Signs that say your child is obsessed with dinosaurs
Humor: Signs that your young child is obsessed with dinosaurs
Print Invite a writer™ 3
of 30
by xxx
view all A A A Signs that your child is obsessed with dinosaurs:
1. He knows more Latin than you do and helps with pronunciation when being read his favorite book.
2. His favorite book is the Time Life encyclopedia of dinosaurs.
3. He refers to his ankle bone as his horn.
4. He hisses when he gets really angry.
5. Barney insults his intelligence.
6. He has at least one friend who reminds him of Spike in the Land Before Time.
7. He comforts YOU when Little Foot's mother dies.
8. He wants you to watch Land before Time so you learn that Sarah the 3 horn is a tri-cera-tops.
9. He wears his tyrannosaurus-rex Halloween
two years in a row...everyday.
10. He lovingly takes care of a ceramic egg because someone told him it was a dinosaur egg.
Print Invite a writer™ 3
of 30
by xxx
view all A A A Signs that your child is obsessed with dinosaurs:
1. He knows more Latin than you do and helps with pronunciation when being read his favorite book.
2. His favorite book is the Time Life encyclopedia of dinosaurs.
3. He refers to his ankle bone as his horn.
4. He hisses when he gets really angry.
5. Barney insults his intelligence.
6. He has at least one friend who reminds him of Spike in the Land Before Time.
7. He comforts YOU when Little Foot's mother dies.
8. He wants you to watch Land before Time so you learn that Sarah the 3 horn is a tri-cera-tops.
9. He wears his tyrannosaurus-rex Halloween
two years in a row...everyday.
10. He lovingly takes care of a ceramic egg because someone told him it was a dinosaur egg.
Standing up For Your Rights Despite Difficulties
1
of 5
by xxxxxxx
view all A A A A teacher once told me and I've heard it since that if a person does not know his rights he doesn't have them. This is absolutely true. With rights come responsibilities, and one responsibility is to know your rights. This is the law. There are plenty of cases that support it. If you give a police officer permission to search you or your belongings, you have given up your property rights. If you incriminate yourself during a police interview because you felt what you had to say was more important than your right to remain silent you have denied yourself a constitutional right that the police tell you that they will use your statements and words against you, as a suspect.
The sad thing in America is that people who know their rights are usually criminals and lawyers and that's it. You ask most anyone who's been arrested for possessing an illegal substance what the law is on search and seizure and they can advise you as good as a criminal defense attorney can. The reason is they found out the hard way that they did not have to consent to a warrant-less search. This is sad for a couple of reasons and the first is it proves those who'd like to do away with your right to privacy, that only criminals are worried about being searched, if you have nothing to hide why not allow the police to verify this? Well, if your going to let the police examine your personal belongings to determine what kind of person you are, why not let your neighbor or your gardener, or your pastor come over and strip search you too, after they ransack your belongings. The 4th amendment protects everybody from anyone violating their person or property and not just the police. It protects all Americans.
The 5th Amendment and the famous Miranda warning "You have the right to remain silent and not say anything which might incriminate yourself. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You can stop answering questions I ask you at ANYTIME. You have the right to have a lawyer with you when you go to court or during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.". Whether you've been arrested or you watch a lot of Law and Order, most of us know that the police do not read the Miranda to a suspect until they have placed that suspect under arrest. They have gathered enough evidence to show probable cause and charge the person with a crime. Often times this evidence is provided by the suspect who is answering questions before the cuff's are clicked into place. Do you have the right to remain silent before the police read you the Miranda warning? Yes, ANYTIME. The Miranda Warning is a right like the 4th amendment. You can and should exercise it anytime you are questioned by police. The police are only required to read you this right once they have placed you under arrest, that does not mean it isn't your right prior to that. If you refuse to answer the officer's questions, she might take the next step by saying, "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want." If the officer restrains you by words or actions, such as putting you in a squad car or in handcuffs, then she must give you the Miranda warnings, if she intends to ask you questions. If she just wants you to sweat, she may not give you the warnings at all and just take you to the station, just to show you who is the boss.If you are not free to leave, you have been arrested, whether or not you are taken to a police station. If the police have arrested you, that means that they have enough information to believe that you are at least a suspect in criminal activity. Under these circumstances, you should follow the advice of the warnings and refuse to tell the officers anything unless you are provided with a lawyer. After telling the officer your name and date of birth, you should say, "I will not answer any more questions until I have a lawyer present." This may mean that you will spend a little bit longer time in jail until you can call a lawyer, but it will be worth the wait. You will not be able to successfully talk your way out of police custody, once you are arrested, without a lawyer's help.
With rights come responsibility is also true because these rights if you assert them are laws that the government is required to abide by, but ONLY if you know them and exercise them.
of 5
by xxxxxxx
view all A A A A teacher once told me and I've heard it since that if a person does not know his rights he doesn't have them. This is absolutely true. With rights come responsibilities, and one responsibility is to know your rights. This is the law. There are plenty of cases that support it. If you give a police officer permission to search you or your belongings, you have given up your property rights. If you incriminate yourself during a police interview because you felt what you had to say was more important than your right to remain silent you have denied yourself a constitutional right that the police tell you that they will use your statements and words against you, as a suspect.
The sad thing in America is that people who know their rights are usually criminals and lawyers and that's it. You ask most anyone who's been arrested for possessing an illegal substance what the law is on search and seizure and they can advise you as good as a criminal defense attorney can. The reason is they found out the hard way that they did not have to consent to a warrant-less search. This is sad for a couple of reasons and the first is it proves those who'd like to do away with your right to privacy, that only criminals are worried about being searched, if you have nothing to hide why not allow the police to verify this? Well, if your going to let the police examine your personal belongings to determine what kind of person you are, why not let your neighbor or your gardener, or your pastor come over and strip search you too, after they ransack your belongings. The 4th amendment protects everybody from anyone violating their person or property and not just the police. It protects all Americans.
The 5th Amendment and the famous Miranda warning "You have the right to remain silent and not say anything which might incriminate yourself. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You can stop answering questions I ask you at ANYTIME. You have the right to have a lawyer with you when you go to court or during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.". Whether you've been arrested or you watch a lot of Law and Order, most of us know that the police do not read the Miranda to a suspect until they have placed that suspect under arrest. They have gathered enough evidence to show probable cause and charge the person with a crime. Often times this evidence is provided by the suspect who is answering questions before the cuff's are clicked into place. Do you have the right to remain silent before the police read you the Miranda warning? Yes, ANYTIME. The Miranda Warning is a right like the 4th amendment. You can and should exercise it anytime you are questioned by police. The police are only required to read you this right once they have placed you under arrest, that does not mean it isn't your right prior to that. If you refuse to answer the officer's questions, she might take the next step by saying, "You will have to stay here and answer my questions" or "You're not leaving until I find out what I want." If the officer restrains you by words or actions, such as putting you in a squad car or in handcuffs, then she must give you the Miranda warnings, if she intends to ask you questions. If she just wants you to sweat, she may not give you the warnings at all and just take you to the station, just to show you who is the boss.If you are not free to leave, you have been arrested, whether or not you are taken to a police station. If the police have arrested you, that means that they have enough information to believe that you are at least a suspect in criminal activity. Under these circumstances, you should follow the advice of the warnings and refuse to tell the officers anything unless you are provided with a lawyer. After telling the officer your name and date of birth, you should say, "I will not answer any more questions until I have a lawyer present." This may mean that you will spend a little bit longer time in jail until you can call a lawyer, but it will be worth the wait. You will not be able to successfully talk your way out of police custody, once you are arrested, without a lawyer's help.
With rights come responsibility is also true because these rights if you assert them are laws that the government is required to abide by, but ONLY if you know them and exercise them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
