The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Did Bush lie? Who knows. Really, who cares.

Think about it. At the end of a day's debate, where we re-hash this issue for the billionth time, what gets accomplished? No hungry get fed.... No lost get found, no prisoners get witnessed to... And yet, people debate this kind of garbage over and over as if we are going to get anywhere or accomplish anything new.

Seriously, remember 8 years ago? We were trying to impeach Clinton (which people seemed to have forgotten) because he got his rocks off in the oval office with an intern. 8 years later, you'd have thought the guy walked on water. We almost nominated his wife as a presidential candidate.

This term, people wanted Bush impeached for lying (same group of blow hards, by the way, mark my words).

What we've not looked at is how stuck on stupid we are in this country. For some 200 years, we've voted like this:

Left
Right
Left
Right
Left
Right

Like in marked step, being marched straight to solitary confinement.

But check this out, we weren't always a strictly two party system. Here's the choices we had and took years ago near the birth of our Nation.

Federalists:

The Federalist Party (or Federal Party) was an American political party in the period 1792 to 1816, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party, which wanted a fiscally sound and strong nationalistic government and was opposed by the Democratic-Republicans.

Democratic-Republicans:

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792. It became the dominant political party until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party. Its members identified the party as the Republicans, Jeffersonians, Democrats,[1] or combinations of these (Jeffersonian Republicans, etc.).[2]

Jefferson and Madison created the party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists, a party created a year or so earlier by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Foreign policy issues were central; the party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France before 1801. The party insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton's proposals (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.[citation needed] The party promoted states' rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and other monied interests. From 1792 to 1816 the party opposed such Federalist policies as high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank. After the military defeats of the War of 1812, however, the party split on these issues. Many younger party leaders, notably Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun, became nationalists and wanted to build a strong national defense.[3] Meanwhile, the "Old Republican" faction led by John Randolph of Roanoke, William H. Crawford and Nathaniel Macon continued to oppose these policies. By 1828, the Old Republicans were supporting Andrew Jackson against Clay and Adams.

The Whig Party:

The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from 1833 to 1856,[1] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Executive Branch and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. Their name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence, and because "Whig" was then a widely recognized label of choice for people who saw themselves as opposing autocratic rule.[2] The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also counted four war heroes among its ranks, including Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig leader in frontier Illinois.

In its over two decades of existence, the Whig Party saw two of its candidates, Harrison and Taylor, elected President of the United States. Both, however, died in office. John Tyler became president after Harrison's death, but was expelled from the party, and Millard Fillmore, who became president after Taylor's death, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office.

The National Union Party:

The National Union Party was a political party in the United States from 1864 to 1868. It was an alliance between members of the Republican Party who backed incumbent President Abraham Lincoln and Northern Democrats (plus a few anti-Confederate Southerners such as Andrew Johnson) during and after the Civil War. Thus, for a brief period in American history, the Republican Party ceased to exist.

Today, there are other Parties, but most Americans (the less than 30% that actually vote) dismiss them as impossible to get into office, and keep voting for the same losers expecting things to change. You can always find some lady who declares, "Don't worry! We will vote the other guys in and things will get better!" regardless of the fact that this has historically never, ever panned out.

Why people can't look back with 20/20 and realize this mistake is costing us, and dearly, one has to wonder, and many Americans have simply stopped caring, doomed to be simply taken over by some faciest who will find that legal way to negate our precious constitution.

One thing is for certain: Arguing "talking points" over and over is getting us nowhere, and quickly.

Read more...

Musicmatch Jukebox Destroyed By Yahoo

MusicMatch Jukebox has been a bundle of great MP3 and music management applications in one package. Apparently, it is the end of life for this wonderful MP3 player, ripper, catalog, CD player, Internet radio player, purchase outlet, Auto DJ, Super Tagger, and music database. There was nothing not to like about the product. There is nothing to like about the new downgrade, Yahoo! Music Jukebox. MusicMatch users have been getting notices to 'upgrade'; those who have taken the bait are not pleased. The Yahoo! Music Jukebox feedback forum doesn't have much nice to say about the product. Lots of features have gone away and the 'free upgrade' costs about $20. -Bob, Slashdot.com, Jul 09, 2007

Well, I can tell you I've made several attempts to launch MMJB, when it wouldn't launch anymore, I started searching on the web. Seems Yahoo took the liberty of installing a program on anyone's computer that had a copy of Musicmatch Jukebox that would effectively halt the program from even launching in an effort to bully users to buy their less featured Yahoo Music Jukebox.

This seems tantamount to installing a virus. It's a program that stops or causes your computer to do something totally unwanted. Nobody broke any laws by deciding not to convert to Yahoo's player. Yet truly, they've been punished.

The fact of the matter is Yahoo Music Player is nothing more than Spamware. It's one giant Java powered advertisement for the latest 3-chord recycled sound of the week. It's not a true jukebox, just a program that runs music ads and happens to burn a cd.

No kudos to Yahoo for dropping the ball yet again. It may be advisable to consider not ever kicking the music fan. He has a tendency to bite back.

Read more...

Revival In Lakeland, Florida.

All I can say is just, Wow.

I've been somewhat of a skeptic. I've seen liars and frauds left and right for years. I've even been lied to a lot by people claiming to be legit.

This was the real deal. My biggest issue has always been the amount of noise in my head. Constant thoughts, and a cyclone of them all at once.

Last night, I entered Tiger Merchant Stadium, and God said "I'm going to clear out the cobwebs in your mind. Just receive it."

This morning, I still have incredible peace. Just the total lack of worries and fears. It's amazing. I'm going to see if I can find some video to post.

It's all here, too. The dead being raised (they raised a dead person through the outpouring, meaning someone who had been in the glory, went and raised a dead person), crippling conditions being lifted (I personally witnessed last night people who had been hunched over, fused backbones, you name it, jumping up and down like mad...)

Many people will be skeptic when hearing about such things. I can tell you, when you are there your heart tells you, "This is real."

It was amazing.

Note the 6 year old girl. Children don't analyze things, they just observe them. I think she is the biggest proof you could get of an awakening happening.

Read more...

Racism and White Power

If I live to be 100, I'll never understand White Supremacists. I recently encountered someone claiming to be a Christian on a message board who seemed to have seriously confused Jesus' love message. On his blog he proudly bears the swastika that's tattooed on his chest, and he frequently uses racial slurs in his blogs. His tolerance for anyone who is not fair skinned (possibly the very last variation of skin pigmentation, which hardly gives anyone any grounds for a claim that whites are the master race) is at a minimum. It prompted me to give the final word on this plague of hatred.

Racism has it routes deep in America, and the very few people who still carry on it's traditions never exactly appear to be splitting any atoms. I once heard a comedian say, "Maybe to be a supremacist, you should first know how to spell it. That should weed out a few."

Small minded ideals such as white people, who just possibly could be a genetic mutation if you think about the amount skin color variants in the world, who think they are the master race is so sad and pathetic, it almost isn't worth blogging about. Except I feel I owe my Spanish, Black, Asian, etc. brothers more than just dismissing this group of zilches that seem to think they are perfect.

We're Americans. As Bill Murray said in Stripes, "We're mutts. We're the wretched refuse. We've been kicked out of just about every country in the world." So where do any one of us get off thinking because we have white skin we rule the roost? It's a pile of small minded garbage. Anyone who subscribes to it and claims to be a Christ Follower is a fraud, because it certainly wasn't the example of Christ, who by the way, every historical record says, was a Nazarene Hebrew. So, I guess we would Lynch him as well...

Read more...

Socialism - The Big Liberal Idea - A History

How about a history lesson on Socialism, the ideal the dems are so on fire about. The info you are about to read is from Wikipedia. Please make note of the mention of Karl Marx....

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with
the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of
wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either
direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or
indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system,
socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the
means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a
number of political parties and governments throughout history.

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century
working class movement. In this period, the term 'socialism' was first used in
connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private
property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist
movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the
proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively.
This society would then progress into communism.

Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or
program. Various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and
sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformists and
revolutionaries. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of
the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective
nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Some
Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development,
have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state
that owns all the means of production. Others, including Communists in
Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the
reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market
socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or
state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather
than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists,
Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of
the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form
of cooperatives or workers' councils.

Now, thats a lot of info to digest. One could even think the idea is a good one, until you read about the idea's founder:

Karl Heinrich Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) was a 19th century
philosopher, political economist, and revolutionary. Often called the father of
communism, Marx was both a scholar and a political activist. He addressed a wide
range of political as well as social issues, and is known for, amongst other
things, his analysis of history. His approach is indicated by the opening line
of the Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society
is the history of class struggles”. Marx believed that capitalism, like previous
socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its
destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, capitalism itself will be
displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional
period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat.

On the one hand, Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socioeconomic
change. On this model, it is the structural contradictions within capitalism
which necessitate its end, giving way to communism: “The development of Modern
Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the
bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore
produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the
proletariat are equally inevitable.” — (The Communist Manifesto)

On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred through
organized revolutionary action. On this model, capitalism will end through the
organized actions of an international working class: "Communism is for us not a
state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will]
have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the
present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the
premises now in existence." (from The German Ideology)

While Marx was a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas
began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death.
This influence was given added impetus by the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks
in the Russian October Revolution, and there are few parts of the world which
were not significantly touched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth
century. The relation of Marx to "Marxism" is a point of controversy. Marxism
remains influential and controversial in academic and political circles.

Considering Marx had a hand in both the development of Communism, which he was obviously enthusiastic about, and Socialism, which was later developed and history shows us often progresses to Communism, wouldn't this be an idea thats blatantly unconstitutional?

Socialism manifests itself through large government programs, higher taxes for said programs, and redistribution of wealth - ideas all held by both democratic candidates. They are also big on dis arming the citizens. Something the writers of the constitution seemed to think was a sign of a government trying to seize absolute control rather than allow the people to govern themselves.

Read more...

Sept. 11 redux: Video shows jet vaporizing

While I agree with some conspiracy theories, I've always considered this one completely bats since the people who often argue it's possibility do so with angry zeal and unreasonable hatred for anyone that opposes their argument. This video is more proof that these people simply argue for the sake of arguing.

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A video clip widely circulated on the Internet shows a test that pulverized an F-4 fighter on impact with a hardened target, providing evidence to answer 9/11 skeptics who question why so little identifiable airplane debris remained after the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

The test, conducted in 1988 at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., was designed to demonstrate whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy airliner.

A rocket-propelled, 27-ton F-4 Phantom jet, attached to a sled, aimed to hit a 3.7 meter thick slab of concrete at a speed of about 475 miles per hour.

The mass of jet fuel was simulated by water, as the effects of fire following such a collision were not a part of the test.

The test established that the major impact force was from the engines.

F-4 fighter jet engines are considerably lighter than a commercial jet.

According to the Sandia test report, about 96 percent of the aircraft's kinetic energy went into the airplane's destruction and some minimal penetration of the concrete, while the remaining 4 percent was dissipated in accelerating the 700-ton slab.

The concrete slab was not fixed to the ground but actually was floating on an air cushion.

The test showed the major portion of the impact energy went into the movement of the target and not in producing structural damage to the target.

Except for some slight indentation, the concrete slab was largely undamaged by the impact.

Real-world nuclear power plant containments are, of course, anchored to the ground.

The video shows the F-4 jet pulverizing on impact. The only parts of the airplane that remain intact and recognizable are the very tips of the wings, which exceeded the concrete slab in width and were not involved in the direct impact.

Four different video views of the test and three still photographs are archived on the Sandia website's video gallery.

The test was performed under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Toyko.

Sandia is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility. Sandia Corp., a Lockheed Martin company, manages Sandia for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Sandia Labs was first established in 1949 in Albuquerque.

Original Story is at this address with corresponding video of the experiment:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=57680

Read more...

Darwin Day

Yesterday was Darwin Day. There was much rejoycing and fanfare. Ok, maybe there wasn't. In fact, maybe most of you weren't even aware. Nevertheless, there was much discussion on the radio. The disussion was largely intelligent design versus evolution. The conversation would get very emotional, but what was suprising is who was emotional. Many would assume conservative Christians, but that simply wasn't the case.

Often the media and other public forums label conservative Christians intolerant, and as a Christ Follower, I would tell you they're right. I mean, who was it that tried to pass anti-gay marriage laws? Jesus avoided public office and legislating morality. In fact, he was down on the pharisees for doing it. He had the audacity to suggest loving people instead of cornering them with regulations.

No, the emotionally angry people screaming about the mere idea of a creator of this earth we live in were actually evolutionists. Angry, speaking in harsh tones, or just outright shouting. So, if there is so much fact that is indisputable for Evolution, why are you getting so bent out of shape? It seems it's pretty cut-and-dry.

The real issue is that Creationism gets personal. It means people have to consider the idea that there may actually be a God, and then they would have to be responsible. Let's face the facts, people aren't kind. Generally speaking, even if you never steal, or murder, or commit adultry (which as far as the last one goes, most people do commit adultry, it's just their personal definition excludes premarital sex as part of the definition,) they do swear, or react angrily to situations that are petty, or even freak out in traffic... Well, the list goes on and on. As a Christ-Follower, I have to keep all that in check, not because of some law some yahoo got passed, but because following him makes me want to. Evolutionists realize all of this, and inside don't want to be challenged like that. If you remove God from the equation of our existance, then you relieve the pressure. The only problem is, it really doesn't because your gut tells you your off base. So when someone starts presenting evidence that opposes your beliefs, it brings all that junk to the surface. So you're constantly distressed over an issue that factually is a non-sequitor.

What stress. Is the belief in Evolution really more stress free?

Read more...

No Cure For Cancer

Is is possible that the biggest affliction to the human existence, Cancer, in fact has possible cures that are suppressed by medical industry leaders to secure profits made from antiquated Chemo-Therapy treatments? A bit of research around the internet unearths two sides of the story: "There is a conspiracy. Or "There is no conspiracy and anyone who thinks there is, is a quack."

The second argument raises obvious suspicions. If the idea of a conspiracy is so ridiculous, why the lashing out? There are various arguments on both sides of the issue, and those against the conspiracy seem to have less fact on their side.

Michael Higgins:
"If history has taught us anything about cancer, it is that it is not an easy disease to cure. It is 2,400 years after the disease was first recorded by Hippocrates and presumably even longer since the first treatment was attempted. If traditional medicine has failed for this long, it seems to me that a cure will require every fraction of recently obtained knowledge about microbiology, the human genome, and modern medicine. It seems unlikely that fields of research outside this body of knowledge will make a lot of progress. But if an "alternative" practitioner did stumble onto an effective method, the scientific community would quickly embrace it and there would be no cover-up.... I know there isn't any cancer conspiracy because I know that the people doing and running the research are human. Their lives, like mine, have been touched by cancer. They, like me, would do anything to save the lives of the people they love. Furthermore, I assume that any treatments associating themselves with a conspiracy theory have something to hide—the simple fact that their treatment doesn't work." -From Quackwatch Network.

Note first that the website that hosts the article is named Quack Watch. Also note, the author, who has since passed, assumes that making money cannot corrupt the human heart. A dangerous assumption to be making. It's important to point this out because of the casting of aspersions involved and the lack of hard evidence, but more based on emotionalism. More research digs this evidence up:

Alan Cantwell Jr.
A century ago physicians began to realise that diseases like tuberculosis, leprosy, and syphilis were caused by bacteria. At the time, some scientists believed cancer was also caused by microbes. However, although bacteria were cultured from some cancers, no consistent microbe was found. Because cancer did not act like a contagious and infectious disease scientists finally declared that there was no germ in cancer. After the turn of the century, physicians who continued to believe in the existence of a cancer microbe were considered to be of unsound mind.........

The famous psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) spent years studying "orgone energy" and its effects on the body. His cancer research showed that cancerous cells have less orgone energy that normal, healthy cells. When cancer cells broke down and degenerated, he always observed toxic microbes arising out of the cancerous tissue. He called them "T-bacilli," after the German word, "Tod," which means death.

Like Livingston, Reich discovered T-bacilli not only in the cancer tumors, but also in the blood, the body fluids. and the excreta of cancer patients. He originally thought that the T-bacillus was the specific infectious agent of cancer, but these cancer microbes were eventually found in persons with other disease, and Reich also observed the T-bacilli in the blood and excreta of normal healthy people!

In the late 1950s, Reich got into serious legal trouble with the FDA in connection with the manufacture and sale of orgone accumulators. He was jailed and died while imprisoned. Six tons of his books, journals, and papers were burned by FDA officials in an unprecedented scientific holocaust.

Despite a century of cancer microbe research, physicians do not believe bacteria play any role in the cause of cancer, and most doctors have never heard of Reich's T-bacilli or Livingston's Progenitor cryptocides.

Research soon finds that there is substantial evidence that a conspiracy does in fact exist, and moreover, alternative evidence about cancer and it's growth and originations have indeed be suppressed, and further, anyone who unearthed these findings was labeled a quack.

In a society where our food and drugs are managed by the same organization, the question must be raised, is there gain for a corporate organization controlled by government if a cure for cancer is suppressed?

Read more...

America Being Hijacked

Yesterday, this story broke:

Mississippi Legislators Consider Obese Eating Ban

Associated Content

By Charles W. Kim, published Feb 04, 2008

JACKSON, Miss. - Obese people may soon be banned from public eateries if a new bill sees the light of day.

Three Mississippi state legislators have introduced a bill that would prohibit certain establishments from serving food to obese people.

The House of Representatives bill 282, introduced by members Mayhall, Read and Shows, would prohibit establishments seating four or more from serving people meeting criteria as obese, according to the bill.

The state could revoke the business permits of the establishments that repeatedly violate the law, according to the proposed legislation.

The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee Jan. 25 and is proposed to become effective July 1 if passed, according to the state's legislative web site.

This story is disturbing because of it's obvious communist like ideals. "We know whats best for you." Or in this country, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help." People don't seem to realize the harsh reality of what's happening in America. Yes, it's a fact, our freedoms are being slowly but surely, taken away. It will happen. Unless Americans stop being complacent about what they have and take a stand, there can be no happy ending for our children. They could grow up enslaved by their peers in the name of power and money.

Telling fat people they can't eat is nobody's right. Thats just a fact. If someone wants to eat themselves silly, you can't stop them and especially with the amount of hate this is done with. This is done in both hatred of heavy people and fear of having to pick up their hospital bill. Argue this issue whichever way you wish, it's still done in hate and in fear.

Also note, in case you thought voting conservative would save you, the bill was introduced by two Republicans. Wake up America.

Read more...

Sports Gambling

This year, during the superbowl, I learned something new about sports gambling. Evidently, it's not good enough to make a few bucks on a game. When you bet on your team, you must demand terms that end up decimating or humiliating your opponent.

I considered a bet with a guy I work with. I wanted to bet my Patriots would beat his Giants. His response was, "Ok, sure. Hundred bucks?"

Are you freakin' ceareal? A hundred bucks? I told him, no, I was thinking more along the lines of maybe five or ten bucks.

"What you don't believe in your team? Come on, hundred bucks." Nope, thanks. I'm all set. Forget it.

And across the country people made bets with similar terms. Maybe not money but: "If I win, you gotta streak naked through the store painted blue." "Ok, if my Giants beat your Patriots, you have to go skinny dipping in our leech infested pond. But if you win, I have to eat a bowl of live cockroaches."

I think a friendly wager of five to ten bucks is more than reasonable, but I also seem to remember back home in Massachusetts the local auto mechanic would do major betting pools on baseball games. The stakes were high and the money got pretty ridculous for it being blue collars making the wagers.

Friendly wager. There must be no such thing any more.

Read more...

Superbowl 42 - Worst Ever

Never mind that my beloved New England Patriots stunk up the place with poor offense, over working their defense. Nevermind that the Giants didn't even deserve to be in the Superbowl.

Low score, high defense, lousy entertainment, and just plain awful commercials plagued this year's superbowl. Regardless who won or lost this year's superbowl begs the question, "Can someone save America's most celebrated sporting event from the throws of utter mediocrity?"

Myspace has a superbowl commercial review section, and I imagine all of the ads are pretty low-scoring. I would hope so. None of them compared to some of the great offerings of years past including ones by Bud Lite - which are legend.

Halftime was plagued by Tom Petty. Sorry folks, I know he's a musical legend of sorts, but he's not Superbowl Material. We went from the likes of Aerosmith to Tom Petty. It's just not the same.

Because of the Janet Jackson issue from a few years ago we now have a mere shadow of what used to be a ritual celebration of sports, friends, family, and just overall entertainment. We now have a pathetic attempt at political correctness.

Thanks Janet.

Oh, and yeah. The Patriots sucked on ice, you'll get no argument from me. The way they played, they deserve the loss. If I were Bob Craft, I'd fire my offensive coordinator. Like now.

Read more...