Conspiracy Minded Folks

When I was growing up, my Family lived on the edge of reality when it came to politics. To explain this we had a long history of conspiracy beliefs, going back to when my parents join the John Birch Society and I must admit I was in my youth, a member myself.

But after going to BYU Idaho formerly Ricks College, I came to the belief that the Birch Society and other organizations are in essence a money maker scheme to milk members and some of our society out of millions, by getting then to purchase Books, pamphlets, CD's and just about anything including bumper stickers.


There is a common idea among conspiracy minded folks to believe that there must something behind random events in our society, even when its proven that nothing is going on other than the event itself. These was no man behind the grassy nole ready to shoot Kennedy, other than Oswald. and there was no control demolition of the twin towers on 9-11. For some these days do not believe in either the Warren Commission or for that matter the 9-11 report. Except the people that realized where these theories come from. It is a classic witch hunt and these organizations are the promoters, the prosecutors and the Juries.

Nothing is as hard as it looks and as complex as it sounds? Conspiracies are often to complex then realities of life. They are for the most part a tale of fiction, with characters from a adventures novels. However for me they are far more boring and because they are far less realistic, then real life.

People have this need to explain the unexplainable especially if it as extreme as 9-11 was. Rosie O'Donnell's skepticism that metal doesn't melt made her looked the fool that she is and “The View” decision later to boot her. In that same time period we saw a bridge overpass melted do to a tanker fire.

We have people willing to believe anything from 9-11 to UFO’s and it doesn't end there. The most outrages of theories the more people willing to except it as fact. Throw enough spaghetti to the wall, something going to stick.

So it doesn't surprise me that a close relative of mine is caught up on the suppose Trans Texas Corridor and has told me, that President Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minster Martin of Canada had plan this attack on our national sovereignty.

Behind every conspiracy, there is a certain amount of truth, Yes there is a road being plan to improve trade, But there no federal funds will be used to build the project, and that Texas turned to private firms to finance the road because they could build it quickly without taxpayer money.

Commissioner Rica Williamson of the Texas Government told Newsweek says he's startled by superhighway fears. He had never heard of a North American Union until people started badgering him about it. "They say, 'Is this part of the NAU and the aero?' … And I say, 'What the hell are you talking about?' "


Organizations like the John Birch Society plays on growing nationalist fears and most of the time to sell books or bumper stickers. When one looks at these organizations and their enterprises then it dawn on a person that conspiracies make big money.

So with the John Birch Society, Move On and other wacky organizations are trying to sell you something like this trans corridor or 9-11. Look for the money trail. Like the old saying: “A fool and his money are soon parted.” And it seems the people who get icaught up on these conspiracies are so wiling to donate or buy books on these subjects, and lap up every morsel and tasty tidbits on any screw ball chronicles of events on any number of nutty conspiracy theories.

But remember for the most part nearly all conspiracies in history have not worked because someone always talks. It's human nature. Ben Franklin said it best: "The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead."

The biggest conspiracy however is the ones that hatched these tales!

Beaumier, Carter and Pelosi: The Three Stooges!

Long Before Jimmy Carter visited Hamas and Long before Nancy Pelosi visited Syria, A little known Canadian Politician whom I may be related too, hopefully through marriage only, visited the Saddam's Iraq…

That right folks, Colleen Beaumier, a Liberal party MP representing the Brampton West-Mississauga district in Ontario to the Canadian Parliament, she would be very much like a congressman here in the United States. Beaumier has made a name for herself for supporting liberal causes in Canada from Gay rights to the environment to the Anti-war movement.

She would be first to step up and start blaming the United States for all the evils of the world. In fact she would most likely support Obama wanting to talk to our enemies. Some of her statements seem so far out there that would amazed even most dedicated liberals in this country One was actual support of Saddam's regime when she said that Iraq was:

"a progressive country with health care for all and education and human rights for women, which is far more advanced than other friendly Middle Eastern countries."

Beaumier would enbark prior to the war on a one-woman peace mission to Baghdad. She met with many Iraqi officials, including Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister, One Canandian newspaper said that Beaumier found them to be "extremely charming." And she received by the Iraqis with the "the royal treatment." This mission headed by Beaumier was not necessary supported by the Prime Minister of Canada; the liberal government did not try to prevent her from going.
She was so impress by the Saddam Government that she said the following concerning the upcoming war:

"46% of the population is 16 and under. It would be a war on children and I don't believe Canadians would want to do that."

She conveniently overlooked the fact that Saddam had committed atrocities against his own people for decades and he was none too picky about sparing the children.

This type of lunacy has now cheeped into the American political lime light with the visit of Speaker Pelosi and former President Jimmy Carter who seems to think, like Beaumier, and like the current nominee of the Democrat party. It is something we could never imagine.

Here we have a former President who seems to think he is above the current president and goes to visits a leading Hamas figure. The former president hugged Nasser Shaer, a senior Hamas politician. Embracing a man that killed many Israelites and Americans.

Shaer told The Associated Press. "Carter asked what he can do to achieve peace between the Palestinians and Israel ... and I told him the possibility for peace is high." For the people Israel or for the people being killed by terrorism.
Before all this House Speaker Pelosi visited Syria in April 2007 in a unwelcome visit to Bashar Assad, the Syrian president. She was asked not to by the State department and decided to go anyway. She first visited Israel and the Prime Minister told her that he would enter negotiations with Assad only if Syria withdrew its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Her mission did nothing to advance peace and in fact it may have provoke radicals to do more.

Beaumier, Carter and Pelosi use the excuse that they were searching for peace; a way to iron things out with dictators or a group’s bent on the destruction of Israel. It is a height of stupidly and the Melvin Chamberlain view of world peace.

Chamberlain surrendered land to Hitler hoping this would satisfy him? Did it stop Hitler from invading country after country and killing millions? Did we learn from History? No Hitler made him look the fool, in the same matter as Beaumier, Carter and Pelosi look today. And Barak Obama? Well what can I say? Shutter the thought!!!

TV Nazis?

So often we would love to see what Liberalism comes up with in order to raises Taxes for some lame programs. Well a few days ago a friend working for a few months in England received the following letter from a Department in the Briitish Government known as "Television Licensing". In bold lettering it reads:

TV Licensing Enforcement are visiting Park Lodge Avenue


Dear Owner/Occupier,
You have not responded to our recent warning that your address is scheduled to receive an enforcement visit. So, as your address remains unlicensed, it is now included on the list of unlicensed Properties visited this month by the West Drayton Enforcement Team.

Using a TV receiving equipment is to watch or record television programmes without a valid icence is against the law. If my officers suspect that an offence has taken place at your address, you may be cautioned and interviewed in compiance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 or Scottish criminal law. This interview may then be used for purposes of prosecution. You could avoid this visit , interview and consequent legal action (including a court appearance and a fine of up to a £1,000) if you buy a TV licence now.

It then gave a warning to him: Do not ignore this Letter!!!

The cost for a license is £139.50 a year. That is $278.88 in US dollars. So you can purchase a Analog TV set in the US and England as well for that amount of money. however how many brits who don't watch TV is questionable? I suspect that a future tax is likely as revenues on computers and i-pods
This isn't usual thing for the British to do, it is on the line of the stamp act which required newspapers to place stamps on them that would later help bring about the American revolt. So in modern days the british seems to fall back on placing taxes on all sorts of things including freedom of Speech!

But what makes this sad is that they will come in knock your door down to see if your watching TV progams on a illegal TV set. My freind calls them the TV Nazis and says the following:

“They (TV Nazis) just can’t conceive of somebody not having a TV. This kind of nonsense is actually the primary reason we don’t have a TV: pay the cable fee AND a government tax. Despite what they say, this is the first time we’ve heard from them. Perhaps they sent the landlord a warning some time ago.... This is too funny... they are deadly serious....”


However, in many quaters of the United States we see this coming about from a Television sales tax. In Tenmesse as well as New York state. So when my friend says TV Nazis he is not far off. You better believe him! But it could be a limitation on freedom of speech if they would try it here. But i wouldn't put it pass the liberals to try this?As HDTV sets start to turn on next year a great possibility!

My friend would later say that “Socialism on the March... coming to a city near you....”

Yep be here pretty soon if the Democrats have their way!! TV Nazis is too funny! Reminds one of the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld!

The Gingrich Perspective?

Is it time for a new contract for America? If you read Newt. org you might come up with that very opinion. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich recently said on his web site and on TV recently suggested just that. As Gingrich said We just can’t be anti Obama or just Being anti democrat, we need to have a set of programs that the will resonate with the American public. A Nine step program that would in effect be a new contract.


1. Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending.

2. Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market.

3. Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill

4. Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009.

5. Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically.

6. Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system.

7. Declare English the official language of government.

8. Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot. T

9. Remind Americans that judges matter.

As much as I love to listen to Gingrich I must that I have to agree with him However I srill would wish that the curret crop of Republicans would start listen to ther people of this country, certainly the liberals are not.

When I think of inspirational leaders the name John McCain does not come to mind. Unless the Republican Party steps up with an inspirational leader with some ideas and spirit, the outcome of the next election is already cast in cement and the blame belongs to the Republican National Party and President George W. Bush. It will take decades to recover. The leadership need to tackle at longer list then what Newt would like :

Make the tax cuts permanent

Secure the border “for real”

Acknowledge the fantastic job our military is doing and give them a raise (victories in Iraq)

Cut social spending

Save black people from the disasters in their neighborhoods brought on by the left (point it out)

School vouchers for parents

Tax breaks for retirement

Significant tax breaks for healthcare costs

Incentives for businesses to come back to American soil

Offer a real energy policy now that includes conservation and new drilling etc.

Be positive about what we can do


Democrats are not engaged in fair play. It arouses the activism of those who have been disappointed by Republicans and have forgotten how bad a liberal Democratic Presidency would be. Between this country dodging Terrorist attacks we need to look out for this country. The democrats are doing what some Republicans were doing just before World War 2 . A Isolationsit platform is a dangerous one.
_________________

If you wish to read the full article from the Newt Gingrich report click below:


http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3393/Default.aspx

Excepts from Polygamy Then and Now

5 May 2008 In the April 23, 2008 online-edition of The New York Times, Timothy Egan wrote a post on the Outposts blog claiming that the way polygamy is practiced today by members of the FLDS sect in Eldorado, Texas is the same as it was practiced by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the 19th century.
While most people know that Mormons abandoned the practice of polygamy at the end of the 19th century, it's also important to understand that the conditions surrounding the practice of polygamy in Texas today bear little resemblance to the plural marriage practiced by Mormons more than a century ago. In fact, a closer look at history contradicts the simple reductive characterizations of "Mormon polygamy" offered by Egan. As thoughtful historians know, a serious study of history does not impose contemporary understandings and sensibilities onto an interpretation of earlier time periods.
Much of the argument Egan makes for similarities between FLDS polygamy and early Mormon marriage practices relates to the claim of "sexual manipulation" of children as evidenced by the age of marriage. In fact, men and women often married at a much younger age in the 19th century than we find acceptable today. Historian Kathryn Daynes, who has studied the subject in depth, says that although the female average age at marriage in the United States during the nineteenth century was twenty or older, a girl marrying at age 15 was not uncommon and certainly was not considered abused.  The common-law marriage age for women was 12.  Historically, outside of northwestern Europe, women at 14 to 16 were assumed to be ready for marriage. 
Egan also seeks to equate the stereotypical view of 19th century Mormon women as timid, subservient, and backward, to the image of FLDS women portrayed in recent days in the media. History, however, paints a different picture. Nineteenth-century Mormon women, in both plural and monogamous marriages, were not just interested in raising families and blindly following their husbands. They were politically active and participated in territorial elections. Many were well connected with national women's organizations. These women also taught school and were active in publishing and literary activities. Some even served their communities by going to medical school and becoming skilled physicians. Because of their competence and level of self-reliance, they did not have to resort to public assistance.
Unlike the contemporary practice of polygamy in Eldorado, Texas, 19th century plural marriage among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not controlled by the arbitrary authority of one individual. On the contrary, decisions related to marriage were settled by consideration of the feelings of all interested parties. Furthermore, the consent of individual women was always honored in any marriage proposal. Though there was some social and cultural pressure, it was not determinative. Both men and women were free to refuse offers of marriage they found unacceptable.
Brigham Young did not arrange marriages unless he was asked to, and he readily granted divorces. Far from the misconceptions of life-long servitude to the absolute power of the patriarchy, this non-legalistic system of divorce allowed women considerable autonomy.
In distinction to the cloistered isolation of today's polygamous groups, including the FLDS, Mormon culture in the 19th century was characterized by a vibrancy of productive activity in various fields of endeavor: education, industry, politics, community-building, agriculture, and many professions. Latter-day Saints strived to move apace with the rapid demands and changes of life and sought to embrace modernity, not thwart it. They sought to take advantage of the ideas and innovations of modern life by establishing schools and universities of higher education. In this they followed the advice of Joseph Smith: "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."
Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sacred and ordained of God. The family is the basic social unit in this life and in the next. The social, emotional, and spiritual health of all family members was (in the 19th century) and is today the primary concern of every Latter-day Saint mother and father. Mr. Egan's cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamous practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong. By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear.
Elder Marlin K. Jensen
Church Historian, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Thank You Bill!

Last night (I can imagine) Hillary going back to her hotel room sitting on the bed and throw darts at you know whose picture? Or maybe smacking Bill Clinton if he's in the room. This week the Super delegates in the Democrat party will have to decide who they will support?
It is a major move to a party divided and wondering if they have the stomach to go on. With the win in North Carolina, and a close contest in Indianna, Obama has clinch the Democrat party nonination last night.

Some estimates have Obama within 270 delegates to win the nomination, which really means that Clinton now needs to decide within next few weeks, to either pull out or contest. Her choice of going to the Credentials Committee to have the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated will end up not going anywhere as well.

So in the long run, this is Hillary Clinton’s folly, a chance for her to decide if 2008 is her year to run or perhaps in 2012? However,Many Democrats are frustrated and fatigued by the longest U.S. presidential nomination battle most have witnessed, and the divisions in its wake have left some wondering if they can back the ultimate winner

For McCain it is now time to spend the money to start slowly on the attacks... Now that he has a focal point as in Obama. McCaiin believes in being civil in elections and the Democrats have no delusions in their attack ads. Remembering comparing Bush to Hitler.

The 2000 election is still a very sore spot for them. They want to win at any cost. This year could be the must corrupt Presidential election in history. Voter fault will be ramped and with the new ID requierments could make a win for the Democrats harder to attempt.

One loose cannon for all of this is al queda the other is Rev. Wright. Neither could do Obama and favors. If Spain is any indication, al queda could attack thinking they would influence the election. As for Wright he speaks for himself, and open month insert foot type man will cause harm to Obama.

The Republcans, need to begin today linking Obama to his base of wide eye liberal neo-socialist friends. They need to begin today and remind the American people that the Democrats will come to the same beliefs that they had prior to 2001 and the dangers to the United States. To many people have forgotten 9-11 and act the part.

Overall, Obama has secure all the ethics groups, except one, and that is the white vote. Hard to win without it! Hillary must be saying "Thanks Bill!" for screwing this up for me! SMACK!!!!