Should we kill the caged bird if it wakes up?

When it comes to those of us with paranoid, questioning minds there is always a riddle that eventually must be answered: Is it better to remain ignorant to the world around us or is life actually better once we open our eyes to the things going around?

All it really takes is questioning one thing to open up a whole other world. Once that door is open, is there a way to close it? Once we question something (oh let’s say, the Kennedy assasination) and come to the conclusion that the truth is being hidden, is it ever really possible to deny everything you’ve seen and put the blinders back on? Or are we stuck with the visions of seeing the ’second gunman’ forever?

In this kind of world – a planet ruled by technology and electronic gods – everything seems like a question. Yes, I am mostly talking about government, conspiracies, NWO kind of things. Yes, it probably seems crazy to a lot of people – it should in fact.

Maybe the question really is, “Who is more crazy? The person seeing ghosts or the person denying the apparitions?”

I don’t know.

What I do know is that being in the ‘awakened’ state of seeing things that may or may not be there – the government apparitions if you will – makes one weary. We act like prophets, spouting off on our soap boxes to anyone who will listen, “The end is nye, grab your guns, bibles and booze!” but at the end of the day is it even worth it?

That question is easily answered – yes.

Even showing one person Endgame and awakening to the coming fist of fascism is worth it. Just knowing that one more person was helped onto the next level as you is a good feeling, even if the level you are on i one of constant weariness. A level where you can’t truly trust much of…anyone.

The machine is not broken, it is running better than ever. It is lubricated with the blood of civilian and soldiers. The naysayers (us) and the slaves.

So is it better to always be questioning or is it better to remain blissfully ignorant? To be the caged bird or the bird on the outside looking in?

Who is to tell which one sings more beautifully, what I do know is that writing this made me ask more questions than answers.

I hope someone gets some use out of my pondering.

What has the Bush-Obama Bailout cost?

Well the bailout has now cost the American people well over 4 TRILLION dollars. I would say that is a bit more than the $700 billion congress had told us it would cost. People like to throw around numbers like that. Some many think ‘Oh well, what’s 4T to the US government?’

Well this is what it is:

And they said Bush's war was expensive...

So the bailout has costed us more than EIGHT times the amount spent on Dubya’s invasion of Iraq. But where are the naysayers now? Where are the people pointing at this, largely democrat supported, waste of tax payer dollars?

When a program has costed more than four times what the entire NASA program has spent since it’s creation. That’s a whole lot of dollars. While I question the government funneling so much money into the space program when we have barely searched our seas (but what don’t I question), I would say it is more prevalent than bailing out bankers.
What has the bailout brought us? Well I can tell you what it hasn’t done: fixed our economy.
But everyone knew it wouldn’t – just don’t tell that to Barney Frank or the rest of the pinheads that passed it off as legitimate to the American people.

I can tell you one thing the bailout has done – put money into the hands of the bankers. After recieving the money, it seems a lot of banks have used it, not to help themselves, but to buy up their competition. Go congress!
The other thing that the bailout has done is influenced other failing industries – like the American auto industry for instance – into coming to the government with open hands, groveling and begging for change.

So now, we have a bunch of businesses who BEFORE didn’t want government intervening in their business…now they are begging for a hand out.

In a perfect world, the government would not give the businesses money – then again they also would not do the majority of things our blessed government does.
We’ll see if the do-nothing congress does something, sadly it probably will. Under the guidance of their grandmaster Barack, congress will probably give the industry all it asks for – perhaps more.

Next on OBAMA WATCH!

With the election over and Obama having won by a sizable margin (thanks to an economic downturn, a lackluster Republican ticket and one of the worst presidents every) I was hoping things would simmer down for a bit. I could get some shut eye, hell, maybe even drink some Black Velvet for the fun of it – not because I was trying to forget about the current political climate. Turns out, I was wrong (from Reuters reporter Deborah Charles):

Despite getting little sleep after returning home at nearly 2 a.m. after a historical and emotional night in Chicago’s Grant Park, the well-disciplined Obama opted to head to the gym around mid-morning.

But Obama first spent a little quality time at home, enjoying something he said he missed most while out on the campaign trail: breakfast with his wife, Michelle, and daughters Malia and Sasha.

Wearing a dark baseball cap and sunglasses, Obama then sped away in his motorcade for a few blocks to the gym near his house where the first-term senator from Illinois often retreated for exercise and time away from the media during the 21-month presidential campaign.

The new president-elect, who played his traditional election-day game of basketball on Tuesday with some friends and staff members before the polls closed, stayed inside the gym for about an hour.

 

…apparently president-elect Obama went to the gym. I am glad CNN and Reuters (amongst other media outlets) dedicated space for this story. How else would I have known what Obama was up to? I mean, now that I’m not checking HuffPo, Politico or Slate everyday to monitor the campaign to make sure my Messiah is in the lead I have all this spare time on my hands.

Ugh.

The worst part is that I should have seen this coming. Alas, I did not. Maybe I was too young when Dubya was elected and this happens to all incoming presidents. What I would imagine more likely, however, is that Obama’s celebrity is beyond what even I could have imagined. The media darling, the college student’s wet dream, Barack Obama has achieved literal Britney Spears level celebrity – and it’s sick.

It’s like I fell asleep and woke up in a dream world where everyone follows a supreme commander who promises a better nation. When the MSM (who you can never trust anyways) reports on dribble about Obama having to “give up his blackberry“, you have to wonder who is really looking out for us.

The answer to that?

No one. Or at least, definitely not our national media. Even our local media seems obsessed with Obamamania. For days the top news at Fox, CNN (and I would imagine that quagmire of poor journalism that is MSNBC) and all of the major media outlets have had the top stories on their Web sites be about Obama: who is he going to pick for staff, will he make it to the gym today, how many times did he relieve his bowels?

I must have missed something, but apparently when we are in a financial crisis, in two wars and have German spies being arrested for throwing a bomb into an EU headquarters in Pristania, how many times Obama takes a dump during a day is the relevant topic.

Who knows what’ll happen next on, OBAMA WATCH!

The Intolerance of Liberals

Jane Q. Republican reports on the intolerance of liberals. Apparently the majority of blacks in California who shown up to vote for Obama also voted for the gay marriage ban, Prop. 8. Showing up and voting for their statist candidate wasn’t enough apparently. Celebrities, people and pundits are all blaming the blacks for voting in the ban.

The “lovely” Rossanne Barr being one of them:

As [blacks] overwhelmingly supported America’s first chance to elect a person of color and strike a death blow to racism, they also went out of their way to misuse their votes (no doubt at the behest of their immoral and hateful pastors and clergy) to isolate and punish a small minority of citizens, and to deny them basic civil rights.
They voted to deny over 70,000 californian children coverage of the insurance benefits of their gay parents. They voted to destroy the constitution that Obama will hopefully uphold against their wishes, by making sure that church and state remain separated.

I thought marriage was a religious institution? No matter apparently.

Personally I do not have much of an opinion on gay marriage for several reasons, mainly because it does not affect me in the least. While I understand the liberty argument (ie a gay person having the right to be miserable like any husband does after several years of marriage), I would contest that if the tax breaks were taken out not as many people would care. Being a libertarian I believe in no income tax anyway.

Hence, it does not matter to me.

What DOES matter to me however, is the hypocricy of the American liberal. Open minded? Please. Liberals are so ‘open-minded’ that their brains have apparently fallen out. The intolerance of liberals is astounding. While talking about equality and civil rights out of one side of their mouth, as soon as someone opposes their beliefs why, by-golly that person should just shut their mouth. What do they know?

I think this is best seen when it comes to liberals and the Church. The most recent episode in a a complete TV series full of indiscretions was what Vanhelsing at Right Wing News refers to as when “militant homosexuals” attacked a church. Apparently a group of pro-gay rights “queers and transexuals” (their words on their Web site, DEFINITELY not mine) flooded into a church right after prayer was finished (some were already inside) yelling obscenities, carrying a banner that read ‘JESUS WAS GAY’ and throwing glitter and confetti everywhere. They pushed through the men, women and children while “two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.”

Thank you for your version of “tolerance”. I really want to support gay marriage after reading about their own intolerance of a religious organization.

God Save the Fed

You have got to be kidding me. Now that Paulson and his independent, monopolistic bank recieved trillions of dollars in bail-outs and what have you, they are refusing to disclose the recipients.

From Bloomberg.com:

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

“The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that’s a big problem,” said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. “In a liquid market, this wouldn’t matter, but we’re not. The market is very nervous and very thin.”

So far, Bloomberg News has used the Freedom of Information Act to request information and has filed a lawsuit to try to get the list of recipients.

These are OUR taxdollars. The Fed, unconstitutional as it is, should at least follow through with its promises. It got it’s billions (in the end trillions) of dollars at the expense of the taxpayer. Show us some transparency. Why doesn’t President-elect Obama say something? His word is worth it’s weight in gold these days, and remember, he’s been supporting transparency in government for years – one of the few things I cheer him for. Even Paulson himself, has championed for transparency on where the loans were going:

“We need oversight. We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.” Secretary of the Treasury Paulson said.

Well…at least when the Fed was still begging for the handout.

If you’re interested in finding more information about the Bloomberg v. Fed lawsuit, the case is: Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Past Warnings of the New Gestapo

How come I don’t remember reading about this before the election?

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation’s foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps “to renew our diplomacy.”

I am NOT saying that Obama is creating a security force to create a Marxist state. What I am saying is that in those words there is definitely potential to create a facist police state. Maybe like the kinds that some presidents and congressmen could only fantasize about.

How come the MSM didn’t report more on this when the speech was given in July?

I am all for his ideas about getting more people to volunteer service to their country, but not in the form of ‘national security’. Charities and giving some of your time – because you want to, not because you are forced to – is a wonderful thing. Everyone should give some time and money to a cause they like. However, I don’t think creating a civilian security force on-par with our military is a good thing, in fact, I would say its detrimental to liberty and the fabric of the American society.

I don’t want to be a fear monger here, I just want to get information out to people. This is by no means a definite thing, however, I think it’s something to watch for and keep track of.

Let’s just hope Congressman Broun is just worried about the GOP’s losses this election-cycle, not that he has an eye on what the future holds.

Auto-Bailout, contacting your congressman

Well it looks like the American auto-industry is still wanting a bail-out after Ford Motors and GM have posted losses. Thank God for corporate welfare I guess! So far the administration and our congressmen on the federal level haven’t acted on it, but leader’s are already pushing for it.

So what can we do to help stop this monstrosity? Well, luck would have it there are resources at an internet user’s fingertips and I’m going to repost the information I put up against the $700b Wall Street welfare check.

This is the link to contact your congressman. I know that it has a lot of information on the bail-out, but it is also the most up to date listing I could find (though some people ARE on their way out don’t forget). You know who your congressman is, if they got voted out I would still urge you to contact them in case congress tries to push something thru before January first.

Don’t forget, the hundreds of millions of dollars congress injected into the market have not done squat. The DOW is still below 9,000 points, even though we’ve spent a lot of that money already. Although this is arguably different, we can still see the same thing: If we give millions of dollars to the auto-mobile industry, what are they going to do with it to change their practices? How are they going to use it to compete with their Japanese competitors.

Maybe the question is what CAN they do with all of the regulations and the totalitarian unions? Maybe the government – instead of throwing billions of dollars at the problem – should consider loosening regulations for the industry.

What a radical thought that would be. I wonder if Obama and the Pelosi gang have even considered that…

The Warmongering Republicrats

Well. Interestingly enough, I just got done being in a shouting match with my suitemates. My three roommates are all in my program. We honestly, and easily, have the most diverse room easily. I’m a libertarian, my roomie is a hardcore Democrat, my suitemate is a hardcore Republican and my other suitemate claims he is an independent.

The heated argument between me, the Dem and the Rep today involved war. While the Dem agreed with me that the Iraq War is wrong, he agreed with the Rep that we should police the world. He believes that we should enter Sudan. AND he believes America should police the world because we have a right to spread democracy around the world.

This kind of thought pattern is…..”f’ed up” to say the least. What it comes down to is that Democrats think we should go to war, but only if it’s not a Republican’s idea in the first place.

If Clinton would have started the second Gulf War, would they have supported it? Probably yes.

Let’s not forget, that the Democrats were behind WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Somalia (Clinton). Gulf War I and II were Republican skirmishes, both of which Democrats didn’t support. Don’t forget that the Democrats got the support from the defense industry this election.

So who is the anti-war party? Not Obama and his fanatics. Obviously not the facist McCain. But Obama, who ran on an anti-war campaign is not someone the american people can expect to KEEP us out of war. We should be prepared for the worst.

Darfur. Russia. Pakistan.

Who knows what will be first on Obama’s list?

Bad day for Ohio

While I was not in favor of McCain, I was rooting against Obama (which I think was quite apparent in earlier posts). I have shown more hostility towards B.O. then McCain for two reasons: 1. Like it or not, Obama is more socialistic than McCain and I think big government will grow even faster under his regime; 2. His supporters act like he’s God and going to change the world, even though it can be argued McCain and him are not as different as some think.

That being said, I have thought for awhile, mostly because of the media’s bias and his supporters fervor, that Obama was going to win. This I was prepared for. What I was NOT prepared for was every race I cared about (chiefly Space v. Dailey and Killroy v. Stivers) going against me. Space was somehow reelected, no matter that he voted for the Wall Street “gift” of $700-million. Killroy beat Stivers…and honestly I just met her once and didn’t like her so I wanted Stivers to win. Indepedent attorney general candidate Robert Owens also was defeated by a larger margin than I was hoping for (last I seen he only had 4%).

Besides that, restrictions were placed on businesses (Issue 5 – it was to cap pay day loan stores or whatever you want to call them) that the government has no right to do. Pay day loan places have every RIGHT and should be at liberty to charge at 395% increase if they want to. It’s the people’s choice to go to them. In some instances they NEED to charge an obscene amount because they are making VERY risky loans – sometimes to shady people.

Issue 6 (which would allow a casino) also failed. The main argument against it was that there were loopholes to allow it to not pay casino taxes. To this I say ‘So what?’ If congress would allow casino’s in the first place in Ohio, then they could tax the shit out of it! But they have been sitting on their highly paid asses and ignoring that fact. It’s my right to waste my money at a craps table if I see fit!

And that’s the news from Ohio. It is a rainy day for liberty and anti-state minds.

Who did I vote for?

Here are the reasons why (or why I did not) vote for the presidential candidates.

Obama – His far-left policies are too big government and anti-libertarian. I’ve seen online that some libertarians have voted for him, but I cannot understand why. His supporters infractions on free speech are scary. The rockstar status he’s earned is nothing short of down-right frightening. At least the myth of Camelot in the JFK administration came up after he was already in office. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if the Democrats tried to overturn the 22nd amendment and make their messiah. The other thing I’m worried about is Obama the Warmonger. We’ve seen him say he would cross the borders of a soverign nation (Pakistan) to chase Bin Laden and that we need to get stronger with Iran and Russia. Plus, Obama’s 2nd amendment record is horrendes at best. It’s obvious that Obama is the ‘perfect politician.’ Being a perfect politician, however, is why you vote against someone, not why you vote for them.

McCain – McCain’s stance on the Iraq War was a decent detterent to me. Someone who is interested in staying in Iraq for ‘100 years’ might be as likely to start another war as well. McCain has always supported pretty liberal policies, as being he would have been one of my last choices to get the Republican nod for the presidency. McCain has also ran a pretty negative campaign, which I detest. Then again Obama didn’t run on issues, just ‘Change’ – whatever that is.

Bob Barr – In the end I ended up voting for Barr. I still consider Barr to be a ‘libertarian in sheep’s clothing’. He supported PLENTY of anti-libertarian policies when he was in congress as a Republican – namely the Patriot Act. While I don’t think you should vote for a person based on party…I don’t actually believe that when it comes to third parties. Because they (for now) aren’t going to win anyways, a vote for a candidate like Barr is a vote for the ideals of liberty and small government. I still say he is a HORRID speaker though.

Cynthia McKinney – An anti-semitic, just couldn’t see that flying. Plus she’s just…crazy.

Chuck Baldwin – He was definitely the person who was closest to take my vote away for Barr – and almost did. I sat at the table for 5 minutes trying to figure out if I should vote for Baldwin or Barr. In the end, Baldwin’s ‘letting it up to states to legalize drugs’ and using the ‘bully pulpit’ as the president to go against several things I believe heartily in. Unlike Barr, Baldwin is a MUCH better speaker. I also have to give him a nod for being against illegal immigration.

So in the end it wasn’t that easy for me. And no, I do not consider it ‘throwing my vote away’. I don’t think that we should HAVE to vote for the lesser of two evils – evil doesn’t have to be a choice at all.