Is this really still our Country?

South Carolina Delegates

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:14:00 +0000

To the best of my knowledge,

Like in Iowa, no South Carolina Delegates have been chosen yet. All the networks are still choosing to report this information wrong when they show Gingrich with all the Delegates. According to the resolution signed by the South Carolina GOP in August 2011, the County's will have Conventions in March and April, followed by a state Convention in May to chose the actual delegates. Their system as a 50% penalty, any candidate with 50% of the primary would get 50% of the delegates but no one got 50% so the delegates should be proportional to who's still in the race at that time, and those delegates would not necessarily by bound to vote for that candidate in Florida at the national convention.

Who is unelectable? Pushing Santorum or Gingrich is a joke.

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:30:00 +0000

The war goes on, Newt Gingrich beating Romney in South Carolina is actually a great thing for the Ron Paul campaign. The delegates are getting split which means it'll be difficult for Romney, or anyone to get enough, which could result in a brokered convention. Santorum and Gingrich both have little money or organization to continue much farther and probably won't even be on ballot in all the states. Gingrich is missing from the ballot in 2 states and Santorum will likely be missing from 4 state ballots or 565 delegates worth. This is a two man marathon between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has grassroots support in many states, so South Carolina and Florida won't hurt his campaign much at all. He will be in the race all the way to the convention and hopefully steal the nomination right from under Mr. Perma-smile when his people realize they cannot win without Paul's support.

Iowa Delegates

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:52:00 +0000

The Huffington Post and Fox are saying that Ron Paul is shut out of delegates with 13 going to Romney and 12 to Santorum, but the truth is NO DELEGATES have gone to anyone. The Iowa system is complicated. Here is how the delegates are selected.

Precinct caucuses will elect delegates on March 10th's county conventions, which in turn will elect (from their pools of delegate-attendees) delegates to congressional-district conventions and the June 16th state GOP convention, which will in turn elect Iowa’s delegates to the Republican National Convention.
Most importantly, perhaps, Votes for county-convention delegates aren’t too competitive on caucus night, and more attention is paid to national-delegate selection at the later convention votes.

Iowa will eventually elect delegates to the Republican Convention, but only a small percentage of the total 2,286 or 1.2%. And even these are “unbound” delegates, which means they can change their allegiance when they get Tampa in August.

To the best of my knowledge and research, this is how the Iowa system works. I know I wanted to get to the bottom of it, I'm sure some of you did as well.

Cheers,

Mike

Can Rick Santorum be President?

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:15:00 +0000

Rick Santorum would support a Constitutional Amendment on Marriage which would invalidate currently legal Gay Marriages.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Is this going to win in a general election?

Rick Santorum says he's a fiscal conservative, but is he?

Just a few notes about Santorum.

Sen. Santorum voted for the bridge to nowhere.

In 2003 he voted to extend Medicare drug benefits to seniors, a vote that conservatives have come to characterize as irresponsible. Santorum admitted to making a mistake on Medicare during a ”Fox News Sunday” appearance.

Santorum a lawyer, didn't even live in the district, or the state he was elected from. He lied about his residency. How's that for honesty?

Rick Santorum claims to be a Strong Pro-Life advocate but he personally endorsed Arlan Spector in 2004. Is Spector a Strong Pro-life advocate?

Spector

Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion

Arlen Spector also helped get ObamaCare passed.

Learn more about About Rick Santorum here.

Even for rape and incest and even for saving the mother’s life. None of them justify abortion in Rick Santorum’s opinion.

Santorum’s views are unapologetically black-and-white. He advocates that any doctor performing an abortion under any circumstances should be criminally charged.

Unless it happens to be Rick Santorum’s wife, and she might have died if not for her 20-week-old fetus being “partial birth” aborted.

In October, 1996, his wife Karen had a second trimester abortion. They don’t like to describe it that way. In his 2004 interview with Terry Gross, Santorum characterizes the fetus, who must be treated as an autonomous person, as a practically a gunslinging threat, whom the mother must murder in self-defense. Karen has had to justify her decision to save her own life by explaining that if she died her other children would have lost a mother.

Cheers,

Mike

Spread the real Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:33:00 +0000

Is Michelle Bachmann a small Government Constitutionalist?

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:33:00 +0000

Is Michelle Bachmann a small Government Constitutionalist?

I've been hearing people say Michelle Bachmann is a Constitutionalist and it makes me cringe a little. Sure Michelle Bachmann might say the right things at times but does she vote that way? Does she have the Constitutional fortitude of Ron Paul?

H.R.3159 Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.
Michelle Bachmann voted against beleagured soldiers while Ron Paul votes yes.

H.R.1255 Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011: Bachmann, yes. Paul, no

A Bill that would Prohibit TSA from using full-body image scanners as "mandatory or primary" screening devices: Look what Bachmann and West just voted against: Amash/Chaffetz Amendment 2 to H R 207, which prohibits TSA from using full-body image scanners as "mandatory or primary" screening devices. In other words, they can be used only as an option during secondary screening. The amendment failed.
Bachmann voted no, Paul voted yes.

Ten percent across-the-board cut to the Department of Homeland Security's budget: Rokita of IN Amendment 1 to H R 2017 The bill reduces DHS spending only to FY 2009 levels. It failed 110-312. Bachmann voted no, Ron Paul voted yes!

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals to include disclosures without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or prior disclosures made to any person by an employee or applicant for employment, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is a violation of any law. Backman voted no, Paul voted yes.

H.Con.Res.28 Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan
Bachmann voted no, Paul voted yes.

Bachman votes for Internet Censorship: H.R.4279 and H.R.4061 Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, Sponsored by John Conyers, (D-MI)
Bachmann voted yes, Paul Voted no.

Bachman voted for almost unlimited Presidential war powers while Ron Paul voted no.

And let's not forget the icing on the cake. The TEA Party Caucus leader Michelle Bachmann voted for the Patriot Act, legislation that takes our freedom and throws it out the window.

Is she really a Constitutionalist?

Cheers,

Mike

I support Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:51:00 +0000

I support Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

I keep hearing people say Ron Paul has great Domestic Foreign Policy but his Foreign Policy scares me, or it's Buffoon like. Well I want everyone to know I support Ron Paul BECAUSE of his Foreign Policy.

Will the real Newt Gingrich please stand up?

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:09:00 +0000

We all know candidates tend to start saying anything they need to once they are in striking distance of a political office, especially the Presidency. Can we believe the Newt Gingrich who is currently in the public view? I keep hearing people talk about how well he debates, marveling over his speaking ability and his cuts back at the Media. Is he a rock solid debater? YES. The following is a text book definition for the Concept of Debate.

A debate is, basically, an argument. That is not to say that it is an undisciplined shouting match between parties that passionately believe in a particular point of view. In fact the opposite is true. Debating has strict rules of conduct and quite sophisticated arguing techniques and you will often be in a position where you will have to argue the opposite of what you believe in.

Pay special attention to the last part there. A person who excels at Debate must be able to turn on any issue at any time no matter if they support an issue or not.

In 1997 Gingrich opposed the Brady Gun Control bill but he supported instead the idea of instant verification which relies on the Government having our biometric information on file in order to own firearms.

“I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumbprint… Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process.” — June 27, 1997

Gingrich's idea of less government, is more government. Newt Gingrich thinks the Federal Government should have our biometrics on file, this could mean fingerprints, Retinal scans or even our DNA. In other words Newt Gingrich thinks Gun Owners should be treated the same as Felons in the United States of America. Is that who we want as President?

Recently Gingrich was quoted as saying, "There is no difference between left wing social engineering and right wing social engineering." But let's look at a presentation Gingrich made while still a Representative. Newt Gingrich listed his primary mission as being the "Advocate of civilization", "Definer of civilization", "Teacher of the rules of civilization" and the "Arouse of those who fan civilization". He then goes on to say, "This retains a primary focus on the elected political power as the central arena and fulcrum by which a free people debate their future and govern themselves."

Does that sound like someone who isn't concerned with any kind of social engineering? It sounds to me like Newt thinks highly of himself. But don't take my word for it. He wrote this about himself, “The most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times.”

Yes, Newt Gingrich is an excellent debater and that is precisely why I will not support him for President.

Cheers,

Mike

Teen held by TSA while man with loaded gun is allowed to fly.

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 23:00:00 +0000

Yes, 17 year old Vanessa Gibbs found herself detained by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over the appearance of her purse which has a emblem in the shape of gun. The TSA felt it necessary to detain Miss Gibbs for this infraction. Meanwhile in Texas a man returning from South America had a loaded gun which he carried on board and flew with in his carry on.

Doesn't sound like the TSA really has their shit together does it?

U.S. Senate Passes Bill with Questionable Terror Policies

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 04:15:00 +0000

The Senate passed S. 1867 a $662 billion Pentagon funding bill Thursday night after fights among lawmakers over terrorism-related provisions. One such provision would authorize indefinite detention without trial and give preference to military detention of terror suspects instead of the civilian justice system. Senator Marco Rubio suggests that these provisions could only be used on suspects with direct connections with organizations like Al-Qaeda but we know how well the Federal Government is at bending definitions.

The Obama administration threatened to veto the legislation, arguing the executive branch should decide how to try terror detainees despite this, the liberal Michigan Democrat and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, rejected call after call by senior Obama administration officials to overhaul how his defense bill handles the treatment of suspected terrorists. Both parties emerged disagreeing over whether the law allowed or disallowed indefinite detention of Americans. But after an outcry conveyed by both liberals and conservatives, lawmakers arrived at a compromise that essentially concluded the indefinite detention was allowed while saying current policy wouldn't change.

A few Republicans led by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, have railed against provisions that Mr. Paul argued violated the Constitution, aligning himself with liberal Democrats.

This legislation is along the lines of the Patriot Act. Disguised as a simple funding measure, it's actions and amendments in my opinion will continue to hamper our rights and freedoms.

Cheers,

Mike

Letter from Senator Dick Durbin and my Reply

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:11:00 +0000

I sent the following reply.

Dear Mr. Durbin,

In regards to your letter on Gun Control.

Your response letter is appalling to me. I realize it's a canned response, but you must have approved it, which means your view is that the 2nd Amendment protects our rights to hunt and participate in shooting sports. Dear sir, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting! Our Founding fathers made it clear that our right to bare arms was about protecting ourselves and our property, including from the threat of a tyrannical government. It's the legislators in Washington D.C who pose the biggest threat to our freedom and our individual liberty. I'm not concerned about my rights to shoot deer or paper targets, I'm concerned about my rights to protect myself against people like you who don't believe in my unalienable rights.

Also, I would like to point out that laws like the Brady Bill made it so only officers of the state have access to high powered weapons. How are we supposed to defend ourselves against these officers in the event that they are turned against us?

The LAPD Chief said, "There is no reason that a peaceful society based on rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round magazines". Well I say there actually is a reason.

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

Mr. Durbin, I urge you to reconsider your views on the Second Amendment.

Thank you and good day,

Sincerely,

Michael Ortiz
Danville, IL

Modern Morals of the average Ron Paul hater

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:07:00 +0000

There once was a time when we learned that it was not right to go around punching and hitting people, especially if the only reason was name calling and chiding. Many parents teach their kids to defend themselves but only when someone hits them first.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Today it's being re-written.

Sticks and Stones may break me bones, but provocative words are worse.

The new moral of the story, attack anyone who uses words you don't agree with. Especially if they threaten someone else. You need not wait for them to attack you directly.

Can you imagine?

Mother - Billy, why did you punch Bobby in the nose?

Son - Mom, Bobby was going to hit Kyle first.

Mother - Bobby was going to hit Kyle, but he didn't actually hit Kyle?

Son - Yup. That's what I learned from watching Fox News. It's ok to attack someone if they were going to attack your friend first.

Mother - Oh, that makes perfect sense....

Really???

Is this the new lesson we are going to teach our children?

Herman Cain Mailer

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:06:00 +0000

Police State

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:02:00 +0000

What happens when the state sees you as a threat? They will use all means of force against you. Resistance will not be tolerated. The following is an excerpt from a recent SWAT versus citizen situation.

"Within moments, and without Guerena firing a shot--or even switching his rifle off of"safety"--he lay dying, his body riddled with 60 bullets. A subsequent investigation revealed that the initial shot that prompted theS.W.A.T. team barrage came from a S.W.A.T. team gun, not Guerena's. Guerena,reports later revealed, had no criminal record, and no narcotics were found at his home."

This is what it means to live in a police state. When a citizen who has served his country is killed due to suspicion and the police who charged with serving us, instead, become jury and executioners. This man did nothing wrong. He attempted to secure his property from an unknown attack and was killed by a superior force not made up of gang bangers or criminals but officers granted with a license to kill. I'm sure that law enforcement will say that this was a accident and point to the fact that this hardly ever happens, but is that true? In a land governed by the law of our Constitution, why don't they treat every home like it may be armed from within? When did it become common place for the police to shoot first and ask questions later?

"The extent of this weapon "inflation" does not stop with high-powered rifles, either. In recent years, police departments both large and small have acquired bazookas, machine guns, and even armored vehicles (mini-tanks) for use in domestic police work."

Why is it now common place for the police to have such weapons but citizens need to jump thru hoops just to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to bare arms? In my home state of Illinois, they require a special I.D known as FOID, (Firearms Owners ID) just to purchase and own firearms. Many states require special permits and training for concealed carry. Does this make any sense?

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. Do you really think the take over is going to look like this?

Of Course not right?

Totally Different!!! They're wearing black....

Cheers,

Mike

Do we need to support Israel?

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:19:00 +0000

We need to support Israel because this is the prophesy the Bible speaks about. I don't understand this argument.

Most would agree that the bible is clear on defense, and the possession of weapons to defend, but did the United States fulfill a Biblical prophesy in 1948 by creating a nation destined for war? I think that's a self fulfilling prophesy if I've ever seen one. The Palestinian people people were there in the desert over a hundred years prior to us having ripped their land away so we could create a Jewish state in the middle of an Islamic desert. Then we armed those Jews for war, and we criticize others for arming the Muslims. Does this make any sense, to anyone? Now, today, people are looking at this whole situation like it's some kind of biblical prophesy. HELLO!!! SNL, couldn't make this shit up. Throwing together mortal enemies, adding weapons, and then standing back to see what happens.... OMG!!!, they're fighting, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!! This must be what the bible talked about.....

Further more, the U.S.A is a nation of individuals. Belief in God is not prerequisite in order to be a citizen.

(Thanks to Obama's bone headed comment you're going to hate my next words)

We are not a Christian Nation.

Many people are christian and I have no problem with that. If those people wish to pickup their sword and flock to Israels defense, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, is when people believe that we as a nation have an obligation to commit lives to a war that has nothing to do with our own sovereignty.

I understand many people have a deep passion for Israel, but that passion has nothing to do with our rights and freedoms as American Citizens. Keep in mind there is still no war to speak of. Yes, there are threats and there will always be threats but when we look for a leader, a President for the United States of America, we need to look for a person who has Our (the Nation known as the United States of America) best interests in mind. We are looking to elect the POTUS, not the Christian Crusader of the world. That person has an obligation to ensure the existence of our land and our freedom not that of Israel. I believe that task currently belongs to Benjamin Netanyahu.

Let's just say for a moment that we vote for a candidate who promises to use all of our resources to defend Israel, up to a full scale nuclear war. Is that what's in our best interests?

The American People elected Woodrow Wilson because he promised to keep us out of war. We now know that was never his intention as he fully expected to get into the war and he did just that as soon as he was elected. Now, we have people turning away from a candidate who is promising to keep us out of war, and instead looking to support candidates who are almost promising to get us into a war. These are strange times indeed.

Cheers,

Mike

What's going on?

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 05:17:00 +0000

I took a little break from posting so I could reset my mind and consider all that is happening so fast.

First some good news, Ron Paul won the Illinois Republican Straw Poll. But as soon as he won, some started to speculate and dissect the poll results to show how his win doesn't really mean anything. That figures, if Ron Paul does win the nomination and becomes President some people will still be coming up with stories about how he really didn't win, Ron Paul supporters only found a better way to cheat.

Herman Cains past of sexual harassment doesn't seem to bother the hard core right, in fact the usual suspects are in full over drive defending him. Its gotten so bad in fact that I'm hoping Cain did do something awful just so I can laugh at all those who are defending him without even knowing what he did or did not do.

Another thing that I noticed while on my short break was this story about forced sterilization in Carolina. When we were criticizing Obama's Czar for writing a paper on how to carry out this kind of plan we were called crazy conspiracy theorists, but low and behold we find out its already been tried and tested. That's weird. But the Federal Government would never do that, would they?

How exactly is it that that so many people criticized the TEA party for being hateful and violent? I've been reading all these stories about these Occupy Wall street nut jobs and I'm forced to shake my head. At latest count, the Occupy protests have had 7 rapes and 3 deaths and countless reports of attacks and fights. In Oregon, Occupy Protesters threw urine and feces at food vendors who wouldn't give them free food. Mind you, that these vendors had given the protesters free food and drink early on but had stopped the practice when it got out of hand. Was there anything like this at any TEA party events?

Perhaps it is time to seriously think about moving up onto a mountain somewhere.

Cheers,

Mike

Ron Paul Wins Ohio!!!

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:51:00 +0000

Don't let the media choose the GOP nominee!

Over the weekend the Ohio GOP organization held it's state wide straw poll.

Complete results

Ron Paul 53.50%
Herman Cain 25.47%
Mitt Romney 8.88%

Everyone else had 5% or less.

Do you support the Troops? Support Ron Paul, because they do

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 05:59:00 +0000

When active duty military soldiers reach into their own pockets to help support a Presidential Candidate Pre-Primary, who do they support? Overwhelmingly they support Ron Paul. Yes, the man who many claim is un-American, the man who they say doesn't support our troops, has once again received the most Campaign contributions for the 3rd quarter from active duty servicemen. Also, he raised 2 to 1 support over President Obama, who raised a total less then in the 2nd quarter. Not only has Ron Paul received the most campaign contributions but he alone has raised more money so far than Barrack Obama and ALL the Republican Candidates COMBINED, from Active Duty Military.

Of course a little over $100,000 isn't enough to win the election, and it's a far cry from the nearly $36 Million that Mitt Romney has raised. But when you decide who to support for President in 2012 are you going to choose a candidate supported by big money or a man who is favored by the good men and women who risk their lives defending freedom across the world. No matter how you feel about the foreign wars or whether you agree with Ron Paul on everything he stands for, don't you think the soldiers choice should matter more than the big money influences that propel RINO's like Mitt Romney and Rick Perry to front runner status?

I do, and I plan to support Ron Paul for the GOP nomination.

If you support the troops, I ask you to support the candidate who the troops support.

Support Ron Paul

Occupy Wallstreet Protests have roots in Communism

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:41:00 +0000

Norman Thomas ran for president six consecutive times from 1928 as a U.S. Socialist Party candidate. He said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

We currently are living in a nation which rests on most of the planks of communism, even though we still look at the U.S.A as a free nation. Most people don't realize we've lost most of those freedom many years ago. This current Occupy Wall street movement is the latest push to keep the pillars of the Communist Manifesto alive and well.

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocation's and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

The Occupy Wall Street youngsters are too ignorant to realize that they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in government schools and by Hollywood and the media that they have no idea how they are being used by labor unions and other leftist organizations. The protesters are calling for free college educations. The unions were protesting against the loss of collective bargaining with governments that determine their pension and health benefits, all paid for with public funding. Is it any wonder why people such a myself are warning against the Communist Roots of these protests?

Americans better insist that Capitalism emerges stronger from this organized anarchy. If not, Karl Marx and the foolish leftists will succeed in destroying what is left of our great Nation.

Cheers,

Mike

Personal Observations; TEA Party Rallies vs Occupy Protestests

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:52:00 +0000

TEA Party leaders (TPL's) often plan months in advance for a rally.

Occupy Protestors (OP's) also planned months in advance.

TPL's obtain permission to use a location which often times also included obtaining permits and insurance polices.

OP's Just show up in a large crowd disrupting everyone else. This includes but is not limited to Reducing business to the surrounding shops, Blocking traffic which prevents people from being able to get to the hospitals and any other place requiring access to a major bridge.

TPL's make sure to provide locations for participants to have access to washrooms. Sometimes they even order porta-potties just to be sure.

OP's pee in the bushes and shit into plastic bags and expect the local businesses to dispose of their waste. Then they bitch and moan because the owners of the private property they occupy, want to clean said property.

TPL's are often canceled due to political pressures on those who have granted use of private locations. Despite this frustration, NO TEA PARTY EVENT HAS EVER BEEN VIOLENT.

OP's use the power of their numbers to scare weak political leaders into bending over for them due to fear of violent retaliation. Then they threaten boycotts on local businesses that do not wish to grant them public access to their shops.

TPL's show respect for their leaders, even when they disagree with them, they often provide a platform for them to show up and explain themselves. This is often ignored by those leaders but it is almost always available.

OP's refuse to let senior members of the political organizations they are "Protesting" to speak. (They have allowed a select few members of Congress to pat them on the back, but only when they knew the response would be positive)

Summary:

TPL's have a history of respectful protest and despite this track record they are treated poorly by many. They are often prevented from organizing new events in fear that there may be violence and retaliation.

OP's literally shit on private property while dancing naked and have become darlings to the media and the left wing members of Congress.

Cheers,

Mike

Did you catch Herman Cain's Lie during the New Hampshire Debate?

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:38:00 +0000

10-12-2011

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:30:00 +0000

#wordlesswednesday

The Impact of lost Wall Street Jobs

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:59:00 +0000

The folks protesting Wall Street probably have no idea what kind of impact losing these high paying jobs is going to have on the overall economy. Keep in mind these are private sector job, not government jobs. Wall Street alone accounts for 1 in 8 jobs in New York City, and 14% of the States revenue. The average salary in the Securities Industry is five time larger than anywhere else in the city, it's above $350,000.00. Some early speculation suggests that we could lose 16% of these jobs before the end of the year if things don't improve. Keep in mind that these jobs all fall in the "evil rich" percentile, who also pay a third of all the income taxes, so this hit could amount to a Billion dollars in lost revenue to the Federal Government.

These are the people who the "Occupy" protesters want to hurt right? But who is going to make up the difference? Especially if Obama get's his wish, spending an additional $450 Billion. Evey dime the government spends must first be taken from someone by force. I sure hope we have enough rich people left when the bill comes due.

Cheers,

Mike

Occupy Wallstreet

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:19:00 +0000

My thoughts about the Occupy Wall street Protests now spreading across the country.

I think it's sad. It's incoherent and it doesn't make any sense. Few of them seem to have any idea what they are actually protesting and the ones who do have an idea are largely not interested in liberty or freedom but rather revenge on the rich. Have you read their list of demands? It sounds like a communist party platform. From “free” education and health care to a guaranteed “living wage”. The forced abandonment of fossil fuels, and the forgiveness of all debt on a planetary scale. These would require the forcible seizure of private property, and the compulsion of “desirable” behavior by an extremely powerful government. Far from agitating for any species of liberty, even the kind envisioned by the hopelessly lazy and disaffected, these protesters are demanding the final dissolution of economic liberty. Anarchy is the handmaiden of tyranny. Anarchist movements are never followed by increased liberty.

There are a few good idea's mixed in there somewhere but it's all terribly misguided. Most of them are just angry and envious of the the wealthy. Many are only there because this is being sold as an anti-TEA Party movement. They blame the rich and the corporations for issues that are really the fault of Congress and our Federal Government and when you try to point this out to them, all they can say is no you're lying, you don't have the facts. The TEA party folks want to cut spending and get things under control, this movement is all about more spending, extreme spending. They want to right off all Student loans, and give away free college education. They want everything to be Nationalized, and they aren't afraid to say it out loud. Honestly this is the anti-TEA party.

Oregon gets $5 million Bonus for issuing Food Stamps

noreply@blogger.com (IM-MTO) — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 14:53:00 +0000

Oregon gets $5 million Bonus for issuing Food Stamps

This week officials in Oregon reported that the USDA has given the state $5 million in “performance bonuses” for signing up people eligible for food benefits and its “swift processing of applications.” This money is in addition to the 1.5 million award for making “accurate payments of food stamp benefits to clients.” Clients, really? Could this be why the number of food-stamp beneficiaries in Oregon has increased dramatically in the last few years? Since 2008 the state has seen a 60% boost in the number of food-stamp recipients, which means that more than 780,000 people (one out of five Oregonians) get groceries compliments of Uncle Sam.

This marks the fifth year in a row that Oregon has been “recognized” by the Fed's for “exceptional administration” of the entitlement program, according to the article posted on the states Department of Human Services website. The state official who runs SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) assures that her staff will “continue working very hard to exceed expectations” so that Oregonians can “put healthy foods on their table quickly.”

And if that isn't bad enough for you, they are also giving the state a two-year grant to test an new program to further streamline the process of getting food-stamps to their "clients" This will make it even easier for people to get food stamps because it grants state officials a waiver that allows them to grant the benefit without even interviewing the candidate.

This sounds like a great opportunity for even more fraud in the ever expanding universe of entitlement spending. Will we ever be able to get this under control?

Cheers,

Mike