These factors have lead to an illegal immigrant population that has grown by at least 37% since the last United States census in the year 2000. This increase in illegal immigration will provide a political firestorm in Washington D.C. in the next few years since illegal immigrants are still included in the congressional apportionment calculation for 2010.

Congressional apportionment is the distribution of the 435 seats in the United States House Of Representatives among the 50 states. The calculation is done every decade and is based on the census of a state’s total population. The calculation includes citizens and non citizens including illegal aliens. The last calculation was done by Congress in the year 2000 and the next calculation of apportionment will be done in 2010. In addition this once in a decade population tally is used as the basis to distribute more than $200 billion in federal aid to the states each year.

When examining the last congressional apportionment in the year 2000, several interesting things become apparent. Seven million illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 United States census. In total the census counted 18.5 million non-citizens. These illegal aliens and non-citizens tend to live in several states in a concentrated fashion. Since apportionment considers non-citizens and illegal aliens in its formula, the result in 2000 was a redistribution of nine congressional seats. The result was that low immigration states that seem unaffected by immigration experienced a loss of their political influence. This loss of political influence occurred through the loss of congressional seats in the House of Representatives. The presence of non citizens in the census and apportionment calculations had some dramatic political consequences. Due to the fact that non-citizens were factored into the 2000 calculation, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi lost one seat each. The states of Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Utah each failed to gain a seat they should have had. The states with a high number of illegal aliens and non citizens gained the seats. California gained six seats and Florida, New York, and Texas gained one seat each.

Now consider the recent report by the University of Connecticut State Data Center . The report is an early projection on how the nation’s growing population of illegal immigrants would amplify the movement of Congressional seats to the South and West when seats in the House of Representatives are next divided up in 2010. The Connecticut report predicts that “Arizona, Texas and Florida will all hold additional seats in Congress after the next census, in part because of their illegal immigrant populations. California and New Jersey would keep their current amount of seats in the House under the current system. Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana and Ohio will each have one fewer seat than they would otherwise have because they have relatively few undocumented immigrants. New York, which would lose two seats under the current system, would lose only one if illegal immigrants were excluded.” Two of California’s projected fifty three House seats would be the result of its undocumented population.

The report makes this conclusion, “Illegal immigration is concentrating the power of voters in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, which have more seats in Congress per legal resident than many states where the number of illegal immigrants is much smaller”. Orlando Rodriguez, the demographer of the report adds: “If you look at it, if the undocumented population is included, then you get a real shift in seats from the Northeast to the South and the Southwest, and it’s a disproportionate shift because the people who are included in the count, not all of them vote”.

Future Presidential elections will also be impacted by the 2010 Congressional apportionment. Illegal immigration will not only redistribute seats in the House of Representatives, but will impact the Electoral College as well because it is based on the size of congressional delegations. This influence comes from a population of people who are not citizens and who are by law not allowed to vote. These people are residing in this country illegally.

However, they live here illegally because they are allowed to by local, state and federal governments. They are used in census figures by their state of residence which receive monetary benefits and more congressional power. They are exploited by the politician pandering for the Hispanic vote. They are exploited by their employers who pay them in many cases a low wage with poor working conditions. They are here because existing immigration laws were not enforced by the two previous administrations and by many state and local governments. They are here because the country has not secured its border in an age of terrorism.

Non-citizens and illegal aliens will be counted in the April 2010 United States census which will be the basis for congressional apportionment. The resulting movement of congressional seats will in effect dilute the principle that every citizen voter has an equal voice in this nation’s political life. The result of the 2010 congressional apportionment will be yet another unfortunate example of the politics of illegal immigration.

About the Author: James William Smith has worked in Senior management positions for some of the largest Financial Services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com/.

Courtesy: GoArticles
photo credit: AtomicLlama

The Post reported: Cindy Lou Hensley grew up as an only child, and a privileged one, in a large rancher in an upper-class section of Phoenix. Her dad, Jim Hensley, founded what became a large Anheuser-Busch distributorship, and her mom, Marguerite, was a proper belle who emphasized impeccable manners.

The Post also added, almost discretely, that Mrs. McCain’s wealth “may” exceed $100 million (although most sources estimate it is worth $200 million or more) and – for the record – that “she was the apple of her father’s eye.”

The Post did not mention that Mrs. McCain’s father was a highly-placed fixture in the Arizona branch of the national organized crime syndicate: He was the chief henchman of the late Kemper Marley, Arizona point man for infamous mob chief Meyer Lansky and his powerful partners-in-crime, the super-rich Bronfman family of Montreal.

In that capacity – for 40 years until his death in 1990 – Marley was undisputed political boss of Arizona, acting as the behind-the-scenes power over both the Republican and Democratic parties.

As such, his wealth and connections played the primary role in advancing John McCain’s political career from the start.

Although some Democrats have muttered that Mrs. McCain’s business interests could impact on her husband’s decision-making as president, none has dared cross the line and make reference to the fact this vast wealth was spawned by what others have indelicately (although quite correctly) called “the Jewish Mafia.”

Meyer Lansky

Correspondents for American Free Press have repeatedly referenced the McCain fortune’s ties to the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate going back to 2000 when McCain first ran for president. Most recently, in its July 14/21 issue AFP reported the story again. At that time, AFP pointed out that in its June 30 edition, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post’s parent company) also suppressed McCain’s mob link.

Newsweek said Mrs. McCain’s family “was deeply rooted in Arizona,” and that her father “was one of the most prominent men in the state,” who was “a World War II bombardier . . . shot down over the English channel,” – in other words, a war hero like McCain.

Newsweek did not mention (or even hint of) the racketeering, corruption and murder associated with Hensley and his patrons.

Newsweek said Hensley “borrowed $10,000 to start a liquor business” which became one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the country and pointed out that the vast Hensley influence and fortune “got [McCain] access to money and connections” after he divorced his ailing first wife and married his then mistress, Cindy Hensley, and settled in Arizona where he first ran for office in 1982. But there was much more to the story.

Newsweek did not mention what AFP had reported and which is republished here in order to keep this important story before the American public.

To repeat: McCain’s father-in-law was the top lieutenant for Kemper Marley, the Lansky syndicate’s chief Arizona operative who acted, in turn, as the front man for the Bronfman family – key players in the Lansky syndicate.

During Prohibition, the Canadian-based Bronfmans supplied – and thus controlled – the “spigot” of liquor funneled to Lansky syndicate functionaries in the United States, including Al Capone in Chicago.

After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country. Marley’s longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, revealed that it was the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business.

In 1948, 52 of Marley’s employees (including Jim Hensley, the manager of Marley’s company) were prosecuted for federal liquor violations. Hensley got a six month suspended sentence and his brother Eugene went to prison for a year.

William Rehnquist - 1948

In 1953 Hensley and (this time) Marley were prosecuted by federal prosecutors for falsifying liquor records, but young attorney William Rehnquist acted as their “mouthpiece” (as mob attorneys are known) and the two got off scot-free. Rehnquist later became chief justice of the Supreme Court and presided over the “fix” that made George W. Bush president in a rightly disputed election.

Arizona insiders say Hensley “took the fall” for Marley in 1948 and Marley paid back Hensley by setting him up in his own beer distribution business.

Newsweek implied Hensley’s company was a “mom and pop” operation that became a big success, but the real story goes to the heart of the history of organized crime.

Hensley’s sponsor, Marley, was also a major player in gambling, a protege of Lansky associate Gus Greenbaum who, in 1941, set up a national wire for bookmakers. After Lansky ordered a hit on his own longtime partner, Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, who was stealing money from the Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas – which was financed in part by loans from an Arizona bank chaired by Marley – Greenbaum turned operations of the wire over to Marley while Greenbaum took Siegel’s place in tending to Lansky’s interests in Las Vegas.

Gus Greenbaum

In 1948 Greenbaum was murdered in a mob “hit” that set off a series of gang wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered as did Jim Hensley, who sponsored McCain’s rise to power.

McCain’s father-in-law also dabbled in dog racing and expanded his fortune by selling his track to an individual connected to the Buffalo-based Jacobs family, key Prohibition-era cogs in the Lansky network as distributors of Bronfman liquor.

Expanding over the years, buying up race tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, Jacobs enterprises were described as being “probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime’s money-laundering in the United States.”

In 1976, Hensley’s mentor – Marley (at the height of his power) – was the key suspect behind the contract murder of journalist Don Bolles who was investigating the mob in Arizona, but Marley was never prosecuted.

Since McCain’s career was sponsored by the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate, it is no coincidence McCain recently traveled to London where Lord Jacob Rothschild of the international banking empire raised money among American expatriates on McCain’s behalf.

Rothschild has long been allied with the Bronfman family as major patrons of Israel.

About the author: A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb. All are available from AFP: 202-547-5585. He has lectured on these topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Iran, Canada, Russia and the United Arab.

Courtesy: American Free Press
photo credit: Photo Mojo

In fact, both Hillary and Barack alone racked up twice as many votes as all of the Republican candidates combined. In every state, McCain came in a far distant third, behind the Democrats, barely making a blip on the political radar. Had it been the general election, the word “landslide” would be inadequate to describe the extent of the drubbing that the Republicans received.

Overall, more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans cast their ballots; in some states, eight times as many. The disparity was not just huge; it was monumentally huge, clearly indicating that the Democratic base is energized, while the Republican base is enervated.

It is not hard to see the reason for such asymmetric results. In both camps, Americans are experiencing ACF, Acute Campaign Fatigue. Not to mention gas price fatigue, economy fatigue, subprime mortgage meltdown fatigue, Stock Market plunge fatigue, flood fatigue, war-on-terror fatigue, Washington-politics-as-usual fatigue, and in general, just plain good old-fashioned fatigue-fatigue. In short, the sheeple are all fatigued-out, suffering from what amounts to a severe case of chronic fatigue on steroids.

Furthermore, the Republicans are disenchanted with their current “neo-candidate.” They feel abandoned by their party. They are out for blood and since they cannot vent their vexation on the incumbent resident this election cycle, they are opting for the next best thing – swiftboating the nearest easy target in their cross hairs.

As go the primaries, so goes the general election. Traditionally, primary junkies are hardcore political animals, the base of the party that can be counted on when the counting gets tough. If the Republicans could not even manage to motivate their loyal hardcore core, then they will be in a world of hurt come November. The psychological damage of seeing their “anointed one” lose by such wide margins in the primary races can be an insuperably difficult hurdle to overcome. Many will read the handwriting on the wall as a fait accompli and not even show up at the polls when eVoting Day rolls around.

If “neo-voters” stayed away from the primaries in droves, then they will surely stray away from the general election in swarms. Since the past is a predictive prologue, it is a safe bet that the next occupant of the People’s House will have a lop-eared donkey grazing in the Rose Garden.

About the author: August Noble.com

Courtesy: IdeaMarketers
photo credit: Texas to Mexico

There has been much ado about Obama’s “bitter” comments. I consider myself a middle-class worker who lived and worked in the Midwest most of my life. I think lots of people get bitter, but not for the reasons Mr. Obama seems to think. 

You see when you work hard, put in long hours to get that promotion/pay raise, you get a real sense of accomplishment when you achieve it. But then you look around and see perfectly able-bodied men and women who have no intention of working for a living, receive their checks from the government, their food stamps, free health care and the many other “benefits” of not working, you’re absolutely right that I get bitter. Oh and then the stimulus package comes out and “hey, you make too much money to get one!” Of course I do.

Obama is right – there is a great deal of bitterness within the middle class. He has got it wrong on the causes. We are bitter that working hard and getting ahead is penalized at every turn. The more you make the higher percentage of taxes you pay. And now that is going up too. Does anyone care that 10% of the population is paying 90% of the tax burden? Does anyone care that over 40% of the population pays NO taxes at all? How fair is that?

We are bitter that when you do make more money and try to save for retirement, you are penalized by paying atrociously high capital gains taxes. Yep and that’ll go up too when one of the current slate of presidential candidates gets elected. Cause for more bitterness, you bet!

We are bitter about the possibility of the estate taxes being re-instated. Is it fair for the government to “take” over 60% of assets we have saved for our children? I’m a farmer’s daughter and if the current estate tax laws were not in place when my parents passed away we would have had to sell the property just to pay the taxes. That is not fair and another reason to be very bitter.

We are bitter that no matter what the every day citizens of this country wants and votes on, the elitist politicians always know what is really best for us. We cannot possibly know how to take care of ourselves and our families. When did we as a society decide that it is the government’s job to “take care of” us? We didn’t. Our representatives and I use that term loosely, apparently only care and work toward getting re-elected. How can they get the most votes, whether that be what’s best or fair, is never in the equation. And lots of people jump on that bandwagon when it benefits them. You promise someone they won’t have to pay any taxes or promise free health car or free anything, they’ll vote that way. Problem is that nothing is free. Somebody is footing the bill. And unfortunately, the portion of workers that are paying is swiftly dwindling. We are already at 40% paying no taxes. What happens when that number goes to 50% or more? Who is there left to pay the bill. We are fast approaching a socialist state where the government provides all, and make no mistake about it; they will control every aspect of life also.

We are bitter that “illegal” immigrants (NOT legally here immigrants) come here and get free schooling, free health care and pay no taxes! I am not a racist but I am furious that our government constantly talks about the need for more taxes when they give away those taxes to people who do not contribute. And this is not only true of illegal immigrants. There are programs in place now to give tax refunds to citizens who pay no taxes. What’s up with that? Just craziness but hey who am I? Just another bitter, white, middle class, Midwestern, gun-totin’, bible thumpin’ racist.

About the author: Catherine Marzullo is currently living in sunny southern California but she is originally from not-so-sunny southern Illinois. She is retired and has a vacation home (cabin) in the Missouri Ozarks near Branson. Collecting Metlox cookie jars is one of her hobbies and she has quite a few in her collection.

Courtesy: EzineArticles

According to Congressional Quarterly, “Congressional leaders and the Bush administration have reached an agreement in principle on an overhaul of surveillance rules.”

Tim Starks reports,

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the compromise would be very similar to the last proposal by Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

Sources said the major change is that a federal district court, not the secret FISA court itself, would make an assessment about whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their alleged role in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. (“Agreement Could Pave Way for Surveillance Overhaul,” Congressional Quarterly, June 13, 2008)

In other words, the telecommunication corporations and their “customers,” the NSA, FBI and other members of the “intelligence community” will get everything they want–retroactive immunity and billions of dollars in continued taxpayer subsidies for intelligence “outsourcing.”

Without clear standards for determining whether immunity for these privateers is even justified, the courts will be forced to issue virtual get-out-of-jail-free cards to corporate executives and their shareholders, thus freeing them from any and all liability, should companies claim they had “received assurances” from the state that its spying program was “legal.”

Indeed, no warrants at all would be required when the administration and their outsourced private “partners” choose surveillance “targets” under “exigent,” or urgent circumstances. Needless to say, such “exigent” circumstances are determined by executive branch “intelligence officials,” of whom fully 70% are private mercenaries in the employ of corporatist state structures.

However, civil liberties’ campaigners charge that language currently under consideration by House and Senate “leaders” is “judicial theatre” and a “mirage.” According to the ACLU,

Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a “permission slip” from the president is not court review. This is immunity pure and simple because the companies are NOT being judged on whether they followed the law. A document stating that the president asked them to conduct warrantless wiretapping is not enough justification for violating the basic privacy rights of Americans. (“Facts on Senator Kit Bond’s (R-MO) FISA Proposal,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 13, 2008)

Under rules being considered by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Kit Bond (R-MO), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Bush administration officials, the deal would allow the federal district court “to look at a lower standard of evidence to determine if companies received such orders–a provision sought by the GOP, according to one person involved in the talks,” The Hill reports.

Who then, are the privateers that “opposition” Democrats want to “protect” from litigious “radicals” such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation? Some of the wealthiest recipients of “outsourced” intelligence handouts, that’s who! Major players in the administration’s illegal spying programs include, according to Washington Technology’s 2008 Top 100 Government IT Contractors : Verizon Communications Inc., $1,320,637,982 (No. 18); Sprint-Nextel Corporation, $839,946,000 (No. 25); AT&T Inc., $505,358,533 (No. 38); Qwest Communications International Inc., $306,617,000 (No. 51).

If this weren’t bad enough, mendacious “leaders” such as Jay Rockefeller claim that spying telecoms “deserve” immunity because they were “ordered” by the NSA to cooperate with the administration. Indeed, back in January,

Rockefeller defended the actions of the telecom companies, arguing that the companies received explicit orders from the National Security Agency to cooperate with the supersecret surveillance effort. The West Virginia Democrat said the telecom companies were being “pushed by the government, compelled by the government, required by the government to do this. And I think in the end, we’ll prevail.”

Rockefeller added: “If people want to be mad, don’t be mad at the telecommunications companies, who are restrained from saying anything at all under the State Secrets Act. And they really are. They can’t say whether they were involved, they can’t go to court, they can’t do anything. They’re just helpless. And the president was just having his way.” (Daniel W. Reilly, “Rockefeller predicts win in FISA fight over telecom immunity,” Politico, January 23, 2008)

Pity the poor “helpless” telecoms! But as investigative journalist Tim Shorrock documents,

The history of telecom cooperation with the NSA is a guide to how the NSA went about winning cooperation with the industry in 2001. During the 1940s, when telephone and telegraph companies began turning over their call and telegram records to the NSA, only one or two executives at each firm were in on the secret. Essentially, the government raised the issue of patriotism with them, and the companies went along. That kind of arrangement continued into the 1970s, and is likely how cooperation works today. “Once the CEO approved, all the contacts” with the intelligence agencies “would be worked at a lower level,” Kenneth Bass, a former Justice Department official with the Carter administration, told me. “The telecos have been participating in surveillance activities for decades–pre-FISA, post-FISA–so its nothing new to them.” Bass, who helped craft the FISA law and worked with the NSA to implement it, added that he “would not be surprised at all” if cooperating executives received from the Bush administration “the same sort of briefing, but much more detailed and specific, that the FISA court got when [the surveillance] was first approved.” (Spies for Hire, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008, p. 320)

Helpless indeed! Let’s make a couple of things clear: the Democratic party is completely beholden to their “constituents”–the multinational corporations, including the telecoms, the giant defense contractors and the well-heeled lobbyists who fill their campaign coffers. Since 9/11, with few rare exceptions that can be counted on one hand, the Democrats have been complicit with the Bush administration’s quasi-fascistic “war on terror” and everything that followed in its wake–illegal spying, torture, wars of aggression, not to mention the looting of public assets for private profit known as “outsourcing.”

The facile “debate” over retroactive immunity for spooky telecommunication corporations will reach its inevitable denouement with the Democrats allowing either the FISA court or Federal District courts to essentially rubberstamp immunity orders issued by the Bush administration.

As the ACLU’s Caroline Fredrickson told The Hill, “Whatever silk purse Hoyer tries to make of Bond’s sow’s ear and no matter how they try to sell it, the end result of all this negotiating will be exactly what the administration has wanted from the beginning – FISA rewritten to delete court oversight of surveillance and immunity for its pals at the telephone companies.”

In the final analysis, these “negotiations” are taking place behind closed doors, subject to input by influence-peddlers and corporate lobbyists, without even a cursory – let alone, public – exploration of whether these mercenary outfits violated the law.

It’s a rigged game without a referee…

About the author: Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly, Love & Rage and Antifa Forum, he is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press.

Courtesy: Global Research.ca

These efforts by libertarian-leaning Republicans, looking to strike a blow against the neo-cons, have met with some successes and some failures and certainly a very undesirable backlash. Their strategy, as demonstrated at district conventions around the country, is to show up in large numbers, use procedural motions to disrupt the convention, and if their forces are sufficient, force a vote to suspend the convention rules, remove the convention leadership, and start over again with their faction in control—all within the rules, of course.

This strategy is continuing at the state level as was demonstrated at the Nevada State Convention in Reno, where an attempt to take over the convention was near succeeding when the sitting chairman countered with a space-skipping checkmate. He had seen that the Ron Paul faction was far stronger than the John McCain delegation and cleverly adjourned the proceedings altogether in order to avoid the inevitable.

Officials indicated that they are to reconvene at a later date, but the Paul faction suspects a different and secret city.

As news of what happened in Texas Senate District 25 (where Paul supporters completely took over) and in Nevada has spread, state party bosses have drawn up their counter-strategies which include changes to how conventions are run which reduce direct input from delegates and motions from the floor, draconian measures to remove anyone they think is “disruptive” and in some cases special meetings of credentials committees to disqualify Ron Paul delegates before the convention convenes.

Meanwhile, as more state conventions are held the conflict continues. At the Maine Republican State Convention in May the screws were tightened, with no microphones on the floor of the convention and a number of Paul delegates forcibly ejected from the hall. Police were on hand to maintain security. Scheduled pro-Paul speakers found their time shortened or their appearances canceled.

Attempts to introduce delaying motions were quickly ruled out of order. The whole proceeding charged ahead with little opportunity to interrupt. This type of highly managed convention where delegates are treated more like observers than participants may now be the standard for these state conventions.

Not surprisingly, this type of behavior from party bosses has not been well received. One of the best reports on the Maine convention comes from Robert Miller, a young delegate whose account of the convention stresses the alienation which he felt as a Ron Paul supporter from the convention proceedings from which he described the bias for McCain and the prejudice against Ron Paul.

He said the anti-Ron Paul agenda became evident soon after the hammering of the initiating gavel. After the first order of business, someone from one county made a motion reminding the convention that since there were two candidates, and John McCain was well represented, someone should be allowed to speak on behalf of Ron Paul also.

Young Miller says that that idea “must have been too dangerous to vote on,” because the chairwoman immediately called the motion “out of order” and proceeded without even considering the matter, or letting it come to a vote.

Despite the obstacles being put in their path, the Ron Paul faction is having some success. They haven’t taken over a state convention yet, and may not, considering the stacked deck, but they are gaining delegates here and there. Some states use a system for selecting delegates to the national convention where a part of the delegation is chosen at district conventions and the rest are selected at the state convention. Paul supporters have done very well in states which use this approach, taking half of the 12 available delegate slots in Minnesota and a third of the delegate positions in Oklahoma.

This representation, out of proportion to Paul’s actual standing in the official (fraudulent) vote in those states, is made possible because Paul’s supporters are highly motivated and actually attend the conventions while less motivated partisans stay home, and because of the departure of two moderately successful candidates who have dropped out of the race and left a vacuum which the Paul forces can move in and fill.

If this pattern continues, even with crackdowns at future state conventions, Paul supporters are still likely to fill a lot more seats at the national GOP convention in September than would normally be justified by his showing in the (fraudulent) popular vote, “perhaps 30 times the 21 delegates they are officially entitled to based on the state primary results,” suggests political writer, Dave Nalle.

“Along the way they’re likely to antagonize party organizers and drive away potential allies,” he says, “and ultimately make themselves into pariahs. But the fireworks at the national convention should be fun.”

Some are suggesting that instead of trying to seize control of convention after convention, the Paul people could have laid relatively low and worked within the system and probably sent even more delegates to the national convention than they are likely to now, and by being more subdued they could have won over allies and made converts within the mainstream of the party.

Then the backlash would have been minimal, and while they might not have been able to stop McCain from getting the nomination they could have had a profound influence on the platform, the issues raised in the election and the future direction of the party.

In addition to the step-child treatment at every state convention, these loyal supporters have witnessed vote theft at every turn, but now the party bosses are is definitely cracking down.

Conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher told the hosts of Fox and Friends. “There is no question that this could be a major headache for McCain.

“John McCain would be well-served to kind of reach out and give him an olive branch at the convention,” Gallagher continued. “Let him speak, give him a role, because if these people are disrespected—you know, this, combined with Bob Barr’s announcement that Barr now is running as a Libertarian—is going to just take votes away from John McCain and could be a disaster for the Republican Party.”

About the author: Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press. He is also the author of several videos and books.

Courtesy: American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
photo credit: MyTwistedLens

Barry Goldwater is considered the father of the conservative moment and with good reason. He eloquently states his case for smaller government and less taxes. He takes a definitive stance on states rights and nearly 50 ago he had the foresight to see the fallacy of the welfare state.

Goldwater defines the conservative stance as asking not if there is a problem but does Federal government have the constitutional authority to be involved in the answer. He strongly believes that we should adhere to the principles of the constitution specifically the 10th Amendment, “those powers no delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Staunch conservatives may be surprised to hear that Goldwater was pro-choice, supporting Roe V Wade. “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the work means,” he told an interviewer in 1994. “They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.”

A good look at his stance on the Soviet menace, reveals a lot about how we need to look at the war on terrorism. He had a no nonsense no compromise view that we needed to defeat the soviets not just detain them.

The GOP often invokes the name of Ronald Reagan as the great leader of the GOP, but apparently it is often forgotten that Reagen was a student of Goldwater. That in fact the efforts that Goldwater started in his 1964 presidential run actually culminated in 1980 with Reagan’s win. Goldwater is the one who brought conservatives out of the boonies when the liberals were dominating politics.

I think its time the real conservatives start to rally and exhume Goldwater. We need to have more folks who are willing to stand up courageously and proclaim enough of expanding government lets get back to the constitution. Its time many so called conservatives read his book and find out what conservative really means.

Who profits from the Iraq war? More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq.

According to the latest reports, 151 members of Congress invested close to a quarter-billion in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. These companies got more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the watchdog group OMBWatch.

Congressmen gave themselves a loophole so they only have to report their assets in broad ranges. Thus, they can be off as much as 160 percent. (Try giving the IRS an estimate like that.) In 2004, the first full year after the present Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—invested between $74.9 million and $161.3 million in companies under contract with the DoD. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to the Republicans’ “only” $577,500. As the war raged on, so did the billions of profits—and personal investments by Congress members in war contractors, which increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006.

Investments in these contractors yielded Congress members between $15.8 million and $62 million in personal income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who garnered the most income from war contractors between 2004 and 2006: Sensenbrenner got at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaped at least $2.6 million.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees which oversee the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DoD contracts.

War hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (IConn.), chairman of the defense-related Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush’s war, had stock in defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007.

Of the 151 members whose investments are tied to the “defense” (war) industry, as far as we know, not one of them offered to donate their bloodstained profits to the national treasury to offset the terrible debt they have imposed. Has one of them even offered to donate one cent of their war profits to lessen the debt that increases more than $1 million a minute?

When our boys and girls are wounded the government bills them to return their reenlistment bonus. They have to return any pay they received while they were hospitalized. They have to pay for their helmets and uniforms that are destroyed in the hell of war. But they keep on fighting for these politicians’ right to keep their war profits.

• Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $3,001,006 to $5,015,001
• Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $250,001 to $500,000
• Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
• Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
• Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) $100,870 to $100,870
• Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646
• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) $50,008 to $227,000
• Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) $50,001 to $100,000
• Rep. Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn.) $45,003 to $150,000

Source: American Free Press

They are optimistic partly because Congress is suffering from a low approval rating of 14%, according to a poll they cited. Any incumbent in Congress is not altogether popular in the first place, they reason.

Still, Bailey lamented that the American people too often are brainwashed by a corporate media bent on playing favorites and goading the people into voting for the “projected winner.” Bailey recalled that he saw a statewide New Hampshire exit poll showing Paul would have won, provided you count the many people who paradoxically said they voted for McCain but would have preferred Paul, a classic case of the media-generated “projected winner” syndrome.

“We’ve got to get the American people to stand on principle and stop looking at elections like horse races,” Bailey said.

Bailey and Hargadon agreed that since some state’s primaries are mere preference polls, then Paul supporters at county and state GOP conventions can make some serious inroads (as many have in Washington state and Missouri) to challenge the rules so delegates are not necessarily bound to Sen. John McCain. They also said a number of people in other states are running for office in Paul’s spirit—a spirit that was clearly evident among the several hundred at the rally during its peak.

That spirit erupted loudly when the standard bearer, Ron Paul himself, spoke at the rally around 11:30 a.m., earlier than expected. He and his wife, Carol, were swarmed by autograph-seekers as the congressman made his way to the stage, where the patriotic rock band Pokerface later performed.

Paul briefly spoke of the need to eliminate federal income taxes and maximize freedom for the American people, among other issues.

“This is a day of remembrance,” Paul said, referring to the infamous April 15 tax day. He said the government needs to realize that “the money we earn is our own.” However, about 100 years ago, he said the U.S. government decided to start policing the world and telling others how to live. Soon, heavy taxation came along to underwrite this hegemonic approach.

“That concept is wrong . . . and un-American,” he said. He believes America needs “a free market, sound money and to mind our own business. . . .”

He added that there are a lot of Americans are waking up and need to be mindful that the results of the Republican National Convention in September, whatever they may be, are not the be-all and end-all of the national awakening, meaning that everyone must stay the course and do their part over the long haul.

“Great countries and empires come to an end for financial reasons,” he said, as the audience, many of whom were younger adults, repeatedly cheered. “What we don’t need is more management from the government; what we need is government to get out of the way. The system we have today divides us because everybody is clawing over a shrinking pie.”

Wanda Case came from North Carolina, where she has been a Ron Paul Meetup Group member in Asheville since early in Paul’s presidential campaign, which has been stymied by near nonexistent mainstream media coverage. Still, Paul has remained in the race because his supporters, such as Case, want him to do so.

“I first saw him in the Aaron Russo film,” she said, referring to the late filmmaker’s documentary, America: From Freedom to Fascism. The next thing Ms. Case knew, she was supporting Paul vigorously. In fact, she sang the national anthem for the Freedom Rally.

“I sang for the Ron Paul rally in Greenville (N.C.) in July 2007,” she recalled. “That’s where I met the Granny Warriors, and they contacted me and asked me to come and sing the anthem at this rally.”

College student Erica Sapp of West Virginia said she has learned a whole lot in a year’s time, going from a political neophyte to a well-informed person who now bears the burden of knowing lots of scary things about our troubled nation.

“I wasn’t interested in politics until one of my friends turned me on to him (Ron Paul),” she said, adding that, since then, the questions and facts about the 9-11 attacks, about the risks of government-mandated fluoride in the public water supply and other matters are, taken as a whole, unsettling.

Brent Sams, 25, of North Carolina, admitted that Dr. Paul cured him of his support for Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who dropped out of the GOP race. “I started realizing the views I have fall in line with Paul more than any politician I had ever looked at. I mean no NAFTA, get out of NATO and the U.N., and no North American Union.”

Huckabee, he said, revealed himself as a “big-government conservative.”

AFP talked to people from numerous states, and all shared the ubiquitous concern that Ron Paul has been blacklisted from coverage by the national media. Almost as many were cognizant of the computer vote fraud going on behind the scenes but frustrated as to what to do about it.

“We still have the fervor but have lost the momentum,” said Marci Ann of Michigan, speaking of her home state. “It seems that everyone gave up after the primary was over. And of course, the lack of media coverage hasn’t helped either, but we need to keep after those delegates’ seats.”

There are 66 delegates in Pennsylvania that are “unbound,” Andrew from Bucks County said. This means they are free to vote for Ron Paul (or anyone else) and not bound to cast a vote for John McCain at the convention.

“There are several other states that have those same rules,” shouted Kathryn over the din, but she wasn’t sure which ones they were. “But people from all states should check to see because they may be surprised to learn that their own delegates are not bound to McCain, either.”

Michael Moresso pedaled his bicycle 3,500 miles across country from Santa Monica, Calif. in time to campaign for Ron Paul in New Hampshire in January and has been roaming the East Coast attending the various primaries since then.

“Oh, I can tell you that Ron Paul is definitely the people’s choice,” said Moresso. “His signs dominated every state I went through. Matter of fact, I don’t remember seeing a single McCain sign anywhere. There may be a few up by now but not then.”

True to form, no news people from The Washington Post or The (allegedly conservative)Washington Times were visible at the scene and none from the local TV stations in the surrounding areas. Both newspapers
and broadcasters ignored the rally. All would have heavily covered a pro-abortion rally.

Recently, a subscriber wrote that, according to the Book of Revelation: “The anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s . . . who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a massive Christ-like appeal. The prophecy says that people will flock to him, and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it Obama?”

About the authors: Mark Anderson may be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com. Pat Shannan may be reached at oceaniainvestigations@hotmail.com.

Source: American Free Press

It takes a lot of perseverance, it takes a lot of patience, it takes a lot of extremely well reasoned rhetoric to ever change the path of mass thinking no matter how wrong the mass is. it seems the more wrong the mob mentality the harder it is to change. One has to put up with insults, ridicule, and fight the mass media, which prospers by ridiculing the messengers.

But in the end right thinking does win, if one can stay the course long enough. An intelligent, compassionate message does finally win over the mob, one person at a time. And the detractors one by one are either won over or become extinct, or just fade away into beautiful oblivion.

Such is the tide Barack Obama is facing now. Speaking with sharp intelligence and unguarded honesty he is smashing America in the face, forcing us to look in the mirror. We either have an epiphany or we gather in coffee clatches to honor are baseness with the time tested methods supported by the good old boy network and white trash cynicism. Obama either forces us to stop and think, or ramp up our Rush Limbaugh arguments that find contemptuous humor in our white supremacy and disdain for those that might challenge our locked gate surbabinism. Most of America prefers the coziness of working for the man, shutting out the arts, and snuggling up to Netflicks and network sitcoms. We like our 4 x4′s, local Baptist church, and bowling night. We like our neighbors like us, and tolerate those that are different at work. (In fact you know, he’s isn’t that bad of guy. I would never invite him over for a beer or anything, but he’s an alright guy.)

Humans are not a quick bunch to change. War was required to end slavery. Yet we have an amazingly short memory. How many years did it take America to forget the tragedy of Vietnam? Useless wars are once again accepted. How long before the dawning of the realization that Iraq and George Bush were mistakes? Years.

Obama is being lambasted by the suddenly gun loving Hilary Clinton for his naked honesty about bitter small town whites who take comfort in church and guns. Hell that is one of the most powerful demographics America has. Gun lovers and church going fundamentalists put the fear of organized lobbyists in every American politician, if education had that much support, and I mean real education, not teacher’s unions, we would actually have kids learning something of value in our schools, in fact we might even have a kinder, gentler nation, promised so many years ago, by who? I can’t remember. But whoever it was I am sure raised wonderful thoughtful, compassionate children who are making a profound difference on the evolution of mankind.

Wait a minute that is what Barack Obama is trying to do. And we all know we can’t have that, not in an American President. Just ask the last few that have tried, what’s that you say? We can’t? Because the people with the guns shot them.

About the author: Mac McMann writes from the male point of view at http://www.manslant.com

Source: EzineArticles
photo credit: Chuckumentary

As evidenced by the effects of the Fairness Doctrine from its inception to its repeal, its true objective is to muzzle free speech. This is the true goal of the Fairness Doctrine. Since its repeal, the explosion of the variety of talk radio has been tremondous.

There is also another, subtler assumption within in this question, which is inherent in the question. The unspoken assummption is that government has the “ability” to create a level playing field and more importantly, government has the “responsibility” to do so.

This assumption made by both Republicans and Democrats, can be evidenced by the rise of the “size” of the Federal Government since the 1930′s.

In the 1930s, 12% of the national income was consumed by government. Since then, 44% of our national income is consumed by government spending, and if we include the 14%, the cost of of government mandated regulations, this raises the amount consumed by the federal government to 56% of our national income. Milton Friedman stressed the need importance studying the effects and costs of government mandated regulations, because these costs are not covered nor do they budget for them. In addition, there are “no” budgetery controls for these costs. These figures were taken from a website called, “The Grandfather Economic Report”, created by Michael Hodges, who descrbes himself as a concerned parent and grandfather. The website is: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

The reason for this rise in the size of American Government is socialism. This is the root belief behind the expansion of governmental regulation in the United States.

It was a governmental agency, (The FCC), that created the, “The Fairness Doctrine”. This regulation was not voted in by Congress nor was it debated by the general populace. It is another example of how the attitude of “government knows best”, has permeated our society since the 1930′s.

I am always get nervous when I see the government attempting to over-step its bounds using vehicles such as the Fairness Doctrine. There are many reasons for this nervousness as evidenced by the above statistics, but also because many people in the United States have bought the assumption that we “need” the government to take away all obstacles, to smooth over all problems, to regulate all issues, to take away all our worries, to mediate all disputes, and to protect us from all forms of harm. The Fairness Doctrine is a small example of that attitude.

The American public ultimately decides who they will listen too. If Liberal’s and others, can’t seem to sell their ideas, than maybe they should revisit their premises, or marketing strategies, or even, God forbid, to re-examine their liberal beliefs and values to determine if they are truly the voice of the American public, as they maintain.

In conclusion, the Fairness Doctrine inhibits free speech. It is also a reflection of the belief that big government has the ability and duty to “regulate” speech in America, especially if it helps Liberal’s! It is socialistic in nature and a reflection of the rise of socialism in America since the 1930′s. It is also a attack on the free market concept in America where the market, i.e., the public, determines what they will or won’t buy.

Please note that I am not a Conservative, Republican, Libertarian, or a card carrying Democrat! I am a registered Independent. I am 1/2 Native American, but I am more American than Native. I say this because I believe in the Constitution, the Founding Father’s concept of small government, individual rights and the only economic structure that can obtain and maintain these ideals; capitalism.

About the author: Visit Ray Blacketer’s personal and business web site,  http://rblacketer.ipower.com/

Source: EzineArticles

But if Americans want change, what exactly does that mean?

For starters, American’s are tired of self-serving political rhetoric, lousy institutional management, constant acerbic infighting, and endemic legislative failure. The economy is in big trouble. There is a long list of unresolved issues. Most Americans believe Washington is incapable of doing its job. We no longer trust the administration. Many believe Congress is useless.

Yes. We want change. Big time. We want a government that actually works. Like the one described in my book “Detensive Nation.”

Fat chance. Political instability is inevitable.

Our political institutions and the people who run them are far more interested in self preservation than reform. Sure. Hillary talks about change. Barack uses the word freely. And even John seems to understand something is wrong. But none of them has the intellectual depth to comprehend the scope of the changes America so desperately needs. And then there is the issue of leadership. Although Barack has the requisite skills, he doesn’t have the wisdom. John has the wisdom, but not the charisma. Hillary has neither the personality nor the wisdom. Given our choice of candidates and the institutional obstacles they face, constructive institutional transformation is highly unlikely.

So here we are. In this election, most Americans will go to the polls with a vague fear that something is wrong. If our political institutions fail to deliver meaningful leadership on the issues of change, then voters will go to the polls in 2012 with a sense of outright desperation. And if our politicians, – be they democrat or republican, liberal or conservative – fail to deliver meaningful reform by 2016, then I predict we the people will be looking for alternative political institutions.

What do you think?

Ronald R. Cooke, author, Detensive Nation

Originally published on SearchWarp.com for The Cultural Economist Tuesday, March 04, 2008