Friday, October 1

More on The Commission on Presidential Debates

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), although claiming to be a nonpartisan organization, is actually a private bi-partisan group that was created by the then chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national parties, for the Republican and Democratic parties. By design, it was established to submit and conceal the wishes and demands of the Democratic/Republican nominees.

The CPD sole reason for existance is to negotiate, in secret, the format, schedule and rules the Republicrat nominees. They have a vested interest in excluding any disenting voices, I.E. any canidate that is not a Republicrat, from participating in the debates. Look at the money wrench H. Ross Perot threw in the works when he was "allowed" to participate, it was actually a debate.

The fact that they even call what they do a debate boogles the mind. It is not a debate, but a long, drawn out, policy statement, with no interaction between the two Republicrats. Worse yet they have rules that say an actual debate cannot break out, since they are not allowed to speak directly to one another.

We the People need to demand that we have a truly open:



1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two or more opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Not the Orwellian EQUINE FECES, the CPD is feeding us.

OK, enough on this for now - stay tuned there are two more Presidential and a V.P infomercial scheduled!


Someone should tell the Republicrats that Reality Shows are all the rage on TV. Then maybe we would get to see a debate, not the 90 minute infomercial that was broadcast last night.

I listened to it on the radio, rather than watching it, since I find that by removing the visual distraction of TV I am able to focus on what is being said more sharply.

What insight did this sharp focus provide me with? None at all. What I heard were two voices, saying basically the some thing, with one saying he'd do the same thing only better, and the other one saying he did the right thing.

Unless there is a miracle on Nov 2nd, We're screwed!

On the bright side, Bill Moyer on his Now show exposes the farce of the debates and the Commission on Presidential Debates in Rigging the Debates.

Good Job Bill!

Thursday, September 30

A Couple of Very Bad Things and One Small Glimmer of Hope

Well a lot is going on behind the scenes right now. This is typical, while everyone is watching the right hand, (The So-Called Election), the left hand is preparing a couple of big ol'
SUCKER PUNCHES for We The People.

Concentration Camps - I know a lot of people will say "No way our government would never do that", but the ground work has been in place for a long time, and they have done it before before. How many have heard of the "Internment Camps" that Japanese-Americans got a free government sponsered "vacation" to at the beginning of WW II?

A number of years ago, 8+, I did a little "up close and personal" investigation on this one, my job at the time allowed me some special perks/access not available to everyone, and guess what I found?

I saw with my own eyes that the government was refurbishing at least three old closed military bases, in different parts of the country, for no apparent purpose. They did however appear to be detention centers due to some of the features I saw. Things like razor wire pointing inward, as if to keep people in rather than out, fences around certain building, things like that, that had not been features before the "remodel".

This was in a time of budget cuts to base closures due to fiscal reasons. They put a lot of time and work into these bases, then mothballed them. I know that to this day at least two of them are being maintained in a near ready state, in other words they could be re-opened in less than two weeks. All it would take is supply trucks to roll in, and they would be up and in operation.

Now I never asked why or what the plan was for these facilities, I could be wrong, I have not idea, but if it looks like a skunk, acts like a skunk and smells like a skunk there is a 99+% chance that it is a skunk.

Now for this, Direct from the Selective Service - Suprise! The Draft is coming back.

I found this section most interesting:


The SSS Strategic Goals identified in the Agency’s Strategic Plan for FY 2001- 2006 are:





MANPOWER DELIVERY SYSTEMS - Do you think they have an order for warm bodies, unlike the cold ones they are sending back right now? Why would that be a goal for them, since they have no ability to draft anyone?

Hmmmm, The National Guard came up 5000 volunteers short of their quota this year, and although I have not found figures for the other services yet, but I am willing to bet Dollars to Dimes that they will miss their marks also. Could this MANPOWER DELIVERY SYSTEMS help this? You bet it will!

Check out the text of HR 163, The Universal National Service Act of 2003, this is what they need to meet the MANPOWER DELIVERY SYSTEM part of the goal. This bill will reinstate the Draft and creates the rules under which it will operate.

And guess what? It's not just for the guys anymore, you Ladies are going to get to be in on it too. Viva La Feminist Movement! With equality comes responsibility, so I expect to here no pissin' and moanin' from you ladies! When you turn 18 you will get to fill out that card and send it in, under penalty of law, and just wait for your number to be called, at anytime up until your 26th birthday.

And the SSS gotten smarter too! No more of those college deferments that Cheney and the neo-cons used to get out of Vietnam, nope they killed that loophole. Now if you want to get out you have to be a Senators son, (and/or daughter).

Well here it is, the full text from Thomas.LOC.Gov

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH


1st Session

H. R. 163

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young
persons in the United States, including women, perform a period
of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance
of the national defense and homeland security, and for other


January 7, 2003

Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr.
LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed


To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons
in the United States, including women, perform a period of military
service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national
defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,


(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National
Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective
Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority
of Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.


(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every
citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the
United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a
period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted
under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall
be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed
services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes
the national defense, including national or community service and
homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the
induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national
service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of
the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a)
whose service is to be performed as a member of an active
or reverse component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be
inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who
are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall
perform their national service obligation under this Act in a
civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).


(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the period of national service performed by a person under this
Act shall be two years.

(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President,
the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services
under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing
hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness
incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for
any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person
under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period
under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an
active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period
of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military
training and education actually served by the person shall be
counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman
at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval
Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard
Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate
program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a
Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an
obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is
offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.


(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out this Act.

shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's
national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of
penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction
under this Act, including the manner in which those selected
will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction
of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and
classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion
for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including
questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their
national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry
out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President,
the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the
Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures
for registration, selection, and induction.


(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this
Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with
this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the
time and place specified by the President.

(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has
attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.

(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may
volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is
otherwise called for induction.

(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under
this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and
shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President
may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service
and fitness for civilian service.


(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course
of study, on a full-time basis, in secondary school or similar institution of
learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until
the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under
this Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the
induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary
to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and
education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this
Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement


(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under
this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for
training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable
under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking
original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under
this Act who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component
of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy,
the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy,
the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy,
a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program,
so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years
training therein.


(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this
Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious
training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act
(50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that
military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the
President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service
that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained
may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program
for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.


(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national
service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services
or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further
service under this Act.

(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or
prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a
member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.


(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C.
453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.


(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is
amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces
pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is
amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.


In this Act:

(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse
component of the uniformed services.

(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the
Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.

(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard,
commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

Well if you've made it throught all that, then here is your reward, a tiny piece of Good News but I am sure AssCrop will appeal this, since he isn't spending his money on this!

Sweet Dreams dear readers!

Wednesday, September 29

What will Bush do if Re-elected?

This is great, a must read!

Here is the answer

We don't need no stinking 1st Amendment - !!Now with Definitions!!

Caveat Emptor


From Latin caveat emptor, let the buyer beware : caveat, third person singular present subjunctive of cavre, to beware + emptor, buyer.]

The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.

The Media is commerce, big money commerce. People should understand that when they listen to the media, and believe the media blindly, they are buying the story.

But since people seem to believe anything the RATHERJENNINGSKOPEL talking heads spue from their lips, going directly into the empty heads of the waiting Sheople, Congress now sees a great wrong they need to has to get involved to fix.

Rep. Joe Barton ( (R-Texas), chair of the House Commerce Committee, told a TV engineering trade group broadcast network news divisions "need to have safeguards to prevent reporters from infusing their opinions into news reports."

This ASSHAT Burton needs to be publicly BITCH SLAPPED by anyone that cares to on the D.C. MALL at high noon!

He has already wasted public money just with the time it took him to say it. This is assine and evil to the core. I bet ASSHAT Burton gets his way and rules are imposed on TV media under the guise of FAIRNESS, but I bet none of the rules will include FAIRNESS to anyone except the REPUBLICRATS

Here is the article

FWD: Marriage Amendment - The Liberty Committee

September 28, 2004

"Federalism means that, unless the Constitution says otherwise, states are sovereign. This pertains to marriage. Period." (Bob Barr, March 30, 2004)

Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Georgia) urges conservatives to leave marriage to the states. In a commentary published by The Washington Post on August 21, 2003, Mr. Barr states, "Marriage is a quintessential state issue. The Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] goes as far as is necessary in codifying the federal legal status and parameters of marriage. A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive." He continues, "Make no mistake, I do not support same-sex marriages. But I also am a firm believer that the Constitution is no place for forcing social policies on states, especially in this case, where states have the latitude to do as their citizens see fit."

Mr. Barr agrees with Vice President Dick Cheney that marriage should not be defined by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Barr states, "As an institution, and as a word, marriage has very specific meanings, which must be left up to states and churches to decide. The federal government can set down a baseline -- already in place with the Defense of Marriage Act -- but states' rights demand that the specific boundaries of marriage, in terms of who can participate in it, be left up to the states.

"This also means that no state can impose its view of marriage on any other state. That is the federal law already on the books [DOMA]. I drafted it, and it has never been challenged in court."

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) endorses the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law in 1996, and warns against defining marriage by amending the U.S. Constitution. In his March 1, 2004 "Texas Straight Talk" Dr. Paul wrote, "...the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. ... So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism."

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) also warns against defining marriage by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On July 13, 2003, Senator McCain stated on the Senate floor: "The legal definition of marriage has always been left to the states to decide, in accordance with the prevailing standards of their neighborhoods and communities. ... The Defense of Marriage Act represents the quintessentially federalist and Republican approach to this issue."

Senator McCain ended his floor statement, "I refer to Federalist Paper 45 to explain my vote, in which James Madison wrote 'the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and in the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.' I stand with Mr. Madison on this question, and against the Federal marriage amendment that denies the States their traditional right and their clear opportunity to resolve this controversy themselves."

John Hanes, chairman of the Wyoming Senate Judiciary Committee, on March 30, 2004 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary stated, "Part of the majesty of the U.S. Constitution is that is allows the states to make their own decisions on issues that are closest to the people. For this reason, I urge you to refrain from amending the Constitution to have the federal government disrupt the ability of the states to decide such an important issue without interference from Washington."

In today's Wall Street Journal, Congressman Christopher Cox (R-California) opposes the proposed federal marriage amendment. He writes, "In 1996, Congress took a better approach when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act. This Republican legislation, signed by President Clinton, unambiguously defines marriage for all federal purposes as 'only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.' It covers every area of federal law, including immigration, employee and health benefits, taxes, and Social Security, and prevents a state such as Massachusetts from exporting marriage law. For all other purposes, it wisely leaves family law, including the definition of marriage, to the states -- and for good reason."

Dale Carpenter of the Cato Institute recently wrote, "Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation’s traditions and history." And as syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg, who is against same-sex marriage, wrote in November of 2003: "You can't favor federalism for only good ideas or ideas you like."

Mr. Bob Barr and Dr. Ron Paul encourage people who believe in our constitutional republic and who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to apply their time and energy in their home states.

As Mr. Barr recently stated, "As conservatives, we should be committed to the idea that people should, apart from collective needs such as national defense, be free to govern themselves as they see fit. State and local governments provide the easiest and most representative avenue to this ideal. Additionally, by diffusing power across the federal and state governments, we provide impersonal checks and balances that mitigate against the abuse of power.

"To be clear, I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman. And, I would do all in my power to ensure that such a formulation is the only one operative in my home state of Georgia. However, do I think that I can tell Alaska how to govern itself on this issue? Or California? No, I cannot. Those states are free to make their own decisions, even if they are decisions I would characterize as bad."

We oppose passage of the proposed federal marriage amendment that the U.S. House will consider this Thursday afternoon.

To send a message to your U.S.representative, go to

They are at it again!

Our Government is at it again!

They have proposed legislation based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, that will just about finish off our rights!

For example: Mere association or membership in a group they designate as a terrorist group would be a crime.

OK you say, "I'm not a member of one of those groups!"

Let's see how it will be used.

The unionized employees of a prime defence supplier, walk off the job due to safety issue. They are ordered back to work by the government and they refuse to return until their work site safety concerns are addressed. They could be branded a Terrorist group.

Or how about this one?

The AARP, (American Assoc of Retired People), protests at the Capitol, they refuse to disperse when told to do so. The President labels the AARP a terrorist organization.

Don't think it can or will happen, if they have the power to do it, you can bet that they will use that power, against political enemies or against anyone that gets in their way.

History has shown that time and again.

Click Here to Mail your Representative!

Tuesday, September 28

There are more than two Political Parties in the USA

Finally! It is about time that the positions of the others that are on the ballot are heard, instead of the same old Republicrats bull.

PBS is airing a one-hour special on Wednesday, September 29th at 10:pm (check your local listings) Crashing the Parties 2004.

This show will include the following "third-party" presidential candidates:

Michael Badnarik - Libertarian Party
David Cobb - Green Party
Ralph Nader - Independant
Michael Peroutka -Constitution Party

I have my own preferences/beliefs on who is the best candidate, but the more voices that are heard the better.

Vote for what you believe in, not the lesser of two evils.

Thank You PBS!

Jimmy Carter is Right? Well everyone has to be sometime

I have to agree Jimmy Carter is Right!

Finally a different idea about the War for Terrorism from a Republicrat, even if he is one that no one listens to any more.

Those Wacky Republicrats

Restarting the Military Draft

Monetary Shell Games

Lies, More Lies, Lies the insult the intelligence of a rock.

And now this: Your papers please

Our selected officials are at work again to destroy what little is left of our civil rights under the cloak of National Security.

Monday, September 27

Kerry supports his ownership of Real Assault Weapon, but not yours of Semi-Auto Look-Alikes

Well can you believe it? John-Boy Kerry owns an Assault Weapon.

And if it is a souvenir of his time overseas, I'll bet it is a Real Assault Weapon, not a semi-automatic look-alike that he thinks should be banned.