Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Interview With Bill Wood, Former Navy SEAL, Provides Interesting Insight Into The Workings Of The Powers That Be (Video)


This video is quite long - 2 ½ hours. Please take the time to watch in its entirety. Although some of the topics discussed by Bill Wood may seem far-fetched, keep in mind that when it comes to our government and the uber-egotistical leaders we have put into office, almost anything is within the realm of possibility.

An interview with an ex-Navy Seal  who during the years 1992-2000 was sent on top secret bombing missions in the Middle East, predominantly in Iraq. Years after the first Gulf War when we were supposedly not at war with Iraq yet he and Seal Team 9 were targeting Tomahawk Missiles on a monthly basis taking out targets that were increasingly "soft"... involving deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. Find out how this highly trained young man and his team were coerced by the military into purposely destroying villages and creating future terrorists as part of a plan that would ultimately serve their dark purpose, the "war on terror" and 9-11.

And if that weren't enough, hear how he was trained in Area 51 as a specially gifted group of highly classified psi spies to see beyond the famous Looking Glass technology into the future involving 2012 and beyond. 


Monday, January 30, 2012

Sarah Palin: Ron Paul Is The “Only One” Serious About Reining In Spending

Maybe she CAN see Russia from her back porch!!


While still hesitant about his foreign policy, Sarah Palin recently professed in an interview that Ron Paul is the “only one” passionate and serious about reining in the size of government, spending, and debt. Townhall.com web-editor Daniel Doherty reports,

Appearing on Fox News this morning, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin surprised her acolytes by singing the praises of the most libertarian-leaning GOP presidential candidate … Ron Paul.

I still sense his desire to be more of an isolated-type country and not be as aware and active on the international scene when it comes to protecting our allies like Israel and doing all that we can.

That is my hesitancy there still with Ron Paul’s candidacy. However, on the domestic front, he is the only one who has been so adamantly passionate about doing something about the suffocating debt, about doing something about reining in government growth and actually slashing budgets – $1 trillion a year, he’s been specific about until we get our hands around this - I respect that.

I appreciate it. His austerity measures that he wants to see Congress adopt in order to rein in government and let the private sector actually grow and thrive and hire more people.
Click here to see full article

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun - Grand Funk Railroad (Video)

These lyrics ring as true today as they did when GFR recorded them.
Go ahead..sing along. Maybe you'll get some of that good ol' 2nd Amendment rhythm in your soul...
God Bless America and God Bless Grand Funk!

Ohhh, people why don't you come
in here and let me talk to you
a while.
That's right, step right up and
listen to a concerned citizen speak
his piece.

I'll tell you a little something
that my daddy told to me.
My basic fundamentals if you want to be free.
'Cause son, there's something wrong internally.
So, if you want your freedom son.
Don't want your country to be overrun.
You got to keep America number one.

(CHORUS)
My daddy told me "Son, don't
let 'em take your gun.
That's what they tryin' to do.
Son, don't let 'em take your gun.
They're takin' your Bill of Rights away from you."
My daddy said "Son, don't
let 'em take your gun.
That's what they tryin' to do.
Son, don't let 'em take your gun.
Don't let 'em take your gun away from you."

Ohhh, this year is our anniversary.
Two hundred years, people we've been free.
Won't be nobody takin' over our land.
If everybody's brother's got a gun in his hand.
I'm tellin' you we learned to fight for justice.
We're willing to die for freedom.
Hand in hand.
You got to understand.
We are American men.

Said they want your gun.
Said they want your gun.
Send 'em on the run.
Send 'em on the run.
Hip-hurray for fun.
Hip-hurray for fun.
If they do we're done.
If they do we're done
.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Bruins Goalie Tim Thomas Declines White House Visit – Does Not Agree With Barry O’s Politics

Boston Bruins goalie, Tim Thomas, is our new sports hero! He had the cajones to let Obama know his fancy (and hopefully short-lived) residence is not reason enough to compromise his beliefs. If only the rest of the team would get on board...


Boston Bruins' star goaltender Tim Thomas skipped Monday's White House visit by the Stanley Cup champions due to political differences with President Barack Obama.

Thomas, a Flint, Mich., native and one of only two American players on the Bruins' Stanley Cup roster last season, was the only Boston player to decline the invitation.

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People," Thomas said in a statement.

"This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government," he wrote.

"Because I believe this, today (Monday) I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."

Thomas, who won the Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player in last year's playoffs, is known to be a political conservative and has publicly stated he is a fan of right-wing commentator Glenn Beck, according to Boston sports radio website WEEI.com.

"Everybody has their own opinions and political beliefs and he chose not to join us," team president Cam Neely said, according to ESPNBoston.com. "We certainly would have liked to have him come and join us, but that's his choice."

In brief remarks, President Obama noted Thomas' stellar play on the title run, even though the netminder appears unlikely to return the compliment.

"This Stanley Cup was won by defense as much as by offense," Obama said. "Tim Thomas posted two shutouts in the Stanley Cup Finals and set an all-time record for saves in the postseason and he also earned the honor of being only the second American ever to be recognized as the Stanley Cup playoffs MVP."

Thomas also won the Vezina Trophy last season as the league's top goalie, helping the Bruins raise the cup for the first time in 39 years.


Article by FoxNews

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Puerto Ricans Likely To Oust Dozens Of Lawmakers. A Model For The US? YES!!

Any of this chicanery sound familiar, Patriots? Puerto Rican citizens are showing that the people are the judges of their leaders. This can and should be a reality here in the US. We CAN take back our country.
Wake Up America!

Jan. 11, 2012, members of the house attend a session at the capitol in San Juan, Puerto Rico. A voter referendum will ask the people of the U.S. island territory if they want to amend their Constitution and fire dozens of members of their Senate and House of Representatives as a cost-savings measure, reducing the size of the legislature by almost 30 percent. The answer is almost certain to be a resounding yes.


Lawmakers in Puerto Rico have been accused of corruption, cocaine use and domestic violence, feeding scorn among a public already seething over a dismal economy and rampant crime.

Now, it may be payback time.

Voters on the U.S. island territory are being asked if they want to amend their Constitution and fire dozens of members of their Senate and House of Representatives, cutting costs and reducing the size of the legislature by almost 30 percent.

The answer is almost certain to be a resounding yes in the technically binding referendum.

"They should all be kicked out," said Miguel Garcia, a 58-year-old engineer, after the governor recently signed the bill authorizing the Aug. 19 referendum. "They don't do anything ... They think the people are blind."

It's a popular sentiment on the island, where local politics, especially the endless debate over Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S., is an obsession.

In good times and bad, disdain for politicians is widespread. But Puerto Ricans have perhaps more reasons to complain given the number of scandals involving lawmakers and salaries that make them more highly paid than most of their U.S. counterparts. Their incomes put them in the upper echelon in an island where nearly half the people are poor and unemployment hovers around 16 percent in a recession-battered economy.

Add to the mix last year's record number of homicides, high costs for water and power and crumbling schools, and you get an electorate in a sour mood. Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans have left in recent years in the largest exodus in decades.

"The government does not respect the people's wishes," said Pedro Villanueva, a 65-year-old retiree who voted in favor of a previous failed effort to eliminate one house of the legislature and make it unicameral. "The government does whatever it wants."

The legislation authorizing the referendum was passed by both houses, which are dominated by Fortuno's pro-statehood party. The idea of the referendum appealed to voters in an election year.

The measure would reduce the Senate from 27 seats to 17 and shrink the House from 51 seats to 39 starting in 2017. Fortuno says it would make the legislature more efficient.

In a November poll by Gaither International, one of the Caribbean's leading market research companies, 81 percent of respondents said they would go to the polls and vote in favor of the cuts. The survey of 1,150 people had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The majority of lawmakers from the opposition Popular Democratic Party oppose the proposed changes.

Sen. Cirilo Tirado said the cuts will make lawmakers less responsive to the people.

"It does not resolve anything," he said, arguing that the money saved would just be spent elsewhere.

"People have to understand that it's not just about eliminating legislators because 'I'm mad with the legislative assembly,'" he said. "They are going to lose representation before the executive system ... It is a danger to democracy."

Tirado said it would be easier for big business interests to sway a smaller legislature. But he agrees with those who say the salary and stipends that legislators receive are excessive.
Puerto Rican legislators receive $74,000 in base salary, behind only what legislators in California and New York make. The speaker of the Puerto Rico Senate makes nearly $111,000. Legislators also receive between $152 to $160 as a daily food stipend.

That pay irks Jaime Mendez, a 48-year-old truck driver who moved with his wife back to Puerto Rico from New York four years ago.

"They don't vote and they don't do anything," he said.

The Senate's budget is $38.2 million, while the House of Representatives spends $47 million. The government has not said how much would be saved if the referendum passes.

A series of scandals also has damaged lawmakers' reputation.
In January 2009, former Sen. Jorge de Castro Font pleaded guilty to corruption for trading political favors for cash and services.

In early 2011, former Rep. Luis Farinacci stepped down after he was accused of domestic violence against his wife. A jury found him not guilty in June, and despite pledges to run again, Farinacci disappeared from the political scene.

Last February, House Majority Whip Rolando Crespo resigned after he said he tested positive for cocaine in a surprise and mandatory drug test.

Just this month, Rep. Jose Luis Rivera Guerra was referred to the ethics committee after acknowledging to reporters that he stole water and power from the government for his private residences.

"Voters are very mad with the government. And with good reason," said Noel Colon Martinez, an attorney and political analyst who once ran for governor as member of the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

But he argued that the referendum "does not address the real demands that the people are making of the legislative assembly." He favors a vote on having a part-time legislature with lower salaries and benefits.

The vote for a unicameral legislature in 2004 passed with 84 percent, but legislators challenged the vote in court and ultimately won their battle in the island's Supreme Court. Some voters fear this vote too will be bypassed, while others says nothing will improve even with a smaller legislature.

"I don't believe in politicians very much," said Laura Guzman, a 58-year-old administrative assistant. "Obviously not many of them are qualified. Bigger, smaller, if the people don't change, things will stay the same."

Friday, January 20, 2012

What If....? The Good Judge Napolitano Asks The Questions (Video)

What If... All These Are True? Then What?
Wake Up America!

Massachusetts Charging Hundreds to Fight Tickets, Win or Lose

This is so wickedly wrong at the core that someone (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, ?) needs to expose and smash these cash generating schemes being perpetrated by our “representatives” at every level of government. 
We The People are NOT the ATMs of government! We The People should NOT be held accountable for the iniquities of those we put in office to represent us. 
Wake Up America!


Two hundred seventy-five bucks to fight a $15 ticket? Welcome to Massachusetts—and a properly lousy day for Vincent Gillespie (pictured). Back in July 2005, Gillespie received a parking ticket while he was walking to a parking-enforcement office to fight a ticket for the same infraction. After getting the duplicate citation thrown out, he wanted to argue the original ticket in a court, with the cop who wrote it present. The state told him to write a check for $275 in court fees. Gillespie wrote a check to a lawyer instead, and they filed suit against the state of  Massachusetts.

The practice of charging citizens to fight traffic and parking tickets has become more widespread in the U.S. during the financial hardships of the past several years. But Massachusetts differs from most other states in that it won’t refund the fees even if the ticket is dismissed. Here’s how it works: In most Massachusetts municipalities, a challenge is first heard by a hearing officer, whose instruction is to presume that the information written on the ticket is accurate. If citizens want a real judge or the officer who wrote the ticket to be required to show up, or actual rules of evidence to apply, they have to go to district court—the same venue that’s used for serious, high-cost civil legal matters. And depending on the municipality, going to district court can cost as much as $275 just to get in the door to argue your case.

Gillespie’s was one of two cases the commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court heard this year about the legality of charging fees to fight tickets. He and Ralph Sullivan, who filed the other, separate lawsuit, argued that the fees violate laws that prohibit the government from charging people to defend themselves in court. The state of  Massachusetts countered by saying that the fees are a justifiable necessity: Thousands of people appeal parking and traffic tickets, and for the state to deal with rising administrative costs, it has to charge. The state also says that the costs will deter frivolous challenges to tickets, which bog down the courts.  And because parking and traffic tickets aren’t considered criminal issues, Massachusetts' policy evades the traditional prohibition on charging people to defend themselves in court. In both instances, the court rejected the lawsuits, siding with the state in saying that the policies are within the bounds of the law.

For many, what is most worrying about Massachusetts’s current system is that the high fees to challenge a ticket don’t merely seem unjust in a principled sense, it’s that the guarantee of losing money no matter the outcome deters innocent folk from legitimately fighting tickets that were incorrectly issued. Massachusetts drivers don’t have a lot of recourse to these two decisions. One option would be to lobby  for the state legislature to change the laws. The other is to take the state to federal court, arguing that this practice is unconstitutional. While no action has been taken yet, we’ve heard that just such a lawsuit could be brewing.