Made Moon Blog

Since the Clintons left office, Democrats have been a little dull, resisting the urge to engage in high crimes and misdemeanors. But, lo and behold, now we’re recovering from a Democratic crime wave in Washington. And, what’s so fascinating about the situation is that the self-proclaimed party of peace and love has members who are engaging in downright dangerous, even violent acts.

And they’re getting off scot-free.

First, there’s the case of Patrick Kennedyone of the few impaired drivers in the U.S. who apparently never has to worry about failing a field sobriety test, since Capitol Police refused to administer one to him.

Fresh from rehab, the junior Kennedy suggests he now feels goodpresumably without the use of controlled substances. Kennedy sought treatment after his automobile crashed in the middle of the night near the U.S. Capitol. While the police said he appeared intoxicated, they didn’t test him for it.

And so, a drunk/drugged driver walks free, without any type of punishment.

Given the number of Americans who die each year from drug or alcohol-related crashesnearly 17,000 in 2004the kids-glove treatment of Kennedy is a national disgrace.

It also makes you wonderwhy should any D.C. teen stop indulging in drugs and alcohol, when he knows that a Congressman can easily indulge and not pay the penalty?

But Capitol criminal activity does not begin and end with Kennedy. There’s also the case of Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who slugged a police officer but was not indicted. What makes this injustice all the more appalling is that McKinney blamed the incident on racial profiling. As House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) indicated, this embarrassing situation was not the result of profiling, but the result of an ego in overdrive.

Physical assaults are inexcusable. An attack on a law enforcement officer is reprehensible. Why should any D.C. teen respect police, when a Congresswoman doesn’tand gets away with it?

Here the Democrats are, condemning President George W. Bush for being a warmongering cowboy, when they themselves are wreaking havoc on D.C. streets, showing absolutely no respect for the lawor those who enforce it.
I’m not sure how any Democrat can, with a straight face, insist on talking about peace in Iraq when members of the party are disrupting the peace on city streets. In addition, we hear ad nauseam about how the Washington ethics scandal will bring down Republicans in Congress, and yet the mainstream media seem to ignore the fact that drunk driving and assault are clearly unethical behavior. Was Rep. Tom DeLay really any more dangerous than Congressman Kennedy after a bender, or Rep. McKinney on a bad hair day?

Of course, the Democrats have all-too-willing accomplices in the national news media. For network reporters, violent acts are not the unforgivable sina refusal to enact campaign finance legislation is. With national polls showing that many members of the national news media support abortion but appear to be personally opposed to church attendance, it shouldn’t be surprising that reporters have a skewed idea of what constitutes morality.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter if a Congressional representative presents himself or herself as a champion of the poor, the downtrodden, the addicted, the mentally ill, the learning impaired, and the disabled. If he or she engages in criminal conduct and is not punished, he or she is, in fact, an elitist, believing that laws to protect public welfare are for the little peoplenot those who work under the Capitol dome.

It’s time Congressional Democrats got a handle on the crime problemtheir own.

For thousands of years mankind has had slavery, pain, struggles and someone strong enough to stand up and lead them into hell and beyond to begin the fight. Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi were both men who favored a non-violent peaceful protest. Let the devil’s do their worst, and show the world their brutality.

However, when I look around today, I have to wonder if the time for great men and women have passed? I wonder if people are so violent, brutal, and cynical that when great humans do stand up we ignore them. Then again if they are really that great, would we be able to ignore them?

I just don’t think that they are here anymore. Maybe the ones who would have been great were changed. With cell phones, computers, violent video games, movies and tv? Who knows. While there are still people that stand up for everything from abortion to animal rights, their are still people who are good and want what’s right for a certain cause. I look at these people and shake my head.

Animal rights campaigns hates the fact that people wear fur. That animals are being tortured and brutally murdered just so someone can pay thousands of dollars to show that they have money, is not right. But how can these activist expect people to side with them when they go to fashion shows, awards, galas and other places and throw paint on people. That is not non-violent and the only people that look bad are the activists. No one is even going to remember that you are supposed to be the voice for animals, because all they can see is the actions of someone they think is crazy.

Abortion is a subject that shocks me to the core. Not for the same reason it shocks those for or against it. What shocks me is that you have a bunch of idiots saying how religious they are and it’s murder to have an abortion. They say you have no right to have an abortion and that it should be against the law once again.

They believe a woman should not have the right to do with her body what she shall. Firstly all the men in that group need to shut up. When you can become pregnant then you can talk. For the anti abortion group on a whole, talk about two-faced psychos. It’s wrong to have an abortion, but it’s completely ok for these bunch of crazies to bomb hospitals and murder tons of people.

Terrorists say they bomb this and that for their country and religion. We know there stupid and psychopathic, but still these pro-lifers go a-bombing away. And yet don’t think anything is wrong with that. How can these radical idiots expect normal rational people to join in their crusade called crazy?

We also have meat is murder, greenpeace, and all these other lunatics. If you feel strongly about something and want to go out and do something about it, that’s fine. However throwing yourself into the ocean in front of a large tanker carrying oil and forcing it to make dangerous turns at high speeds to avoid killing you is really pretty stupid (greenpeace psycho’s).

My point? We had people that actually used their brains. Blacks can still go looking for a job and be turned down by the color of their skin. (Anyone who says racism is over, well you need to click your heels together a few more times Dorothy, cause your still in Oz.) But blacks have the freedoms today that our ancestors never would dream they could have. That is thanks to many great people, blacks and whites who stood up for what was wrong. We still have people who stand up for what is wrong, but their more likely to throw a brick in your head after they stand, than deliver a moving speech that would unite everyone listening to it. Ah progression. Don’t you just love it?

Written by Marsha James

http://strangeauctionz.blogspot.com/
http://allabouttraffic.blogspot.com/

http://homeincometalk.seo-blog.org

Please feel free to add my article to your website, forum, blog, newsletters and other ventures if you leave it in full format. If used in a newsletter please send it to me that I may view where my work is going. Thank You.

My brother told me the most dangerous place to be in the whole world today is a mothers womb. I knew he was speaking of abortion and I was ruffled by his candidness but I could find no way to argue with what he said. 450 million abortions in America to date have convinced me that my brother knew what he was talking about.

To answer this great scourge of death with the bible is to begin with the premise that everyone believes that the bible has something to say about it and that it is authoritative. For those who have put the bible on the shelf with literature, simple narrative, history or fiction this premise is futile. Others who think the bible is a book of nice little morality stories that may be inspired in spots, are left to hope that that may get enough inspiration to spot the spots.

It is doubtful that a person who has disregarded the book of life will take any further cues from nature or simple humanity. In general animals don’t recklessly destroy their offspring. In all but the most backward civilizations of the world most of humanity also frowns on the destruction of their own young. If a people ignore the guides, and warnings available to us all, the bible has little chance of turning on any lights for them.
Yet, that in no way can eliminate the fact that the bible has plenty to say about it.

Both the bible and other annals of history show us that it was considered a blessing to be able to have children. In fact a woman who was barren was usually thought to be nearly under a curse. Times have changed and in America, Roe V. Wade has not just changed the times but has twisted it into a warp. Now it is considered almost a rude interference to be pregnant.

Science has provided us with a “scientific term” that makes it easy not to see a human life from the moment of conception, that handy little term is what is known as the “fetus”. Semantic wrangling notwithstanding everyone knows fully that a human life has begun at the point of conception not a scientific anomaly. Neither science nor legislation can erase the ache of conscience; it can only divert it for a while or provide a flimsy excuse for the self indulgent to dote over until a day of reckoning.

Those who don’t hide behind scientific words like “fetus” are prone to adopting the common wisdom of the day to provide them with excuses. I have no education or I haven’t enough money to bring a child into the world. Since education has only peaked in the last one hundred years you’ve got to wonder how the world’s civilizations made it up to now without perishing under the weight of pure universal ignorance. Since great warriors, emperors, presidents, statesmen, philosophers, doctors, writers and others have come from great poverty; it would seem that the poverty excuse is also moot.
Without getting all bogged down in “thou shalt nots” what does the bible have to say about abortion? It says that God knows us before we were born, He knows your going to be born, the day of your birth, and the day of your death. He even knows how many hairs you’ve got on your head at anytime. Matthew 10:30

The Prophet Isaiah told of a Persian King named Cyrus that would come in time and order the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Isaiah 44:28 No big deal until you discover the fact that Isaiah made this prediction over a hundred years before Cyrus was born. Does God know a human life is in the womb? Yes, and don’t worry just like Cyrus he doesn’t think your name is Fetus, He knows exactly what your name is and He always did, figuratively speaking even before you were only a twinkle in your fathers eye.

One of the most well known figures in the bible is King David. The historicity of the life and reign of David is without question among bible believers and most all others as well. But did you know that David said that God knew him long before his birth or his reign over Israel? In fact David said that God knew him while he was still in his mother’s womb Psalm 139:13. Whew, thank God He didn’t mistake David for just a “fetus”.

Let’s go one step further to make the point. That God knows us from the womb is one thing but here is another. The most precious thing God could ever endow someone with is his own presence. He does not put his Holy Spirit on anything that is not holy. He does not put His Spirit on anything that is not human either. Yet the Bible says that He put his Holy Spirit on John the Baptist while he was still in his mother’s womb. Luke 1:15 God didn’t put his Spirit on a “fetus” it was a human, good thing God knew that, too bad we don’t.

Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is a reward. Psalm 127:3

Rev Bresciani has written many articles over the past thirty years in such periodicals as Guideposts and Catholic Digest. He is the author of two books available on Amazon.com, Alibris, Barnes and Noble and many other places. Rev Bresciani wrote “Hook Line and Sinker or what has Your Church Been Teaching You,” publisher, PublishAmerica of Baltimore MD. He also wrote a book published by Xulon Press entitled “An American Prophet and His Message, Questions and Answers on the Second Coming of Christ.” His book is now being heralded as the clearest book on the subject of the second coming of Christ since Hal Lindsey’s “Late Great Planet Earth” Rev Bresciani’s website is,
http://americanprophet.org

Aspartame activists are constantly being attacked because all data are a matter of public record from congressional records to government documents. Now there is even a movie, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World (www.docworkers.com) that exposes how Don Rumsfeld got aspartame approved even though the FDA said no. Go to this link to see a clip of the movie exposing the politics Rumsfeld used: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/Rumsfeld2.html Bullington used the issue of when I lectured for the World Environmental Conference. Someone by the name of Nancy Markle put her name on a post I wrote about it, disorganized it somewhat, and a networker sent it around the world. Monsanto used front groups to try and say it was a hoax even though my invitation to speak was on www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html So many people got off aspartame and got well that Monsanto could not put out the fire and sold the NutraSweet Company. The story is in the book Politically Incorrect Nutrition by Michael Barbee. Because I was willing to put my phone number on the Internet there was no way for them to get away with it. Here is my published reply to the newspaper.

Published 8/6/2005 Albuquerque Tribune

Dear Sir:

J. D. Bullington says warnings about aspartame are a “massive hoax” and told your readers that I, Dr. Betty Martini, have “no credibility or scientific expertise
whatsoever”.

Bullington is the chief lobbyist for The Association of Commerce & Industry whose website claims: “More and more legislators are asking for the ACI position prior
to key committee and floor votes. … The business community needs only a few seats to receive a majority vote on most issues.” Simply put: ACI exists to have vital legislation fabricated in corporate boardrooms. They usually get their way. They have the money and
the clout, backed up by hundreds of commercial entities to provide publicity and influence.

Who am I? A citizen who in the ’70s founded five 24/7 clinics with 200 doctors on staff in Atlanta, the first of their type. I also ran for mayor. We treated the indigent free, and I have
a warm letter from Jimmy Carter commending me for this.

14 years ago I started a successful hands-around-the-world service, Mission Possible
International, to fight aspartame. Hundreds of times I’ve been guest speaker on radio stations & networks of up to 500 stations worldwide. I made two 3-week
European tours and spoke to a European Union Parliamentary Committee. I’ve set up satellite operations in many countries; most run by aspartame victims. Our reports are in many languages. For this philanthropic effort I was awarded an honorary Doctor of Humanities degree. I have never pretended to be a medical doctor!

My husband, who spent his life in chemistry, pays for this project, to the tune of $250,000
so far. We sell nothing, solicit no funds, and have never used aspartame ourselves. He’s 73, retired, an ordained minister who says: “If we stop people will die, so its just Applied Christianity.”

Omni Magazine reported: “51% of FDA approved drugs have serious risks and could cause reactions that lead to severe or permanent disability or death.” So what does a corporation do if it’s product is deadly? Take it off the market? No, they recruit lobbyists to get cozy with the congressmen and state legislators, and they double the ad budget. What about whistleblowers? They apply ridicule, slander & libel, and quote phony
authority, like the Calorie Control Council, a front group funded by aspartame producers. Of course all authentic scientific and medical documentation exposing the poisons they push is ignored.

In 1996 the FDA reported over 10,000 volunteered consumer complaints, listing 92 symptoms including four types of seizures, blindness, migraines, mind
destruction, death and sexual dysfunction: note the flood of medicines to restore our ability to make love. FDA has more complaints about aspartame than on all other food additives collectively. They deny their report now, but you can access it on
www.dorway.com/badnews.html. I sent FDA thousands of case histories, all ignored.
They also illegally ignored my Citizen’s Petition for a Ban. Who runs FDA? Eleven officials including three Commissioners took jobs in the aspartame industry.

In June a 3-year study by the Cancer Research Center of the European Foundation of Oncology in Bologna, Italy was released, connecting brain cancer with aspartame use, which Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., reviewed: “The new study should terrify mothers and all those consuming aspartame sweetened products. This was a carefully done study which clearly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in
several types of lymphomas and leukemias in rats. Both of these malignancies have increased significantly in this country since the widespread use of aspartame.”
Dr. Blaylock’s book Excitotoxins, the Taste that Kills details MSG and APM neurotoxicity.

Dr. H. J. Roberts, named The Best Doctor in the United States by a medical magazine is author of over 20 medical texts, including the 1,038 page Aspartame Disease, an Ignored Epidemic with 400 case histories. It is dedicated to me. Weep for this 8 year old APM victim, described on page 476: “The patient had two sets of head x-rays, three CT scans of the brain, two spinal punctures, four bone marrow studies, two electroencephalograms, two heart monitoring studies, two barium enemas, and a host of other studies. Her mother estimated the medical costs at $750,000.” Dr.
Roberts summarizes: “there was dramatic clinical improvement and virtual normalization of the blood changes when the mother eliminated additives.” There are millions of victims like this little girl!

We get most aspartame from “diet” sodas. The National Soft Drink Association actually protested against APM in the Senate Congressional Record, May 7, 1985, pages
5507-11: italics ["Searle (the manufacturer) has not demonstrated to a reasonable certainty that aspartame and its degradation products are safe for use in soft
drinks. Aspartame is inherently, markedly and uniquely unstable in aqueous media. In a liquid such as a soft drink APM will degrade as a function of temperature and pH. … Without identification of APM's significant decomposition products it is not
possible to find to a reasonable certainty, that APM is safe"]” www.dorway.com/nsda.html

Contrary to Bullington’s blast, the protest of the NSDA cites APM degradation at 86F and higher temperatures. The decomposition chemicals are methyl alcohol, formaldehyde, formic acid and diketopiperazine, a deadly brain tumor agent: just for starters. What can aspartame do for you? A 52 week oral toxicity study was done on 7 infant monkeys.
Five had grand mal seizures and one died. Have a formaldehyde cocktail!

It’s not a diet product! The Division of Clinical Epidemiology of the U of Texas Health Center in San Antonio just reported and 8 year study confirming a diet soda link to obesity. A 1985 study found weight gain among 78,694 women using artificial sweeteners. If you want to get fat, NutraSweet is where it’s at! Cori Brackett, a Tucson victim, ditched aspartame and escaped from her wheelchair …. She’s produced
a fine professional movie, Sweet Misery, A Poisoned World. www.docworkers.com

In 14 years I’ve processed tens of thousands of ghastly stories from afflicted and dying aspartame victims. It’s unfortunate for your readers that J. D. Bullington did so little research and cares so little for the injuries his fictions breed.

Senator Ben Altamirano sponsored Senate Bill 525 to create a Nutrition Council with the express statutory power to prohibit toxic FDA-approved food additives from your state. It was overwhelming endorsed by your Legislature but killed in the House on the last day
along with 40 other Senate Bills when a filibuster ran the clock out. I’m very happy that Senator Altamirano will re-introduce this vital legislation in 2006 to protect the innocent. and unwarned, specifically parents, from poison peddlers. Unquestionably Bullington and other lobbyists have Senator Altamirano’s bill in their sights. New Mexicans should ask: who pays these hired guns? For the full aspartame story go to www.wnho.net and
www.dorway.com

Dr. Betty Martini 770 242 2599 9270 River Club Pkwy Duluth, GA 30097

__________________________________________________

Dr. Betty Martini, Founder, Mission Possible International, 9270 River Club Parkway, Duluth, Georgia 30097 770 242-2599 http://www.wnho.net and http://www.dorway.com

Some arms control experts voice a variety of objections to transferring PALS technology to Pakistan and other states. These range from objections to the likelihood of Pakistan’s acceptance of the program to political objections to the ramifications that granting Pakistan PALS will have on other states that are considering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While there may be validity to some of these objections, the on balance effect of a technology transfer program dealing with PALS would be positive.

A first objection made is that Pakistan may be unwilling to accept an offer by the United States to give them this technology (Global Security Newswire). The logic behind this argument is that Pakistan would be unlikely to allow the U.S. to have detailed access to its nuclear weapons sites. Since PALS are usually an integrated part of the nuclear device, it would require on-site assistance by the United States that might discourage Pakistani acceptance. While Pakistan would probably indeed have concerns about allowing the U.S. unlimited access to its nuclear facilities, the PALS program could easily be designed to assuage these fears. First, while the U.S. would have to be involved in installing PALS on the Pakistani weapons, this doesn’t require constant access to every Pakistani nuclear weapons site. The installation would be a one-time procedure that could be performed at any location Pakistan requested. Additionally, if Pakistan refused even limited access to a single site, Pakistani scientists could be trained to install PALS themselves.

While the technological specifications of PALS are restricted from the general public to prevent efforts to bypass the technology, giving the knowledge required to install and operate them to another country wouldn’t compromise our nuclear security. Many other countries such as France and Russia already have U.S. PALS technology, and since the Pakistani government already possesses nuclear weapons they have no real incentive to try to access ours (Bellovin).

Teve Torbes is an awesome owner of a corporate gift basket site, who writes a whole lot about flea on kitten stuff. He has also created a valuable corporate gift idea resource.

In the midst of numerous proposals before the Senate regarding legislation concerning the legalization of illegal aliens has arisen a little known provision of the recently signed 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. On February 8, 2006, President George Bush executed a bill into law which now requires recipients of Medicaid benefits to provide either an original birth certificate or passport in order to apply for or to continue to receive their health care benefits, commencing July 1, 2006.

The Medicaid program, available to American citizens who fall into a specified low income bracket, provides health care to adults and children, as well as the elderly and those in nursing homes. While much hand wringing and spin continues in the U.S. Congress regarding how to best deal with the status of illegal aliens, which directly impacts costs of U.S. government entitlement programs, this new requirement has yet to be discussed. As the result of the newly passed Massachusetts universal health care plan, which will include the Medicaid program, the new provision was just publicly revealed.

However, the present requirements for Medicaid require no such documents, relying only upon a signature of the applicant to certify whether or not they are American citizens. And as a result of the unaccountability for Medicaid fraud abuse over the past several decades, the U.S. government may be penalizing the vast majority of law abiding citizens, according to numerous patient advocates. But the issue is more about the continuing lack of enforcement of U.S. immigration law rather than an attempt to cut down on Medicaid fraud.

According to Families USA, a consumer advocacy organization, the disabled, the mentally ill, the homeless, the elderly and the chronically ill will unfairly suffer as the result of this new proviso, as they would have difficulty accessing copies of birth certificates, and would be far less likely to own a U.S. passport. Therefore, they will be unfairly denied necessary health care beginning as early as July 1st. Meanwhile, hospital emergency rooms may still not turn away any person of any status nor may they ask the legal status of any patient, according to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act of 1985.

While patient advocates may be correct regarding the most vulnerable being put at risk, on balance it would seem that without addressing social services’ access requirements across the board, with respect to illegal aliens, it does seem quite unfair to put this burden only upon Medicaid recipients at this late date in 2006. Furthermore, there are no set mechanisms yet in place nor systems between federal and state governments for enforcement of the law. Such a sweeping change should require administrative oversight by the Center for Medicaid and Medicare and require necessary outreach to patients for this purpose well ahead of such changes.

But perhaps for those desperately trying to get copies of their birth certificates at this time, there could be some breathing room as another debate brews relative to the validity of the law itself, based upon the U.S. Constitution. When President Bush signed S. 1932 on February 8th, according to House Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, the President actually signed a different version of the bill than the House of Representatives actually passed.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) on March 30, 2006 stated, “I have learned that the Speaker of the House advised the White House of the differences between the House-passed bill and the bill presented to the President before the President signed the legislation.” Representative Waxman is now calling for a Resolution of Inquiry which requests all documents relative to the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act which the President signed on February 8th. So far the White House has failed to respond.

Whether or not Representative Waxman truly cares about the Constitution or is doing that which is politically expedient for himself, is of concern. Firstly, the discrepancy in the Senate Bill signed was different in substance from the House Bill. It impacts some $2 billion in spending for “durable medical equipment” such as wheelchairs and oxygen for those in the Medicare program, which provides health care to the elderly and the disabled. At issue, is the length of leases for durable medical equipment which was 36 months in the House version and 13 months in the Senate version.

During transmission of the final bill to the President, the Senate Clerk made a change to the legislation. It no longer contained the Senate amendment which provided for 36 months for oxygen equipment. The Senate Clerk upon learning of the mistake advised House Republican leaders in January 2006, well before the date of February 8, 2006, the date the President signed the bill. The error failed to be corrected. But according to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, both the House and the Senate must include the same substance and version of a bill which is required for presentation for signature by the President.

So the entirety of the law has been put in jeopardy and could eventually wind up in the Supreme Court, as there exists precedent. In the case of Field v. Clark, 143 US 649 (1892) the Court wrote that the burden would be to prove that the House Speaker and President were deliberate and purposely signing the wrong bill. That in fact is what Waxman contends, when on March 15, 2006 he wrote a letter to then White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, “seeking information on the President’s knowledge of the bill’s constitutional infirmity.”

While Waxman’s inquiry provides interesting fare for a Constitutional Law class, the scope of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act is perhaps getting lost. The new Medicaid documents requirement being served up as a tightening of immigration law enforcement is almost laughable. And those patients in wheel chairs and those patients requiring oxygen will most likely not be notified of a cap on their benefits until after that period of 13 months expires. Previous to the 2005 law, wheelchairs and oxygen and durable medical equipment were provided patients indefinitely.

If indeed the President made an error, it should be addressed if anything, to give clarity to the Medicaid and Medicare patients it impacts. And furthermore, should Representative Waxman pursue the legality of the new law, that he would take the approach that it was a procedural oversight which should be either amended appropriately or pursued in the present session of Congress. But it will require the cooperation of both the Congress and the Executive branch of government, keeping in mind the most vulnerable of U.S. citizens. For there must be some measures of government which transcend politics.

Diane M. Grassi is a freelance columnist, reporting and writing commentary on current events of the day providing honest and often politically incorrect assessments. From U.S. public policy to Major League Baseball, she is an eclectic thinker, and demanding of her readers to reflect on their own thinking patterns from an alternative perspective. Whether you agree with her or not, Diane M. Grassi will have you coming back to note her opinions, and if at best she wakes you up, then her goal will have been accomplished.

Ms. Grassi is featured with the online publications: New Media Journal.us; American Chronicle; Mich News.com; the Federal Observer; Opinions Editorials; the Conservative Voice; the Las Vegas Penny Press; the Sierra Times as well as many others. She also writes regular columns on Major League Baseball where she is a featured online columnist with The Diamond Angle Baseball Ezine and Sports-Central.org. Ms. Grassi may contacted at: dgrassi@cox.net

The end of another election once again brings into focus the problem of Washington politicians raising money and running for re-election as soon as they get into office. Many citizens and various government-accountability advocacy groups have done little more than complain from time to time. However, some of them, along with many members of the media, have been pushing for term limits as a solution. But is that really the solution we need? Even with term limits, we would still be left with the same old problems, only in smaller doses, i.e., politicians would still be playing the same old campa igning and fund raising games for whatever amount of subsequent terms they are allowed. Also, we would still be stuck with the situation in which sitting Senators and Representatives (even those with no remaining terms for the office they hold) spend their time running for higher office.

I say forget about term limits in Washington as I have a better solution. I call it ”term interruptions.” Here’s how it would work: No President/Vice President, Senator, or Representative could serve two consecutive terms in the same office and would have to sit out at least two years before being eligible for a different federal office although he/she could be elected to an unlimited number of terms in any number of federal offices. For example, a U.S. Representative could not succeed himself/herself in that office and would have to wait until he/she has been out of office for at least two years before being eligible for President/Vice President, a Senate seat, or any seat in the House of Representatives. In other words, a sitting President/Vice President, Senator, or Representative could not run for re-election and he/she could not run for any elective seat in the legislative or executive branches of the federal government. That way, they could all focus on serving their constituents rather than getting re-elected. They could use the two off-years for campaigning and raising money.

However, this proposal could be problematic for the U.S. House of Representatives, since its members currently serve only two-year terms. Under my plan, the House would see a complete turnover (all 435 members) every two years. Therefore, I would propose four-year terms for U.S. Representatives. Of course, we would still get a complete turnover in the House, only after every four years instead of every two years, so there would still be a problem.

To prevent a complete turnover every four years, terms could be staggered so that half the members of the House are up for re-election every two years. However, in the first House election under my plan, half of the House would get four-year terms, with the other half getting two-year terms. A way to determine who gets the four-year terms in the initial election would be as follows: The House member in each state with widest margin of victory in that election would get a four-year term. The 168 remaining members (on an at-large basis) with the next highest victory margins would also get four-year terms, for a total of 218. The remaining 217 members would get only two-year terms for that election only. For the next election only, members who got two-year terms would be allowed to run for re-election, without sitting out two years. Then, beginning with that election, they would all get four-year terms and the term interruptions rules would fully take effect.

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Virginia, USA. He operates a website – http://www.commenterry.com – on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in meanstream media.

Lately I have been getting a foreboding feeling of unreasonable governmental intrusion at all levels. What accelerated it was the Supreme Court’s recent and, I believe, horrific Kelo decision regarding eminent domain. The Supreme Court, in its continuing need to legislate, sanctioned the seizure of private homes by municipal governments for private economic development. As a result, a fierce firestorm of backlash has broken out among the people and in dozens of state legislatures and in Congress. You will be hearing a lot more about this one. Alas, New Hampshire’s David Souter voted in the majority. So much for that state’s motto of Live Free Or Die.

Politically correct groups of people, many of whom live in other communities and towns, continually try to tell us on a local basis what is best for us. Incredibly, we now have the specter of people from other towns attending our selectmen meetings to argue for issues that increase our taxes but not theirs! Far, far worse, however, is that if you own a pit bull within the city limits of Denver, the authorities will soon be coming to your residence to take it away and put it down. What next? A Doberman? Rot? Lab? Min Pin? Reasonable? Hardly, and where will it end? But these are simply representative of the many ways intrusion is making its mark. The intrusive don’t want anyone to smoke, drink, eat meat, wear leather, fish, own guns, hunt or shoot. We are told what books to read, what religions to follow, what parts of history to rewrite, what movies to see, what words to use, what television shows to watch, and what safety equipment to wear. Heck, maybe we should just sit in a corner like a plant, devoid of free will and the ability to think or discuss controversial issues or express intellectual curiosity unless, of course, we are attending appropriate community meetings, thinking politically correct thoughts, or listening to holier-than-thou politicians spew their duplicity.

New Jersey is playing with legislation that would ban smoking in cars. What is a cigar smoker named Tony to do? Across the Hudson, you now can be randomly searched in subways which, of course, will lead to costly racial profiling lawsuits. Roadblocks are randomly set up within 100 miles of our borders with Mexico and Canada. I recently was stopped at a roadblock in New York and given a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt. My fault; but it used to be my choice. It still is in New Hampshire, but for how long? The A.C.L.U. wants to have all crosses removed from Federal property but does this include the cemetery in Arlington? I don’t hunt, but “I have more guns than I need and not as many as I want,” and being a strong advocate of the Second Amendment, I love to target shoot. I am beginning to wonder for how long. With spam and virus spreaders proliferating, an entire industry has developed around the technical ramifications of intrusive detection vis–vis the computer.

It’s not that major rights are being stripped from us in one fell swoop; it’s more like little chinks are being chiseled one at a time and from different directions and at different levels. Each time we lose a right, we lose a battle. Someday we may wake up and find that all the little chinks and all the lost battles now add up to one massive chunk … something that might make the Patriot Act pale in comparison.

Now I am all for reasonable and realistic homeland security (with the emphasis on reasonable), in fact, I admit to having owned some explosive-detection and anti-missile stocks. However, my dad fought close up, and was severely wounded and highly decorated in the St. Mihiel Offensive and in the Ardennes Forest during World War One. My late brother left college and enlisted as an innocent young man the day after Pearl Harbor and came home a grizzled veteran five years later to finish college. They, along with millions and millions of others, paid a terrible price to protect my unalienable rights. So I’ll be darned if I’ll let some pontificating, spineless politicians take away those rights I hold so dear and do this in the name of homeland security. I’ll be darned if I’ll let some bureaucrats take my dog in the name of what’s best for me. I’ll be darned if I’ll let municipal governments take my home in the name of economic improvement. And I’ll be double-darned if I’ll let the terrorists or extremists prevail by backtracking on my rights. I would rather retain my right to privacy and my right to live as a free person in a free country and take my chances traveling on the jetliner or subway. Otherwise, who really wins? I would rather die than give up those rights my dad and brother and all the others fought for. I would rather die than not live free with those rights.

I used to smirk and snicker at those “kooks” who lived in that sliver of land north of Coeur D ‘Alene, Idaho, and in and around Bonners Ferry. I used to smirk and snicker at Charlton Heston when he proclaimed, “from my dead, cold hands.” I don’t do that anymore.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” Declaration of Independence

Ted Sares, PhD, is a private investor and entrepreneur who lives and writes in the beautiful and secluded White Mountain area of Northern New Hampshire with his wife, Holly and Min Pin, Jackdog. He writes a weekly column for a local newspaper and many of his other pieces are widely published. He specializes in columns, articles, essays, op-eds, short stories and novellas.

Up until the final debate at Arizona State University, the issue of immigration had not been much discussed. Both presidential candidates know very well that illegal immigration is a hot button topic in our country, and each man is now trying to use it to his political advantage. Since the eighties the Democratic Party has, in general, supported immigrants and has been for fair and just immigration laws.

However, there are those members of the party who claim that the presence of millions of undocumented immigrants undermines the bargaining power of the US born labor force. On the other side, the Republican Party traditionally has been against immigrants, but is increasingly reaching out to the Latino population. Advocates of free markets within the party have flat out called for the opening of the borders.

BUSH ON IMMIGRATION.

1. Because of his policies, the Mexican border is now more secure.

2. Proposed temporary guest-worker program, for up to 6 years (originally announced in Jan 2004) but is against amnesty for illegal workers.

3. Claims that our southern border is more secure now than before 911, partly due to his efforts, which include:

   • More than a thousand additional border control agents since he took office.

   • Un-manned vehicles patrolling the US-Mexico border.

KERRY ON IMMIGRATION.

1. Our southern border is now more of a security risk.

2. Would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

3. Proposes a comprehensive immigration reform bill with four major components:

   • Undocumented workers who have lived and worked in the U.S. for 5 years, pay taxes, and who are successfully screened for security purposes will be given a path to citizenship.

   • Eliminate the administrative backlog and delay, which have left many families divided.

   • Create a secure channel for a limited number of temporary workers to come into the United States.

   • Kerry would restore legal immigrants’ eligibility for health care, welfare and other government programs. (The 1996 welfare reform law made most legal immigrants, including those already in the United States for a number of years, ineligible for welfare, health care and other essential programs.)

Unfortunately, the reality is that little of significance will be done about immigration under either a Bush or Kerry administration. Immigration is an issue which is brought up when it is time to court voters; namely Latinos. Kerry, like Bush is also close to corporations and businesses that wish to continue their supply of cheap, exploitable labor. He speaks of a path to citizenship for hardworking undocumented immigrants, but how hard will he push for these proposals in Congress? Bush proposed a temporary worker program in Jan. of 2004 (with no plan for becoming green card holders), but nothing at all has come of it.

These gestures are mostly political pandering. Democrats tend to be more immigrant friendly, but remember it was Reagan who gave undocumented workers amnesty in this country. Republicans are better, though, at fanning the flames of immigrant hate. Immigration is an issue which needs to be addressed seriously, not simply with one-liners at election time. Kerry promises more, but promises can be empty. For Bush, immigrants are to be courted for elections and also used as fodder. When the economy is not doing well, it is easy to blame illegal immigrants.

About The Author

Victor Motak

For more information visit: U.S. Immigration Guide – http://www.visa2003.com/ – providing information on paths to legalized status in the United States.

Colin Powell is a good story teller!
“He hid the weapons of mass destruction in all sorts of odd places. But we saw him hide it. We took photographs. We recorded discussions. We saw his links with terrorists. It is the most evil empire on earth right now. And he must be stopped!”

This story-teller is not some fiction writer. Or some movie star from Hollywood, the entertainment capital of the world. And the scene is far removed from Frankenstein territory. But this story-teller is a former war general turned American Secretary of State named Colin Powell. The scene is the floor of the great United Nations, which some folks who have a bad sense of humor call Talking Nations. The major character of the story is Saddam Hussein. And the devilish empire is Iraq.

The high point of the JAMES BOND story is not the satellite photographs (after all where are the weapons?) nor is it the Al Qaeda connection (after all if you are not with us you are against us – by George Bush). But the most interesting point of the over one-hour speech at the Talking Nations, sorry United Nations, is the voice recording. For these “devils” in Iraq were actually saying “hide it, hide it, hide it” in reference to the weapons of mass destruction, sorry wepunmassdistrucshun. I actually like the literary effect (The Arabic version is musical to the ears).

And after the great “revelation,” war mongers went to town. They said that it has been proved that Iraq is actually a threat to world peace. What do they call a proven theory in Latin? Quod erat Demonstradum. Yes, the theory has been demonstrated that if Iraq is not disarmed right now, that “madman” directing events in that country will cause historians issuing titles like THE END OF ORDER. Or THE END OF HISTORY. Or THE END OF THE WORLD. What a pity! And these war mongers rolled out Ukulele the drum, and serenaded the movie star, Colin Powell.

But the pacifists were not impressed. First in that number was the Inspection Team in Iraq who thought they would have been handed these evidences ab initio, instead of making it a public show. (Forget them for they know not the rules of script writing.) Then Iraqi officials called it a cock-and-bull story. (Make it a cattle-and-ram story.) France and Germany say no to war. (Americans call them the old Europe) And even Russia is not impressed. Is it because they have their hands on Iraqi oil? (Never mind anyway. That Powerless country is part of “pieces of eight”)

Before then, Africa’s Nelson Mandela, was up in arms against George Bush Jnr. and Tony Blair. He called Bush an arrogant man intent in plunging the world into a holocaust, calling Blair George Bush’s foreign minister .He even says that Bush wants to render the UN irrelevant because an African -Koffi Annan – not a Whiteman, is Secretary-General.

But some wonder why Mandela said so. Is it that old age is telling on him? And he is forgetting things as if he crossed the River Lethe. Or drank Mandragora. Does he not know that Tony Blair, Britain’s Prime Minister cannot be a foreign minister to the president of another sovereign country? And it pained not a few Africans that this their illustrious son has forgotten elementary government.

Regarding his anti war stance, some point to his guerilla war against white South Africa. After all, his “terrorism” paid off because South Africa is now free of violence, anarchists, and rapists. And Bush and Blair want to make the earth a paradise– free of devils– by declaring war on dangerous Iraq. Forget Nelson Mandela. When last did a black man say useful things?

Now the game is over for Saddam Hussein. We are going to war. Do not think of the effect of the war on the world economy. After all, Iraq has some of the world’s finest oil. When we win the war, we would install our own Governor – General and take charge of the oil. You can imagine the rest of the story.

Do not think of the humanitarian cost. For Saddam has always gassed his own people to death. So, what if a few Iraqis die for the salvation of the many. Regarding the soldiers that would die in battle, never mind about that. For they would have beautiful memorial tombs erected for them .And the sons of the war planners would lay wreaths on them, and write their epitaghs. Some would take Charles Dickens book A TALE OF TWO CITIES with them to the grave yard, and copy the opening lines: “It was a summer of hope. It was a winter of despair”.

When Charles Dickens wrote A TALE OF TWO CITIES, however, he was not thinking of the war on terror. Or wepunmassdistrucshun. But in the world of James Bond, anything goes.

THE WINTER OF DESPAIR

We are ready to attack Iraq. The spy planes have done their work and we know just where to strike. So we advance with guns and bombs through the torturous Iraqi desert terrain. We kill and maim as we go, and the enemy decimates our soldiers, too. And we the surviving soldiers press on, ever wearing our masks. Because this “mad” man that rules this evil empire could use anything on us – including chemicals and biological weapons. But alas – after all the hazards, we win and disarm Iraq.

THE SUMMER OF HOPE

We celebrate our victory. The world will be a better place to live now without dangerous weapons in the hands of this evil country. Israel has these weapons too, but that country is better behaved. Besides, they are God’s chosen people.

The newly appointed Governor-General has just inspected his guard-of-honor, and is telling Iraqis how different this new democratic, liberal regime will be. For the people will now enjoy total freedom and life will be more abundant.

We hear many wonderful Arabian Night stories. It was told of a poor Arab cattle rearer who bought a field to graze his livestock. But unbeknownst to him, the field was laid with gold. And this poor shepherd now became a fabulously rich sheikh ever after.

The story strikes a semblance to our adventure. Because after we have buried thousands of our dead soldiers, and laid beautiful wreaths on their tombs, we retire to reflect on the success of our mission. Suddenly, we find ourselves, champagne in hand, floating on top of fine-grade Iraqi oil; watching Saddam Hussein hanging on a 1000-foot high pole and listening to a musical composition of Colin Powell. And it happens to be the musical rendition of the poem, PARADISE REGAINED by the blind poet, John Milton.It was then that I realized the vision of Collins Powell, and I remembered the JAMES BOND story at the UN.

Bravo!

ARTHUR ZULU. The Most Controversial Writer in the World is the author of the best -selling book HOW TO WRITE A BEST-SELLER. For your copy and FREE excerpt, click on: http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/10975 For contact, mailto: controversialwriter@yahoo.com

About the Author

Arthur Zulu, The Most Controversial Writer in the World is the author of the best-selling book, HOW TO WRITE A BEST-SELLER. Download your copy and FREE excerpt at :http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/10975