Welcome to the blog of Indian 007

Like a beacon unto the world ...

Monday, December 17, 2012

Gun Control: the Open Door to Dictatorship

Just over a year ago, Australia followed in the footsteps of mother country Great Britain and made law a total ban on hand guns. The gun ban and confiscation program cost the Australian government more than $500 million. Sometimes using deadly force, authorities there collected 640,381 personal firearms. And now the results are in: 

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent (in a country that has a low homicide rate). 

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. 

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). 

In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. 

Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms - since the gun ban this has changed for the worse. 

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." An e-mail circulating the Web reveals the harmful effects of the Australian gun ban, noting that "you won't see this data on the evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information." By Carl Limbacher - NewsMax.com 6-7-00 

So much for the supposed benefits of gun control. In fact the real reason for gun control is to disarm a populace prior to the imposition of authoritarian rule; it happened in Soviet Russia, it happened in China and Nazi Germany and it's happening now in the western world. According to Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), the introduction of gun control has foreshadowed the emergence of oppressive regimes throughout the 20th century. From Idi Amin to Pol Pot and Stalin gun control has become the hallmark of those who wish to further their power over society, after all an unarmed populace is much less likely to resist than an armed one. The figures speak for themselves: 

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up an exterminated. 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945 13 million were thrown into concentration camps. 

Apart from dictators and demagogues the only beneficiaries would appear to be the criminals themselves. Thus in the wake of the ban of privately owned firearms in the UK, passed in the aftermath of the Dunblane killings, there has been a huge increase in the number of illegally held firearms. According to figures from a recent Home Office survey there are now an estimated 3 million firearms in the UK, most of them in the hands of criminals. Moreover criminals are now using automatic weapons rather than pistols or shotguns as weapons of choice. In the words of Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson of the National Crime: "We are recovering weapons that are relatively new - and sometimes still in their boxes from eastern European countries." And as in Australia the number of armed crimes has risen steadily since the introduction of more restrictive gun laws. In London last year there were 20 fatal shootings, compared with 9 in 1998. In fact 1998 saw armed crimes in London increase by 10%, but once again don't expect to hear that from the mainstream media. 

"To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, American patriot. 

My good friend, the late Reverend Stephen Dunker, C.M., was a missionary in China who was imprisoned by the Communists during the early 1950s. I heard him tell of his experiences many times. When the Communists first took over the area where he lived, they appeared to be good rulers. They established law and order and cleaned up the traffic in drugs and prostitutes. Then one day the Communist bosses announced, "You can see that we have established a good society and you have no need for your guns. Everyone must come in the night and dump all guns in the town square." The people believed and obeyed. The next day, the reign of terror began, with public executions and cruel imprisonments. Everyone accused of being a "landlord" was dragged through the streets and executed; a "landlord" was anyone who farmed his little plot of ground with two water buffalo instead of one. Phyliss Schlafly, The Schlafly Report, June 2000. 

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933. 

Last updated 05/09/2006

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Health Basics: The 11 most toxic vaccine ingredients and their side effects

by: S. D. Wells, Natural News.com

It's been only 70 years since World War II, and the mad scientists from companies like I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer, who created the gas chambers and tested dangerous vaccines on innocent Jews, didn't just go away. In fact, they went to work for U.S. corporations and pharmaceutical companies that run the vaccine industry today. At least a dozen of these cold blooded killers were hired fresh out of prison, just 4 to 7 years after the Nuremberg trials found them guilty of mass murder and enslavement. (http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/trials3.html)

In fact, at the close of WWII, the IG Farben building in Frankfort was protected from allied bombings by the highest levels of military command. Why? IG Farben was the FDA/CDC type of "pharmaceutical arm" of Hitler's 4th Reich, and the Rockefellers had a financial interest in maintaining and controlling this pharmaceutical empire, which would soon be catapulted on U.S. soil. Research reveals that Hitler also invested heavily in Merck and other pharmaceutical companies.

Nazi convicted mass murderers became executives for major U.S. chemical and pharmaceutical companies

Fritz ter Meer, found guilty of slavery and mass murder at Auschwitz, served only seven years in prison and became Chairman of the Board at Bayer in 1956. Still trust U.S. vaccines?

Carl Krauch, Executive Member of IG Farben and Head of Military Economics for Hitler, found guilty of slavery and mass murder, served just 6 years in prison, then became Chairman of the Board for BASF in 1952. Still want to get those flu shots? How about that HPV shot for your daughter or son?

This is the same vaccine industry today which protected and employed Nazi war criminals. The very industry that produced the Nazi gas chambers was purchased by Bayer. So, exactly whom are you trusting with your children's health and welfare?

Currently, the U.S. Government and the CDC rely solely on the manufacturers of vaccines to report problems, injuries and deaths. This atrocity is like letting murderers be their own judges in court! Where are the checks and balances this country was founded upon? Vaccines have economic and political agendas now, and the FDA does absolutely no testing of their own before making decisions to release vaccines to the masses.

Want more research before you or your child get injected with a new concocted disease for which there is no cure? Listen to stunning admissions by vaccine industry experts, including Dr. Maurice Hilleman (formerly w/Merck), who admitted to the deadly nature of the most trusted vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html)

Today's vaccines not only contain live versions of the diseases you DO NOT WANT, but also contain GMOs, hormones from infected cows, pigs, chickens and monkeys, untested virus combinations (like H1N1), aluminum, mercury, emulsifiers, and crossbred bacteria from animals, mosquitoes, and diseased humans:

Measles Live Virus Vaccine: (Attenuvax) Made by Merck. Two injections are given; one at 1 year and another at 4 years old. Contains gelatin, sorbitol, sodium chloride, bovine cow serum, egg protein and human albumin.

Measles and Mumps Live Virus Vaccine: (M-M-Rvax) Made by Merck. Injected into one year old babies. Contains gelatin, sorbitol, sodium chloride, bovine cow serum, and human albumin.

Diptheria, Tetanus and Polio Vaccine: Five injections given between 2 and 6 years of age, plus boosters "recommended" every 10 years. Contains formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol and aluminum phosphate.

DTaP, IPV, HBV and Hib*: (Diphtheria, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type B) Given to infants 2 to 12 months with boosters less than a year later. Contains aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, and bovine cow serum.

Gardasil HPV: Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Made by Merck. "Recommended" 3 intramuscular injections; given at birth, 2 and 6 months of age. Re-administered to children as young as 9 years of age for a rare sexually transmitted disease. Contains polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, aluminum, and a "denatured" (fragmented and weakened) form of the virus.

Toxic vaccine ingredients and their adverse effects:

• Bovine cow serum: Extracted from cow skin. When injected causes connective tissue disorders, arthritis and lupus; also shortness of breath, low blood pressure, chest pain and skin reactions.

• Sorbitol: Synthetic sweetener which metabolizes very slowly and aggravates IBS and gastrointestinal issues.

• Gelatin: Derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones. Injecting gelatin poses the risk of infection from synthetic growth hormones and BSE infectivity (mad cow disease).

• Sodium chloride: Raises blood pressure and inhibits muscle contraction and growth.

• Egg protein: Vaccines are prepared in eggs (certainly not organic). May contain growth hormones, antibiotics, and salmonella bacteria.

• Thimerosal: A neurotoxic mercury which causes autism: There are 25 mcg in one average flu vaccine, and the EPA safety limit is 5 micrograms, so children who are vaccinated simultaneously with multiple* vaccines receive over 10 times the safety limit of mercury in one day.

• Human albumin: The protein portion of blood from pooled human venous plasma; when injected causes fever, chills, hives, rash, headache, nausea, breathing difficulty, and rapid heart rate. Injecting "pooled blood" can result in a loss of body cell mass and cause immunodeficiency virus infection, or contain SV40, AIDS, cancer or Hepatitis B from drug addicts.

• Formaldehyde: Highly carcinogenic fluid used to embalm corpses. Ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health; can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system.

• Phenoxyethanol: A glycol ether/chemical; highly toxic to the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. The FDA warns "can cause shut down of the central nervous system (CNS), vomiting and contact dermatitis" in cosmetics; imagine when injected into your blood.

• Aluminum phosphate: Greatly increases toxicity of mercury, so caution about minimum mercury tolerance is therefore severely underestimated. CDC scientists and all doctors are well aware of this.

• MSG (monosodium glutamate): When injected becomes a neurotoxin, causing CNS disorders and brain damage in children.

If you especially enjoy being lied to, visit vaccinateyourbaby.org, where they tell you formaldehyde is safe because it is "present in the environment and is a byproduct of metabolism, so it is already present in the human body." They also inform you that aluminum is good for you, because "[a]luminum is also commonly found in food, water, infant formula and even breast milk." Hey, if it's in the environment, it must be safe to inject into your veins (so why not use snake venom, bleach, and plutonium?).

Want the ultimate alternative to vaccines that prevents disease? Buy organic vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, amino acids, and enzymes! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH6N7tHGsi8)

Sources for this article include:















CNN Article Bashes the Growing Number of People That Question Mass Media

By Vigilant Citizen

In the past year or so, we’ve seen several mass media outlets “reporting” on the popularity of conspiracy theories and of alternative news. However, in every case, the resulting article is not an objective report on a growing phenomenon but an all-out hit piece, bashing those who dare questioning the “official story” dictated by mass media with strong words and specific labels.
A recent article published on CNN entitled Still ‘paranoid’ after all these years does a great job at equating all those who use critical thinking before guzzling down the toxic drink that is mass media with all kinds of crazy. The word “paranoid” is used about ten times in the article as well as the words “panic”, “wingnut”, “lunatic”, “dupes”, “derangement”, “irrational”, “extremism”, “idiot”, “fearful” and “insecurity”.
Another way the article places the label of “crazy” on people who think outside of the TV box is by mixing ridiculous theories with those that are more credible in order to lump them together and to discredit everything that is not the “official story”. Yet another classic technique is to associate those who seek the truth with racism, terrorism and other scary -isms. A fourth way to discredit non-mainstream information is to equate those who write about alternative news and conspiracies as money-hungry crackpots. All of these techniques are in this CNN article.
One particular passage of the article is quite intriguing as it ridicules those who research extremely powerful organizations such as the Trilateral Commission.
“Yesterday’s paranoid types feared elite groups such as the Illuminati and the Masons. Today’s bogeymen include the members of the Rockefeller-founded Trilateral Commission and the politicians and financiers who attend the monied confab at Bohemian Grove and are suspected of mapping out the “new world order.”
Perhaps the author of the article forgot that the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, is a member of some of the most important “elite groups” in the world such as the Council of Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergs. He is known for having donated over a BILLION (that’s a thousand millions) dollars to the United Nations – the leading force working towards the creation of a New World Order. Furthermore, he is one of the most vocal advocates of massive depopulation, even going on record to saying that world population should be reduced to 2 Billion in the next hundred years (that’s a 70% reduction).
Before lecturing people about “credibility”, maybe the folks at CNN should look at their own reporting” in the past years. Here’s a prime example of it.
1991 CNN Report on Gulf War
The above critique from Vigilant Citizen was a response to the CNN article copied below.

Source: Vigilant Citizen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Still ‘paranoid’ after all these years
By Todd Leopold, CNN

We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.” — Anais Nin
(CNN) — Ever have the feeling you’re being lied to by the news media, the authorities, the corporate world? That somebody — or something — is out to get you?
You’re not alone.
Welcome to 21st-century America.
Look around. Trust is hitting historic lows. Just a third of Americans have a favorable view of the federal government, a decline of 31% since 2002, according to the Pew Center for People and the Press. Gallup has Congress’ approval rating is in the low 20s, after nearing single digits last summer. And the news media aren’t much better off.
“Negative opinions about the performance of news organizations now equal or surpass all-time highs on nine of 12 core measures the Pew Research Center has been tracking since 1985,” a Pew report said.
Add in our wired, social media-addicted world, and rumors reign. You’ve heard them all, whether they involve the presidential candidates, global climate change or illegal immigration.
They’re our little open secrets. They give us the sense that we’re on to Them.
“It’s easier to be suspicious,” says Geoffrey Vaughan, a political science professor at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts. “There is something attractive in thinking that you know something, that you haven’t bought into the mass public opinion.”
That attitude is nothing new. In a famous 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” historian Richard Hofstadter traced what he called “the paranoid style” through American history. What he found was that a fearful strain of mistrust flows through the blood of the republic, whether it was 18th-century religious leaders worried about the Illuminati, politicians suspicious of immigrants or McCarthyites convinced of Communist infiltration.
Hollywood has dined out on these feelings for years: “The Manchurian Candidate,” “The Parallax View,” “Wag the Dog,” the TV series “The X-Files,” even the James Coburn comedy “The President’s Analyst” — all are based on the idea that some kind of secret, malevolent operation is going on behind the curtain.
It’s as American as apple pie — filled with razor blades.
Sure, like the stories about those razor blade-tainted apples, there are sometimes bits of truth within. More often, however, the truth is overwhelmed by panic and hyperbole.
Which is a problem, because fear and mistrust have real-life implications, especially in an election year like this one, where it has seeped into the body politic like acid.
To 17% of Americans, President Obama is a Muslim — and 65% of that group are “uncomfortable” with that. It’s not enough for many opponents to disagree with the president on the issues; he has been characterized as a socialist and even the Antichrist.
Mitt Romney’s had his own problems. During the Republican primaries, he struggled to attract evangelical voters who considered his Mormonism a “cult.” (It wasn’t until mid-October that the Rev. Billy Graham’s organization decided to remove that designation from its website.)
This election year, in fact, has been one for the books. Facts, apparently, don’t matter anymore. Both campaigns have earned “pants-on-fire” ratings from the fact-checking site Politifact; both sides have blithely ignored them and moved forward. After the Romney campaign was called out for some falsehoods, pollster Neil Newhouse responded, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
Worse are the actual laws on the books based on some kind of perceived threat. Oklahoma banned courts from considering Islam’s Sharia law. (Oklahoma’s law has been temporarily blocked.) The Texas state Republican Party even created a platform opposing “critical thinking” in state schools, though a spokesperson was quick to point out that the platform regards “critical thinking” as another name for “outcome-based education” (which the platform criticizes as having “the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority”).
Paranoia isn’t on the fringe anymore, like it was in Hofstadter’s day. It’s now closer to the beating heart of the mainstream.
“The fringe has begun to blur with the base,” says John Avlon, author of “Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America.” As the title of Avlon’s book indicates, he’s concerned about this. “That’s the key dynamic, and that’s the key danger.”
The bogeymen of a new generation
Avlon, a former speechwriter for New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and a contributor to the Daily Beast and CNN, observes that one reason Hofstadter’s essay remains valuable is that it shows that in “every generation, there are enthusiastic dupes who are getting sold the same old snake oil.”
In Hofstadter’s time, the ultra-right John Birch Society received attention for its claims of communist conspiracies and elitist cabals. In our time, says Avlon, conservative talk show hosts give voice to these claims. “These are dog-whistle echoes of very old arguments — arguments that have been thoroughly discredited by history.”
It’s not just right-wingers who engage in this talk, he adds. During the George W. Bush administration, some commentators on the left were afflicted with what Avlon, borrowing a term from columnist Charles Krauthammer, calls “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Left-wing opponents of the president called for his impeachment and compared him to Hitler.
Regardless of who sponsors them, these arguments keep following us. Almost 50 years ago, Hofstadter chronicled a handful of overlapping paranoid fears — the belief in an elite conspiracy that wants to run the world, the concern that immigrants and members of other religions will displace “real” Americans, and the idea that a fifth column is working to bring down the United States from within.
Those fears continue to emerge today. It’s no wonder there are calls to “take our country back,” with the implication that “back” was a golden age before the world went to hell.
Yesterday’s paranoid types feared elite groups such as the Illuminati and the Masons. Today’s bogeymen include the members of the Rockefeller-foundedTrilateral Commission and the politicians and financiers who attend the monied confab at Bohemian Grove and are suspected of mapping out the “new world order.”
Or consider immigration. In the 1850s, the nativist American Party (also known as the Know-Nothings) formed over fear of the new immigrants — Irish and German — coming to the United States, allegedly stealing jobs. Today, there’s Arizona SB 1070, nicknamed the “show me your papers” law. Though parts of the law were shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court, other states have used it as a model, and immigrant suspicion is routinely in play — especially along the southern border. This despite studies that have shown that immigrants don’t take jobs away from U.S. citizens.
Even suspicion of an internal coup remains. In the 1950s, we had the Red Scare; today there are people claiming the coming of Sharia law; rumors about Agenda 21, a United Nations development initiative that has inspired fears of world government; and the always reliable anti-Semitism, whether it concerns the “Zionist media,” blame for 9/11 or a belief that Israel is pulling the strings of the U.S. government.
For Hofstadter, the “Paranoid Style” was an extension of two decades of work that promoted reason over emotion and critiqued America’s fondness for an idealized, agrarian past, says his biographer, Elizabethtown College history professor David S. Brown. By the time he wrote the essay, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner was convinced that all those pesky extremists were a thing of the past. But he was well aware that consensus was fragile.
As Derek Arnold, a Villanova communications professor, observes: “You can almost see him as pretty prescient.”
‘Leaving rationality behind’
It’s certainly easy to fall under the spell of paranoia. Since the dawn of mankind, we have been clannish and tribal animals, wary of others, fused by emotional connections. In the modern world we create tribes beyond blood — like sports fans or, well, political parties.
The danger is that many people don’t develop the rationality to tamp down the emotion, says Dr. David Reiss, a San Diego-based psychiatrist who studies personality dynamics.
“It’s not so much that they’re paranoid in a clinical sense, but if they feel their needs are going to be met — or they’re connecting with someone powerful — they’re basically leaving rationality behind,” he says.
Then there’s another deeply human element: the attraction of the story.
“If it’s something that’s interesting and grabs your attention, regardless of your background, it’s appealing,” says Villanova’s Arnold. He mentions the theories about the Mayan calendar predicting catastrophe. “Look at the end-of-the-world stories we’ve been getting this year.”
Though much of the focus these days is on right-wing paranoia, both sides, as they get more extreme, look at their opposition as the enemy and hold on more tightly to their own beliefs, says Jonathan Haidt, a professor of moral psychology at NYU and the author of the recently published “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.”
“Extremism on either side leads to very predictable patterns of thinking and usage of fact,” he says. “Morality binds and blinds. As long as you’re on a team, you’ll have your own set of values and facts.”
Extremists on both sides often take leaps beyond the logical. They indulge in hyperbole: for the left, the right is engaged in a “war on women”; the right has talked about the left waging a “war on religion.” (After the massacre in Aurora, Colorado, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert attributed the tragedy to “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.”)
Why don’t believers follow logic? Again, the mind’s fascination with patterns and groupings is to blame, says Assumption’s Vaughn: We use shortcuts to make decisions, often dictated by our biases.
Add to that our tribal instincts, and shades of gray are reduced to a black-and-white world.
“It’s something you can understand,” he says. Those who don’t see things the same way, he continues, are the deluded ones.
Cashing in
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat and one of only two Muslims in Congress, has seen plenty of fear-mongering, whether it’s accusations that up to 81 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are communists or that Huma Abedin, a Hillary Clinton aide, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
He believes the accusations are tied to both demagoguery and paranoia — “there are people who have an appetite for conspiracy” — but undergirding it is something even more elemental in politics: money.
“It is lucrative,” he says. “As long as there is a financial payoff, and it also happens to feed their paranoia and thirst for conspiracy, it’s going to keep going — until the American people just totally reject it.”
Avlon, the “Wingnuts” author, agrees.
“People who listen to partisan media don’t appreciate that what they have taken to be a tribe of true believers is nothing more than a business plan,” he says.
Indeed, there is good money in playing to your audience. the more the audience buys into it, the harder it is to dislodge their beliefs.
Writer Charles P. Pierce laid out the rules in his indispensable book “Idiot America”: “1. Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings or otherwise moves units. 2. Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough. 3. Fact is that which enough people believe (and) Truth is determined by how fervently you believe it.”
No wonder the so-called mainstream media has trust issues. In the search for ratings and Internet traffic, it gives voice to the same fearful hyperbole found elsewhere in society — and often plays it for entertainment value. (Witness the rise of Donald Trump, political pundit and almost-candidate, whose regular proclamations headline the New York tabloids and are then repeated throughout cable news.) It’s the classic case of preying on our insecurities, points out Ari Kohen, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska.
“Like those teases for the 10 o’clock news: ‘What household product might be making you sick? Tune in at 10!’ It’s the same idea,” he says.
Throw in the echo chamber of right- and left-wing websites, and these claims are even harder to escape, particularly in what’s been described as “the post-truth era.”
“It’s almost as if everybody’s creating his or her own reality at this point,” says John Carroll, a Boston University communications professor and regular media commentator. “They can essentially construct an information environment that’s so self-reinforcing, and so exclusionary, that they don’t really have to consider any evidence that contradicts what they already believe.”
‘We’re in the danger zone’
American history has not been kind to the conspiracists. In general it has fought off their claims, laughed at their theories.
But there have been times when the suspicious have had a point. As the old saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
After all, the Soviet Union did infiltrate some U.S. agencies, and Julius Rosenberg really did deliver classified information. The CIA was instrumental in a number of coups. The FBI’s COINTELPRO program spied on domestic groups. Watergate revealed a tangle of Nixonian malfeasance. A handful of climate scientists did try to clamp down on dissent. (Their opponents have also worked together.) Finance industry workers did cover up bad loans and, more recently, fix the LIBOR rate.
All are “clear evidence,” says Fordham University professor Bruce Andrews, who has taught courses on conspiracies and covert activity, “of actual organized groups doing things.”
The dark currents can give a person pause.
“One of the reasons conspiracy theories have proliferated over the last half century is that they have so often been proven correct,” says Assumption’s Vaughan.
It may never hurt to have a healthy dose of skepticism. But, a willingness to accept — or immerse oneself in — mistrust has been shown to weaken civic structure in other cultures. Russia and some countries in the Middle East have suffered from a lack of transparency, along with great divides between the haves and have-nots. Those cultures also have long histories of conspiracy-mongering and little trust in their governments.
The United States was intended to be different.
“America’s ability to question and, if necessary, change our government made such (conspiracy-minded) thoughts here against the grain,” says Villanova’s Arnold.
Despite our weakened faith in government and institutions, the country chugs along. But what of the future? “I wish I could be optimistic, but I really can’t,” says Reiss, the San Diego psychiatrist. “There’s so much power behind making things destructive. It’s really in the service and to the advantage of the politicians on both sides to keep people in a somewhat scared state.”
“(Consensus) is not dead, but we’re in the danger zone,” says Avlon. “There are real costs to hyperpartisanship. Most importantly it becomes ultimately a threat to self-governance — it’s stopping us from being able to solve the serious problems we face.”
“Righteous Mind” author Haidt, however, sees a reason for hope — though not immediately.
We’re stuck for probably the next five years, he says. After that, events could intercede. We could face economic collapse; we could have total victory by one party. But the most intriguing, he observes, is the passage of generations.
“We went from the Greatest Generation, which was the most civic-minded because they fought World War II together … to the baby boomers, who were the worst at working together because their foundational experience was splitting apart to fight the left-right battle,” says Haidt. “We’ll soon be moving on to the millennial generation, which is marked by a reluctance to make moral judgments.”
That has its own drawbacks, he adds, “but some tolerance and reluctance to judge might be just what we need in the 2020s.”
Until then, however, there will be no golden age of understanding, no rebirth of trust. No, for now, we’re stuck with the system we have, the noise it creates, and the voices in our heads.
- Source: CNN

Monday, November 19, 2012

Obama vs. Romney: Could anyone tell the difference?

This is really funny! All Americans should watch this video, as well as others who closely follow US Elections. Could anyone tell the difference between the two Presidential candidates? Someone did a real good job at compiling this video.

Romney vs. Obama: Same Issues, Same Answers !

Both candidates agree upon all the major issues and there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two. This is a classic example why American elections are mere jokes: it's "the Devil in PINK" or "the Devil in BLUE". Either way Americans have to settle for a devil! It's true, as one author concluded, these candidates who eventually gets to run for the office of US President could appeal only to the least intelligent and the most gullible.

Even more ironic is the state of democracy, which apparently is defined as the rule of majority. The website of George Mason University tracks voter turnout for general and primary elections. According to the site, for instance, only 61.6% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 general election. If roughly half of that voting public voted for Obama and the other half for McCain, that still leaves more people (~39%) "voting" for "none of the above" than either of the two candidates. Yet their votes don't seem to count at all. Democracy at work! The numbers could be similar (or lower) this time. Data available from all the swing states show, Obama's victory margin reduced by 50% or more from his 2008 results.  

If people actually believed that majority rule was the proper way to organize society, then how could they ignore the huge numbers of people who consider these nuts worthless? Makes no sense!

Apparently, a huge number of Americans don't seem to vote at all; probably because of the disgusting nature of American politics and more so rightly this time because of disenfranchising Ron Paul supporters - an effect that was largely ignored by the main-stream-media

Ron Paul effect was a key factor largely ignored this time - the attack on his supporters, vote rigging and tremendous fraud committed to kick him out of race - the lone sane voice among all the other nuts that were on parade. It was quite surprising to see even Bill Maher admits to that fact. One only had to look outside the main-scum-media web to realize how popular the Ron Paul movement was among the youngsters, veterans and so many others. The following excerpt from the article (How GOP Threw the Election) best summarize how Ron Paul was treated at the Republican National Convention (RNC), who brought with him the youngest delegation in the history of Republican party:

"When they arrived, their signs were confiscated and torn up before their eyes. The Maine delegation was summarily unseated and sent home because they contained too many Paul supporters. At the last minute, the Rules Committee changed the ballot access requirement from five states to eight states to prevent Ron Paul’s name from being entered into nomination. They even prevented his name from being mentioned from the podium!
The establishment’s abominable treatment of Ron Paul supporters at the RNC was only the culmination of a corrupt and shameful primary season. In Louisiana, Ron Paul delegates were arrested when it became clear that they were in the majority at the state convention. In Arizona, desperate party bosses turned off the lights at the state convention to prevent Ron Paul supporters from being elected to a party position. In both Maine and Nevada, Romney campaign officials were caught distributing fake delegate slates. In Missouri, police were called to shut down the St. Charles caucus when a Ron Paul victory appeared imminent."
Had this man been allowed to run for the office (assuming free and fair election) most likely President Obama would have been history. Thank God, no sensible person can run for US Presidency. Unfortunately, that's the rule of the game! Americans are only allowed to choose between 2 idiots who make a big fuss on lesser issues like "same-sex marriage" and "abortion" while agree with each other on all the major issues (as in the video above). This is simply the reason why American foreign policies have never changed in the last several decades despite both Republican and Democratic parties ruled the country.

"Lesser Issues"
The issues of "same-sex marriage" and "abortion" cannot be considered unimportant or downplayed as lesser issues in a society. As these issues can affect families, which are the building blocks of any society, the so-called "lesser issues" can have a large impact on the nation in the long run. However, these are issues that individuals still have a choice over and not forced upon them. That is, these laws do not threaten a person's right to marry an opposite sex or a woman's choice to keep her unborn baby rather than kill. Essentially, they have to do with morals that an individual values and uphold. For instance, if the people who line up voluntarily to kill a life doesn't realize what they are committing is murder, then there's little or nothing you can do to help. This does not have to come down as a political issue or party debate but out of moral conscience. On the other hand, the major issues are likely to affect the nation as a whole such as the Patriot Act, National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA), which affect Civil liberties, Health Care, Foreign policies, Federal Reserve, Economy, Military intervention etc. The following shows a comparison of Obama`s accomplishments with respect to his predecessor Bush summarized from an article carried by the Global Research.

Obama equals Bush with a tan!

"Barack Obama was elected in 2008 with a mandate to change things, not superficially but fundamentally. However, he did not do that in any appreciable way and he did not meet the challenges facing him, nor did he meet his supporters’ expectations. Domestically, Obama did not accomplish much during his first term apart from his half-baked health reform and his even more half-baked financial reform. Internationally, although he tried to extricate the U.S. from Iraqi war mess, he showed a lack of moral character by letting American generals intensify the use of killer drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing thousands of innocent civilians. He also demonstrated a lack of respect for civil liberties by giving his administration the right to target American citizens for extrajudicial assassinations. After the 2008 election, Barack Obama gave the impression that he wanted to be all things to all people. He named to key economic posts persons who had been identified with the previous catastrophic George W. Bush administration. Persuaded by his advisors, he named Timothy Geithner (a large banks’ spokesman from the New York Fed) as Treasury secretary and reappointed Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman, even after it had been demonstrated that Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke had heavily contributed in creating the 2001-2005 housing bubble and the subsequent financial debacle that followed. And, for good measure, he chose Rahm Emanuel, a former employee of Goldman Sachs, as his Chief of staff. Surrounded by economic people who would have easily fit into a Republican Bush administration, the Obama administration did not move appreciably from the policies put in place by the previous administration. In early 2009, Harvard economist Larry Summers, President Obama’s first director of the National Economic Council, and former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, among others, advised the new president that he needed to take drastic action toward the largest insolvent banks, lest these failed banks drag the entire U.S. economy down. —Such advice went unheeded".

One is left to the question: What ``change`` has really happened and  what else can we ``hope`` for in the coming years.