But really…

Who is the real Hillary Clinton?

The Facts

Washington is plagued by special interest groups. These interest groups usually donate money to influence a candidate’s agenda. Hillary, out of all the Presidential candidates has accepted the most money from lobbyists. She even accepted almost nine more times the amount from lobbyists as her rival Barack Obama.

Lobbyists send money to candidates and politicians who are most able to be influenced. Candidates who don’t fight for special interest groups don’t receive money. That’s a fact.

The Senate

1) In 2006 the issue of banning cluster bombing in civilian areas arose in the senate. Cluster bombing are extremely deadly to civilians because they cover a large area. It is estimated that 40% of cluster bombs hit the group unexploded. These bombs become like land mines, ready to wreak havoc at the unexpected moment.

Hillary Clinton voted with the Republicans and voted against the ban while Obama voted for the ban. Analysts claim she voted against the ban because she did not want to appear “soft” on terror.

If Hillary Clinton really wanted to end President Bush’s policies, wouldn’t she have voted for the ban?

2) A blogger over at DailyKos compared both Hillary and Obama’s senate votes. The blogger points to many issues, but I found this one about lead poisoning the most interesting.

Hillary introduced a senate bill (S.1793) to give tax credits to building owners who remove lead based paint.

On the other hand, Obama tackled the same issue in a different way. He introduced a bill (S.1306) to classify certain lead containing products are hazardous substances. He also sponsored a bill (S.2132) prohibiting interstate transport of lead containing toys.

Both are good bills right? But who put more initiative into the issue? Hillary’s bill is important but only helps the problem if building owners choose to comply. Obama’s bill is much more progressive and will help end the problem, whether people want to comply or not. Obama’s bill is also much more risky…he risks pissing off lobbyists and toy manufactures.

3) The Iraq war resolution. Hillary knows it was a mistake, and I guarantee she wishes for another chance to vote on it. Whether she lacked the judgment, was mislead by the WMD propaganda, or didn’t want to be soft on terror is up for you to decide. But the plain truth is that she voted for the war. And it will haunt her to the end, especially since her rival voted against it.

Though these are just a few of many examples, they show us a lot about Hillary Clinton. She’s for sure a status quo candidate, unwilling to act on what might make her unpopular.

The Campaign

Clinton’s donors have become worried about her financial situation. Why did she spend $25,000 on luxury hotel rooms in Las Vegas, the $250,000+ monthly salaries on top campaign managers, or the millions she spent on consultants in January?

Was it because she was expecting to win on Feb 5th? Do these blunders show her lack of management skills and judgment?

The big question is: If Hillary Clinton cannot be faithful with her donor’s money, how can Americans ever trust her with our money?

America’s experienced CEOs and military leaders know to never underestimate the future or the opponent. If Hillary Clinton claims experience, shouldn’t she have known not to underestimate Barack Obama’s rise?

Campaign Tactics

Candidates are somewhat like athletes. They are expected to play by the rules, be team players, and have good sportsmanship…even when they lose. The best kind of athletes and teams have good etiquette. They will play fairly even when they have an easy opportunity to take a cheep shot. Any athlete should have character and integrity. How much more should the leader of the free world play by these same standards?

1. Hillary accuses Obama for plagiarizing a part of his friend’s speech. Seriously, is this all Hillary has on Obama? It’s an obvious fact that politicians borrow from each other all the time. When was the last time she plagiarized another politician? Oh yeah, it was days after she criticized Obama…

2. Hillary is slowly realizing that she is probably not going to win the people’s vote. So she turns to the infamous Superdelegates, the party leaders and powerful politicians who don’t have to vote in favor of the people’s choice. Her new website, delegatehub.com, makes sure to remind Superdelegates that they don’t have to vote with the people. Quote from the main page of her website: “The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president.”

Hillary, I have a simple question for you? Are you suggesting that the people are unfit to pick their president? What ever happened to the principles of democracy?

3. Today an image surfaced depicting Obama in traditional Somali garb. The Clinton campaign was blamed and interestingly enough, did not deny releasing the image. We all know Obama has been called a Muslim in disguise. And Clinton recently charged Obama with using “Karl Rove like tactics” against her. If Clinton is against using “Republican” tactics, why would her campaign fuel propaganda that Obama is a Muslim?

As seen below, it is normal for politicians to act diplomatically and dress according to foreign customs:

Hillary Clinton will do everything she can to win a 51% majority (or less, by using superdelegates). Her campaign has tried to unfairly get the delegates from Florida and Michigan, which she obviously won because she was the only frontrunner on the ballot. Obama and Edwards stayed true to the Democratic National Committee and boycotted the Florida and Michigan primaries for setting their date too early.

WAKE UP to the TRUTH!

If nominated, Hillary Clinton will deep hurt the Democratic Party and probably lose the general election. People are tired of the deeply divided Bush and Clinton years. For many young voters, like myself, either a Bush or Clinton has been if office for our entire life. If Clinton wins, it means decades of two elite families controlling the future of our nation. Isn’t that a bit frightening and anti-democratic?

Polls indicate that Hillary Clinton will lose the general election vs. John McCain. McCain’s war experience and his moderate stances on things like Global Warming and Illegal Immigration will win the independent vote along with many Democrats who dislike Clinton. The truth is that the Republicans are deeply divided over Bush’s policies and McCain’s likely nomination. Nothing could unite them better like Hillary Clinton’s nomination. If Clinton gets the nomination, the GOP will rip her to shreds and McCain will win the election. Do we really want another four years of Bush-like policies?

I hope that those voting on March 4th will be able to see the truth about Hillary Clinton. Make the rest of America proud, and consider the facts before voting!

Other Readings

A Texan’s Open Letter to Hillary and her supporters

What has the media said about it?

————————–

December 26, 2001: Fox news reports that Osama Bin laden could be dead.

“Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

…The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden’s face before burial said “he looked pale … but calm, relaxed and confident.”

Source

—————————-

January 2002: “I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a … kidney patient,” Pakistani General Musharraf told CNN. Musharraf went on to say:

“I don’t know if he has been getting all that treatment in Afghanistan now. And the photographs that have been shown of him on television show him extremely weak. … I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan.” Source

—————————-

Former Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with troops in Kyrgyzstan on April 26, 2002. While responding to a question about negotiating with Osama Bin Laden he responded:

“You know in truth, it is kind of his choice. We’re hunting him down, we’re tracking him down, he’s hiding. We haven’t heard hide nor hair of him since, oh, about December, in terms of anything hard. We don’t know where he is. We are pretty sure he is either dead or alive.” Source

————————–

In this interview, the former Benazir Bhutto states that Osama Bin laden was murdered. Obviously this contradicts the sources that say he died a peaceful death. But it still suggests that Bin Laden is dead.

—————————

But hasn’t Bin laden released new audio and video tapes since December 2001?

For one, the audio tapes could be easily faked. Anyone with a similar voice could sound like Osama Bin Laden. Voice morphing software is also easily accessible.

However, the best case against the “Osama’s dead” argument is a 2004 video tape. The tape names presidential candidate John Kerry by name and therefore suggests that Bin Laden is still alive by at least summer 2004. Other analysts have pointed out that the face in the video seems much less slim than the earlier 2001 videos of Bin Laden.

In the end we will probably never know what happened to Osama bin Laden. He could be still alive, but it’s probably not likely. His kidney trouble combined with the need to hide and not attend a proper medical center contribute to the “Osama’s dead” argument. It’s also arguable that if he was alive, he would release a high quality tape encouraging his terrorist fighters.

1. He’s alright with American troops being in Iraq for 100 years or more, as long as they aren’t being hurt. (1/3/2008)

2. McCain, who was tortured as a POW in Vietnam, voted AGAINST the measure to ban harsh interrogation techniques including Waterboarding (2/13/08). Interestingly enough, McCain has been running on a clear Anti-Waterboaring platform.

3. Like Obama and Clinton, McCain favors a 50 cent tax on gas to help prevent Global Warming.

4. McCain sponsored a bill with Democrat Ted Kennedy that included a guest worker program and a path to earned citizenship for illegal aliens.

5. McCain scored 18% on immigration issues by the US Border Control. This earns him an “open-border” stance by the USBC.

6. He’s 72 years old. If elected, the then 73 year old McCain will be the oldest US president to be inaugurated.

7. Endorsed by the LA Times, and NY Times, two of the most liberal papers in America.

Update: 8. McCain doesn’t support Net Neutrality.

Think about the above picture for a moment. How many of us actually understand what Fascism is? If we had it, would we recognize it?

A recent study by Lawrence Britt compared the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Francos Spain, Salazars Portugal, Papadopouloss Greece, Pinochets Chile, and Suhartos Indonesia. It recognized that these regimes have all followed fourteen similar traits.

The question is: Are any of the fourteen Fascist traits visible in today’s America?

“Fascism isn’t imposed. It thrives where it’s accepted by a large portion of the native populace.” — Anonymous

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of Nationalism.

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

How it relates: After 9/11, Americans saw terms such as “Anti-American” and “Anti-Patriotic” emerge and slandered against some who challenged the Federal government, Patriot Act, and War in Iraq. The patriot act was passed because no one wanted to be called “unpatriotic” or “soft on terror.”
Those who oppose the War in Iraq are often smeared as unsupportive of the troops.

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag.” — Sen. Huey Long

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious [outrageously bad], the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

How it relates: Guantanamo bay detention camp. The US cannot afford to have one if its “GITMO” inmates die. As a result, a painful feeding tube is forced upon anyone who tries to go on a hunger strike. Reports of tactics close to torture have also surfaced. Meanwhile, back is Washington, the CIA comes out and states that it has tortured people in the name of fighting terror. However, much of the American public still believes these tactics are saving their lives and therefore turn their heads from the matter.

The Declaration of Independence states: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Do these rights apply to “Gitmo” detainees?

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice relentless propaganda and disinformation were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

How it relates: Increasingly terrorists are blamed more and more for natural disasters (Fox suggested that Al-Qaeda started the California wild fires) or any act of violence that’s caused by some lunatic.

We must absolutely keep away from labeling American citizens who protest the government as “terrorists.”

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” — James Madison

The War in Iraq is likely to become America’s most expensive war. Some estimates even put the final cost at $3 trillion dollars. What could we have accomplished if we used the money on our domestic needs? Could we have invented an alternative source of energy for our vehicles? What about a stronger domestic national defense and building a border fence?

5. Rampant sexism.

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

There is already a strong movement for women’s rights in the US. Therefore fascism loses on this one.

6. A controlled Mass Media.

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses.

“Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.” –- Sen. Robert Taft

I am not suggesting that the American government controls the media. But there are many powerful men and women in the media who have interests in corporations who profit from war. Moreover, major networks continue to limit stories that conflict or criticize the status quo. Instead, the American media distracts from the real issues by spending huge amounts of time covering unimportant stories relating to celebrities and sidestepping the important problems.

7. Obsession with National Security.

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” -– James Madison

How it relates: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the obsession of National Security by some politicians is actually quite scary. Yes, we all want to be safe. But do we really need to so readily exchange our precious freedom for security?

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and pro fascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug.

Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

How it relates: The United States must make sure that it does not suggest a “Holy War” or crusade against Islamic regimes or extremism. We must be clear on our goals and stay away from the idea that Islamic Extremism is about destroying Christianity or any other major religion in the US.

9. Power of corporations protected.

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens.

How it relates: With the recent passage of Telecom Immunity, companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Quest are now protected against privacy lawsuits for giving personal information to government spy agencies (National Security Agency). Moreover, lobbyists and war profiting companies have increasingly more power in Washington.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

Aren’t Unions one of the most powerful forces in the work force? Fascism loses on this one too.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.

Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

Not really prevalent in the United States. Fascism loses on this one too.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

How it relates: Our domestic police do a great job. However, we must make sure that police power never infringes on the Bill of Rights. We must also make sure that a national force is never allowed to be created. Our constitution right to bear arms protect us against abuses in a Federal Army and Police power. This right must never be lost.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

How it relates: We have one of the most uncorrupted governments in the world. But corruption still exists and is largely fueled by lobbying. Lets try to keep corporate interests away from Washington and our politicians! There’s a lot of talk about “Change” right now. Do we really want Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton?

14. Fraudulent Elections.

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating an disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

How it relates: The Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 used electronic Diebold voting machines in many states. These machines were proven by Princeton University to be easily hackable in under one minute. These machines open the door to voting fraud. Let’s see states enact better election standards and protocols to protect the integrity of future elections.

Conclusion

Is the United States a fascist country? Absolutely not. Is fascism going to overtake America? Probably not. But could a watered down version of soft fascism be on the rise in America? The evidence in this article suggest so.

Is this subtle philosophy of creeping fascism dangerous to our freedom? Yes. But what’s more dangerous is when we don’t even recognize our loss of liberty. Americans must recognize what freedom really means. We must become leaders that stand for freedom and liberty.

So what can you do about it?

1. Educate yourself. Take a few minutes a day and read up on current events and issues.
2. Vote. Vote for those who stand for personal liberty and against corporate interests.
3. Write your congressmen. Tell them not to support things like Telecom Immunity.
4. Get involved in local politics. Go to your party’s county meetings and run for a position.

“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes,” –Joseph Stalin

According to a source that compared the outcome of the election to the municipalities using electronic and hand counting methods, the results were strikingly different. Hillary won in places using electronic Diebold machines. In comparison, Obama won in places that hand counted the votes.

Hillary Clinton: 53.23% from Diebold, 47.47% Hand Counted
Barack Obama: 46.77% from Diebold, 52.53% Hand Counted

Electronic machines are used more often in cities than rural areas. Clinton is said to be more popular in urban areas while Obama takes his support from small towns and rural areas. This would explain the discrepancy but it still leaves some doubt.

Let’s examine the election facts. The polls are usually pretty right, as was shown in Iowa. In the days preceding and day of the NH election, almost all the polls showed Obama with at least an eight percent lead over Clinton. Zogby even reported that Obama lead by 13%. It is interesting that the Zogby poll was very accurate in predicting the outcome for the other candidates…just not Hillary.

Clinton could have still pulled a legitimate win. The exit polls show that there was a much larger turnout for women and that more woman voted for Clinton than Obama. Clinton’s last minute emotional “breakdown” might have had something to do with the large turnout of lady voters.

But whether or not Clinton really won is irrelevant (Obama won the same amount of delegates). The point is that the system needs to be secured in future elections.

An estimated 81% of the New Hampshire ballots were counted in “secrecy” by Diebold Election Systems, which was recently renamed Premier. These systems were proved by a Princeton University study to be easily hacked.

The Princeton study (which is well documented and meets academic standards), reports that a Diebold election machine can be completely hacked in about one minute. The hacked software can also act as a virus, transporting itself by memory card from machine to machine. When the election is done, the malicious software covers its tracks by deleting itself from the infected machines. I recommend watching a demonstration video below:

Update:

Other Reading

Ron Paul preaches an unusual message of limited federal government, security with no loss of freedom, sound money, a better foreign policy, and a return to the Constitution. Why is this message so desirable, especially for young people? It is because they believe America is on its last legs, heading into a downward spiral. It is no coincidence that Ron Paul’s greatest support comes from internet-savvy people. Could it be that his internet following is so passionate because they understand the message and its importance much better than the general Mainstream Media audience?

In a period of under three months, over 200,000 people have donated to Ron Paul’s campaign raising a stunning $18.3 million dollars. I think it’s safe to assume that at least 200,000 people are reasonably enthusiastic about Ron Paul’s message. Now let’s make a safe estimate that only 1 in 20 of these enthusiastic supporters are forever inspired and energized by Ron Paul and his message.

That comes to 10,000 people who have been forever inspired and will stick with the message. Now let’s assume that this group is so inspired that many “infiltrate” government. In time, they run for city council, mayor, governor, congressman, and maybe even president. These thousands of revolutionaries begin to change American government. They stand for constitutional principles, limited government, and follow the advice of the Founding Fathers. The drums of liberty begin to beat once again.

Like Ron Paul, these revolutionaries do not run because they are power hungry or wish to become famous. Rather, they run because they are in a fight to preserve America’s freedom. They, like their Founding Fathers, restore power to the people.

This is why Dr. Paul’s campaign is called the “Ron Paul Revolution.” There is absolutely no way to stop it. These revolutionary “troops” have already been recruited, and their numbers are likely to be many more than 10,000 strong. As people wake up and become increasingly disgusted with the status quo, the number of revolutionaries will only increase.

Every dollar and every hour invested in Ron Paul’s campaign will cause more people to wake up and join the march for freedom. Though you may not support Ron Paul for president, at least be open to what he is doing. What is invested can only someday benefit you and your children.

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds. – Samuel Adams

Even if Ron Paul does not win the election in 2008, he has ignited something much like the “shot that was heard around the world.” In 1776 no one thought a tiny group of American revolutionaries would be able to beat the most powerful military in the world. But apparently they greatly underestimated the spirit of liberty. Freedom is popular, and it cannot be stopped.

I am proud to take part in something much bigger than myself –I am proud to be part of the Ron Paul Revolution.

Signed,

An American Patriot

A Ron Paul supporter has been cured of his political apathy

In the News:
Ron Paul on The Issues
Ron Paul Revolution: It has just begun to fight
The Real Ron Paul Revolution

The interrogation technique described is commonly called Waterboarding. The victim is pinned face up on an inclined board. They are positioned so that their blood slowly rushes to their head. A rag is then placed inside their mouth and another rag is placed over their head. Water is then poured over the rag causing the victim to gag and experience something similar to endless drowning. Under the circumstances, the victim feels that death is unavoidable.

Is this technique an ethical practice? …Is it torture? The question we really need to ask is why isn’t it torture?

Historically, Waterboarding has been considered to be cruel. In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer for performing a form of Waterboaring on a U.S civilian during WW2. The officer was sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor. In 1606, King James I ranked Waterboarding as a more severe torture process than the infamous rack.

In an interview with ABC, ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, confessed that he used Waterboarding to interrogate an al-Qaeda prisoner. That’s right! Our government has participated in torturing suspects!

The House has recently passed a measure to ban Waterboarding. However, President Bush has threatened to veto the act, claiming that it endangers American lives by hindering interrogators. With a president who allows it, and possible future presidents (Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson) who would allow it too, it is likely that we will not see the end of Waterboarding in the near future.

America has always been known as the bearer of liberty; a safe haven in a world of increasing tyranny. Why then are we resorting to torturing our enemies? Some might argue that torturing terrorists will benefit the greater good…and save American lives. The attacks of 9/11 were heinous. But is it right to torture those who oppose us, even if it might save lives? Does the end justify the means? More importantly, where do we draw the line?

In 2003, America toppled the regime of Saddam Husein for its tyrannical practices. And now, somehow, we find ourselves stooping to the same low and engaging in an act that is associated with tyrannical societies. Will you allow your society and your leaders to stand for this?

Update: An account of a well trained athlete Waterboarding himself.
Confirmed: Three detainees were Waterboarded

Rasmussen Reports, who collect polling information based on nightly telephone interviews, reported that:

In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Mike Huckabee retains a three-point edge with support from 21% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide while Rudy Giuliani is the top choice for 18%. Mitt Romney earns 12% while Fred Thompson and John McCain each attract 11%.

According to that same source, one month ago Huckabee trailed with 14% while Giuliani led with 24%.

Many other polls have also shown that Huckabee is the new Giuliani (at least for now). There are a few reasons for his recent surge which I have outlined below.

1. The media has clearly given Mike Huckabee a “get past us free card.”

The Media has built up this ex-Baptist minister over the last couple months. Now the reason comes clear. Mainstream media only built him up to destroy his reputation later. Today CNN released an article entitled: Huckabee: Politicization of rape victims’ deaths ‘heartbreaking’

CNN “Exposes” him here:

2. Word of Mouth

In a the last week I’ve been asked about a dozen times if I’ve heard of Huckabee. Seems like conservative voters finally have their man. This word of mouth advertising, coupled with the media’s recent push for Huckabee have given him the name recognition he needs to win the nomination.

3. Unhappy with Rudy McRomney

Conservative voters are tired of the top tier candidates. Giuliani is liberal, Romney’s a Mormon, Thompson can’t be serious, and McCain seems to love war a little too much. Voters want someone who is likable and they can trust.

4. Divine Providence

Huckabee contributes his surging poll numbers to the working power of God. When asked about his recent surge, he replied:

There is only one explanation for it, and its not a human one. Its the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loves feed a crowd of five thousand. The video can be viewed here.

Could it be that Huckabee will be the republican nominee? It’s looking like he has a great chance. If Huckabee wins the nomination, it is likely that he would run with Sam Brownback. Brownback is also a Christian and had a lot of strong support when he was still running for president.

Huckabee could gain a lot more support if he set a timetable for pulling out the troops. However, if President Bush decides to pull out of Iraq before the election, Huckabee might be able to hit a home run in a very different ball game.

———————————————————————–

Traditional Conservatism

Who They Are:
Traditional Conservatives believe in traditional morals and a capitalist economy. They believe a limited government is needed for both to flourish. They support open international trade and a humbler foreign policy. In the past, Traditional Conservatives have stood for less government spending and lower taxes. They have not advocated empire building and have chosen war as the last option.

What They Are Doing:
Many Traditional Conservative leaders and voters have allowed some neo-conservative policies to influence their traditional ideology. Traditional Conservatism seems to be more noticeable at the state and local level.

Political Figures:
Ronald Reagan (for the most part)

———————————————————————–

Neo-Conservatism

Who They Are:
Originally these people were ex-liberals and sometimes even ex-communists that brought social views into the Republican party. However neo-conservatism has changed a lot over the years. Today they are not as worried about the size of government or budget as traditional conservatives. They are also more ambitious about the use of military and government power in the world. They challenge regimes who are hostile to U.S interests and values. One of the most notable policies of this movement is their “first strike” doctrine. Basically to some it all up, “neo-cons” think that the U.S is the only remaining superpower and should use it’s position to sustain global stability and influence the spread of democracy.

What They Are Doing:
The Neo-cons seem to have a great influence in steering traditional conservatives and some liberal politicians to their views. They are also gaining influence in mainstream media as well as the Department of Defense. Lately, the Neo-cons are pushing for war with Iran under their aggressive first strike doctrine. Unfortunately, many Republicans do not recognize that Neo-Conservatism is a movement away from Traditional Conservatism.

Organizations:
Project For a New American Century
You can view their principles on their web page.

Political Figures:
Though Bush started out as a traditional conservative in his 2000 campaign (he was originally against nation building), it is logical to conclude that his neo-conservative administration influenced him into a neo-con agenda and foreign policy in Iraq. The Iraq foreign policy is probably the best example of neo-conservatism in action.

———————————————————————–

Libertarian Conservatism

Who They Are:
This branch has been associated with the “Old Right.” The core values include: free markets, some emphases on traditional morals, cutting federal programs, and personal freedom. Basically, Libertarian Conservatives believe the federal government makes a mess out of things and many decisions should be left up to the individuals and local/state governments. This branch strongly advocates a literal interpretation of the Constitution. They endorse the doctrine of Non-interventionism. This means that the United States should try to stay out of foreign conflicts.

It is important to note that Libertarian Conservatism differs from a true Libertarian philosophy. True Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to do whatever they want as long as they don’t infringe upon basic rights of equality. In contrast, Libertarian Conservatives support some government regulations (one example is border control).

What They Are Doing:
Libertarian Conservatism is making a comeback with the growing support for Ron Paul’s presidential nomination. This group is calling for reform in the Republican party and United States Government. They strongly oppose the Neo-Conservative movement.

Political Figures:
Probably best known figures are Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater (for the most part).

———————————————————————–

A diagram of how conservative each branch is:

The debate was fundamentally flawed before it even started. CNN’s ability to pick the questions almost completely destroys the “democratic” idea behind submitting questions. Why not allow American’s to vote on what questions they want answered? There could be a set of loose rules to prevent non serious or inappropriate questions. CNN was also extremely biased and manipulative in picking and directing the questions. They also picked obscure ones. For example: A question on the Confederate flag and a mission to Mars. Oh and what about that one asking Giuliani why he supported the Red Sox? Are there not more important issues on hand? I would have liked to see some questions on Stem Cell research, the situation with Iran, and most importantly how they would respond to another terrorist attack.

The debate was far from fair. The candidates were not given equal talking time and many were not allowed to answer a question intended for all the candidates. In order to decide who “won” the debate or who did the best, there must be a reasonable amount of fairness involved in the debate. Why? Because candidates given more questions are going to look better than candidates that didn’t have a chance to answer. How can someone that didn’t have a fair chance win? Of course there will be more questions for “front runners,” but at least give the 2nd tier candidates a chance to respond. The 2nd tier candidates bring many new ideas and important points to the debate (thats how they build support). The front runners are then forced to respond and the debate’s quality is elevated.

From NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum:
Giuliani — 16:38, during 20 times
Romney — 13:18, during 19 times
Thompson — 12:16, during 12 times
McCain — 11:00, during 12 times
Huckabee — 10:00, during 11 times
Paul — 7:43, during 9 times
Hunter — 5:06, during 7 times
Tancredo — 3:49, during 7 times

In my eyes, Huckabee was the only one that benefited from this so called debate. His responses were clear and witty, and he showed he could handle himself against the “Rudy McRomney” machine. I wouldn’t be surprised if this really helps him out in Iowa.

I could definitely see a major attack on Ron Paul. CNN just can’t stand him. They tried everything to discredit him and his campaign. He didn’t even get a question for the first 30 some minutes. In the debate Ron Paul stated that he had 5000 people at a rally. The post debate analysts jeered at the comment saying something like: “We were there. It was more like 2000.” According to a local news station: “PHILADELPHIA, PA.– Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul today addressed a crowd of over 5,000 enthusiastic supporters in Philadelphia.” Ron Paul’s performance was not stellar, but I think he did well for what questions he was asked. After the debate Ron Paul brought up a good point: “…I also recognize private property. They have their right to be biased.”

The debate is a prime example of how the mainstream media tries to lead us on. The cameras were constantly centered on Giuliani and Romney, who got more airtime than many of the others combined. America must not allow the mainstream media to “pick” our leaders for us. It’s well past time to turn off our TV’s and listen to alternative opinions (The Internet, Talk Show Radio, Local Newspapers…). Educate yourself before you vote in 2008!