I saw this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=489653&in_page_id=1965 on yahoo.com, and when I read it and noticed a place to post comments I decided to post one.  After having made my comment, and realizing that it would first be screened before they posted it, I decided to also post my statement (limited to 800 or 900 characters) here, in the event that they decided not to post my review, which may happen since it goes against the grain of their beliefs.  So, my review:

I don’t believe it, not only is it unoriginal, but it’s also nothing but theoretical extrapolations based on assumptions which have never been proven.  Such as the notion that environmental factors actually add new genetic information to living specimens.  I would say that there is no way it could happen naturally, but there is a way it could be brought about through purposeful genetic engineering.  The ancient Indians tried to form a society like that based on the caste system but there was no hereditary disparity in intelligence resulting from it, in spite of the institutionalized disparity in opportunities.  Chances are this guy would have predicted the same thing about Indian society if he witnessed it’s formation and was ignorant of how India is today. Of course then again, the Time Machine was not written when the Aryans invaded.

And now, the text from the article, just for reference, in case they move or take down the article:

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an
attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted,
ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.

100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.

The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver
Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race
will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.

These humans will be between 6ft and 7ft tall and they will live up to 120 years.

“Physical features will be driven by indicators of health, youth and
fertility that men and women have evolved to look for in potential
mates,” says the report, which suggests that advances in cosmetic
surgery and other body modifying techniques will effectively homogenise
our appearance.

Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and
bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men’s
satellite TV channel Bravo.

Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry.

Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone.

The future for our descendants isn’t all long life, perfect bodies and chiselled features, however.

While humans will reach their peak in 1000 years’ time, 10,000
years later our reliance on technology will have begun to dramatically
change our appearance.

Medicine will weaken our immune system and we will begin to appear more child-like.

Dr Curry said: “The report suggests that the future of man will be a story of the good, the bad and the ugly.

“While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal
habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is the possibility
of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to
an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist
disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other.

“After that, things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.”

Dr Curry’s theory may strike a chord with readers who have read H G
Wells’ classic novel The Time Machine, in particular his descriptions
of the Eloi and the Morlock races.

In the 1895 book, the human race has evolved into two distinct
species, the highly intelligent and wealthy Eloi and the frightening,
animalistic Morlock who are destined to work underground to keep the
Eloi happy.

I am going to have to agree with the person (for the most part) that said it should be taught but not preached.  Only good can come from understanding different religions, for example, the role Islam plays in the Middle East.  The history and function of Islam are crucial to an understanding of the Middle East, and an understanding of the Middle East is crucial to interacting safely and effectively with them.  Of course, there is one religion which is preached in many schools, by that I am referring to evolutionism.  Evolutionism meets all the criterion necessary for being a religion.  It is based on philosophic assumptions and pressupositions, which require faith to believe, and it has it’s own set if implications about morality and the afterlife (or lack thereof).  Furthermore, it contains it’s own set of predictions about the future, and of course it’s own origin myth, or story.  Many people are duped into thinking that evolutionism is somehow secular, and represents a neutral position or viewpoint.  This however is not true as it runs contrary to the origin beliefs of many other religions, thus undermining them.  At the very least it could be considered as an a negative or anti-religion, but in truth it meets all the necessary requirements for being a religion.  That being said, I do not believe that evolutionism should be taught as a fact any more than Islam should be taught as a fact, however, going through an overview of it’s teachings and precepts would be advantageous in that it would help people understand the motivation behind Nazism and the state ideology of WWII Japan.
   

I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!

The “Geologic Column” is yet another profound example of  how evolutionism is based on assumption and circular reasoning rather than empirical data.  Do the rocks date the fossils, do the fossils date the rocks, or is it all just a bunch of subjectively constructed lies?  The evolutionists can speak for themselves on this one:

Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983).

“No paleontologist worthy of the name would ever date his fossils by the strata in which they are found.  It is almost the first thing I teach my first-year students.  Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur.”

“Apart from the very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”

p. 425

O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976)

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.  Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”

p. 53

“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered.  Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”

p. 54

Miller, T.G., “Time in Stratigraphy,” Paleontology, vol. 7, no.3 (1974)

“Physico-geometrical data (apart from radio-metric) can do no more than provide a crude local relative chronology or circumstantial evidence in support of a biochronological framework.”

p. 126

Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, vol. 93 (February 1984)

“As we survey the history of life since the inception of multicellular complexity in Ediacaran times, one feature stands out as most puzzling–the lack of clear order and progress through time among the marine invertebrate faunas.  We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence.  The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.  Why do we fail to find this expected order?”

p. 22

“Heretofore, we have thrown up our hands in frustration at the lack of expected pattern in life’s history–or we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it….If we can develop a general theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations–and we may even extract an unexpected kind of pattern from apparent chaos.”

p.23

There are a lot of liberals who believe in an afterlife.  To that end, there seems to be a lot of people who think that “all paths lead to heaven,” and that anyone can make it to heaven (generalized concept of a positive afterlife not Biblical concept), as long as they are a good person.  For most of my life I have ignored these people, because that notion is clearly not based on anything objective, but rather it is based on an assortment of personal feelings.  At any rate, I have decided to issue a challenge to anyone who believes in that notion.  If being a “good person” is all one needs to have a good afterlife experience, how then do you know that you are a good person?  Anyone?

Today I have decided to discuss American values, and what exactly those might be.  The first idea that might come to mind is, “that depends on which faction you belong to,” however, it doesn’t depend on which faction you ask because there WAS a specific ideology that the US was started under (stated best in the Declaration of Independence), and the leftist ideologies are not it.  Leftist ideologies are typically anti-nationalist (except in cases of National Socialism), and more into establishing a world nation, but I digress.  The point is, that the American Values can be summed up and condensed into two categories.  They are Self Ownership, and Private Ownership of Property.

Self Ownership:

            Self ownership means that you own yourself, and you are entitled to having your own thoughts, religion, opinions, and the freedom to express them.  You have the right to exist and be an individual.  You have the right to do whatever you want with or to yourself, as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s rights (which are the same as yours).  So you do own yourself, but you do not own anyone else, and do not have the right to take from others against their will, because at that point you infringe upon their self ownership.  At that point, they are at liberty to defend themselves using whatever means necessary, and this is another aspect of self ownership, self defense.  This is one of the reasons why the US Constitution stated that the government shall NOT infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms, more on this later…  Another aspect of self ownership is self responsibility, this, as well as the last item, are the parts which liberals do not like.  Liberals wish for there to be a safety net in case someone falls, but with self ownership comes personal responsibility, and with personal responsibility there can be no safety net other than that which you provide for yourself.  If there is a safety net then the person who provides it is the one who owns you, at least in practice.  “But one person can’t truly own another,” some might say.  Well normally no, but if you put yourself under that persons control then yes they do, only you can renounce your rights, others cannot take them away from you. 

            Within Self Ownership are included freedom of speech, expression, thought, and religion.

Private Ownership of Property:

            Private Ownership of Property is perhaps a corollary to Self Ownership.  To sum it up, private ownership of property means that you own your stuff, and no one else has the right to take away your stuff.  You can willingly give up your stuff as a gift or in exchange for money, services, or goods.  If someone takes your stuff against your will, either through stealth or through threats and intimidation then what you have is theft.  No way around that.  You have a right to any currency or goods which you receive as a gift from a willing giver (in the absence of threats and intimidation), or which you receive during a voluntary transaction.  For example, when you work for an employer, you receive money, this is a voluntary transaction, and you have a right to that money, no one has a right to take it away from you against your will.  Is there any exception to this?  Yes, your money or belongings can be taken away from you as compensation for harm you may have caused someone else.  For instance, if you break into a store then you must compensate the owner for the value of the goods you steal, as well as for the value of whatever property you destroyed.

“Isn’t this just materialism?” someone might ask, or state.  No, materialism is when one is shallow and/or flippant, and attaches their self worth to the amount, type, or quality of stuff (for lack of a more inclusive word) which they own, or at least have in their possession and under their immediate control.  Private ownership of property is simply the right you have to keep the fruits of your labor and the willing gifts of others, how you choose to use it is a separate issue and a personal one, but the point is, you have the freedom to make that choice.

Challenges from the Left:

            The left wishes to provide people with a safety net, meaning that if someone is having a hard time (or in some cases they’re just lazy), then the government provides it.  The problem is, in order to do so the government is faced with two choices.   The first is to simply create more money, which doesn’t help much with the economy because it drives down the value of money.  The other choice is to steal the money from a citizen, under threats of confiscation, imprisonment, and perhaps various forms of torture, in order to give it to someone else.  This infringes upon the rights of the person who is robbed, and it deprives the person who has been made a dependant (upon the government) from owning themselves.

            The left has pushed for weapons controls, and delegated the responsibility of defense and protection almost exclusively to the government.  So why not just admit that we no longer follow the US Constitution and scratch out the 2^nd Amendment?  That 2^nd Amendment was made for some very good reasons, and one of them being that many of the colonies would only join the US if it was there.  Why?  Because if the colonists had been unarmed then they would NOT have been able to get rid of the English, and they recognized that weapons were necessary not only for self defense, but also to get rid of the government should it ever become to tyrannical.  If the 2^nd Amendment had remained continually unmitigated then imagine all the disasters that could have been averted.  Just off the top of my head…the Columbine shootings, 9/11, and don’t forget that crazy fool that just started shooting random people on a college campus.  Imagine how far he would have gotten if just a fourth of the people in class had guns as well.  How successfully could inner city gangs intimidate people?  Not many people would be able to get away with much.  I had a friend who used to own a sword (past tense), until his mom or one of his moms friends (can’t remember precisely), got worried that the sword was too long, and called the cops.  The cops came and took away my friends sword.  What gave them the right to take that sword?  His mother or her friend would worry less?  Worry less about what?  Worried that he might be breaking some stupid ordinance that isn’t even constitutional and infringes upon his natural God given rights as a human being?  How about worrying about what they are going to do should a burglar break into the house.  Um…run away I guess, because the cops aren’t God and they can’t be everywhere at once or get there immediately.  Here is something that the left doesn’t think about, if every last gun, sword, and knife is taken up, and the government has the only weapons, then who is going to defend the people from the government?

            Another issue that has been coming up is socialized medical care.  Liberals want the government to take care of everyone’s health now too.  I cannot over emphasize how dangerous and foolish this is.  What I don’t get, is how liberals hate businesses but not the government.  The liberals are smart enough to recognize that in any business transaction initiated by a business or merchant, the seller generally comes out of the transaction with more than does the buyer, hence the reason for selling, generally.  Now why then do they not apply the same level of scrutiny and logic to the government?  Could it be because they don’t believe in God but still have the need in their lives for something to fulfill the function of a deity?  I don’t know for sure because I’m not a liberal and I can’t get into their heads.  At any rate, the government doesn’t just give stuff away for free, and in any transaction with them they are going to derive the greatest benefit from it, even if the rhetoric and façade they try to put forth is one of benevolence.  So what?  A car salesman will do the same thing, and tell you that you are the one coming out with the better deal but I can guarantee you that you are not, nor will you ever be because that would be the end of the business.  For everything the government does there is a reason, and it is not altruism.  If the government didn’t draw a benefit from the things they do then they wouldn’t do them.  It’s absolutely silly to believe otherwise.  Of course the government will be the main beneficiary of socialized medical care, after all, health is important to many, and if the government controls your access to health services then they control you.  “Oh but, it won’t be like that, because it will be optional,” some might say.  Maybe at first, but even if it is optional then I still have to pay for it, and I don’t want to pay for anyone else’s healthcare against my will, especially since most health problems are caused by personal negligence.  If you drive like a fool and wreck out it’s your own problem.  If you spend the whole day tanning and get skin cancer it’s your problem.  If you smoke and get lung cancer, mouth cancer, etc. that’s your problem.  If you eat the fast food and the junk food and get fat and fat related illnesses, and cavities, then that’s your problem.  Take responsibility for your own self, and quite trying to steal money from others because you’re violating their rights.  At any rate, having that additional safety net of socialized medical care is only the first step, and it’s a slippery slope from there.  This is the same strategy the Soviet Union used to use, “two steps forward, one step back.”  Besides, why trust the government to provide good medical care when they put chemicals in our drinking water, and try to outlaw alternative treatments and in some cases vitamins?  It’s absolutely insane.

            People need to wake up and realize that there is an inverse relationship between the amount of activities and responsibilities the government takes upon itself, and personal freedom.  The problem is that most people value security before freedom, and they don’t realize that there can be no true security without freedom.  They also don’t realize how precious freedom is, and that when it is gone it frequently takes bloodshed to get it back.

  A friend showed me this on youtube and I thought it was great.  I’m putting this up mainly to kill time while I work on my next entry, which is going to take me a while.

For those with any amount of understanding, what the title of this entry alludes too will be about as obvious as the allusion presented by the following statement, “The hottest, brightest, yellow thing in the sky that causes daytime.”  For everyone else, however, the topic of this entry is not going to be the sun.  The concept I am going to try to convey here, is incredibly important, so I wish to make my points as blatant and simple as possible, to that end, I have created comic scenarios to illustrate my points.  Click on the images to see the full sized view:

To begin with, the sex drive is largely attributable to testosterone.  Testosterone is produced in men and women in small degrees by the adrenal glands.  In men it is also produced in large quantities by the testicles.  So to begin with, most women cannot possibly even begin to understand what it is like to have a male sex drive, which leads them to misunderstand or underestimate it.  Of course as human beings, regardless of gender, the way that we understand things, and the only way, is by relating new information to our personal experience.  For instance, as a child you learn speech through association, and when you get older, you might try learning a foreign language.  Just be listening to a recording of a completely foreign language, there is no way you can understand it, but by seeing those foreign words associated with pictures, or words in your own language, you can then begin to understand.  This is a natural part of the process of understanding anything.  Unfortunately, short of testosterone pills or injections, there is no way women can understand what it is like to live with a male sex drive, so they might try and associate it with what they presume to be the next closest thing, emotions.  For women, sex is typically emotional, whereas for men it is typically physical, and the pleasure is physical.  While feelings can enhance or detract from the experience, they are not necessary in order for a male to have an orgasm.  In fact, a female is not even necessary for a male to have an orgasm.  The fact that a male has sex does not mean he is in love.  Unfortunately, the Hollywood and pop-culture continually emphasizes the false notion that sex is an act of love, which is why the term “making love” has become synonymous with having sex. 

Most males think about sex quite a bit, and having sex remains the primary goal of many, if not almost all, males.  Some males can resist the temptations presented by the sex drive, but in order to do so requires a strong moral grounding, which most people do not have today.  Of course without a strong moral grounding the overwhelming desire is to have sex, and if a male is aggressive he probably wants sex, and if a male lies (about anything), then he does not have a strong moral grounding.  Deceit is one of the most essential, if not the most essential, tools of male seduction (upon females).  They will say anything or do anything to get what they want.  Of course this is not to say that males are incapable of feelings, or thought.  On the contrary, many males in spite of their sex drive, have at least some concept as to what would be an ideal wife for them.  These concepts are not always based on reality, but it should also be noted that their idea of an ideal date or girlfriend does not usually line up with their idea of an ideal wife.  Why?  Because in the male mind, the sex drive usually operates independently from the emotions and the intellect.  So to recap my points so far:

1.                          Males, be they men or teenagers, have a strong sex drive which causes them to think about sex a lot.

2.                          The main goal of most males is to have sex, unless a strong moral center is in place.

3.                          Males with a strong moral center are rare, and deception is the most essential ingredient in male to female seduction

4.                          The male sex drive is usually separate from his emotions and intellect.

Coercion is also a factor, but can be avoided by avoiding males who exhibit tendencies towards aggression and deceit.  Unfortunately a lot of females put themselves in situations where they might feel threatened or obligated to have sex.  Another problem today, is what I like to call “Dirtbag Syndrome.”  To sum it up, Dirtbag Syndrome is the tendency among many females (especially teenage girls) to be attracted to the “bad boy” personality types.  I just call them dirtbags.  A lot of females feel attracted to guys who are rude, obnoxious, lazy, self absorbed, and abusive, perhaps because it appeals to their sense of adventure, or perhaps because many women feel as though they can “change” the person in question.  It could be because women mistake emotional clutter/baggage for emotional complexity, and women tend to be fascinated by emotions.  Whatever the reason, it happens, and frequently.

So teenage girls, consider the following before you give in:

1.      Is this the person you want to spend the rest of your life with?

2.      Are you ready to be a mother?

3.      Are you prepared to get an abortion?  Would it be healthy and morally acceptable to get an abortion?

4.      Why are you having sex?

5.      Can this person support you?

6.      Can you support yourself?

Of course, the best thing to do is heed my warning, and don’t have sex, wait until you get married, and make sure you marry someone with a strong moral grounding who treats you with consideration.  First of all, if you are a teenager, you don’t need to be in a relationship, you’re too young, and your education is not complete.  There are guys who have not had sex, nor do they seek it as a primary goal (actually probably more men are chaste than women because it only takes one dirtbag to mess up 20 women whereas a man who has his sex drive under control cannot be seduced, nor can he be coerced).  The best thing to do is wait until you are older and wiser, and then seek a mate.  As a teenager you don’t even know what you want, much less what is best for you.  If you have sex then when/if you finally do meet “Mr. Right” then you have lost the most important gift you could have given your husband, and for what?  Your chastity may not seem important now but it sure will later on.  If you have gotten yourself pregnant then you have really blown your chances because there are few to no guys who are willing to take responsibility for your blunder.  Nor should they have to, since you and the guy who helped make your child(ren) are the ones responsible.  So it’s best to take my advice seriously, because if you don’t agree with me now, because one way or another, you’re going to find out that EVERYTHING I said here is true.  If you don’t believe me, just ask some women who have already been through this stuff.  So be smart, and be careful. 

I wanted to share this speculative article about what sort of opposition we can expect if Ron Paul wins the Republican Primary, or perhaps even before:

Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/02/ron-paul-and-the-empire.aspx

Ron Paul and the Empire

As Ron Paul’s campaign for president continues to gain momentum — largely from an Internet-based movement — people are beginning to wonder not only if Ron Paul could really win … but what would happen if he did.

Paul’s ideals are directly in contrast with the “carefully concealed oligarchy” that currently runs the United States. Both Democratic and Republican candidates are typically “puppets” of the establishment, but Ron Paul is a freelancer, and his three central ideas radical:

1. The federal government must follow the strict guidelines of the Constitution.

2. America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world, and practice a non-interventionist foreign policy.

3. America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency, and return to hard money.

Considering the massive bloodshed that has occurred historically any time the oligarchy was challenged, this LewRockwell.com article questions the lengths and powers that he will go to keep Ron Paul from changing the status quo.

Every premise of Paul’s campaign is “unacceptable, repellant and hateful to America’s ruling elite.” A plan to keep their existence intact would include the following sequentially escalating, steps:

• Ignore him and, if possible, exclude him from debates
• Ridicule and fear-mongering that distorts Paul’s ideas
• Scandal, real or fabricated
• Threats through the criminal justice system (with a “plea bargain” to drop his candidacy)
• Ensuring his presidency ended in failure, if he was elected

In short, Ron Paul’s ideas have the power to threaten the core of the American establishment’s worldwide empire. As for Paul’s campaign, the article points out, “This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution.”

LewRockwell.com July 31, 2007

 

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

I don’t believe the powers that currently control our political system ever factored in the enormous influence the Internet can have on changing our culture.  When you combine this, with the courage and conviction of a true Patriot, amazing things can happen.  Dr. Paul speaks the TRUTH, and support for him is like nothing I have ever seen before. (I read nearly three dozen blogs every day, and about 5,000 posts a week, so I have a good sense of what people are feeling.) The establishment’s plan to ignore Dr. Paul and hope he disappears from the radar is clearly not working. He was recently featured in a complimentary New York Times article, and received an enormously favorable response from his interview with Google executive Elliot Schrage. I am confident that this momentum is only going to get stronger as the election grows nearer. We’re in for a very bumpy ride and — (if Dr. Paul gets elected) — some changes in the United States, that have been a long time coming.

Related Articles:

  Ron Paul’s Candidacy Gains Momentum

 Ron Paul Stirs Up Presidential Debate

 Spotlight on Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

The Iraq War:

I have changed my stance on the Iraq war, for the second time.  I have decided that the Iraq war was a mistake.  First of all, I am uncertain as to whether Iraq was a threat to US security, if it was, then North Korea and Iran were bigger threats.  In fact the terrorist elements which generally spread terror abroad are generally bred in Saudi Arabia, which happens to be an essential ally.  For years I have defended the Iraq war on the grounds that Saddam was a dirtabag (and he was), and the suspicion that he did have WMD’s.  Of course if having a dirtbag for a leader is sufficient grounds for invading another country, then we have a very long road ahead of us.  I also defended the war, on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a threat to regional security and oil interests, as he has been demonstrably in the past.  Did that mean he would be again?  While I certainly believe that there was no change in his nature, that did not preclude the possibility that he realized the futility of attempting to take over the Middle East.  I will leave open the possibility that Saddam Hussein was a threat to regional security, and oil harvesting, as he was demonstrably in the past, but then so are the Wahabbis (spelling?), and the Islamic government in Iran.  The Islamic government of Iran was certainly much more of a threat. 

I think what the war was really all about was control, Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with the UN, and I suspect that we have all been duped into waging a war on behalf of the UN.  Clinton used to wage wars on behalf of the UN but he did so far more conspicuously since he was dependant upon votes from a different type of constituency.  Anyways, now that we are in Iraq pulling out really isn’t much of an option, because Islam is involved.  Having Islamic terror involved totally changes the situation, Saddam Hussein was secular, but now Iraq is a breeding ground for Islamic terror.  The problem with pulling out now is that it would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the terrorists.  Running away from terrorists is about as productive as running away from an attacking dog.  I large vicious dog may be afraid to attack you because of your size, and the menace associated with size, but as soon as you run then the dog has at least circumstantial evidence that you are no match for him, and he will step up his attacks.  In a situation like that it’s best to abruptly snap the dogs neck, or hurt him critically enough that he backs down.  The same must be done with the Islamic terrorists, so if there is to be a pullout then it needs to be done in such a way that the terrorists do not see it as a victory for them.  Non-interventionalism is one of the most central planks of conservativism, and I think we need to start going back to that.

Current Issues:

            Most people might be unaware of the fact that there is no legal basis for the IRS, or for federal income tax.  It is true, in fact the money harvested by the income tax is not put to any use, it is all placed in the Federal Reserve, which is NOT even a part of the government.  The Federal Reserve is a corporation, a private bank, which exists for largely unknown reasons, but whatever they be, the fact that it controls the value of money is evident.  Many people are charged with tax evasion, persecuted, and convicted, even though there is no legal basis for the existence of the IRS, or a Federal income tax.  I would like all of my readers, to go and watch this documentary on the issue of the Federal Income Tax and the IRS.  Before the next election everyone needs to be aware of these issues, regardless of their party affiliation and political orientation.  I think we can all agree on the fact that we don’t like paying income taxes, and none of us would if we didn’t have to.  Legally we don’t have to, but if we don’t then the IRS comes and beats us over the head, pillages our homes, throws us in jail, etc.  Some court cases where people are put on trial for “tax evasion” are actually won.  The documentary is by Aaron Russo, and it’s called “America, From Freedom to Fascism.”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

            Other issues of great concern are the Federal ID card, which for my part I intend to resist, and the trend towards a one world government, of which NAFTA is a part.  The Federal ID card is just another step for the government to increase its control over American Citizens, it has absolutely nothing to do with homeland security.  If the current government was so keen on homeland security they would enforce the immigration laws pertaining to the Mexican border.  As to the one world government, I know that a lot of people think that a one world government would be good, but in real life it wouldn’t pan out like it did in Star Trek.  Star Trek is fun, but Star Trek is fantasy, in real life governments are usually all about control, and a one world government would be nothing but controlling. BTW, if you don’t like the current US government what can you do?  Well, you can wait around and try to vote in a new government OR, leave the country.  How can you leave the country, if the whole world is the country?  You can’t.  What can you do if you don’t like the world government?  Rebel, and probably die.  Just food for thought.  I cannot believe a one world government would do anything more than consolidate it’s power and practice social engineering.

Presidential Candidate I Endorse:

            I endorse Ron Paul for the 2008 presidential election.  Ron Paul is currently a Congressman representing Texas.  He is also a practiced medical doctor, and has served in the Air Force.  As to his stances on all the major issues, he can speak for himself.  In this video he answers questions posed to him by CNN at a debate involving Republican candidates, the 1^st 3 minutes and 16 seconds show the crowds outside, but if you can skip past that then you will get to hear his positions on the issues:

If there is any trouble viewing the video check out his statements on each issue in written form:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

I just recently saw on the news that Barack Obama was talking about invading Pakistan if he gets to be president.  I cannot overemphasize the stupidity of this notion, but once all the facts are looked at, it’s easy to calculate what his possible motives are.

First of all, the stupidity.  Pakistan is one of the few Islamic countries, and the only Central Asian country that is cooperating with us.  Obama says that if Musharraf (spelling?) does not contain the terrorist element within his country then the US will invade.  On the surface I would say that this is a poor political move, based on the assumption that Democrats are generally anti-war.  The assumption however is false, Democratic voters are generally only anti-war if the commander-in-chief in charge with the war began was a Republican.  Case in point, Clintons ridiculous war in the Balkans, which aided the Dar al Islam, and his bombing of Iraq (which actually pleased me at the time), but nevertheless was for no reason except to throw up a smoke screen in front of his  personal affairs (double meaning here).  Of course blowing up another country is not enough to get Republican voters or conservatives to vote for Johnny Lib, so I believe that this ploy will have no effect on peoples voting either way.  A useless political ploy, but if he ever were president and if he followed t hrough it would cause serious problems.  Musharraf has been instrumental in capturing, containing, and interrogating terrorists.  He is our only ally in the region, other than India.  Of course Iran would have been an ally if Democrat Jimmy Carter hadn’t betrayed the pro-American Shah to Islamofascist rebels, but that’s another story.  The point is, Pakistan is our only helper in the immediate region.  Who else is going to help if Pakistan becomes an enemy, and how is that going to make it easier for our already thinly spread troops to locate and capture terrorists?  The answers, no one is going to help, and it will be harder to capture the terrorists. 

So why would Obama want to do something like that?  Aside from it being a political ploy, one has to consider Obamas upbringing, which just so happens to be Islamic.  It’s also a well known fact to those of us who are somewhat aware, that many if not most Moslems HATE Musharraf.  One need only observe how he is portrayed by Aljazeera.  He is considered by many to be an enemy to Islam because he works with the US, and he fights against Islamic terror.  So it’s possible that Obama wants to help out the Islamic cause by taking out someone who (according to many Moslems), is an enemy of Islam.  In fact Musharraf may not even be a Moslem, I believe him to be somewhat of a pragmatist.