Skip navigation

Hi gang. I wanted to voice a few opinions on Iran this morning that I feel are relative. Fueled partly by the example set in Egypt and partly by their tiring of being oppressed, the people of Iran have begun to protest. For me, what I saw next is more of a reason to intervene in the Iran situation than anything nuclear related. I, personally, believe that every human being on this planet has natural human rights(I don’t say God-given because I am not a Christian). For me personally, to see lawmakers openly chanting for the execution of the leadership of the Iran protesters is something worth defending people against. Could you imagine if a protest was held here in the Untied States, and even if there was some violence involved in it, turning on your T.V. and seeing the members of Congress chanting for the execution of the protests organizers?

I’m not saying that violence in protest is acceptable and that there should not be a penalty for inciting such acts, but when the people are oppressed, regularly having basically no civil rights, and when they act out because of this oppression they are to be killed like a stray dog that bit someone? No group of leaders should have the right to just decide on the spot to execute the citizens. I usually do not believe in intervention in other countries affairs but I feel we, in this case, have a moral obligation to not allow free protesters to be murdered because they oppose a government that is clearly oppressive. Women have basically no rights in Iran, and speaking out against the government is punishable by death. In 2011 we as a race should be above such barbaric actions.

Again, I’m not trumpeting an invasion of Iran over this, I’m just making the point that if there is going to be intervention from one country to another, this is a prime example of having just cause. The case of a nuclear plant, though it could be far more damaging than just a few lives, has not happened yet and is not guaranteed to lead to a bad result, however likely it may be. People being executed and treated like slaves or animals IS happening right now as we speak and I feel as a country we should be strongly against this kind of uncivilized, barbaric, unevolved behavior.


Hey everybody, just finished some more schoolwork so i figured Id comment on the event for a minute. Donald Trump was quite entertaining but him for President??LOL… It always makes me chuckle watching the latest herd of presidential wannabees, whether they are democrats or republicans, rant and rave about all the things the current president has done wrong and how they would easily solve all the problems. Yet he we are heading for the 45th president and look at all the problems that exist. Obviously there’s always going to be problems but its kind of funny (to me at least) that we hear such guarantees of how easy it will be each time presidential hopefuls start to get going, only to see the same 3 or 4 issues always remain the main ones.

The CPAC convention usually holds a small poll which was won last year by Ron Paul and again this year by Mr Paul. Considering he didn’t even come close to winning the nomination last year, his victory this year probably doesn’t mean much yet but I suppose we will see.

I found it somewhat interesting that Sarah Palin, probably the loudest voice as far as exposure in the vote received only 3 percent of the vote leaving her with a 9th place finish among the annual conservative convention. Granted, Mrs Palin didn’t attend the event, and that may be the reason for her finishing behind a few conservatives I would think she would usually be ahead of.

 I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I find that I have views on both sides of the aisle depending on the topic and don’t agee enough with either side to align myself with one party. From an outside view though, I can’t say I saw one speaker there who I felt has a legitimate chance to beat Obama when he runs again(im assuming he runs for a second term.)

Out of the bigger names, I think you can cross Palin and Newt Gingrich off the list immediately. I feel they are both far too polarizing to ever gain enough of a majority to upend Obama. Ron Paul has some good ideas but his ideas would involve massive change in the way the country does business(defense spending significantly cut and a more non-interventionalist view as a foreign policy) and I find it hard to believe the corporate influences in this country wouldn’t fight his nomination to the death. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are the only other names in this poll that I feel most Americans would recognize. Knowledgable political people and followers would recognize former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, but the average American, who just clicks on their cable box or their internet news pages a few times a day probably barely know who they are.

I think Romney would have a tough time because of his health care plan he designed for his state being pretty much exactly what Obama wants and also his Mormon beliefs. I have nothing against Mormons but doubt one could get elected(sorry, just how I feel, this is a Christian country). That just leaves Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. His preacher background could help him relate to the country and he has political experience as well. He is also the main one on this list that I think is the least offensive and most likeable to the masses. Again just my opinion though and I welcome responses.

Hey friends. Just wanted to let everyone know that Ill be taking a hiatus from my blog ofr a month or two while I continue my studies. I may occasionally post but for the next few months my writing will be mainly restricted to school papers. I just wanted to let my few readers know that I always value their comments and opinions and Ill be back soon, maybe even a little smarter!!LOL

Thanks and take care all. if you need to get ahold of me I can be reached at

Hi gang. Just wanted to make a quick comment of the provisions of the Patriot Act that just expired and provide a view or two on what I think of that expiration. Three different provisions were allowed to expire (not without debate) but I only want to focus on the one that I felt should have been allowed to expire without a fight. I’m speaking of Section 206.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, provides for roving wiretap surveillance of targets who try to thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance. Without such roving wiretap authority, investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be monitored.

I personally have a small problem with wiretaps being obtained without a court order. If the wiretap is valid and has just legal cause, there is no reason the court system, which acts as the check and balance in this case, can not be involved. If there needs to be a process to make this happen more quickly, then I am all for it, but for them to want to completely cut the court out is questionable in my opinion. There isn’t any reason these court orders can’t be sealed and private, and as I stated, with today’s technology I’m sure they could find a way to expedite the process if it is a matter of how quickly it needs to happen. The thing is, when you attempt to cut the courts and their role out, I feel you step into a dangerous arena where no one is making sure these wiretaps are being done legally, for the right purpose, and without violating a citizens civil rights.

To those who would disagree with me, I would challenge them to give one good reason that these surveillance issues need to be secret from the court system. I don’t have a problem with the public having no knowledge but the courts? It just seems to be a dangerous precedent, regardless of who is being tapped.

Good morning. After having a heated debate with another blogger, one that I respect and consider a cyber friend, I thought I would deepen my thoughts on the topic that was behind my last post. I had written some things about a certain female citizen that used to be the governor of Alaska and how I thought she was politicizing the events in Egypt for her own gain. Though that was the topic of the previous blog, I was more interested in exploring what the U.S. role in Egypt and the governments transition should be. I got way off topic so I thought I would take the time to write about my thoughts on that.

Here is what role I think the United States should have in the choice of Egypt’s next government.None.Nada.Zip. This country sometimes scares me when we as a people seem to think we are so much more evolved and intelligent than the rest of the world that we can tell them what is best for them.Egypt is a sovereign nation. Their people, regardless of economic power or anything else, are exact equals to our people in their right to liberty and freedom. Just like the anger that would ensue here if we were pressured by another country to elect this person or that one, the people of Egypt, or any other country for that matter, have no obligation to give the slightest care to what we think about who they should elect.

Egypt has never attacked or threatened the United States. If they want to elect a group of extremists, which I truly hope they are smart enough not to, that is their right regardless of what we, as a country, think.People, as a race of beings, are equal in their right to liberty and personal choice and no one group of humans has lived so perfectly that they should have the right to pressure another group on how to live. There are literally hundreds of different religions and governments on this planet and right or wrong, each individual group has the right to make whatever choice they please, even if that choice is bad for them.

Now this doesn’t mean I don’t think we can have an opinion, we have that right, but I do not think we have the right to force that opinion on someone else.This is why I thought we were correct to attack Iraq the first time, as we were defending another country being invaded(Kuwait) but I thought we were out of line the second time.The second time we were deciding to use force to change a leader that we didn’t like, trust, and who we thought was dangerous to the region. I agree Saddam was dangerous, but if that was justified than it would be justified for us to attack North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, any country that has an anti American view, Mexico and numerous others whose beliefs and procedures we disagree with politically.

Before you jump me, hear me out. North Korea, Iran and Venezuela all have leadership that is anti-American. All three of those countries have large swaths of people who disagree with the way we live. Does that then mean that if they were to attack us they would be justified in doing so? Well why not? They disagree with us right?

Mexico is a dangerous, barely stable country right on our border. Their government is arguably less in control than the drug cartels there are, and they are an obvious threat to our national security by being such an uncontrolled country right on our border, but does that mean we should just annex them? No, because if the people want a free and stable government they have to fight for it, fight the way the people who founded this country did.

You see, that’s my point. We are all people on this planet and there are many different beliefs that exist and none has proven to be infallible. I love America, and think we do have the best system, possibly ever established, in the world. That being said though, China sees things very differently than we do, allows their people much less freedom than we do, so should we be forcing them to change? I don’t believe so.

So to wrap this up, when you see me be extremely harsh with certain politicians, it’s usually because I see them talking down to the rest of the world, as if the United States had been here for thousands of years and the world only existed because of us. Whether the people and the leaders of this country like it or not, we are no better or worse than anybody else in the rest of the world. We are all individuals and no one man has the right to tell another the right way to live, as living the “right” way always comes down to freedom and personal choice. Not everybody chooses what we do.

Hi gang. I wanted to write this because of a recent conversation I had with someone who, even though I do not know personally, still comes across as a reasonably intelligent person. This person and I were debating (or about something I had said about a public figure. Without getting into all the details, my friend felt I was out of line for giving a harsh criticism of this public figure without providing links to supportive information, while I felt like this is my blog and like everyone else in this country, I have my opinions regardless of the amount of research I need to prove to anyone.

It wasnt a particularly friendly conversation between us but as I said, we seem to be of different sides of a coin on this one topic. It really got me thinking though, about how people in this country want to beat their chests proudly about their right to free speech, but then get offended when someone says something they don’t like. I was a little irritated with some of his statements,and the fact and way it was originally brought up to me showed that he was a little irritated by mine, but in the end we both were getting all of our information from news sources and other people we didn’t know personally and are not likely to ever meet. So as we sat and disagreed about this political figure, in truth, we were both just firing off things we had read and seen from other sources that were most likely bias towards our beliefs(not many of us get our news and such from people we disagree with right?). That being said, being logical, neither of us probably really has the truest form of the facts and its far more likely that the truth behind the topic we discussed was questionable from both of our sources.

This happens in news and politics quite a bit today. Some news organizations are with the Democrats while others are with the Republicans. Many of these news outlets, such as Fox and MSNBC, use people as “political contributors” to provide insight but very often, that insight is merely their politically biased opinion to the channel you’re watching. To give an example, you’re never going to see Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin contributing to MSNBC the way they currently contribute to Fox, just like you’ll never see Bill Clinton contributing on Fox. So in the end, we’re never really getting the facts, just a bunch of opinions( when it comes to politics).

I wanted to make that point because if you read my blog regularly, while I’m not going to just make stuff up, much of what you will hear is my opinion and I feel no need to justify it beyond that, just as this Democrat or that Republican will never justify the many mischaracterizations they make about each other virtually every day. In the past few years I have seen reports claiming all kinds of ridiculous things ranging from a health care bill that will have “death panels” to some idiot writing that Sarah Palin’s son isn’t really her son. I’m not going to hunt these people down and demand they change what they believe, I’m just not gonna agree with them and I hope in the future people will realize that when they read my blog. If that hurts my credibility in their eyes, then so be it, I don’t do this for the money or for the following. I do it for what I see the world as, just as those who disagree with me do it for their own reasons.

In the end though, if you werent there, watching real life with your own eyes, then ALL information you get is secondhand, meaning that some opinion gets lumped in along the way, some bias gets lumped in along the way and there are very few absolutes. People should rmember that when reading anything, including what I write.

The world keeps on spinning. As the people of Egypt fight for their liberty and the right to choose their leadership, Sarah Palin once again is trying to use a serious situation as  a way to grow her own political influence. In recent days she has been negatively commenting on the idea that Washington is not telling the American people enough about what is going on and we should be doing more to be involved in who takes control. In typical fashion for Mrs. Palin,her ignorance shines through in her continued attempt to garner support for what everybody knows is a clown show type attempt at a presidential run by trying to politicize life being lost in a fight for the right to choose freely who leads that country.

Who is given the power in Egypt after recent events is up to nobody save the Egyptian people. What Sarah Palin, a failed politician who quit on her constituents and can only get her message out through ignorant and childish attacks on a social network page, thinks or says really has no bearing. Does Palin live in Egypt? Do the Egyptian people really want to be told who to elect by a woman who had to quit her public office due to literally dozens of ethics violations? Should other countries look at her cowardice in refusing to battle politically while in office, now choosing to just criticize those who have maintained their commitment to the offices they were elected to even through hard times, and demand she have no part in the leadership? Of course not. Who leads our country is up to the people, just like in Egypt. Sadly though, Mrs Palin continues to show why she has no chance of ever being elected by her continued proof of her lack of interest in anything but power and attention.

Obviously I am just one man with one opinion, and I’m sure there are plenty of brainless sheep out there who would exercise their right to disagree with me, but I personally wish that Palin would just shut up. If you want to be a TV reality star, go ahead. We’ll be happy to watch you take 9 or 10 shots to bring down whatever defenseless animal you’re shooting this week and listen to your shortsighted views on your personal version of Jersey Shore, or whatever other reality junk you want to call your show, but as far as politics go leave it to the elected officials. You do know what those are right? The people who, when elected, stay in their offices and fight for the people instead of running away crying foul as soon as the road gets rough.

This may seem like an attack and you know what, it is. I’ve grown more than tired seeing reports on legitimate( used loosely) news channels being about the opinion of one private citizen. That’s all you are now Mrs Palin, just like the rest of us. If you wanted to be involved in politics then maybe you shouldnt have quit on your constituents like a coward to fire salvos from a non political forum. Then again, maybe you can be elected President of Facebook. Or Twitter. I’m sure the minority that supports you on there will be happy to “like” you as much as you seem to want everybody too and based on your actions, that seems to be all you care about.

Good morning. Today it was announced that Wikileaks has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Now any lawmaker can make this nomination so it’s not automatically a validation of their actions but at the same time it is telling. Its telling in the sense that many in the world view the organizations actions of revealing many of the U.S. governments actions behind closed doors an action in support of human rights. Our government was appalled by the releasing of many documents but as they rant and rave over how “appalled” they are, notice none of them will actually comment on what is in the documents. The reason for this is they can’t really deny these things have happened since these are THEIR documents. The cables have repeatedly shown violations of law and constant immoral and inappropriate behavior by members of our government. This doesn’t mean the whole government is bad, but what it does show is how there are many aspects of it acting independently and without knowledge of what the other aspects are doing. To me this is scary because this shows that various people in power are able to abuse the power they have and there are not checks and balances that stop them from acting on behalf of the entire government based on their own personal ideals.

One of the cables released recently shows that three men, with an odd connection to 9/11 are not even on the terror watch list despite their being evidence that they were involved in some way.

According to the cable, the three flew on British Airways on August 15, 2001, from London to the United States. Over the next nine days, they visited New York (including the World Trade Center and Statue of Liberty) as well as Virginia and Washington, with one stop being the White House.On August 24, 2001, al Alhajri, Abdulla and Alfehaid flew to Los Angeles, where they stayed in a motel.The three paid for the room in cash and told the motel staff they did not want housekeeping service, the ex-law enforcement official confirmed. When they checked out, they left behind pilots’ uniforms, paperwork containing pilots’ names and cardboard boxes that were addressed to Syria, Israel, Afghanistan and Jordan.Booked on a September 10, 2001, flight from Los Angeles to Washington, their flight, as well as hotel room, was paid for by “a convicted terrorist,” according to the WikiLeaks-released cable.But the three men never showed up for the flight.Had they, the three would have flown on American Airlines Flight 144 — the same plane hijacked the next day and flown into the Pentagon in northern Virginia.

So these guys had pilots uniforms and names, as well as tickets to fly on one of the planes that was hijacked, yet they aren’t on a terror watch list?

There’s an old saying that goes “when there’s smoke, there’s fire” that applies to much of what happened on 9/11 and this is further evidence of this. I’m not buying into one specific conspiracy theory or another, but at the same time its hard to believe that 10 years later there are still so many odd facts and unknown elements to this attack that has been investigated so thoroughly and that changed our countries behavior so much.

Let’s be realistic here. There is far too much evidence out there to logically conclude what happened that day was simply these group of guys flying planes into buildings. If it was that simple there would not be so many unexplained and suspicious facts floating about, so many coincidental connections to powerful people, and if you can’t see that, then you’re about as brainwashed as one can be. When a person is so indoctrinated by their government that they look at and trust them as they would the word of God, then what you have there is a person who has anointed their leaders as infallible gods, and that is scary.

I personally applaud the efforts of Wikileaks and hope they continue to reveal the truth about things in this government. If the leadership had nothing to hide they wouldn’t be so appalled by these releases. National security or not, there’s a lot of smoke every time we hear what our leaders are really doing. It’s only a matter of time until we feel the fire.

Well things in Egypt got predictably worse in the last day or two as supports of the soon to be outgoing regime began attacking anti government protesters. This has produced chaos and followed an announcement by the current leader, Honsi Mubarak, that he would leave office in September which is the end of his term. To me his announcement shows that he clearly doesn’t get it. The people want him gone. Now. Not in a month not in 6 months but now. His proclamation that he would leave later this year was, to me, a glaring example of how the leadership of many countries doesn’t realize who is supposed to be in charge. The people, not some small rich group telling them whats best for them. A majority clearly wants him gone and have stated so and his response is “well I’ll leave when I’M ready.” I don’t think so.

I hate to see the violence, which has already injured hundreds and killed a few, but I hope the people stick to their guns and throw his corrupt butt out on the streets when THEY want, not when he says he’s going to go. As I stated before, regardless of who the new leadership is, the people of the world need to start reminding their leaders that leaders listen to the people, not the other way around. I am so tired of seeing corrupt politicians worldwide telling their citizens that they’ll follow the will of the people on THEIR terms. It’s not up to them it’s up to the people.

Anyway, I hope the will of the people continues to be exercised over there and as few people are hurt or killed as possible. Go freedom go liberty!

Hi everybody. I just wanted to follow-up on yesterday’s post concerning the protests taking place in Egypt. This is a historic action that will have major implications, not only in the future of Egypt but also in the overall stability of the Middle East. First off I wanted to restate my prayers going out to the people in Egypt and their quest to have their will be done. Each country, in my opinion, should be a country where the people who live there have the final say, not their leaders. Leaders work FOR the people and history has shown you can only oppress people for so long before they take to the streets looking for your head. I have been seeing reports of a loosely organized “million man march” that may be taking place Tuesday and hope that it is a peaceful action that allows the sheer numbers it will posses to be the main statement, not violence.

So what’s next for Egypt? There are obviously a few ways this can go. The first and most likely result will be some sort of democratic setup, even if it falls short of the level of democracy we have here in the United States. The biggest reasons for the current events are economic despair and the people growing tired of the political tyranny, but there is a lot more to all this than just that, as what happens will not only affect Egypt but the United States as well.

A Time magazine article I read on this situation stated that “the man most likely to replace him if the political process is thrown open now looks to be Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize winning former nuclear inspector who has been endorsed as a presidential candidate by the smaller secular parties and importantly also by the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s largest opposition party. ElBaradei is a moderate and a democrat, but he doesn’t share Washington’s allergy to Islamist parties and has publicly questioned the Obama Administration’s strategy on Iran’s nuclear program.”

Should this happen, you have to wonder what effect this will have on not only the United States desire to pressure Iran out of their nuclear program, but also our general influence in the region. Egypt’s leadership has long been willing to assist the United States in their Mideast endeavors but if the above stated ElBaradei winds up in power, we may see a less cooperative Egypt, and the United States will have essentially lost an ally in the region. Not because Egypt will no longer be willing to work with or assist us, they just may be more opinionated than they have been in the past.

In the end though, I think what is happening is a good thing. The United States, if it truly cares about liberty worldwide, should be cheering for that and not just for an outcome that will benefit them diplomatically because in the end, this is about the people of Egypt having a right to choose how they are ruled. 

On a related note, this situation raises the question of what role the Muslim Brotherhood will have there in the future. Currently banned, the potential new leadership looks upon them a conservative group that has a focus on human rights and they will most certainly be involved on some level. The interesting thing is that the U.S. is viewed in a hostile way by the Brotherhood’s supporters due to their support for the leadership that’s about to be removed. Both Israel and the United States are worrying about this behind closed doors, that I can guarantee. Stay tuned folks, this is a long way from being over and countries all over the Middle East and the world will be affected.