Mr. Kunza Speaks and Writes Stuff

Mr. Kunza Speaks #03: America's Party (It's History, Leadership & Candidates, and Positions & Policies)

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 05:46:00 +0000

Download The Show

Part 1

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Show Notes & Links

Another long show. Starting out I never thought I would be making shows this long. But that is how things are turning out. I will try to get this shows out weekly after all time is running out before the election.

You can email the show at MrKunzaSpeaks@gmail.com

America's Party Platform

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

America's Party Website

Presidential Candidate Website

America's Party Pledge

When does life begin? Rational Wiki

Alan Keyes Personal Site

(A Rough) Show Transcript

Hello, and welcome to Mr. Kunza Speaks. For this show I will be taking a look at America's Party. I have broken up the show into four parts. Part One and Two covers the History of America's Party. Part three takes a look at the party's Leadership and Presidential candidates. Part four covers the party's Positions & Policies.

Before I begin I like to state the goals of this show. Mr. Kunza Speaks makes an effort to be objective and use only reliable information when discussing anything on this show. I try to make it clear when I am making an assumption on a matter.

I am strong supporter of critical thinking and apply it to my show. Do not take any criticisms as malice. I do not make this show to be judgmental of others. It is a goal of this show to point out falsehoods and misrepresented information.

Always bears in mind that I am only human. I can and will make mistakes. Simply put, be skeptical of anything I say. Really, be skeptical of any information show.

Alright with that said lets start the show.

Part 1: America's Party History.

America's Party is another new Political party. Founded as the America's Independent Party at some point 2008. I could not find an exact date for the party founding. But it happened at some point after August 21, 2008. Since on that date Alan Keyes lost the nomination for the Constitution Party.

America's Party history is inanimately interconnected with Alan Keyes. It is because of Mr. Keyes that America's Party exists. Thus lets take a look at what lead Mr. Keyes supporters to create America's Party.

But first a little background on Mr. Keyes. Born Alan Lee Keyes on August 7, 1950. Mr. Keyes is an American conservative political activist and author. He has a PhD in government affairs from Harvard University. So I should be calling him Dr. Keyes but I will stick with Mr. for this show.

Mr. Keyes biggest claim to fame is that he was a diplomat for Ronald Reagan to the UN along with other posts. Since then he has become noted as a perennial candidate for public office. Perhaps the notable campaign was in 2004 he ran against Barack Obama for his Illinois Senate seat.

In his own words Mr. Keyes says the following of himself:

"For a long while I have been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. I am Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the republican form of government it establishes. I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect; For God, Liberty and the Constitution."

Mr. Keyes (Image Source)

It is safe to call Mr. Keyes a very conservative religious man.

On June 5, 2007 an organization calling itself "We Need Alan Keyes for President" launched with the goal of getting support for Mr. Keyes as a presidential candidate. The organization was outside the control of Alan Keyes. However, the group was "spearheaded by several individuals at RenewAmerica, a grassroots organization affiliated with Keyes."

Source

The group managed to get Mr. Keyes threw his hat into the ring for the 2008 Republican nomination. Making it his third try for President. The first try being 1996 and again in 2000. The 2008 Keyes campaign opened to little fanfare. He ran on a platform of family values (A term I strongly dislike), ending the income tax, establishing state-sanctioned prayer in public schools, and abolishing abortion in just about every case.

Mr. Keyes the campaign never built up much steam. The best he did in the primaries was in North Carolina. Where he got 2.7% giving him fourth place and earning him two delegates for the Republican National Convention.

Mr. Keyes appears to have never been considered a viable candidate by the press or even those within the Republican Party. Stephen Stone, the CEO of Alan Keyes for President Committee said the follow about the 2008 campaign: "You can't mount a very effective national campaign when the media won't even acknowledge your running."

The lack of support did not seem to stop Mr. Keyes from carrying on his campaign. Mr. Keyes left the Republican party in April 15 2008. Singling out the nation's present "border issue" as a reason he left the Republican Party, calling it a "threat to the sovereignty to the American people."

Mr. Keys picked up his old worn out Republican hat and threw it into the ring for the Constitution Party. A party that is on my list of third parties to cover. Mr. Keyes was seen as the choice to beat since he had a national profile and his departure from the republican party had been public enough to draw some press for him. Moreover, Mr. Keyes at the time say this of the Party "We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won't be able to work out a common basis for working together."

But once more Mr. Keyes was to be upset. This time by a Pastor and former Vice Presidential Chuck Baldwin. In what was described by Steve Kraske of the Kansas City Star as the most contentious battle in the party's history. While it may have been the most contentious national convention for the Constitution Party it was by no means dramatic. After all Mr. Baldwin wound up winning the party's nomination easily on a 384-126 vote on April 27, 2008.

There was no love lost between the Constitution Party and Mr. Keyes. In a speech by the Party's Chairman Howard Phillips he called Mr. Keyes a "the Neocon candidate" who "lingered in the Republican Party until a week ago." In turn Mr. Keyes refused to endorse Mr. Baldwin.

Once again Mr. Keyes was a man on the move. Cast out or walking away from the Constitution Party. Mr. Keyes keep his hopes for the Presidency alive. Mr. Keyes supporters started their own party America's Independent Party (AIP). Mr. Keyes claimed to have no role in the creation of this party. However it Assured that this time Mr. Keyes would win the nomination. On August 21, 2008 Mr. Keyes won the nomination for the future America's Party.

So lets recap for a minute or two. On April 15 Mr. Keyes unhappy with the Republican party left for the Constitution Party. Then on April 27 he left the Constitution Party. Finally Mr. Keyes found his place with the New formed AIP in August 21, 2008. Giving Mr. Keyes only 75 days before the election and 116 days since he left the Constitution Party.

Tom Kovach the former Chairman of the America's Party Tennessee chapter said the following about the lead up to the election. "After being struck by a shocking political betrayal in April of 2008, a small group of conservatives from across America got together with the goal of "changing the way that America does politics"... In August of 2008, only four months after that small group of people got together (mostly by telephone and e-mail; many of us have still never met in person), we put our presidential ticket on the ballots of 33 states.

On election day Mr. Keyes ended up with a total of 47,694 placing him 7th in the popular vote. 40,673 of the votes being in California where Mr. Keyes supporters within the American Independent Party (The old George Wallace Party) and the California affiliate of the Constitution Party to split in favor of Mr. Keyes over Mr. Baldwin. An event which still holds a lot venom between the America's and the Constitution party's.

What can be said about Mr. Keyes campaign is that it was quite a feat all things considered. Mr. Keyes got more votes than the Reform Party, Socialist Workers Party, and the Socialist Party along with other candidates. For a national Presidential Campaign that had very little time is something to note. Moreover in Mr. Keyes case it has to be taken into account the turnover in staff and how difficult funding the campaign must have been. After all Mr. Keyes changed party affiliation three times. How many in his staff stood with him form beginning to end and how much funds the campaign had are questions that only Mr. Keyes could answer.

Part 2: Notable events.

What happens next very hazy. It is not clear when the 'America's Independent Party' changed it's name to America's Party. Or why. I do not like making claims without information but none is to be found. I can hazard a guess as to why the name change happened.

Their exists the American Independent Party. As I stated before this is the old party that George Wallace of segregation forever fame ran under. Likely America's Independent Party and American Independent Party are simply to close and could confuse some. So a name change was needed to avoid any issues. Also, Mr. Keyes running for presidency caused a split within the party. So it could also be a small consideration to avoid more issues with the party.

There is not much else to talk about as far as the History of the Party goes. As I said before there is a lot of venom between the Constitution Party of California affiliate and America's party. In fact Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Chairman Constitution Party of California went after America's party and party chairman and Presidential candidate Tom Hoefling. An individual I will cover later on in the podcast.

Mr. Grundmann (I suppose that it I should call him Dr. Grundmaan since he is Doctor of Chiropractic and Herbalist after all it does take some work to become a doctor in pseudosciences). At any rate Mr. Grundmann has website (thecorruptionofalankeyes.blogspot.com) that showcases his thoughts on America's Party and Mr. Keyes. Moreover, It gives a very good history of the events and circumstances around the split up of the American Independent Party. Granted it is very one sided account and clearly Mr. Grundmann has a chip on his shoulder and it is very conspiratorial mainly how Mr. Keyes is a deep cover liberal. But it is understandable as to why it is that way.

Mr. Grundmann also made comments on America's Party and Mr. Hoefling in the comment section of a Ballot Access News and on an independentpoliticalreport.com article.

It appears that Mr. Grundmann has taken it upon himself to along others to point out the conspiracy that Mr. Hoefling is part of. It is quite a good read a link can be found on the Podcast Blog and on the Podbean page.

When commenter said this of Mr. Hoefling "Ask yourself, would you vote for a man who has qualified for food stamps his whole life?" a comment which earned the following reply "If you are going to make allegations, proof helps. You may or may not be accurate about Hoefling and food stamps, but how would I know?"

I will share some of the exchange between two commenter's claiming to be Mr. Grundmann and Mr. Hoefling:

The supposed Mr. Grundmann comments "Hoefling is a mole within the conservative movement. From personal experience I can warn anyone dealing with him to watch out for, and expect, a knife in the back. He is a front for an extensive mole operation within the conservative movement of our nation. This treacherous and treasonous operation is extremely well funded and is connected to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the moderate Republican Establishment. Their objective is to drain the energies of the conservative movement and to betray it whenever possible so that the maximum damage can be inflicted."

In turn the supposed Mr. Hoefling stated the follwoing: "Mr. Don Grundmann’s comments above are a wild flight of imaginative falsehood and, if they do not meet the criteria for libel, nothing does. And latter on comments "Don, get help. That’s all I can say to you."

Things get quite heated from there. Mr Grundmann responded with the following: "Is that all that you can say Tom? How about apologizing for your corruption and your role in the attack upon the CP (Constitutional Party). And now you pretend to be a conservative??? What a farce! You are the perfect example of a total fake." Then goes on to detail Mr. Hoeflings crimes. Mr. Grudamann goes on the state "As a, by choice,sub-human without a conscience you are known as a sociopath... The now result of that is you will continue to betray as many people as you can to give you ” happiness ” during your miserable existence. The then result to follow is that you will have your own personalized room in hell where you can ” enjoy ” and relish your backstabbing betrayals for all eternity. It will be a richly deserved finale to the existence of a moral and literal coward.... Enjoy your stay in hell."

Mr. Hoefling replied with the following: "Don, I pray that somehow God opens a way at some point for you to reconnect with reality. See ya."

Which earned the following comment from Mr. Grundmann: "Tom Hoefling – Always the coward."

The affair carries on for more comments between Mr. Grundmann and others. It is quite an exchange between commenter's.

Part 3: Leadership & Candidates

Okay getting back to the affairs of America's Party. Lets carry on the next part of this podcast and take a look at the current leadership of America's Party.

It is not clear if Mr. Keyes is still involved with the Party. This is an assumption on my part but I do believe that Mr. Keyes is not active with the Party. I base this assumption of the fact that his often updated personal website (LoyalToLiberty.com) has a link to the old America's Independent Party site and not the new America's Party site. Granted the old site has been retitled by America's Party but the link title is still bears the old name on Mr. Keyes site.

From that I would say it is safe to say that Mr. Keyes has very little to do with the party now. I found no comments by him on the matter. I tried to reach Mr. Keyes on this issue but Mr. Keyes never replied to any of my messages. I even went so far as to tweet him on the issue. So I will again state this is all assumption on my part and it could all be wrong.

There is only one name that I could dig up that has a current leadership role with the party and that's Tom Hoefling.

Mr. Hoefling is the Chairman of America's Party. Also, he is the party's 2012 Presidential candidate. So I should be able to kill two birds with one stone and cover the leadership and candidate in this podcast.

I failed to find any other individuals affiliated with the party, at lest on a national level. The party does have 'Leadership Round Table' for each state some have a chairperson, others do not.

Even the party's vice president candidate J.D. Ellis (Tennessee) Vice Presidential Nominee is a ghost. All I could find on Mr. Ellis is that he is the Tennessee state chairman for America's Party. Furthermore, Mr. Ellis is minister of a Church of Christ, and an anti-abortion activist.

That is it for Mr. Ellis. I attempted to contact the campaign. I simply asked if they had a biography of Mr. Ellis or even just some basic background on the individual. However, as if the time of this podcast they have not contacted back this show. So for now this is best I can on Mr. Ellis.

Mr. Ellis (Source)

Okay, I just covered the vice president candidate for America's Party.

Getting back to the party leadership America's Party has a Chaplain for the Party. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, PhD.

The Chaplain (Source)

The Chaplain was "charged with disobeying an order and kicked out of the Navy for attending a political rally in front of the White House in March 2006 dressed in his Navy uniform, a violation of military regulations." Since that time the Chaplain has been involved with various controversies. Including "praying for the death" of Barry W. Lynn the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

He also runs the Pray in Jesus Name Project. A group that makes up petitions for and against various things. Petitions include: "Tell Congress: Defend Traditional Marriage -" to "Petition to President Obama to stop endorsing Islam -"

However, it is not clear what the Chaplain's role is for America's Party.

So getting back to what I know. All I have to work with is Mr. Hoefling.

Mr. Hoefling is 51 years old. He was born in Omaha, Nebraska on December 20, 1960.

He is married and a Christian of what detonation is a open question. However, he stressing the importance of his faith the following quote is just one example "My work is dedicated to my God; to all the patriots who came before us in self-sacrifice for liberty; to all of those who now faithfully serve our country; and to the posterity that will enjoy the blessed fruit of all their labors."

Mr. Hoefling was the campaign director for Mr. Keyes 2008 bid for the Constitutional Party nomination and the political director for Mr. Keyes' group America's Revival.

Other than that I cannot find to much on Mr. Hoefling. Well, other than the biography on his campaign website. Which says the following on Mr. Hoefling "he is a long-time conservative political activist, organizer, and consultant. Over the course of twenty years he has at various times worked on campaigns at all levels of American politics, in most parts of the country."

Mr. Hoefling also hosts a live call in steaming radio show called "America's Summit" that airs every Tuesday and Thursday.

Mr. Hoefling won the party's nomination on a on-line nominating convention on February 18, 2012. Also what is very unique about Mr. Hoefling's campaign is that the "campaign does not accept financial contributions"

Mr. Hoefling (Source)

And that is more or less what I could find on Mr. Hoefling. You can read his full biography on tomhoefling.com.

One more thing to note on Mr. Hoefling is the following from ProlifeProfiles.com. Mr. Hoefling is "committed to the absolute obligation to protect every innocent human life. He is a Tier 1 a perosn that advocates for personhood protection right now pro-lifer."

Well we just covered the Leadership of America's Party as well its History and even it's Candidates. Leaving only the Positions of the Party to go over.

Part 4 Positions & Policies

Before we begin it should be noted that the Presidential candidate completely supports all of America's Party Positions and holds them to be his own. Also, all of the information for this part of the show comes directly off of the party's website.

What is unique about America's Party is that the Party does not ask for donations. They explain their position as follows:

"America's Party does NOT accept financial contributions. We intend to change America's political culture, by example.

For too long now, we've had government by the media and by the money, instead of government of the people, by the people, for the people. This cannot continue, if we are to remain a free, self-governing people.
That's why America's Party will not seek financial contributions. Our work at the national level is being done on a strictly volunteer basis. Instead, we're asking you to directly support fully-vetted, proven, principled candidates, so that 100% of your precious resources will go directly to the most important work."

America's Party stance on donations is very unique. For minor party this position may prove to be rather wise. After all no one would very expect America's Party to match the fund-raising power of a major party. Furthermore, it allows the party to seem as if they are taking a higher mortal road in politics.

Yet, It does beg the question of how pays for what. Their has to be bills that party pages the do have a website after all. So far, it appears that Mr. Hoefling takes care of their website.

America's Party is a conservative party. The party takes a typical right wing stance on mainstream topic.

Basically the main focus of the party appears to be abortion. In order to become a member to the party you must Pledge that you believe in God, that you only support different sex marriage, and are completely against abortion.

As stated before the party is very much so against abortion. The have the following platform called:

"The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death."

The party is against all forms of abortion and possibly euthanasia. Anti-Abortion is one their core principles taking up almost of half of their Party Platform. A link to the resolution can be found on the notes. Basically the party states that is the will of God and the Constitution to "protect Life". Furthermore, they state that "Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person's physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation"

To say the lest this is a delicate issue that should be throughly examined. This cannot do the topic justice in this short time. However, as I stated before this show will point out falsehoods and misrepresented information. It more than fair to say that America's party has misrepresented information on this subject. The Party ignores that Current scientific thinking "main viewpoint (on when life begins), and the one that possibly best reflects the reality of the situation, is that there is no one point where life begins. Instead, the beginning of life is a continuous process. It may have a start where there is "no life" and an end where there "is life", but there isn't a clearly defined boundary."

The rational wiki has a good entry on the subject a link can be found on the Podcats notes.

America's Party also supports the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Stating the following: "The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies, which is why we fiercely defend the indispensable provisions of our Second Amendment. Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so."

This a common conservative stance on gun rights. It is not clear on which arms people have the rights to. Nor does it express their thoughts on background check and so on. It is a bit fuzzy as to how far their support for gun rights go. It is fair to say that one does not expect to much detail on this positions.

The party supports "Private Property Rights" saying that "Private property, the ownership of the means of production by the people, is a cornerstone of American liberty. Without it our free enterprise system, our free markets, and our republican form of self-government cannot endure. Without it, we cannot prosper. That is why we will defend against any trespass against this most basic, cherished, and necessary of our God-given, unalienable rights. That is why we will only pursue policies that will strengthen the economic position of the individual, the family, and the local community."

From that it is clear that America's Party is pro-capitalism. Their stance is very common for conservatives. It does not express their thoughts on free trade or unions and so on. Or what strengthen the economic position of the individual, the family, and the local community means policy wise.

America's party is for "Restoring limited government". Meaning that they believe that "All existing functions of the Executive branch that are outside of those Enumerated Powers must be eliminated." and they state the following "All spending and regulation by the Legislative branch that lies outside the Enumerated Powers must cease. Judges who attempt to legislate from the bench, or who abandon the clear principles of our Constitution, must be checked if liberty and justice are to prevail in our society once again."

Nothing really new here for anyone that knows anything about current right wing thought. The notion of legislate from the bench is a common theme among the right. One day their I may even been a show on the topic. However, what I will say now is that legislate from the bench or Judicial activism is open to debate.

The simple truth is that what one may see as judicial activism may be legitimate judicial review or a more modern interpretation of the law that reflects changes is knowledge and society.

Moreover, it is not clear what America's Party intents to do in order to stop so called legislate from the bench.

Carrying on. America's Party believes in the old "Peace through Strength" adage that Ronald Reagan used. In fact the party appears to think very highly of Mr. Reagan. His name, quotes, and picture are to be found rather often on the party's website.

The party states that "We believe in a supremely strong, prepared, and well-equipped civilian-controlled United States military, and a bold, visionary and intelligent program of principled constructive engagement with the rest of the world. For us, "peace through strength" is not a mere slogan. It is the means of survival for our country in a very dangerous and often hostile world. Our friendship should be a sought-after possession of all men and women of good will everywhere in the world. Our enmity should be something that all rightfully fear."

Once more nothing all that different here than the Republican Party. Pro- Military is a common theme in American right wing politics. What this means policy wise is once again difficult. While one should not necessary expect detail on this positions. It is hard to tell if the party is an interventionist party or not. Or even what their thoughts are on America's various current foreign engagements.

America's Party is for tighter boarders stating the following "We demand the immediate securing and continuous vigilant maintenance of our sovereign territory and borders. We oppose any private or governmental action that rewards illegal entry into the United States in any way, and demand speedy and full enforcement of our laws concerning all such activities."

It is not clear if the party is anti-immigration or simply for tighter border control and spending. Furthermore this is another issue that should have a show in and of itself.

Carrying on America's Party is for "Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments" saying the following the matter "We consider the federal income tax to be destructive of our liberty, privacy, and prosperity. Therefore, we are working to bring about its complete elimination and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We recommend that the current system be replaced by an equitable, simple, noninvasive, visible, efficient tax, one that does not destroy or even infringe upon our economic privacy and liberty."

We also call for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Its enactment greatly reduced the power of our state legislatures and state governments – which are much closer to the people – and damaged our system of federalism."

The party is for ending the income tax. Something that Ron Paul argues. It is a common theme in Libertarian tax thought. The notion being that the income tax is an unfair tax. Often whenever this position is argued. The arguing party usually supports a flat tax or some alternative. It is still open as to what tax system America's Party supports.

As for the repealing of the Seventeenth Amendment. This stance is something unique. The 17th amendment allows for the "Direct Election of Senators". The notion has become a theme among the Tea party movement. The idea is that the state picks the senator thus the state is somehow better represented in Washington. It is a uncommon position and one that is hard to understand. The notion is that the people of a state are not as able to pick their own senators as the state is for them. America's Party does say that this system would be 'much closer to the people' however it begs the question are not the people of a state close enough to themselves?

The final platform of the party is Marriage and the natural family. They state the following "We seek the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and oppose all attempts everywhere to redefine marriage as being anything but what it has always been: the union of one man and one woman. Since the natural family is the basic God-given institution of our civilization, and the nursery of our future, it must be protected from all who would destroy it."

Common enough among thoughts for anyone familiar with Conservative thought. This issue is another warrants a show. However, to say that if a civilization allows for same sex marriage our future is at stake can safely be called fear mongering. There exists no evidence for that statement. However, it does how the language of the issue has evolved with the times.

Well that concludes this Show on America's Party. Hopeful you found it informative. If this Party interests you in any way be sure to check out the notes for this show as you can various party related links.

Thanks for listening.

Mr. Kunza Speaks #02: The American Third Position, History, Leadership, and Positions & Policies

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:59:00 +0000

Download the Podcast:

Mr. Kunza Speaks #02 (Part 1)
Mr. Kunza Speaks #02 (Part 2)

Had to cut up the file the show. For hosting reasons.

Sorry it took so long to do this show. It is a topic that I did not want to take lightly.

Podcats Notes:

A3P Website: http://american3rdposition.com/
Southern Poverty Law Center website: www.splcenter.org/

The SPLC page on the A3P: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-third-position

And the page on Jamie (James) Kelso: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jamie-kelso

Image placed by Anonymous on the A3P's website:

Copy of Hacked A3P Emails: http://indianaantifa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/a3phackfrontpagetext.odt

Video of Kelso at CPAC

A Rough Transcription of the Podcast:

Hello Again and welcome once more to Mr. Kunza Speaks.

For this podcast I will be covering the American Third Position in some detail. I will cover a little History of the party its founding and notable events. Then take a look at the party's Leadership, last I will review the Positions & Policies of the Party.

Before we begin a little disclaimer. I want to make it clear that American Third Position Party or A3P as they like to call themselves is a hate group according the Southern Poverty Law Center and by the Anti-Defamation League.

If you are not interested in hearing about a hate group, I will not fault you for skipping over this podcast.

I also want to make it clear that this podcast is by no means an endorsement of the Party or its ideas. The same can be said for anyone and any party I cover. The goal of this podcast is to be informative, skeptical, and objective.

I try to find the best evidence for my Podcats and will point out any bad information and lies stated by any party or person.

Yet I am only human. I can be influenced by own personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing information. Especially when it comes to a group like the A3P.

Alright with that said lets take a look at the A3P's history.

The 2012 election is the first time that party has ever ran anyone for any office. The only office that they are running for as of this podcast is the President. Which does make some sense seeing as the A3P is not even three years old yet.

There are conflicting reports as to the official date that A3P came to be. The dates range from October 2009 to January 2010. According to the A3P's website they 'launched' on January 01, 2010.

However, the history of the A3P goes a few months further back. Not too far back, just to May 2009. In that month Freedom 14 a noted California base white power group founded the Golden State Party. A white nationalist political party.

Freedom 14, primarily organized the party via the website Stormfront.org. For those that are not familiar with Stormfront. According to USA Today it is the most visited white supremacist site on the net. It is the go to website for discussion and information for any Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, etc.

The Golden State Party can be seen as American Third Position 1.0. As most the Golden State Party's platforms and policies have been adopted almost word for word by the A3P.

Almost as quickly as the Golden State Party started it fell apart. On Sept. 4, 2009 Tyler Cole the chairman of the party was discovered by Jaimee Lynn Fletcher of the Orange County Register to be a two-time felon. The chairman was "convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in 2001 in Arizona and sentenced to a year in prison, court records show. Also, he was convicted in 2008 in Orange County of possession of an illegal machete, possession of marijuana and resisting arrest."

The barely months old party did not survive long after. Either because the fall out was to great for the party or that it was just easier to start over. It happened so soon after their found that they probably didn't even have their pens and letterheads yet.

What happened next has been neatly summed up by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"On Oct. 15, 2009, [Freedom 14 members] held a meeting to form a party with a new name and new leadership. They elected racist corporate lawyer William Daniel Johnson as chairman of the newly renamed political party, American Third Position. Johnson had been advocating for the deportation of all non-white immigrants and U.S. citizens, including anyone with any “ascertainable trace of Negro blood,” since 1985, when he wrote a book arguing for a constitutional amendment to do just that. Johnson promoted his book far and wide, including at the 1986 Aryan Nations World Congress."

Moreover the Southern Poverty Law Center stated the following:

"On June 27, 2010, the group absorbed the League of American Patriots, a New Jersey-based group. The league is best known for passing out racist fliers and requiring its members to be heterosexuals of “complete European Christian ancestry.” The merging of the two groups advanced the A3P’s goal of developing active chapters throughout the United States."

Since that time the A3P leadership has evolved to be a whose who of racists. To understand the A3P it very important to look at who is running the party. As the party itself puts out an very lax racist front. This maybe to have some sibilance of respectability. However, one does not have dig very deep to see the deep rooted antisemitism and racial hate at the party's core. The A3P has a total of eight directors and a chairman at the time of this podcast.

William D. Johnson, Chairman. He is an attorney and noted white supremacist activist.

Kevin B. MacDonald, Director. He is a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach. At the time of this Podcast he is still on staff, likely a product of tenor.

He is best known for a theory called "group evolutionary strategy." He put forth the theory in series of books called The Culture of Critique. MacDonald claims that Jews have eugenically evolved to enhance their ability to conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America whom he insists Jews seek to disposes.

I have not read much of MacDonald's work. I did take a look at 'A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy.' In that book it appeared that MacDonald thinks that their is some short of 'Jewish hive mind.' Where each and every Jew follows whatever the hive mind decides for them. I do not want to spend too much time on this theory. After all this is a podcast on the A3P not MacDonald.

However, MacDonald's theory is pseudoscience. Eugen Schoenfeld, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Georgia State University, stated "[The theory] is controversial, not only because of its theoretical approach, but also, and perhaps primarily, because of sloppy scholarship. [Macdonald] selects historical incidents that can be used to support his thesis and conveniently omits others that challenge his thesis."

Moreover in a Slate Magazine article "How To Deal With Fringe Academics". MacDonald's theory has never been peer-review. Steven Pinker of Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences MIT said the following of MacDonald and this theory.

"MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture)."

Basically MacDonald theory is junk science.

James Edwards, Director. James Edwards (No relations to former Presidential candidate John Edwards) is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a rising star of the white-nationalist movement. He has a radio show entitled 'The Political Cesspool'. It appears to be broadcasted on only one terrestrial radio station WMQM 1600AM in Memphis, Tennessee a Christian radio station. Also, It has a stream and podcast. The show is a promotion of anti-semitic, white nationalist and white supremacist views.

Tom Sunic, Director. Tom Sunic or Tomislav Sunić. Is a fascist thinker. He has been involved with Nouvelle Droite or New Right movement and is said to be of the Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne school of thought. He has held diplomatic positions with the Croatian government and has taught at California State University, the University of California, Juniata College in Pennsylvania, and the Anglo-American College in Prague. He has a steaming radio show "The Sunic Journal," on Voice of Reason. He anti-Semitic and has stated that Jewish influence threatens America's European heritage. Also he thinks fascism is awesome.

Virginia Deane Abernethy, Director. She is also the vice presidential candidate for the party. I will go into more detail on her when I cover the Presidential candidates of the party. For right now all I will say about her is that she is a retired professor that speaks out against immigration.

Dr. Adrian Krieg, Director. The Good Doctor is Swiss born and holds a Cultural doctorate in Manufacturing Science from the World University. The World University is a distance learning school that dedicated to education in what politely can be called 'New Age' subjects. Dr. Krieg is the Co-Chair Political Science Department World University Roundtable. Which is a odd position for an anti-semitic to hold. Since the World University states that they are a an organization whose goal is "To fulfill the needs and aspirations of men and women of goodwill, of whatever age, nationality, or culture." It is claimed that Dr. Krieg hold many U.S. Patents. The Doctor believes that 9/11 was a false flag opertaion and he makes the following claim "The litigious nature of American society is in fact not American at all but is a Jewish trait." Along with many other anti-semitic statements. And to top it off he is on the editorial board of The Nationalist Times which is the paper of choice fascists and anti-Semites.

Don Wassall, Director. He is the founder and main editor of the Nationalist Times. He is also the Executive Director of the American Nationalist Union and is the administrator of ANU.org, ANU News.net, and Caste Football.us. The American Nationalist Union is a nationalist political organization. ANU is not necessarily fascist but it is white supremacist group and supports many conspiracy theories. While Caste Football tries to to the same with its 'reports' on pro-sports.

Alexander Carmichael, Director. He is the groups lawyer outside of that all I could inf was what i believe is his firms website www.carmichaellaw.org which is very mundane.

Last but not lest is James Kelso, Director. I greatly enjoyed what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about James or Jamie Kelso "Jamie Kelso is an extremely hyper organizer and serial joiner of religious sects and, starting in the 1990s, racist organizations." Jamie Kelso has had a very unique past. It reads like fiction. He was a member of the “Sea Organization and ran away from them. Then he "John Birch Society (JBS), a conspiracy-minded outfit that has been around for decades and is perhaps best known for accusing President Eisenhower of being a secret communist." Kelso became a moderator for Stromfront.org and is credited with turning Stromfront.org into the site that it is today. He has his own radio show "The Jamie Kelso Show,” which runs on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network. he has been involved in many neo-Nazi and white power groups before he joined the A3P. Moreover he has his own news site White News Now.

I am leaving a lot out when it comes to Mr. Kelso. For anyone that wants to read up on him check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Files on him.

Mr. Kelso is a key figure in the A3P's short history. It is in his role as the A3P's webmaster that the lead to, what is more than fair to say, most public event in the A3P's history. On February 1st 2012 the A3P's official website was attacked by individuals affiliated with the group Anonymous.

The website was defaced, the website was replaced with an image of the soviet flag and saluting blue pony with a rainbow main. The full image can be seen on the notes for this podcast. While the image was notable it was the text across the top of the image that was of the most significance. A sentence of white text stating the following: "Jamie Kelso and American Third Position Hacked and Destroyed; Private Emails Expose Blatant Racism and Ties to Ron Paul"

It is those supposedly exposed ties to Ron Paul that made the most news. Anonymous leaked many emails from Mr. Kelso, Merlin Miller the A3P pestilential candidate, and others. There is 86 pages of emails for those that wish to read it all that can be found in the notes of the Podcast. I have read though most of them and if they are fake a lot of work has gone into them.

Most of the Emails are by Mr. Kelso. Many of the speak to his goals with the website that he runs "Whitenewsnow.com". Mainly how important it is to get the site ranking up and how the site tries to be a tool to recruit people into white nationalism. What becomes clear in email after email is how whitenewsnow is a tool for Kelso to get members of the A3P. AS the following quote from a email by Kelso indicates. "WhiteNewsNow Mods and Members will be joining us, and joining A3P as they get the word."

In emails form Merlin Miller the A3P pestilential candidate. In a email it revealed that the A3P position platform was developed in conjunction with The Nationalist Times. Also, it appears that Miller was trying to court many of Ron Paul supporters to his campaign.

Moreover, many of the emails speak about Ron Paul and how Mr. Kelso was going to meet him or had a phone call with him. But it is never clear if such a thing actually happened and if it did the what happened and what discussed. In fact one email speaks to how Kelso going to Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. A Tea Party sponsored meeting and how Kelso was going to promote the party and while he was there Kelso was going to "be meeting with Congressman Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul personally there on all three days." I could find no evidence that this happened in fact I found a video that shows that things went very bad for Kelso while he was at the conference. He was asked to remove his "Campaign for Liberty" Ron Paul button which he does and then Kelso leaves the hotel alone with his bags in hand.

Alright so what does this have to do with the A3P. It is not clear if anyone form the A3P ever met with Ron Paul or had any real contact with him. Those claiming some ties to an organizer for Ron Paul appear to have sent some emails to Mr. Kelso or got emails from him. Outside of that there is little to tie the A3P to Ron Paul.

That puts us up to day with the A3P. Not much of note has happened since the Anonymous hacking. The Party is now is full campaign mode for the presidency. Which leads us nicely into the platforms of the A3P.

The A3P has a 10 point platform. I have used their own official website as the source for this information.

"Crime. Taking back our communities."

"Our country has become unrecognizingly dangerous... Our people (I assume that they mean white people) have had to alter their everyday behaviors to simply keep from being victimized by predators roaming the streets. While the ruling elites drone on endlessly about the rights of criminals, the happiness and welfare of our people has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness."

"We will put these common sense principles into practice without delay: Enable police to concentrate on real criminals and serve the public welfare, not the political goals of the ruling elite. Permit victims of crime greater freedom to defend themselves and their property. Introduce automatic sentences for repeat offenders who prey on our communities. Support states rights to enforce capital punishment for those convicted of capital crimes. Make prisoners understand that they are being punished, and not rewarded with a state-subsidized vacation for their crimes; in part through wide-scale obligatory public-works projects."

Based on those statements it is more than fair to say that the A3P believes that America has become unrecognizingly dangerous and that predators are roaming the streets. This is an unfounded statement and it sounds a lot like the plot to the movie Robocop.

Yes there are some places that can be called dangerous in America. However, the the fact is America's crime rate has been falling across the board. Even in a economic downturn crime is still falling.

I do not know who these people are that are droning endlessly on about the rights of criminals. Nor do they make clear of whom they are speaking of.

What is clear is that A3P believes in the right to self-defense. I can only guess that this means that they are supporters of gun rights. One odd statement they make is the following: "Permit victims of crime greater freedom to defend themselves and their property." Which sounds like they believe that a person can only defend themselves and property after they have become a victim. I do not think that this is their intent.

A3P wants automatic sentences for repeat offenders, I think that this means they want something along the lies of the Three Strikes Laws. Also, they support the death penalty and state that jail is a vacation. They support the use of prison labor for public works. Which is something that differentiates them from most political parties.

It is fair to say that A3P is a law and order party.

On to their next position again this is quoted right off their website with some mild trimming on my part:

"Economy:

The American Third Position supports a nationalist economic policy emphasizing ethical business practices and prioritization of the community. A3P supports “fair trade” as opposed to the so-called “free trade” policies... This can be accomplished through tariffs and quotas at home along with diplomatic pressure abroad. Under this America first system, we would also withdraw from NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.

Current tax policies often dis-incentivize invention and entrepreneurship. Tax dollars are aggressively collected from our people and funneled to so-called minorities, criminals, and persons unwilling to work. We will cut all programs that provide an incentive for people to be anything other than hard-working and productive.

The Federal Reserve – a central bank made up of privately-owned member banks – loans money to our government at interest. Commercial banks also create money through lending to businesses and citizens. Both practices involve creating money out of thin air. To restore ownership of the American economy to its rightful owners, we will abolish the Federal Reserve, incorporating it into the United States Treasury. We will then grant government the sole right to print, issue and regulate money. Accordingly, the entire banking system would be subject to appropriate ethical constraints."

For anyone that is familiar with right wing or libertarian economic positions will find nothing unique in the A3P positions. However, they say the following "Tax dollars are aggressively collected from our people and funneled to so-called minorities, criminals, and persons unwilling to work." Of what the referring to is hard to say. There is Tax Incentives for Using a Minority-Owned Business. Or it could be an statement against welware programs. It is not really clear.

Now for their views on Education:

"Education. Not Indoctrination.

The same schools that once taught our children the knowledge, skills, culture, and traditions necessary to maintain and enhance our nation are now controlled by social Marxists....

We support measures to restore our school system to its first rate status. Teachers must emphasize traditional mathematics and literacy skills which have practical application to everyday life. A full curriculum of American history must also be taught.... Organized classrooms settings and well-disciplined learning environments must become the norm once again. We also support greater opportunities for home-schooling arrangements.

Critically, we would introduce a compulsory Community Service system after the student completes their schooling – whenever that may be – to instill in them a work ethic, discipline, and social and community values. Projects would consist of caring for the elderly and handicapped, environmental and heritage restoration projects, or military training.

Service in this system would entitle each individual to get something back from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as subsidized university education or apprenticeship, and/or business training and start-up capital for would-be entrepreneurs."

I looked up the word social Marxists and found the following on the Urban Dictionary: "A social Marxist is someone who half heartidly believes in the Marxist school of political though. They may be anti capitalist, anti war and anti racism, but wont join up a Marxist movement and are more like armchair generals of the far left persuasion. Left wing forums are rife with social Marxists. Some social Marxists simply buy CCCP flags, shirts and hats and have a faint idea what its about, but have no foundations for their ideology"

I do not think that this is what the A3P is referring to. Even though it was the only place that I could find a definition of the term. But maybe it is. Either way it is an odd statement. It should go without say that evidence of this Marxist hold on education is non-existent.

Outside of that statement there is not much of anything unique to found in there education position. The A3P supporting home schooling and believes in compulsory Community Service for students. The latter policy is unique when compared to the major parties.

As for their views on the Environment:

"Environment. Taking responsibility.

The American Third Position is committed to a beautiful, clean and healthy nation. We are this country’s only true Green party with policies that will actually save the environment. Overpopulation, fueled by massive Third World immigration, is a major cause of the destruction to our environment.

Many Americans recognize the serious trouble associated with dependency on oil from abroad. We must diligently explore and develop cleaner energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. In keeping with our free enterprise system, individuals, businesses and industry should be encouraged to tap into these abundant non-polluting sources."

Immigrates cause the destruction of the environment. To be frank I have never heard that claim before. Thus I did some research and found the following by Scientific American:

"The non-profit Pew Research Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. population growth is attributable to immigration...

Americans, consumption habits, are fundamental to U.S. environmental problems than population pressures. With just five percent of the world’s people, Americans use a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels, own more private cars than drivers with licenses, and live in homes that are on average 38 percent larger today than they were in 1975. By scaling back, Americans can take a big bite out of pollution, sprawl and other environmental problems, while also setting a good example for those who land in the U.S. every year, lowering the nation’s collective carbon footprint significantly in the process."

Furthermore, if population densities is any indicator American is at no risk of overpopulation.

Anyway, their environmental views for the most part fall in line with what Democrats often argue. Not the overpopulation or immigration part but the invest in alternatives and cut the dependency on oil.

Carrying on the A3P quote: "rejects homosexuality and all of the other types of so-called “alternative lifestyles”." I have not a clue what "alternative lifestyles" they are referencing and what they would do to those people and homosexuals if elected. Their stance is nothing new for anyone who is familiar with right wing politics.

The A3P's Foreign Policy can neatly be summed up as non-interventionist. Furthermore they state they following. "We must withdraw from the United Nations and NATO and close most of the hundreds of overseas military bases. At the same time, we must maintain a strong military for legitimate defense, such as better protection of our borders."

The statement is very close to those that have been and still are made by Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

The A3P has very clear stance on Immigration the following is right off of their website:

"1 We will deport all illegal and criminal aliens.
2 We will impose massive penalties for employing or assisting them.
3 We will use the U.S. military for border security and build an impenetrable southern fence.
4 We will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration.
5 We will provide immigrants and their children who have become citizens since 1965 with generous grants to assist their voluntary return to their respective countries of origin.
6 We will also eliminate birthright citizenship, chain migration and asylum."

1 -4 is not anything all that different from most anti-immigration stances. However, 5, 6 are. To be honest here number 5 would affect my parents and it seems like it would be rather costly and confusing. Since there are many children who have one parent that was a citizen and other than was an immigrant. Moreover how would country of origin be proved.

Also, the elimination of birthright citizenship would affect just about every American, other than those that passed a citizen test. I do not know if they mean that very American must pass a citizen test in order to be an American or if this only applies to those that are not white. Bear in mind no distinction is made.

There next stance is on National Defense.

It is just a rehash of their foreign policy. The only difference is this stance "We should, in no way, share our technologies and operational plans with other nations." and an error was made "As President, I will implement these policies and strengthen our national defense." This is the party's website not the candidate. So that is a little slip up on their part.

Moreover America is the biggest arms exporter and I do not know if technologies applies to arms and armaments.

Now for they last position to quote the A3P:

"Race Issues

A nation’s character is determined by its people – and racial demographics are a primary determinant... we have been undermined by internationalists seeking to destroy the “liberty, sovereignty, and identity” of America.

American values, heritage, and even language are under massive assault and we are quickly degenerating from a predominantly White, Christian nation — which led the world by its positive example — to a third world “tower of Babel”.

This is bizarre and not happening by accident. During the 20th century, socialist global elites hijacked American institutions and media, and began indoctrinating our people into accepting “cultural Marxism” and “political correctness” — complete with multiculturalism, miscegenation, radical feminism and unnatural characterizations.

A3P stands to protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory “affirmative action” programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.

The goal of A3P is therefore to restore and preserve the legitimacy of White identity, White heritage, and expressions of White interests. We want to stop the divisive, orchestrated destruction of America and restore her to greatness."

For those that have been waiting for the evidence of the A3P being a White Power group there it is. While they do go out of their way to state that they are not racist, it does fall a little flat.

So there are the American Third Position polices and positions. On their website they have Position Papers which go into more detail on there views and goals.

Here are some more facts that I am sure the A3P likes to over look. I suppose that they do not like to look at Cracked.com:

Non-citizens born in Mexico but living in America are eight times less likely than male U.S. citizens to be incarcerated. Moreover, American cities that saw the greatest increase in their illegal immigrant populations from 1990 to 2000 also saw the greatest drops in robbery and homicide.

American Third Position Party: Positions & Policies.

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:07:00 +0000

When the best information that you find on a political party comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, well to say that is telling is an understatement.

American Third Position Party or A3P as they like to call themselves are a hate group according the Southern Poverty Law Center and by the Anti-Defamation League.

If you are not interested in hearing about a hate group, I will not fault you for skipping over this podcast.

So if anyone is still listening. I will try to be objective I will try not to be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing information.

However I will call out bad information and lies.

Okay, Lets start with the positions of this political party. I have used their own official website as the source for this information.

Mr. Kunza Podcast 1: Those Other Presidential Candidates

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:48:00 +0000

http://mrkunza.podbean.com/feed/

Another election year for America and a presidential one at that. Doesn't it seem like these things are happen every four years?

I know it is a bad joke. But cut me a little slack here. I am just trying to break the ice.

Anyway, for this election year, 2012 for those of you living the in future, I, Mr.Kunza, have decided to take it upon myself and at the request of no one, to list, give a little information about, analyze, and give my opinion on the Presidential candidates. However, I am going to do something different. This Podcast is going to completely avoid the major party candidates, the current President Obama and the presumed republican nominee Romney.

To be honest there is just so much information out there on them that adding my voice to the melee- that would be no different than adding a drop of water into the ocean.

Instead, I will focus on what are commonly called the third party or independent candidates. You may even hear these people referred to as an 'other' candidate. As if they are some type of other worldly being. Hey they may as well be. Odds are that these people and parties are completely unknown to the general public. With little hope of that changing between now and the election.

Due in part to that. It is not very likely that these people or parties will have much affect on the general election. In past Presidential elections third party and independent candidates have had an impact. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are the most recent examples of this.

But this current crop of Presidential hopefuls are no Ross Perot or even a Ralph Nader. For many of these candidates simply getting one to two percent of the vote would be beyond anyones expectations. To the frank, for the 2012 Presidential election at lest, third party and independent candidates are non factors.

This is nothing new for America. You can find some debate on the matter, yet general consensus is that no third party has ever won the American Presidency. There has been two independent American Presidents, George Washington and Andrew Johnson. However, George Washington was by choice and Andrew Johnson was by political necessity.

There are a few simple reasons as to why Independents and third parties do not win they Presidency.

The first reason is ballot access. Each state has there own laws, meaning that no standard exists. One state may ask for costly filing fees and thousands of signatures. While another may ask for the same number of signatures but the signatures can be declared invalid if the signer votes in a primary.

Moreover one state may require a residency requirement for petition circulators. Also, a state may require that this petitions can only be circulated on odd number years before the election. To say that the system is easy to understand, democratic, and fair would not even be a good joke.

A massive investment of resources both money and people is needed just to get on the ballot. It is not a simple matter. Unless the candidate is knowledgeable on the ballot laws for every single state one can only imagine the lawyer fees.

Which some what nicely brings me to my next point, and that is money. Now you cannot necessity buy an election. Ross Perot gave it a good college try. But money is must for an candidate and the more of it the better off they are.

Money means a campaign can hire people on, it can buy ads, and it can support a infrastructure dedicated to getting the candidate elected. Third Party and Independents simply do not have the same money that a major party does. According to the Federal Election Commission almost Half a Billion dollars has already be raised by the two major parties for the 2012 Presidential election. The most a Third party has raised is a little over 700,000 dollars. Only around 428 times less than Obama has in his war chest.

But all of that money is for not if a candidate does not get media coverage. The National media overlooks third party candidates.

I can only guess this is because they do not see them as legitimate candidates.

There in-lies the problem. If the national media does not cover a candidate the public will not easily know that a candidate is even running for office let alone what they stand for.

While the internet is helping in the matter. It still requires the will of the individual to look beyond the major party candidates.

One would think that with 24 hour news networks more time could be given to third party and independents but this is not the case.

Exposure is essential for a candidate and the national media evidently does not want to give it to anyone outside of the major parties.

Those are just three reasons as to why third parties and independents do not win. A whole host of more exist but I do not want to get to bogged down. As I said before this is nothing new. The Anti-Monopoly Party, Know-Nothings, Populists, and the Progressive Party. Are just a few examples of past third parties that suffered the same fate that Independents and Third Parties of today.

For some reason appears that Americans just like having two choices.

Yet, despite this third Party and Independents still run. Election after election they are to be found on the ballot.

I can only assume that this candidates are not fools. After all Running for President is time consuming, costly, and very exposing for the candidate. They have to know that the odds are against them and that many ways on a fools errand.

But they still do it. They put in the same time and effort to into their campaigns as other candidate. These people deserve respect it would be easier for them if they simple sat it out however they try. It is almost poetic. The lone hero against the intrenched hordes.

Before I begin going into detail on the Candidates I want to make it clear that I will try to be as objective as I can be.

But when it comes to the opinion podcasts on the candidate, well no asked for it so skip it over if you want. Just bear in mind I will try to be honest and yes I swear like a sailor.

I will try to use reputable sources for whatever information I can. However this may not always be possible due to the obscurity of some of these candidates and parties. Be skeptical of anything I say, I know that I am

These podcasts are by no means a comprehensive guide to every candidate. I will only cover a select number of candidates, right now 27 in total likely to be around 30 when all is said and done.

I used Federal Election Commission, FEC filings and Wikipida to find third Party Candidates.

All the of the third party candidates had to fit a simple criteria:

They had to be parties nominee. Those that are currently undergoing primaries I will cover on a later date.

Also, the Party had to have a official website.

As for the independent candidates I only used Federal Election Commission filing to find them. The Candidate had to have a website and they had to have at lest one dollar on their FEC report.

So without further delay here we go on our third party adventure...

Changes

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Tue, 22 May 2012 21:22:00 +0000

Cue David Bowie. Cha-Cha-Changes.

Because I am now working on a Podcast, Mr. Kunza Speaks. A lot of the old content here will no longer fit the direction that I am going in. Read it and laugh at all the bad writing and half thought out posts.

I hope that you will enjoy my new podcast. I may write something from time to time but for here on out the focus of this blog will be my Podcasts.

Thanks for the support everyone.

Mr.Kunza Looks at the news for you: Obama supports same sex marriage

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Thu, 10 May 2012 02:43:00 +0000

Here is a new thing I am going to try. I will look three English language news sites and compare and contrast their reporting on breaking news story.

Here is the topic: Obama supports same sex marriage. An easy enough topic and here are the sites that I will be look at.

ABC News

BBC News

Fox News

I tried to find the report that came out around the same time that the story broke. However, a lot of these pages have been and likely will continue to be updated so this applies to around 19:15 GMT or 2:15 pm EST.

We start off with the guys and gals that broke the story. ABC News, we get the video of interview in which he made his support of same sex marriage know. Well what is he says is: "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married"

You know what is nice about this we get the full transcript of the video. Right after the little blurb that sums up the story and tells who did the interview. It's nice then they go and say hey we got more of this interview airing on two of our other shows. A nice plug. Likely nothing as juicy as the as the lead but one should expect some good ratings for these two programs (I will look up the ratings on a later date to see if this happens).

Also right below the plug for the other shows we get a summary for parts of the interview that has not aired yet. Nothing shocking just some nice political back tracking that says more or less that he is cool with the gays but it still comes down to the states to make the effort.

"The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own."

Well okay maybe not as bold of statement as some would like. A bit like past American politicians saying "I think slavery is wrong up it is still up to the states to decide for themselves." So its really just a personal statement on how he feels on the issue. He has no plan to make sex same marriage legal.

Carrying on then we get a link to same video at the top of the page but this one is two the ABC News on-line video archive. Well okay thats a little odd. Maybe they expect to change or take off the top video at some point. Just so you know if you do click on it you get an ad before every video and plays a play-list of news videos by default so better pause or exit out after you have the video you want.

Okay really it's fine for all I know it could be some type of ABC News text ad that leads you to related news videos based on news you are reading now.

Then another video say how is kids helped shape his views. Then the rest is more or less about what he has said in the past about same sex marriage. Then right at the bottom we informed that Obama's 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage. The closing quote is from him:

""My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," Romney said. "That's the position I've had for some time, and I don't intend to make any adjustments at this point. ... Or ever, by the way.""

Okay that is ABC take on it and they should own it after all they have the interview. ABC just went with the hot topic and kept talking about it.

On to the BBC

Well they keep updating it so thats nice.

We get a longer video then the one that ABC News has (57 secs to 2:12 mins). Nothing new just more of how he changed his mind on the subject. They point out that "He has become the first sitting US president to back gay marriage." Furthermore, right off the bat they point out that Romney is against it.

So right away it is cast with the upcoming election in mind. They go as far to highlight that a lot Obama's side is for same sex marriage. Making very clear that in this election we have one side for marriage and the other against.

Thats what the story is about. It has a poll that says half of those poll are fine with same sex marriage and 48% of those polled said no.

All of this story is about how it relates to the upcoming election. They state how 31 states have laws against it and how NC is just the latest one.

The BBC news is for a British market so it makes sense that this how they would write the story. The sitting President said he is for marriage, the other guy is not, and here are some states that have banned it. So it is really just analysis.

Alright analysis but nothing more.

Fox News. Oh Fox News honestly I expect something awful from them. But what to get. Well nothing really all that bad. All in all we end up with about the same stuff ABC news and hint of BBC report. However, for about 1/3 of the report Fox keeps point out that hey those Republicans are all against same sex marriage. Also, we get something new. The Black vote. They point out that conservative blacks will not like this and may not bother to vote because of it.

Which is a fair point to make. However, it seems a little pointless. It comes across more as a moral boost for the Republican faithful. You know what this is how Fox's story comes across. Hope for the Republicans that they guy they are not all that crazy about may really have a shot now and that if you do not like the idea of sex same marriage never fear the Republican are not about to change their mind on the subject.

In closing. This is quick little post I would have gone to more sites but I did not have the time and I wanted to get this done as quick as I could.

But here is my input for what it is worth.

I do not care. Yes it is nice that Obama is cool with same sex marriage but it is just him talking. Nothing more than that. It give hope to those that want to see same sex marriage legalized. Those may in turn give their support via money, time, and/or vote to Obama now. But I tend to think that those people where going to vote for him anyway. While at the same time to those that care a lot about keeping it illegal well here is another reason to not vote for him. But I do not think that they where going to anyway. Furthermore, I do not think that this will mean that they are going to crazy for the other guy.

So to sum it up. Obama energizes some of his supports and maybe gets some more involved. He does not really lose much since after all it is just his opinion and he can always fall back on that.

All this news over a subject that in a Pew Research Center survey came in last as a "very important issue" for this election year.

Abortion Part 2

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:39:00 +0000

I googled Pro-Life in order to understand by people are against Abortion. I looked at only the first page of results. Since this is the most popular information available.

Here are the sites that I looked at:

Prolifeinfo.org

Nrlc.org/abortion/index.html

Prolifeaction.org

Lifenews.com

I really could not find a list of reasons for them wanting to outlaw Abortion. While the Prolifeinfo has information on it and the best I can find as to reason to be against abortions was this:

"Pro life movements support the life of the child in the womb, with the understanding that life begins the moment the child is conceived. In the eyes of the pro life movement, each child that is aborted has been murdered, which is a child in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of many religions."

And on life news I found this:

"So you can see why I am disgusted when I hear of abortion being propagated as a’ woman’s right’. Abortion is an unnatural act; it goes against every protective instinct a mother has towards her child. Abortion is also the most horrendous violence that can ever be perpetrated on a woman."

My first reaction to the person that wrote that was was 'well you are an ass hole'. Why do I say such a thing because for lack of a better word you have to be such a big dick to say about another person that you have never met. It is a cold lack of respect that this person is showing to their fellow humans. The most horrendous violence, I fail to see the point. But I will get more into this later on.

So on to the Pro-Life Action League which states the following:

"The Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion because abortion kills an innocent unborn child, a human person at one of those early stages of human development through which each one of us passes before birth.

We fully appreciate the many pressures and crises which may lead some parents to believe they have no choice but to abort their child. That is why we work to offer abortion-bound mothers and fathers the help they need to overcome their difficult situations and choose life when faced with an untimely pregnancy.

However, killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development.

In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy—problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.

Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances."

I know a lot of text to sum it Abortion is murder. Alright I am going to say that is big reason why you should be against abortion, to put it crudely, is baby killing. To those that want to make abortion illegal an abortion is equal to murdering a child. At lest that is the point I got after reading their publicly made information found of the listed popular anti abortion site. They believe that thing growing the womb is a 'human person' and that having an abortion is killing a person.

Okay point taken. So if abortion is murder then so a miscarriage or a still birth. Furthermore, it is murder if a twin dies early in the pregnancy and the other twin grows and absorbs it. Point is anytime a pregnancy does not yield a healthy child it is murder according to the anti-Abortionist. No they do not say that but it is the same logic. If it is murder when a doctor ends a pregnancy how is not murder when mothers body cannot support a baby.

I understand a Doctor has to follow a medical procedure to a end pregnancy. That is why it is murder. But if a womans own body does the following it must at lest be called manslaughter the end result is the same. If a pregnancy ending with the aid of Doctor is murder then a still birth is also.

It is a crude and aggressive statement to fault out call abortion murder. It is just mean, if someone thinks that way that is fine. However, the issue is when that becomes the single point of the augment.

All an abortion does is end a pregnancy. That is it. It does not take much of a detailed look into pregnancy to understand what is going on during a pregnancy. A pregnancy is fertilization and development of one or more offspring. What needs to be pointed out is that under the child is born exists in a state of potential human life. It is not human life in and of itself. To make this claim is a failing to understand the prenatal development.

Here is a simple way to think of the subject. A woman tell you the following "I have one child" you reply "How old is that child" and she says "Around Four months since I am 4 months pregnant". I believe must people would find it odd to claim you have a child when you have not yet given birth to it. But if that woman has a abortion is it killing a child.

Often these groups are married to the idea that life begins at conception. Even foolish law makers have passed laws saying as much. Again the words 'ass holes' come to mind. Again I am going to have to be rude but they are saying that the moment when a man cums into a womans vagina a human life begins. So saying that life beings at conception is saying that life beings when the sperm mets in the vagina and then the egg.

Now that is just a silly thing to say. One just because a woman had sex with a man does not mean that she will get pregnant. Yes, sex is how babies get made the old fashioned way but it does not work all the time. Even if ones does not use any from of birth control sex simply a man via is penis placing sperm into a vagina. After that the sperm tries to make it to the egg and then the sperm tries to get inside of the egg.

If that is when human life starts then once again anyone that has ever had sex has killed a lot of people. Because under this logic human life begins prior to conception. After all each sperm and egg cell is existing before and for quiet sometime after sex. So saying that life beings at conception is foolish.

Sperm is made by millions, eggs are made more or less by the month. If a woman has her period does that make her a kill of life after it is a wasted egg that can be a person. The same goes for sperm only one sperm needs to make to the egg. Are the rest dead people? Furthermore it means that male masturbation is a war crime for all the human life that is killed.

When sentience comes these issues for some. However much of it seems to be clouded by the veil of bad logic. When was reading this websites I often found that they speak about sex in general often under a very ill light. The often say no sex outside of marriage and so on.

Now I am going to go a little off topic for the rest of this post. Because I think that these groups are really about sex at the end of the day. Many how, when, and why a person should have sex.

First off sex was around long before marriage and will carry on so long as their are people. To say sex outside of marriage is wrong is simply foolish and a outdated idea. Marriage is at its core about men, inheritance, and power. For a patriarchal society to work one must always know who a child's father is. After all one always knows who the mother is. The father on the other hand some doubt can be cast on it. Thus for inheritance of wealth or power it matters a lot. After all a man does not want leave his stuff to a child that is not his own.

Thus we end up with marriage a contract that says to the woman you can only have sex with this man and no one else for the rest of their life or until the man dies. Women were are still are killed or harmed if they break this contract or are even suspected of doing so. Marriage in America has changed with the times but the idea remains the same.

It is a bad idea. If you want to be someone and just that one person great enjoy your time together. However, if you longer want to be with them so what that happens. No person by law should be bound to another person for the rest of their life.

I often think that the reason why people are against abortion is that they see it as something of a tax on sex. Oh you had sex outside of marriage that pregnancy is the price that you pay for doing it. I often think that those that want to make it illegal think that it will stop sex and for lack better word 'whoring'. Oh you where a whore now you have to responsible because you are now a mother. Forgetting the key point that people love sex and that having a child will not stop a person from doing so.

Here is the simple reality of it all making something illegal does not stop it from happening. Abortions carry on because the simple fact is that people want and need them. Driving underground makes it unsafe and unaccountable.

Furthermore, Abortions mean that women can have children when they are ready. Meaning that they can offer their child a better life then they could otherwise. A unwanted child by mother that is too young or simply does not have the means to raise a child is already at a massive disadvantage. Moreover because of this abortions lower crime. "It's a very simple theory. Unwanted children are a tremendous risk for growing up and having criminal lives," said Levitt. "With the legalization of abortion, many fewer unwanted children were born, therefore, the children who were most at risk for being criminals -- they were never born."

Here is my point. Hate abortions if you want but damn it stop it. Just do not get a abortion. It is very easy thing not to do. But do not for moment think that it is a moral stance because it is not. Having or not having a child is not moral issue but a personal one.

Abortion Part 1

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Sun, 06 May 2012 00:30:00 +0000

I hate to say it right off the bat like this but I have a penis between my legs. Which in the abortion 'debate' is really important. Because I am male I cannot, no matter how hard I try, get pregnant. Meaning that I am in no way affected by the abortion debate. After all I am already born. Yes, I can get a woman pregnant however my addition is only so genetic information my body brews up by the thousands. Furthermore, I am person fully capably of loving another child even an unborn one.

I cannot overlook the simple fact that it is not my body at risk nor is it my body that bears the joys and horrors of carrying a budding potential human around in them for under a year. All men are like me in this regard. In baby making men are nothing more than spectators. Our part in the creation of human life is short and sometimes fun for both parties involved. However, when it comes down to it the creation of life can be done with a turkey baster and some well kept semen. The truth is other an semen men are not needed much for a child to be born. Many children have and will be born by methods crudely named 'test tube'.

Point is that creation human life still needs semen but it really needs a woman to work.

So when it comes to abortion I have to bear in mind my biological place. Yes abortion can touch a man's life. Not in any direct bodily way. The only way a male is affected is by not having a potential biological child. Granted this can have a deep psychological impact on a man. However it should never be forgotten that pregnancy always directly affects the life and body of a woman. Even if that woman has an abortion her body is still changed. A man can leave a pregnant woman. He can leave behind any and all responsibility for his part. But a woman cannot just walk away from being pregnant. To just walk away in the same way that a man can is not possible for a woman. Her body is altered her life changed.

Simply put a man can never know what it is like be pregnant nor can we understand what an Abortion means to a woman.

Because of these simple biological truths I have always thought that men have little to no place in the abortion debate. As men we risk little to nothing if Abortion ends up legal or illegal. We can flee from our responsibilities rather easily. Sure we made end up having to pay child support but that is just money. It is not our bodies on the line in any way.

So male politicians against abortion, sorry but yeah shut up. There is little to no place for men in this issue. We cannot get abortions so saying your against something that has no role in your life. Even someone like me that is for legal abortions I only show my support knowing that I risk nothing. I do it only because we all have to get over ourselves.

Abortion is not debate it is not something that should be democratically handled. A person has the right to their own body and right to make their choices for it. The body is the dictatorship of the person. It is not up for vote or political debate. It for the person and the person only to do what they think is best. We can judge but we do not have to live with the choice.

Part 2 coming soon

I may just join the two posts together once I get it done. Just bear with me.

IPs are not People and Money is free speech

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Thu, 03 May 2012 23:36:00 +0000

Some good news for those fear mass lawsuits by media companies. A New York Judge has ruled that an IP-address is not sufficient evidence to identify a copyright infringer. Since an IP does not collate to a person but to an account. While the account has an owner it is not possible to tell if the owner was using the account at the time any copyright infringement happened.

As the article puts it: "The problem, however, is that the person listed as the account holder is often not the person who downloaded the infringing material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person".

This should take some of the steam out of massive lawsuits against copyright breakers. Mainly those that illegal download movies, tv shows, games, music, etc on-line. By no means will this stop the legal action against down-loaders. Even with the Judge reported to have said in his recommendation that:

"[M]ass-BitTorrent lawsuits a “waste of judicial resources.” For a variety of reasons he recommends other judges to reject similar cases in the future."

A lot of this is by-product of an industry that simply did not or could keep with the changes in technology. Rather than make it simple to download music or other media many of these companies have overlooked or at lest did not make much of a serious effort to embrace new technology. Many have stood by their guns and kept to the old media models as their users moved more and more away from that very model.

It is all very silly and a waste of everyones time. A good article on this topic can be found here. No need to rehash it since it makes a lot of the same points that I was going to.

Citizens United has brought out a lot of passions. It legal allows for corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political campaigns via their own political groups (PACs, Friends of ___ and the such).

The simple fact is that Money has been equated to freedom of speech in America. Buckley v. Valeo is often cited as the landmark case as it stated that money is free speech and that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns. Since that ruling in 1976 courts have upheld the idea that money is a from a free speech. All people (citizens at lest) in America have freedom of speech and spending your money is freedom of speech.

So if I want to spend my own money on an ad that says I think that the mayor of my town is jerk then I have that right.

But Citizens United allows for corporations to do what only people could do in years past.

Well corporations are people and that was been a legal fact for quite some time. Justice Marshall explicitly stated as much back in 1823 in Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet:

"The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."

One can many more ruling relating to corporations being people across the American legal landscape. The idea of corporations having some of the same rights as people is nothing new nor should it be viewed as something unexpected.

Why should it not be unexpected it makes the legal life of corporation a lot simpler since they can sue another person and make legal contracts just as if they where a human. In fact had it been for the past 200 odd years of legal rulings on the matter they would be no lawsuits against the downloaders of today.

Getting back to my title, which is my point, IPs are not People and Money is free speech.

We have entered an odd world legally speaking. In this world what is and is not a person or what can and cannot be directly linked to another person it proving to be quite a tricky thing legally.

Here is fun thought can an IP address, no name no other means of contact, send unlimited money to a political campaign.

Yeah okay that may not be as fun as I thought but still it may very well come up one day in a court.

We have reached a nice point in history our technology has changed everything from the top the bottom. Wiki Leaks means that cases like New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers) will no longer happen. Short of completely shutting down the Internet suppressing information is no longer possible. Trying to control it is costly and often high infective.

As this is happening in America we are seeing the old media becoming untied under a few corporate banners. Also other groups are using their new found freedom of speech to flood the old media with their political message. Clouding it up they are attacking those that freely sent out their content over the Internet.

The American legal system nor is political system is really ready for this. Attacks, information, and well to be frank truth comes from the Internet via a nameless IP. Now the old media may very well try to hide but for those that wish to look with ease they can find the information. Furthermore is legally difficult to track back the to person that uploaded the information also once something is out there countless sources can host and reproduce the information. Making it costly and nearly impossible to stop the spread of the information.

It is a brave new world that we are a part of. Censorship is no longer an easy affair. Propaganda is losing its effectiveness. Even with all the money the Internet allows for any voice to heard. As the old world is being bought up and craved up among a few corporations. They true power is vested in fading world. A world thats day to day impact on the lives of people grows less and less.

Truth and a Gay Guy

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:47:00 +0000

Whenever I read something about how bad being gay is or how evil the government is or even how the republicans are being big dicks I always remind myself a bit of wisdom someone once told me: "No matter what never think that you know the whole story about anything. There is always a piece missing. Even if you find it all it does reveals more missing pieces."

Fox ran a story titled "Christian Teens Say Gay Activist Made Girls Cry". I had already watched the video before on Reddit. At the time I did not think much about it. He was simply pointing some facts about a holy book that are true. Take it for whatever that means. Not to sound mean but faith does not really care much about the truth outside of its own brand.

The students walked out did so because, well they did. I do not like people speaking for me so I will try to do others the same. But the Fox News story does have one person who left explaining why they left. "Naman said he was simply following the prompting of the Holy Spirit."

That's cool but it is not an answer. Okay it is one but it makes little more sense then saying I was simply following the prompting of my cat. If you have seen the video you see people leaving the room as soon as he says "The Bible".

We are all people here and the thing about people is that we really do not like to be proved wrong. It is not self reflection but a truth. It is being studied and it is called the "argumentative theory of reasoning" more or less we care more about being right then truth.

Christians think of their faith in glowing terms. It is the one true faith. God is real and Jesus loves you. All very old ideas. Modern Christians like to play up how fluffy and caring their faith is. Also, how mortal it is. They say the Bible was written by God and is the highest moral standard.

But then some Gay Guy reads the damn thing and points out that is says it is cool to own slaves. It does not hint at it or mudded through it. Nope, it flat out says slaves are great own em.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Even the hipper New Testament is fine with the idea. In fact it says if your own is a Christian you should work harder for your master.

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"

But a lot of good people overlooked this part of their faith and the words in their own holy book. It is a fact that Quakers and a lot of other Christians fought against slavery back when slavery was legal and common. Risking life and limb to end it. But it is also a fact that Christians that owned slaves and used the bible to support them owning another person.

Alright back to my point. Humans have this bad habit of hating to be proved wrong. It is embedded in us. Whenever someone points out that we are wrong we tend to react like this people did in the video. We leave unwilling to hear out the other side because we already are right and what they are saying is wrong so why even bother.

It is a habit that all of us need to break. We are all collectively dumb and helpless. Even the best Action hero does make their own guns or are self trained by wolves. Humans sorry we all need to get over ourselves, use our minds, and listen. We do not have to like what we hear and we do not have to hear everyone out but as a rule we need to start thinking more about why we believe what we believe and less about how right we are.

The truth is always there even if we do not know it. Truth is a solid point of reality. Even if we believe something to be true that does not make it so. Truth is just that truth it does not rely on our thoughts or opinion it simply is. We humans need to start driving towards truth and not avoid it.

Truth really does matter. Reality does not care about us. Truth is our only tool against everything. We are alone without a net spinning on big rock in the middle of void. We are just chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Truth is all we have. It why the houses we build do not fall in on us. It is why we know how to make fire. It is how we fight off illnesses we cannot even see.

We all have to stop trying to be right and comforting what is true.

Why the Rich Rule

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 20:48:00 +0000

I am at a loss for who said it but I remember someone once said. "There are only five jobs in the world Healers (Doctors, EMT, and the like), Builders, Educators, Farmers, and Protectors (Cops, judges, and military). All the rest is bullshit for money.

Politics soundly falls into the bullshit for money category. While I could not find any data about the amount wealth that a congress person had before they where elected into office and what they have after they leave office. Even term to term wealth changes could not be found. Likely a good thesis could be done on such a topic.

But there is information out there on how Congress gets richer as average American loses. Nothing all that shocking there in fact it think people would naturally expect such a thing. As the old saying goes with power comes wealth. Also, the simple truth is that just to run for any political office calls for good amount of money or the backing of those that do.

The simple fact is that those with money always lead. Poor people do not rule. Look at South Africa post-apartheid. Once they African National Congress got into power the leadership quickly became very wealthy. What is shocking is that despite a far amount of research into the topic I could not ever find one time in which person who was poor left power peaceful and was still poor. Even Cincinnatus the icon civic virtue and restraint was a rich man before we was in power and stood rich afterward. The Dalai Lama while in and out of power was and is no poor holy man.

So the question is why. Why is is this a universal human standard?

I think it is because money and power are drugs. The most addictive drugs known to humanity. Just a simple taste of power and wealth corrupts body and mind more than the most powerful narcotic. It changes the reality of the user with such a force even the strongest moral being is crushed under its weight.

Even if you think that a person can hold their grown against the taint of wealth and power. Those around such a person will fall into its pits. Causes such a person to fall down to their level if only for a moment. Think about it you have lots of money and you a mayor of a small town. Your sister uses your name to get a loan for a house that she ends up being unable to pay for and calls on you to save her from foreclosure. Perhaps not dramatic but think that person has the power over another person in such a way that it is hard to those without to understand. For someone to so easily change another's fate is not something to be taken lightly.

Think about it the first time you can just buy a nice car with the same ease of mind as someone buying a pack of gum. Or how you would feel with someone coming to you knowing that you unquestionable power over them. You can change their life or damn them. How can a being walk away from that unchanged.

Even if the person uses their wealth and power for good. Their reality is not one of the rest of the world that is simple trying to get by. Their is no just get by with wealth and power. With such things comes options that the rest of us simply do not have. How can a person not change under such a reality?

Whats the answer. It is not an easy one but it needs to be said. Those with power and wealth need to be watched and legal power holding them in check. They are addicts and need to be seen as such. We need to hold them to a higher standard. Power watch dogs need to be in place to guard against human nature. Those with power cannot hide behind such power their actives need to be public and known to all. Who they see what is said has to be recorded and make public knowledge no secrets no hiding. For these people hold power over us all we need to know what they are doing in our name.

NC Amendment One - Part Two

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:26:00 +0000

On issues like this both sides should be heard out. It is only fair, since the simple truth is that for a lot of people this issue matters more to them than anything else. For some reasons moralist and those that view themselves as such have really taken to this Amendment. I have looked at what those in favor of the Amendment are saying. Their support is will meaning but flawed for many reasons.

I looked up the two largest organizations that where for the Amendment. N.C. Values Coalition and Vote FOR Marriage NC for information about the reasons for for the Amendment.

N.C. Values Coalition was founded in 2011 and takes on more issues then just the Amendment one can what causes they have taken on here. While I will be just focusing on their stance for the Amendment their issues do make for a fascinating read. Namely the part in which they say that "We also believe that private business owners have the right to refuse service to customers on the basis of their religious faith." I can only think that it is a misguided move to say such a thing. It does nothing but create a needless firestorm as people can and will put out that smacks of every kind of hatred imaginable. My religion says I cannot sell to Jews and you look like one so I will not sell to you or Hey my faith says blacks are bad so don't shop here. It does not seems like wise company to keep.

Nevertheless, N.C. Values Coalition stance for the Amendment is simple enough to understand:

"Marriage in North Carolina is under attack and needs protection. Although our current laws define marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibit persons of the same sex from marrying, these statutes are subject to being overturned either by judges or by future legislatures. North Carolinians do not want to leave the issue up to a future legislatures that might impose gay marriage on them without a popular vote of the people. ..Judicial or legislative activism could be coming to North Carolina very soon. We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don't have it in our face every day for the next ten years."

I dislike with a passion the idea that marriage is 'under attack'. It sounds like roving gangs of people are beating up married couples or burning marriage certificates. It also brings to mind the notion that the government is trying to pass laws that will ban marriages. Granted this is not what they are talking about. It is a term that shows up time and time again in the same sex marriage debate. They stand behind the idea it is some how an 'attack' to be inclusive and give legal rights to same sex couples. But that is not what the issue is here. It needs to be stated again that not passing the Amendment is not a vote for gay marriage. Same sex marriage will still be illegal.

Anyway with the statement "Judicial or legislative activism could be coming to North Carolina" it appears that the NC Values Coalition are trying to fight against the shadowy forces threatening the future by legal or political action. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Using fear without reason to get what you want, in this case to pass a bad Amendment. Fear is not a good enough reason to do anything let alone pass an Amendment that will forever change the state. The simple fact is that there is no threat. No law is being considered in the State house or Senate that would allow same sex couples to marry. None has ever been considered. So much for legislative activism.

The Coalition does make the following statement singling out judges:

"Legislators who oppose a Marriage Amendment say our current law is sufficient to protect the definition of marriage without amending the Constitution. That excuse is just plain wrong! They ignore what has happened in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, where judges have overturned statutes protecting traditional marriage and legalized gay marriage. An activist judge in North Carolina could overturn North Carolina's marriage laws."

Moreover it speaks to the ignorance of the legal system that the Values Coalition has to think that a judge can some how make a ruling that will suddenly allow for same sex couples to marry. It is against the law in NC full stop, no question about it, a judge interprets the law they do not make laws. This notion of 'judicial activism'. You can read an great opinion piece about how 'Judicial activism' is a convenient bogeyman. The simple fact is "in our system of government, courts are meant to be "bulwarks" of liberty, not rubber stamps for government power." To think that they some how bully citizens into following laws of their creation is simply not possible in sense that the NC Values Coalition is claiming.

I looked up the cases that they highlighted. While they do not name names or point to cretin cases I tried my best and I think I found out what cases they where talking about.

In Massachusetts "Judge Joseph L. Tauro, ruling in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, declared that the law “induces the Commonwealth to violate the equal protection rights of its citizens’’ and “plainly intrudes on a core area of state sovereignty, the ability to define the marital status of its citizens. This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status."

Not much activism there. The judge said that the state makes the rules on marriage for the state.

As for Iowa nothing that extreme. Direct from the ruling itself: "In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution." Furthermore, "Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

Boiling it all down. The ruling stated that the court could find not good reason for why the state banned same sex marriage. Iowa has a standard called 'appropriate equal protection'. Meaning that all are protected by the law equally. So if a group of people are to lose or never get the legal protection of marriage a good reason needs to be found for why it was done. It is very damning to those against same sex marriage that they could not come up with a good reason for excluding same sex couples from the same legal rights to marriage as heterosexuals.

As for Connecticut the case played out much the same as Iowa. No good legal reason could be found for banning gay marriage. How often do people forget that in the court of law one has to prove their case. Let me say that one more time. In a court of law proof matters, legal proof. Just because you do not like it is not a good enough reason. You have to make a case and use logic.

Okay enough of that. On to the next points that the Coalition makes. What I found to be very odd is that they have this page that lists the benefits of marriage. Claiming all the positives:

"Promotes optimal health and success of children. Children need a mother and a father;[2] there is no substitute for either in a child’s life. Children from homes with a married mother and father are:

- Seven times less likely to live in poverty

- Six times less likely to commit suicide

- Less than half as likely to commit crime

- Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock

- Develop better academically and socially

- Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood [3]"

I followed the sources. None make the claim that the benefits of marriage are the exclusive domain of Heterosexual couples. All they compared was two parent households vs. single parent. In many ways the whole page simply highlights good reasons for the state to be inclusive to same sex couples. Why leave same sex couples out something to seems so beneficial? Should the sex organs of parent really matter that much. The Coalition says that their vision "is to take the initiative to preserve and promote families — the basic building block of society in North Carolina — on an economic, social and values level." Gay people have families. But for some reason a family group only cares about families so as they have mismatched sex parts.

I many ways this group demeans those that support their cause. By making outlandish claims and statements on many topics.

Now on the next group, Vote FOR Marriage NC. They are the milder one of the two groups and seems to be the most reasonable with their case being made with a clear head and some sense of reason. Here are some of their reasons why they are for the Amendment.

"What is at stake in this debate are two competing definitions of marriage. One definition – advocated by same-sex “marriage” activists – would define marriage as the union of any two people regardless of gender, with the law treating the parties’ genders as irrelevant to the meaning of marriage. The other definition, contained in the proposed constitutional amendment and reflective of North Carolina’s current law and the collective understanding of virtually every nation throughout recorded history, is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman."

Because it is the way we have always done it is never a good reason to keep doing something. Women should have the right to vote because well that is the way we have always done things. No, I would give you that surgery we have always used a faith healer and we get by just fine. Societies change social standards evolve. It is simple fact of human life.

The History of Marriage is not a rosy one. For most of human history marriage was between one man and many women. There are still places around the world where this is true. What is now taboo for most societies was or is a fact of daily life. Also, for generations past often who you married was not your choice but rather one of your parents. This is still the case for many people. However, in modern times we see it as an attack on personal freedom. Really I could make this whole post about how marriage was sexist and more of a legal contract between families then one of love or even respect. Families would sell their daughters or arrange for babies to marry one another when they came of age.

The point is the definition of marriage has changed a great deal with time. Our view of it now is a oddity when compared to recorded history. Traditions change, peoples views on things change. It is a fact of life. When it comes down to it. It is easy to say well that is way it has always been done but that does not make it right or even a good idea to begin with.

Getting deeper into the issue Vote for Marriage says the following:

"Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction."

Okay they don't cite a source for this. It turns out that this claim is made by groups around the nation. But I like to look things up and found the following:

"Bottom line: the only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts (teachers) have taught about same-sex marriage."

Even if they do what is the issue? It is a fact of life for many children that their parents are gay. As it is for other children to be born to single mother, or live just with their father or another extended family member. The nuclear family is not the only type of family out there. Why should children not learn about other types of families. Why hide it? I fail to see what the issue is.

Carrying on:
"Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers."

Oh look I found a nice chart that covers all of this:

CLAIM	REALITY
“Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.”	The only example conservatives ever cite is a New Jersey Methodist pavilion, and that pavilion did not actually have a religious exemption.
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage.”	Catholic Charities have never been obligated to shut down their services, but have done so voluntarily when they are no longer subsidized by the state because they discriminate.
“Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.).”	Again, no group has been forced to close, though some may lose state funding. In one case, the Maine Catholic Diocese shuttered a homeless support agency as punishment for supporting marriage equality.
“Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution.”	Marriage equality or not, same-sex families are a part of all communities. To refuse to acknowledge their existence stigmatizes the children who are being raised by gay couples and deprives all young people of understanding the world around them.
“Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and New Hampshire are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings.”	This is a red herring. When businesses are fined for not renting to same-sex couples, they are violating state non-discrimination policies, like in the case of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont. Inns and reception halls should be no less publicly accessible than lunch counters and water fountains.
“Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.”	This is another red herring, as licensing laws and professional certifications have no connection to marriage laws. The 11th Circuit ruled last month in favor of a university that required a counseling student to affirmatively counsel LGBT clients.
“Those people – a strong majority of North Carolinians – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs… Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.”	No law has ever “penalized” opponents of marriage equality, but more importantly, there is no “strong majority” in support of the amendment. In fact, a December poll found that 56 percent of North Carolinians support at least civil unions — which this amendment also bans.

Marriage Equality: North Carolina

Again the issue here is not should same sex couples marry. It is about the Amendment. All these groups keep pointing out the horrors of gay marriage. But I keep saying it same sex marriage is not legal in this sate. So really all of this is needless. What both of these groups are doing is confusing the issue. They are for a needless Amendment that will be fought out in the courts if it passes. It is going to be costly legal battle. The Amendment does little to really stop same sex couples and ends up hurting a lot of people.

The real issue here is why. Why are we doing this as a state. Why are we so fearful of group of people that love and care of each other? Why is it such a threat? How can we call ourselves a nation of free people when we go after those who are exercising their personal freedom to love another. Why is there a need for extra legal protection that does no good and only cause harm. What does this say about us a people. Why should heterosexual nuclear family be the only type of family offered in this state?

I cannot answer these question because I do not think there is an answer. We are all people all people should be free to live there lives. You do not have to like it or even respect it. But no one needs to attack someone that is causing no harm to others.

NC Amendment One - Part One

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:57:00 +0000

For quite some time now North Carolina has had the distinction of being the only southern state without a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The state does have a law on the books which bans same sex marriage. But as of this date it has avoided However, that unique status many change on May 8 2012. On that day an Amendment to the state constitution will be voted on state wide.

The Amendment is not very long nor it is particularity complex. Here is what the voters will be voting on it its more or less in its entirety:

"Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new section. Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts."

Here is the link to the proposed Amendment.

My employer is one of them many North Carolina business that has come out against North Carolina Amendment One. You can see a full list of other business opposed to the Amendment here. I cannot speak for my employer nor do I intend to. But I believe it speaks to how important this issue truly is. Our business has been in operation for over 18 years and had a strong tradition of staying outside of politics. I do not think that this was a move taken lightly on their part.

I can only praise the businesses that have come out against Amendment One. The move by my employer is completely understandable and logical. Personal feelings aside is make sense in the world of business:

"Over 89% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have more than 95% of Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and 43% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression." (Source)

The business world knows that it makes little sense to turn away the best talent available just because of their sex life. A business does itself no favor alienating potential workers over a personal matter that an employer has no reason to be involved with to begin with. It can only be called voyeuristic for a company to care so much about what happens in the bedroom.

It is very seasonable for a business should speak out against such matters. People are gay it is a simple fact and one that will not go away even if the Amendment becomes the law of the land. All it does is hurt businesses. Why would gay person want to work and start a life in a state that discriminates against them? Why would they want to buy a house and start a family in this state? How could anyone be expected to pay their taxes to the state that uses it own constitution ensure that they can never have the same legal rights as a straight couple? It is not sensible by any means to use a constitution turn away a group a people simply because you do not like what they do in the bedroom.

Furthermore, it gives national and international businesses good reason to move their headquarters out of the state or avoid any major investment in the state out of fear that they could be viewed as supportive of the discrimination. It adds a needless barrier to doing business in this state. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign pointed this out in a statement:

“Even in the most challenging economy, leading employers are forging ahead of federal and state law to recruit and retain a diverse workforce – regardless of employees’ sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. (Taking) steps to ensure all employees in their workforce are treated fairly today.”

Moreover the CEO of Duke Energy Jim Rogers put it rather bluntly:

“This is the 21st century, and we're competing with people around the world.We've got to be inclusive and open.”

He even went so far as to say:

“If this amendment passes, we’re going to look back 20 years from now, or 10 years from now, and we’re going to think about that amendment the same way we think about the Jim Crow laws that were passed in this state many, many years ago."

Here one can see a list of companies that have spoken out national against such measures like the Amendment One. One should not expect these companies to seek out North Carolina if the Amendment passes.

It should not be North Carolina has one of the nation's best University Systems. Students the world over come here to be educated. But will they keep coming in the future if the Amendment passes. Again why would a gay student or educator want to make a life in this state if the state legally bars them form doing so? Why would a great mind that happens to be gay want to work for one of the Universities in a state that keeps them second class citizen. Status forced on them only because they share the same sex organs as the person that the love.

But it is not just gay people that are harmed by this Amendment. While the focus of the Amendment is clearly meant to be stance against gay marriage. It ends up taking many people as collateral damage regardless of the their sex life. It affects unmarried couples of any sexually orientation. A child of an unmarried couple does not have the same rights as one of a married couple. Furthermore, it adds one more needless and harmful layer to the legal onion that is domestic issues.

The simple statement that "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." This means that all other unions are null and void and have no legal protection. A widow/widower could lose retirement benefits because they spouse is no longer alive thus they cannot be married anymore. Do not think for a moment that a company would not try to use this to weasel its way out of paying out benefits to someone.

It effects children of unmarried couples in both legal matters and other basic issues such as health care. Since no legal protection can legally be offered to them in the state of North Carolina. Such worries where neatly summed up in a article by Shawn Long.

"They want to amend the N.C. Constitution - to eliminate the "all are equal" clause - to define marriage as the "only domestic arrangement" in the state, and only between a man and a woman. This seemingly benign phrasing is used in other states to prohibit domestic partner benefits. I could no longer offer health insurance to my partner of 16 years or our 9-year-old son. This would apply to all unmarried couples, gay or straight. It would also be used to challenge hospital visitation, wills and powers of attorney."

Moreover, it leaves unmarried couples at the mercy of the courts. Their legal rights would be left to the interpretation of judges.

Chris Fitzsimon, director of the progressive NC Policy Watch. Pointed out that even if the judges are fair and will meaning. It will still massively affect the NC legal system:

"What we have here is untested language that would need to be interpreted by the courts. At the very least, it will mean that our courts will be tied up for years trying to figure out what this law means for domestic violence cases. (Source)

For more information (at lest better written information) about the ill effects of this Amendment check out this website: protectncfamilies.org

Rommey and Crassus

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:35:00 +0000

I haven't been very good at keeping up with my blog. I tend to start writing about one topic but after all is said and done I find out that I have lost my away along all the mess of text and half ideas. But some ideas still stick more so then others. Looking back at my America posts I quickly realized that I have gone about it the wrong way. I won't delete them but they will stand as a reminder of a past time.

Mitt Romney is very rich. Right now there is little doubt that he is using his own wealth to earn the Republican nomination. Romney partly financed his campaign with his own personal fortune. We should expect this Romney wants to be president and is willing to put is own money where is mouth is. In way it almost commendable.

I many ways I see Romney as a modern Marcus Licinius Crassus. Grant it is not a perfect comparison. Romney is not one of the richest men in history nor has he ever lead anyone into battle. But I feel the comparison is justified.

You can guess who is who right?

To grossly simplify Crassus was very rich what he wanted at the end was political glory. The only real way that a roman could get such political glory was on the battlefield. Thus, Crassus lead his legions to a failed invasion of Parthia and died along with his son Publius who was a rising star a skilled commander.

How Crassus got his wealth was quite ingenious he had his own fire company. Whenever a building in Rome caught fire (some say he had those fires set) he would send out his fire company to buy the building that was on fire at cut rate prices. After the building was bought his slaves would put out the fire. While Crassus did have other investments farms and other things. This is what many historians like to point to as the way in which Crassus went from a rich man to the richest man.

But being rich was not enough for Crassus he wanted power. If it was not for the military glory of Julius Caesar and Pompey he may have very well gotten it. But it was not to be he was out classed by the Parthians and lost his head literally. The loss brought great shame to Rome. It lead to the fall of the Roman Republic and gave glory to her enemy Parthia.

So what does this have to do with Mr. Romney? Romney if elected would be among the nation's richest presidents. Romney made a lot of is own money by buying business and then selling them. Not quite like the fire company of Crassus but it has been pointed out that his company Bain Capital “apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars.” Perhaps a more modern take on the fire company.

I do not dislike Romney for this because it is Capitalism. Capitalism could care less about the worker or the 'everyday' person. As I said in past posts it is the system that we have and everyone seems to like it. Romney made his money and made money for his firm thus he was good at his job. In the eyes of Capitalism and the law what he did was fair. Companies made money for a select few those that work for it are replaceable and if you can get rid of them so you can make more money then you have 'won'. It should also be pointed out that Crassus fire company was viewed as fair in the eyes of the Romans. Heartless but perfectly legal and the same goes for Romney.

It is often thought that Crassus death and war was needless. His operations against Parthia, "aroused considerable opposition since Parthia had never done the Romans any harm. Ateius, one of the tribunes, tried to stop Crassus from leaving Rome. When the other tribunes did not allow Ateius to detain Crassus, he called down a formal curse on Crassus as he left the city (54)." In many ways Romney campaign can be seen in the same light. Few Republicans called for him to enter the race. His lack of support form the Republican party has reached the point of mocking. With the reason why he is gaining any of their support is because they have to have someone run against Obama.

It is hard to tell but as I read the histories on Crassus I often see him the same light as Romney. All in Rome knew how Crassus made his money. I cannot imagine that your typical Roman would have liked what Crassus did. Furthermore, Crassus had wealth which in any place or time in history means power. Outside of his wealth and family name Crassus had little to offer. In many ways his death may have been praised. Much like Romney (not that wish death for the man). I believe that few people truly like this man but he simply has the money to keep himself relevant as did Crassus.

Romney is like Crassus in another key way. Crassus went to war in many ways to be popular. Now it maybe a touch bold to say this but Crassus needed to be greater than his rivals. Two popluar men that stood for ideas and had the military power to back it. Thus war was only way in which he could get the popularity he so needed. The same can be said for Romney he wants to be President he believes that he can fix America. He sees it as the only way in which he can be effective. He is willing to sing whatever tune plays to the public he is willing to put up all his wealth to get the power that he seeks even if no one truly wants him to win.

Romney like Crassus would be nothing without their wealth it was and is the only factor as why they made it as far as they did or are going to. Romney simply spends and spends to find whatever support he can. He seeks support like a thirsty man seeks water. Damn everything else. Romney has to be unclear about what he stands for and he will do as President. Because someone may not like what he has to say and he could lose their fleeting support.

In the end I should not be to unfair to both this men. Crassus made it history books and will be talked about long after my death or likely the death of anyone reading this. However, Crassus did not make it to the history books as a man of ideas but as a man of wealth and in the end a man of epic failure. While Romney has yet to be a failure it should be pointed out that Romney is not a man of ideas. Romney is no great political thinker. After all Romney is not running ideas but on the fact that he is the other choice in the voting booth. Much like Crassus was other man at the time in Rome.

As a said before it is not a perfect comparison and it may not even be a fair one. After all Crassus did lead thousands of men to their death for his vain glory. While the worst thing that Romney did is lead thousands of men to the unemployment line. After all is said and done Romney will win the nomination. Leading us to the horrors of endless political ads on television. I would like to think that Crassus would do the same.

A Sinper and a French man

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 05:04:00 +0000

Toulouse gunman killed by sniper

If you follow current events any you probably hear about this. If not to sum it up a 23 year old French citizen was shot by a sniper in Toulouse, France ending a standoff. He was the suspect in seven murders. At the time of him being shot he was attempting to flee the police after a shootout and siege that lasted thirty-two hours. Furthermore it seems that the shooter himself claimed to have been trained by Al-Qaeda.

I don't want to make light of this. The man is a suspect in seven cold blooded murders. Looking at what he is suspected of doing does not make for a peasant read. I do not want to get into to many details about the killings themselves. Horrible details have come up about the final moments of one of his victims that I will leave for the curious the google themselves.

I have always found such things ghoulish, sicking, needless, and a invasion of privacy. I can only put myself in the victims shoes and think about how I would feel if it was me. I for one know that I would not want the whole world to know how I died in gory detail. I would not want everyone to know how my last fleeting moments of life where spent. Furthermore, that knowledge only helps build up the myth the murderer. A person that should be forgotten by all.

Above is an psychiatrists and Charlie Brooker's insightful perspective on news coverage's perpetuation of mass shooting that I feel applies here more then ever.

But that is not likely that this story is going to go away. It has all the hallmarks of a great news story. The final standoff plays out like the climax of an action movie with the suspect getting his blaze of glory and admitting to his crimes. Just before the supposed justice of a bullet found him. I have already rehashed it much here but the point is that is story has legs. Even American news outlets have made it a top story:

Fox News: Islamic Fanatic Dies in Shootout With French Cops.

CNN: French terror suspect killed.

MSNBC: French school shooting suspect killed as raid ends standoff.

I point out that the media is calling this man a 'terrorist' since it appears that he, by his own admission, was trained by Al-Qaeda. Thus allowing questions be asked like why did they not know about him. How could they have stopped him. It gives fuel to hate based politics allowing fear and hate to be spoken about publicly for a whole group of people. Look some right wing in America now has one more talking point. It allows for a message of fear to be seen a message of unity. "We stand with our French allies in this dark time and we will do all we can to put an end to terrorist." Also someone will say "Are there lone wolves in American and what can be done to stop them." This proves that the threat is real and radical Islam is out to get us.

Just one isolate event in France is going to set off a firestorm. I know that I am helping I am talking about it. That is the heart of the matter.

The point of Terrorism is to have people talk about it. Terrorist use fear and murder to get powers to react. Terrorist know that they can not fight a nation like another nation. There is no pitched battles no generals looks over points on a map trying to find the best course of action.

By this mans actions Al-Qaeda gets talked about. Al-Qaeda once again becomes seen as a real threat and power. Al-Qaeda will get recruits because of this. A group that Governments keep claiming to have delivered a death blow can now be said to be a force once more.

If you really want curve the force that is terrorism do not talk about it. Do not give it the space or the time. Call this man what he is another misguided murder and leave it at that. Because at the end of the day that is all he is and all he should ever be.

Pastor Dennis Terry of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:39:00 +0000

Rick Santorum was introduce by this lovely man. For those you can't or won't watch the video I will give you a short overview. Basically the man speaking is one Pastor Dennis Terry of Greenwell Springs Baptist Church. It starts out with him ranting about how he doesn't care what the 'liberals say' and reaches back to the myth that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Sigh... I have heard this myth countless times. As a student of history and politics I would like to point out some facts.

It is not remotely true to say that America was founded as a Christian nation. America is a federal constitutional republic. In reality America was founded with Enlightenment principles and a healthy respect for the Roman Republic. United States Constitution defines the system of Government that runs America. Guess what, it makes no appeal to any God or Gods even Jesus is overlooked. The Constitution goes out of its way even to point out in the 1st Amendment that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

What I fail to understand how the founders went out of their way to make that point and yet this Pastor fails to find it.

But come on everyone knows that and it doesn't matter. Because America was founded by all those Puritans and Pilgrims that came over. Is that not proof that America was founded by Christian and based on their ideology?

Again no.

It should be pointed out that driving force was like with all things money:

"England's success at colonizing what would become the United States was due in large part to its use of charter companies... prosperity resulted from trapping and trading in furs. In addition, fishing."

Moreover: "Economic considerations were undoubtedly the most effective in promoting colonization."

So there is that myth debunked. Oh yes Christian came over in very small number compared to other migrations: "From 1630 through 1640 approximately 20,000 colonists came to New England. Much less than the number of English citizens who emigrated to Ireland and the Caribbean during this time."

But again that is not point. What matters is that America has a holy heroic past that needs to be reclaimed. A past that will led to a brighter future.

Okay that covers the first 10 seconds of the clip.

Next the Pastor calls out to the "God of the of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There is only one God and his name is Jesus!" I kid you not. That guy claims that Jews worshiped Jesus. I suppose he is referring to Acts 3:13: "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go." But that passage tends to have a dark history of getting Jews killed for killing Jesus.

And everyone stands up and starts clapping. It should be noted just how old the crowd is.

Then the man goes to say just how hard it is as Christian. Because everyone is saying that you can't voice your beliefs publicly. Christians only make up the majority of Americans and only hold just about every public office local, state, and federal.

Only in America can the majority with all the power and numbers still claim to be persecuted. It is silly you can pray anywhere you want to whatever you want. A Christian can talk to anyone about their faith.

But hey whatever Christians are persecuted cause "students are not allowed to lead the audience over the loudspeaker in student-written prayers at football games" now all you can do never mind that "legally, you have the right to voluntarily pray with your teammates as long as you are not leading the audience in a scheduled event. However, school officials, coaches, etc. can not lead the prayer or make participation mandatory. You are free to pray at sporting events either aloud or in private and others may join you."

The utter horror.

Around 58 seconds he tells everyone that has a problem with America to get out. Doesn't that mean that he should because he is persecuted and wants Rick Santorum elected to fix the problems with America. I mean he just pointed out problems with America like 15 seconds ago in the video. So if he wants to leave that would be great. He does sound kind of like a dick.

So lets get to 1:10 into this video. Here we find the Pastor saying the following:

"We don't worship Buddha, Muhammad, we don't worship Allah. We worship God, we worship God!"

I suppose he is speaking to those in the Christian Church he is in. So I guess he is just trying to be helpful pointing out what they don't believe. Which makes sense. But then again he does seem to have a hard time understand other peoples faiths.

Because no one worships Buddha, Muhammad. But hey I called him a dick before he could just be trying to be help. So I guess he is making a good point as to the fact that Buddhist don't worship Buddha and that Muslims don't worship Muhammad.

It is confusing that he says we don't worship Allah. Because in Arabic Allah, the word means simply "the God". But hey maybe he is a secret Atheist or something.

Part two coming later

Occupy

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:49:00 +0000

The Occupy movement has caught my eye again. I have been wondering 'why'. Why it is going on and Why the powers that be are treating it in such a way.

The Occupy is not likely to go anywhere anytime soon. With spring coming and summer break looming for my college students it very likely to just keep growing. Granted the movement is not just made up of college students but it should be expected that with coming months off the movements ranks will swell. Also, with it being spring and summer it is a lot easier to spend your time outside.

Sure as spring the NYPD is using heavy handed tactics on the protesters. Mainly just beating them. Now this should not come as shock to anyone. The Police always tend to overact to peaceful protests if they get large enough. Before we started I feel that it is needed to point that I am not saying that police are bad or that they are violent in nature. Or that the Police 'hate' anyone. The Police are human beings just like you and me. People are not necessarily bad nor violent in nature.

We are however it is fair to that humans are fearful beings. I would hesitate to call it human nature but history teaches us that whenever authority meets an vocal outsider, one of two things happen. They join the movement such as in the case of the Arab Spring, Russian revolution, etc. Or they use their force to stamp out the outsiders. Such as in the case of the American Civil Rights movement, Tiananmen Square Massacre, etc. They do this often out of fear. Fear that they will be left behind if the movement carries on without them. Or fearful that if action is not taken now the movement will 'win'.

However, we are speaking about History for the most part these confrontations tend to be peaceful and dull with the authority simply watching while the outsider speaks its mind. There is a good reason for this public violence is hard to hide. More so now then ever before. With one google search of "police beating occupy wall street" yields about 9,120,000 results and About 1,160,000 videos on the subject.

I do not think that the police or any authority actively fears or hates the Occupy movement. The movement has no clear leadership and is offering up no clear alternative to the status quo. It is no real threat and the most part is overlooked by the national media.

Yet the police are beating protesters. That I fail to understand. You can say that their are a few 'bad eggs' that are overrating to the protesters. But that fails to explain why it keeps happening and not just in New York but in cities around America. Why is there so much unnecessary force? I can only think that it is because the Police feel that it is needed to once again put people back in their place. The funny thing is that whenever you see the police beating someone in the video links above you will notice that no one is really doing anything about it.

It is almost like Americans are used to violence coming form the powers that be. However it is far more likely that Americans have ingrained in them a respect for the Police that leads to inaction even in plan slight of injustice. There is something distinctly American about 'putting people back in their place'. It is not so much hate or fear but the thought that this people need some sense beaten into them. There is a sense that violence is needed not for public order but for people to see their wrongs. It is tactic common now for American Police. American powers want to be bad asses but often just end up looking like asses.

Also, it has to be said that the Police may just dislike the Occupy movement and dislike the people involved. I imagine many Cops just want it to be over with. I can see how the cops could see those protesting as smug entitled ass holes that again need to put into their place. Not that it excuses their behavior. But what is often forgotten is that the police are humans. Humans that make mistakes and get enraged for dumb reasons.

I can only think that it speaks to the lack of professionalism that we are now finding in Police force. Americans have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. It is the law. Police see order now are the most important part of their job now. Order means that everyone knows their place and society stays the same. The Police should not have attack protesters they should be better trained and react better. I do not think that anyone really understands why the Police are doing this.

The Ads.

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:19:00 +0000

After have 100 views I thought I should get greedy and start running some ads on my blog. With the small and singular hope, that after a year of doing so I could earn enough money to buy a six pack for myself.

However, I am starting to regret the move after seeing this.

And this ad sense:

How Jesus REALLY saves

Jesus saves, but not by "washing away sins" or "appeasing the Father

www.NewChurch.org

I can only say wow.

First of all. Lets sign a petition to end a necessary medical procedure because some people view getting pregnant as a tax on having sex outside of marriage. Never mind the life saving medical procedure. Lets sign a petition and run it underground so only the rich can afford a clean doctor. It is coat-hangers and the stairs for the rest of you sex havers women!

Right....

As for the other ad.

While cults are fun.This guy just seems a little to self hating for me to give 10% of income over too.

Pastor: Rev. Eric Buss

As can be seen that is Pastor but not just Pastor that is Pastor Reverend (to you mofos) Eric Buss. A trusted honkey. With the key to everlasting life and easy teeth whiting. Yes they will teach your children bullshit at reasonable rates! As they say "The Old Testament, New Testament, and Heavenly Doctrines are the Word of God and form the foundation for all that we do." Hey we can all own slaves and hate women with Old Testament values! Don't forget that it was started by some dude that thought tripping balls was a sign of God!

This is a joke so don't take to hard and be sure to click on all the ads. I want to drink for free one night soon.

Bears Talk March 13, 2012

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:51:00 +0000

First of all thanks to everyone for reading this. I now have over 100 unique views. Which is wonderful having only been at this for a month or so now. Thanks again and Спасибо (I get lot hits form Russia for whatever reason.)

On to the post.

NFL free agency is fun. It is fulled with hope and dreams. It is much better than the draft since these players have actually played the professional game before. All fans harbor dreams that every team will get that one player that will compete the team. The story lines follow better than most tales romance.

Today (yesterday by the time this was posted) the Bears got two great players. Brandon Marshall and more importantly Jason Campbell. Yes, I am aware that the Bears have not had a true 'number one' wide receiver since Jay Cutler got to the windy city. However, I would like to make the point that while it is nice to have a number one the bears have not seemed to be hindered to much by in the past few seasons.

For the past two seasons poor offense play can be squarely past at the door step of Mike Martz and poor offensive line. Both led to Mr.Cutler finding out what the various fields taste like. Even with a star WR it is hard to say that Mr.Cutler's play would have been any better. The truth is until the running game was opened up more placing less presser on the line did the teams offensive truly start to hum.

I am in minority but a star wide receiver is often a needless luxury. A good QB will always improve the play of any wide receiver. A good QB turns an okay WR into a pro bowler. I think that Mr.Cutler will break out this season and players like one Mr. Johnny Knox could have career seasons because of it. I respect Mr.Knox and the team would be lesser without him. However, I would doubt that many people would call him a star WR.

Anyway, getting back to Mr.Marshall. Mr.Cutler has played with Mr.Marshall back in Denver. There both players had great seasons and where highly productive together. One can and should expect things to be not different in Chicago. If anything it should be better. It is very likely that Mr.Marshall will be back on top form with the whole of the off season to work with Mr.Cutler and Mike Tice. Also, it should never be understated the play of a player who has something to prove and know that they can.

Last point about the deal is that the Bears got true value for it. At the cost of just a number three daft pick this season and next. It is a good move to place a bet on known entity then to bank on later round draft picks. The move does not put the Bears at any real disadvantage. Even if things do not work out or are just simply mediocre the Bears still will not be caught holding the bucket as they say. Don't get me wrong I still think that it is a good move that will pan out in the long run.

As I wrote before I do see the Jason Campbell to be far more importance for the Bears. The Bears have gotten a starting QB that can lead a team into the playoffs as there back up. Even if he is just a middle of the road starter. Nevertheless, this is not hot air. Last season Mr.Campbell was on track to lead the Raiders to the playoffs in a weak AFC West. He was doing it with smart consistent play. The Raiders simply fell apart without him.

This is great for the Bears. Not even taking into account what happened last year with the issues of the Bears back up QBs. The Bears have a backup now that is a proven starter. The insight that he can offer to Mr.Tice can only be helpful. Also, Mr.Campbell will not be a distraction. You are not going to hear the fans chanting for the Bears to bring in Mr.Campbell.

More importantly the Bears do not seem to have a team with disunity. Even in the darkest of times in a season you always see the Bears players on message. There is sense of old school professionalism that the Bears offer. What happens in the locker rooms tends to stay in locker room. I can only see this a sign that the Bears are organization that respects its players and the players respect.

With that said I feel that Mr.Campbell can find his role on the sidelines as a great aid to the team as a whole. If he does not play at all this season I would think that Mr.Campbell would want to make an impact however he can. As I wrote before insight on sidelines as play is happening could only be helpful to Mr.Tice. Just another experienced set of eyes out there can only help the Bears.

Thoughts on Christianity

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:36:00 +0000

I have come to notion that Christians do not understand what they believe in. Let me clarify what I mean by 'believe in'. I am not referring to Christians beliefs like Jesus is the Messiah. The son of God that died for everyone sins or that God is Good and made everything and everyone.

What I am referring to is how Christians do not understand the imputations of those beliefs.

Christians claim that there is one God and that he had a son Jesus born of a virgin. God is all powerful and all knowing. Moreover he is Good, perfect in every way and loving. Jesus is the son that came to earth to save humanity. Most Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same thing. Also, they have idea of the holy spirit which acts something like the voice of God that speaks to people. This is also a part of God. This belief is called the trinity 'God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit'. All one and same being.

While this was not always the case. Arianism at one time was a very popular teaching. Arianism believed that Jesus was subordinate entity. Different form God the father. With First Council of Nicaea the teaching became a heretical. Afterwards the leadership and followers where killed or exiled. While there was some holdouts over the years. Arianist slowed and died out. Thus the idea is that God and Jesus are same thing became Dogma. It is one of the basic and most important of Christian teachings. God came to earth as the son to die for our sins.

God died for our sins. It is an odd thought 'sin' or that a God died. Sin is taken to be anything that people do that is 'bad' while the bible points to certain things that are sinful. Within the faiths sin simply means bad things that people do. Thought or actions. But the concept of sin goes beyond just doing or thinking bad. Christianity has the notion of original sin hanging as a specter over it. Original sin is the idea that the first man and woman disobeyed God thus sinned. Due to that every human has been cursed with sin since. All people are born sinful. Meaning all people are born bad.

Basically original sin explains why the world is that way it is. Because of the actions of the first humans the whole of humanity has been cursed with an evil world. Why do bad things happen to go people. Its simple humanity is bad, it is a 'fallen' race. It explains away why a loving God allows for evil. It is not his fault but that of his creation.

So God killed himself because people are bad. It is a puzzling idea. God is the creator all knowing and all powerful. So he knew that humans would sin. So to remedy this he killed him by having the Romans do it for him. A blood sacrifice. I fail to understand why this was needed. I understand to concept it is an act of love. People are bad God died to fix this and if you believe it happened when you die you will go and be with God forever.

All very strange ideas. When I think about this I cannot help but to think it all very arrogant and cruel.

You see if you claim that Jesus is God. Then say that by dying Jesus saved us form the sins of our forefathers. All you need to is believe and be faithful to God. So that when you die you will life forever.

This is the system that God made and it is cruel. Instead of ending the pain and suffering with the world with the death of Jesus. God instead made it carry on but with the kicker being that you just had to have faith in him. Oh yeah Jesus healed some blind people, turned water into wine, and brought a dead man back to life. But he didn't end all illness nor did he stop blindness form ever happening again. Outside of a handful of miracles he left the world the way he found it.

The system God has is cruel. It cannot be said enough. Because of the actions of people that no one living has ever known. God damned all of humanity. He did not give those living the same choice that he gave Adam and Eve. No they failed, but he already knew that was going to happen because he is all knowing. Even if he did not know right then and there that it was going to happen, free will and all, he could have ended right there and tried again. He did not have to kill Adam and Eve but he could have made sure that they never had children that would forever be cursed. No, but he still loves us.

Getting back to Jesus. God was man will all the feeling and pains that comes with that. Because of that would he not better understand the pains and cruelty of the world. He could have right there and then put a stop to it. At lest God could have made a better effort to write something down by his own hand while he was here on earth. So that no human error could later be made. But that did not happen. There is no book of Jesus written by Jesus. No God thought it better to wait awhile, just a few hundred years, to then have people write about what he did.

But I must not get it. It is all apart of the plan. A plan that convoluted and above my simple mind. But that is the arrogance of God. He already knows everything and everyone. He already knew that I was going to write this. But what I cannot get over is that God has never nor will ever risk anything for his creation or for any other reason.

He the master of everything there is nothing more powerful then him. He creates reality and guides it as he see fit. Without any risk to himself. Really it does not matter what happens to his creation. Yes he still may love us. But it is a one sided abusive relationship. God holds all the cards and is beyond the touch of anything.

The faithful many say I am misrepresenting Christianity or that I do not understand it. But I beg to differ. This is only the tip of the iceberg. But think about it. Think about the being that Christians believe in. The idea that God died 2000 odd years ago just so that when believers die they will live forever. Think what says of a loving God that while on this Earth left behind no record so that the faithful will clearly known what he expects out of them. Moreover think about the idea that this is the system God made and has the power to change at anytime but does not out of love.

This is what I mean by Christians do not understand what they believe in.

America Part 3 Some Porblems and One Plan

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 22:51:00 +0000

Dogma: "The established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."

Dogma is the last line of defense for any argument or movement. There is no two side to dogma nor is there any affective counter argument to those that competently believe in it. When it comes to American leadership the political 'right' uses this far more than the left. While that is no great revelation, it is still worth pointing out.

Getting back the problem of lack of jobs it is worth pointing that it is often dogma that is holding back affective reform and improvement of the American labor market. A work can no longer count on the protection of Unions in the this nation. Almost half the States are right to work states, and the whole of the south is right to work. Unions have been undercut and effective marginalized by laws like this and the negative view that prevails throughout America.

As I stated in part 2 (or tried to anyway), is that the employers are not in business for the workers but for themselves. They are out to make money for the company not the workers. It the fundamental nature of capitalism to make money. Unions counteract this component of capitalism by forcing the employers to involve the workers more in their business plans. Mostly by ensuring that the workers get fair compensation for their labor and protect the workers form being fired at a whim. The idea of Unions is to make the workers an equal to the employers.

Granted Unions have their flaws. However, their is nothing else in American society whose objective is to protect the workers in the labor market. Yes, there is the Department of labor on the federal and state levels. But there focus is more on safety, minimum wage and hour standards, and unemployment benefits. They are not a substitute for Unions.

While in a better world the government would try to fill this role. It hints to much at communism for the orthodox church of American capitalism. Politically it is not likely to happen in the current political climate. That is the outcome of Dogma. No debate can ever happen because the purity of capitalism is far more important than the well being the of the workers.

The service sector is quickly becoming the only place that workers can find employment. While service sector jobs can be high paying with good benefits it is far form the the norm. With American having a higher number of working poor than other first world nations.

What is needed now more than ever is institutions to combat the almost hate of workers rights that taints this land. Education is the key to this.

As I wrote before education is not a surefire way to higher paying jobs. But it helps a lot. However with most workers being able to only find jobs in the service sector their education is often put to waste. As most service sector jobs do not call for nor need high levels of education. Leaving the worker with high debt levels for an education that is not called for the labor the worker is engaged in.

Moreover, the poverty is rooted in US Education System. Education reform is need now more than ever. America spends only 5.7% of its GDP on education placing it 37th on the international rankings. While GDP is not the best measure as America spends only 4.8% of its GDP on military expenditure. However it accounts for 1/5 national budget. Educational spending is hardly a factor on the federal level.

While the nation needs a defense it is sad that a country that is not in a state of declared war spends more money on the military than another. 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. Again Dogma often guides this as America is a nation without a clear foe. It is seen as weak to cut spending on the military. However with all this money being spent the military has to be used to justify the cost. Thus America is forever seeking a nail for its hammer. By vasts amounts America spends more and puts more effort into its military. More than all the other top military spenders put together.

It the states and local governments that pay for the education of the nation. It varies state to sate and city to city. However what is clear is that poorer areas will always have less money to spend on education. Effecting the quality of the education. Poorer areas cannot pay teachers more, cannot afford to update books and technology. The building cannot be upgraded nor can more be build to meet the needs an increasing population.

The Government needs to look at what future workers are being thought and needs to create national and uniform education standards. It has to put the same effort that it puts in military spending in education reform. Our educational system can be compared to an outmoded Army. The American educational system is Army armed with flintlock rifles fighting a war in a world of smart bombs.

Clear goals need to be defined. Highs schools should be creating future skilled laborers by teaching trades to students that do no want to go to college. Compete with credentials that prove this. There should no longer be testing. Students need to be taught how to think and how to find verifiable information in a digital age.

I will get more into educational reform later on.

Back to labor. A work needs to find a good job. The Government should create a national job registry that all citizens can opt in. It would create a database that job seekers can have their information made easily available to employers. A resume more or less that anyone can find. Also employers could comment on the laborer. As can laborers comment on what it is like to work for the employer. They would be oversight naturally. But it would be doable. A job seeker would not have to work to hard as they could search for employers that are seeking people with their skills.

A national job registry would not be a costly undertaking. We have the technology and it would need very many people to maintain it. Federal employees would watch over the registry and be held accountable for errors. While the private sector has job websites like this (hotjob, monster, etc.) None have to power of federal and state records. The laborer would not have to do much to have its name added and the information about them would be verifiable by government records. Giving a level of information about a workers that private sector simply does not have.

Anti-Catholic

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:29:00 +0000

Taking a break form my sad try at fixing the world to bring you this.

I like to read FoxNews.com. I no longer think of it as news but as propaganda. I do not mean that as a slight against Fox News. After all propaganda is just 'a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.' I engage in the very same thing here.

I was reading this story: Conservative leaders demand apology from Huffington over anti-Catholic column they even wrote a letter about Letter to Arianna Huffington from Christian and conservative leaders.

The meat of the story is that some people are upset at the Huffington Post over this: The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum found in the comedy selection of the Huffington Post.

While it is a comedy piece, the fact remains that it is all true. I do not understand as the 'conservative leaders' seem to how this is 'anti Catholic or bigoted' in anyway. It is after, all that was written about was what catholics and many Christians believe in.

Catholics as do most Christian faiths believe in transubstantiation. Which basically says that in communion the bread that one eats is the body of Jesus and the wine is his blood. The real body and the real blood of Jesus. Even if the faiths says that they do not believe that the wine and bread is the real 'body'. They still praise it as the symbolic body of Jesus.

Supporters of the claim that it is the actual body of Jesus point to John 6:35 in which Jesus says that he is 'the bread' and to 1st Corinthians 11:24 were at the last supper Jesus says as the faithful are eating the bread "This is my body" and as they are drinking the wine "This is my blood."

So calling Catholics "Jesus eaters" is not bigotry, it is a matter of faith. As the the Council of Trent officially stated "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood." This is official doctrine, Catholics do in fact believe that they are eating and drinking Jesus. While one may find it crude it is a true to say that Catholics believe that they eat Jesus. After all it was they officially say.

Catholics, as well as most Christians, believe is that Jesus is God (while at the same time is the son of God) and that Jesus was "born of a woman" Galatians 4:4. Thus, Jesus is a human. So if they believe that the bread is real body and the wine is the real blood of Jesus and that Jesus was a human. Then calling the whole affair cannibalistic is not anti Catholic or bigoted but exactly what the faith is saying is happening every time one eats the bread and drinks the wine. Again this the very words of the faith.

The conservative leaders say 'anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable form of bigotry' but I do not think that they fully understand what bigotry means (Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice). It is not the words of bigot being used here but the very tenants of the Catholic faith that are being highlighted. This is their faith. They say that these things really happen.

To say a Catholic takes orders form the Pope is not a lie after all he is the leader of the faith. Catholics believe that the Pope speaks 'ex cathedra' meaning that "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (the Pope) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." So it is not a lie or hate speak to once again write about what the Catholic believe in.

As for the pedophile problems in the church it is all too well known at this time. The Cloyne Report is just one of many reports on the subject. The abuse of children by Priests is constantly being brought to light. That is chilling enough but the evidence of the church hiding the abuse is disgusting.

What is interesting is that in the middle of the of the conservative leaders letter is this rather odd paragraph: "The Obama administration's recent mandate forcing religious institutions to provide insurance which violates their most sacred teachings is the outgrowth of a media, including The Huffington Post, complicit in the persecution of religion. Timothy Cardinal Dolan has called this mandate an unprecedented attack on conscience."

How odd, I will get into this in another post. Nevertheless, how nice of them to bring up the latest religious fundamentalist talking point in the middle of a letter about a completely different subject.

The letter ends with demands to "Withdraw Doyle’s piece from your site and issue an apology to all the millions of faithful Catholics you have deliberately offended in publishing this piece. If you choose not to, then your so called news outlet cannot be seen as anything but an anti-Catholic talking piece."

What is so striking about this is how it is now offensive for someone to even speak about what a faith claims. Catholics believe that you eat and drink the actual body of Jesus. They believe that the Pope speaks for the the faith and there is massive amounts of evidence to the church protecting pedophiles.

It is strange to think that the faithful are now finding their own faith to be bigoted, offensive, and anti Catholic. One could almost look at this as progress.

America Part 2

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:38:00 +0000

America Part 2

I want a Good Job!

What's wrong with America. On the surface not much. No Huns are at the gate, cities are not in riot, the leadership has been elected in a fair and open election. There is no great food shortage, there is no hordes of armed thugs that are attacking officials in the street.

So whats the problem and what can be done to fix it?

One problem is Jobs. For one thing they are hard to find. If you happen to find one they don't pay very well and odds are they don't have many benefits. There are now cries for the Government to get involved. However that isn't very likely. Because the funny thing is that is not the government's problem.

America is a capitalist state. Employment outside of government work is not in the purview of the state. Sure there are few laws dealing with minimum wage, overtime, and workplace safety. There is this thing called the department of labor. But all of that was born out of the labor movements of the past. All of which have come and gone. Just the minimum nothing to crushing to the employer.

Hell its one of the reasons that America had the Cold War going on for so long. Free people means free enterprise or something to that affect. Many like to point out that America 'won' the cold war, so that proves that the state should have nothing to do the economy. Why It is the end of history. We have found the 'best' system and that system is capitalism. The freer the better.

That's the story and America is sticking to it.

No one with any real power in this nation questions it. None in the media actively question the system. Any dissent is fringe at best and why should anyone question it? Before the downturn everything was rosy anyone could get rich if they just tried. Just look at the stock market. While your house value just kept going up more and more. Even with the downturn taken into account. It all does seem very successful. America still has the world's biggest economy after all. Plus more than its far share of millionaires. It seems like just about every major company is based in America.

If America has a state religion it is Capitalism. Besides what else is there?

But you still can't find a good job. Well did you go to school? To quote the article only "55.7 percent of last year's (2011) graduates have jobs." That is just the numbers for Columbia a 2nd rate ivy league school. Education doesn't seem to help in fact it seems to hurt. College isn't free and those student loans don't pay for themselves.

It makes sense too. Everyone is effected by the downturn. Jobs aren't easy to come by and employers can be very picky. What chance does a college grad fresh out school have when they are trying for same job as a person with a family, a mortgage to pay, and years of experience in the field. If you were or are an employer what seems like a better hire a 20 something or a 40 something?

The heart of the matter of why people cannot get good jobs goes back to heart of the problem with capitalism. The employer can only look out for itself. It is not nice or fair but it is the system. Its not that I am trying to defend the employers. I am simply pointing out that they are out for themselves. In times like these they can fire people as they please. At the same time they can hire people at whatever wage the person is willing to take.

Big companies are run by numbers, namely profit. Do what it takes to get profit up.

The system is cold. If you are not lucky enough to be rich then you have to take whatever you can get. Employers know this and act accordingly. No one should expect the government to get involved. The people in government aren't affect much by the downturn. Even if they get voted out of office they tend to find nice jobs in the private sector.

So what is the average person to do?

The simply fact there is very little that they can do. You can try to start you own business but if you lack the talent or the money. It will very likely fail or never get off the ground.

A good amount of a persons dignity comes form their labor. It is work that defines us and how we judge others. So when one cannot find a 'good' job a person loses dignity.

In order to give people 'good' jobs a balance needs to be found between capitalism and the worker. The role of the government in this is not undermined capitalism or the will of the free market but to ensure that those that are not the owners are taken advantage of. Workers need the labor in order to function in our society. While employers need workers to function.

Part 3 will explain how the Government should do this.

America, Part 1.

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:23:00 +0000

Part 1

America is an ailing Republic! It is no longer a representational government! We are living in times akin to the last days of the Roman republic! America is an Oligarchy with the 1% holding all the power over the 99%! The government is ran like it is 1984! Tax and spend! We are selling away our children's future!

The above was written for dramatic reasons. To make this article more eye catching. Because one always has to drive up those views.

Nevertheless, it is all too obvious that Americans are very upset with their government. The call is being made to take back the Republic. Symbolized with the rise of Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have become the face of the discouraged. One side claiming high moral values and small government to enforce those values will fix America. While the other is a hodgepodge of left leaning ideology. A movement for the conservative and another for the liberal.

At least that is the way the news reports on both movements. It may very well be accurate too. But one does not need the news to understand what both movements are about. One can go right to the official websites, blogs, etc. With ease one can understand, in their own words, what each movement is really about.

After doing this one can see that both movements see themselves as a revolution causes. They companion cause are the most pressing in nature and of the gravest of importance to the Republic. They are fighting for the majority that is losing out. With enough power they will stop the minority who are making great gains at the expense of the majority.

Upon more review one can see just how decentralized they are. Both are 'grassroots' movements. There is no clear leadership or spokesperson on any side. Yet they have become the symbols of American discontent. Thanks in large part to their decentralized structure and populist undertones. These movements have gained much support and sympathy.

Furthermore, with no clear leadership on any side they can avoid the messy nature of personal attacks on their leadership. Moreover, without any personality directing the movements. Anyone and everyone can find some common cause with them. Thus is becomes very easy for someone to identify with the movements. Even with their decentralized nature there is still a common ideology that can be found with both movements. As both movements identity very similar targets as the root cause of most of America's problems.

The Tea Party calls out the politician's misuse of tax dollars and are in opposition to current forms of taxation. Also they see reduction of the national debt as a pressing issue. They have the Contract from America that highlights some of there main concepts.

As for the Occupy movement. They cry out against the rich's condensation and misuse of power. They are "fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations."

Off hand one may not see it, but both movements have a common cause. That cause is money. Namely who has it, what they are doing with it, and how they have mishandled it. If it is the government or the rich both cannot be trusted with the wealth of the nation.

In other words these revolutions are mostly about money.

Money has perverted America to the point that two seemly different revolutionary causes are fighting over the same thing from two different ends. Granted there are other causes that they take up. But the most important and key issue to either side is money.

It simply makes sense. Money and wealth is the way in which Americas judge the value of each other. It has become a end to itself. That is not value judgment but a reality. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum care a great deal about money. There is no right or wrong in that. Since, it is needless to say that without money one can do very little in America.

It is pointless to find a root cause or 'why' of why money is just so important to everyone. The issues here is not that a few people are too wealthy or that government misusing funds. True or false these are simply the symptoms a much greater problem at the heart of modern America.

The problem is that humans are holding something artificial in such high regard. Problems arise because money is just that, money. Forget for a moment money, bills, and all the nice things that wealth brings. Now think about what a society and individual needs.

Food, shelter, companionship, and security. Those are the basic needs of all. Despite all the issues that we have in America today. These basic needs are being met for most people. But they can effectively be met for all.

In America their is a massive disconnect in social responsibility between those with wealth and power and those without. The wealthy are seen as hoarders and their wealth as a corruptive power. While the government is viewed as ineffective and lazy. It may very well be the case. Yet the inertia of the system still keeps most people housed, feed, and safe (company being left the individual).

But much can done and no revolution would be needed.

Part 2 coming later.

apkunza@gmail.com (Andrew P. Kunza) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:09:00 +0000

My ego has reached the point that now I now believe that starting a blog is a good idea. I have come to the mind set of person that thinks that their ideas have enough value that other people will want to read it.

So here I am writing them down in the digital cloud of ones and zeros that make up what very well maybe the best part of modern life.

I plan to write about things I like. Namely the Chicago Bears, Politics, and my work at a head shop in a hippie town. I may be even so bold and post some reviews of music and movies.

Nevertheless, the content does not matter until it is created. So whatever I put here may very well turn out to all be lies in the future.