The Voice of Reason

Establishment Preservation.

2012-09-18T13:44:00.000-04:00

"Democracy cannot succeed unless those making the choices are prepared to choose wisely, therefore the greatest safeguard to democracy is education."

Franklin D Roosevelt.

Winston Churchill wasn't as polite about it........

"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

And of course my favorite of the group was Mark Twain......

"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."

Imagine for a moment you are in the ruling class. Now imagine that you wanted to preserve your interest against any interference from the pesky people, what would you do? Well you would have to make sure that the general public was kept as uniformed as possible, and not exposed to any point of views that would contradict your establishments practices. Along with that you would have to eliminate as much independent, logical, causal, scientific thought that would go along with the a fore mentioned anti-establishment points of view.

Step One in this process, you have to support a severely underachieving and underfunded public education system. This public education system is designed to merely focus on getting you a job one day, and not to teach you any form of critical or independent thinking. This strategic under-educating of the American youth is a direct factor in the out-dated two party political system. The main idea here being keep them stupid, and easily entertained, and they will not be able to fight back.

However the dumbing down of our youth is not enough. We also have to push belief systems that actually reward passive obedience. You guessed it, religion. Religion is very helpful in promoting belief systems that are stubborn and irrational. The worst thing that religion does in my opinion is promoted closed off thinking, the very opposite of what a society needs to thrive. It has always been my belief that if people are groomed to follow blindly and be obedient, then they are very ripe to extend that belief to others who claim authority of any sort. This is how the establishment has dumbed us down.

To fully understand this next step it is important that we first recognize a very unique sociological characteristic of the human condition, lets call this characteristic, to quote Peter Joseph, herd psychology. He describes herd psychology as the tendency of humans when faced with mass appeal to behave in a thoughtless and malleable way. This idea doesn't just apply to say a soccer riot or an NBA riot. This mob persuasion can be generated through shared cultural events. This was on display right after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Remember how pissed off everyone was, and how easily everyone was persuaded that the evil doers had to be brought to justice? Talk about mass insanity, that event triggered an immediate reaction of fear and revenge. It didn't take the US government, or other world governments for that matter, to harness that mass insanity into support for Draconian legislation and illegal invasion of countries alleged to harbor terrorist or have any link to the attacks on the World Trade Center that fateful day.

This tactic of herd psychology is not only useful in guiding the issues of perceived importance, it is also quite useful in setting very rigid limits of debate among individuals. This creates the tendency for those who question the issues beyond those limits to be ostracized and rejected from the herd. You have all witnessed this, if someone talks about a more equitable distribution of income among society, then they are a damn communist. I am often labeled a nut when I offer speculation about the obvious power manipulation and corruption at not only the highest levels but also the local levels. That one is very frustrating, but that's a whole other blog post. And god forbid we get those do-gooders who understand modern science and technology and want to improve society with it. Because if there is one thing that we all know isn't real in this world, its science, come on you don't go to church? Who are these people that want to feed, clothe and house everyone on earth with the help of modern technology? Utopian jackasses that's who.

The best way to control human thought is to establish this deep rooted fear of social rejection. Why don't more people question the actions and the behaviors of their elected leaders? Because in order to have friends in this life, you have to fit in with the herd. By associating that fear of social rejection to culturally taboo subjects, the masses shall never get out of step, or question the official line, ever.

So with the foundation neatly laid for the ultimate control of the individuals psyche, we now have to deal with the issue that the pesky people just might wise up to the game plan, and work to maneuver a candidate into power who may be able to right the ship, therefore some more specific structural safeguards have been put in place.

First, we have to make sure those unwanted candidates are unable to get anywhere near the major outlets for public consumption. These major outlets I am referring to would be of course FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, and just in case they do get through, well then the establishment must treat them like freaks. You don't have to look any further than what the mainstream media did to Ron Paul this year to see a great example of that. How does the establishment do this you ask? Well with money of course, and our corporate constituency has more than enough. So how do you make sure your money can buy the right candidate? You just have to make sure the use of your money, for political influence, goes uninhibited.

In a 1975 Supreme Court decision the freedom for a candidate to use an unlimited amount of his or her own money for a political campaign was deemed legal. The Supreme Court decision basically equated spending money with the right of free speech. So what this basically does is removes any sort of regulation of fairness of expression, so who ever has the most money, has the most resources, and therefore has the most effect.

However as if that wasn't a secure enough plan to as it was, the powers that be took it a step farther. The king makers needed to make sure that their corporations were given the legal right to promote our puppet leaders without any regulation. So once again the trusty supreme court came into play and ruled that the government cannot restrict a corporation from political spending in candidate elections, because they are protected by the first amendment. Once again equating money with speech, and people with corporations. This was probably the worst thing to happen to the free election process since the a fore 1975 Supreme Court decision.

But they still need more control, so why not patrol every nuance of the voting system, guaranteeing that only the right candidate gets voted in. This is achieved with the false duality of a two party system. These two parties disagree in general terms, but on the elitist ideas that will further the globalist agenda, and domination of all mankind, they agree 100 %. The absolute beauty of the two party system farce is it not only gives the mass public the illusion of choice, but it also oppresses those upstart third parties. Just for the record, these annoying third parties have historically influenced the changes that we see as major in this country. They have affected women's suffrage, civil rights, environmental protections, broad worker rights and child labor laws to name a handful.

The result of this process, has been that Americans have gotten so used to the idea of the two party dictatorship, that they don't mind that the two parties have been given the right to control most of the electoral process itself. The people get the right to do some of the minor stuff, but the parties get the right to control a huge part. But after all isn't that what the capitalist system guarantees, the freedom to manipulate everything.

Enter the Commission on Presidential Debates. In 1988 the Democrats and Republicans, or the Demopublicans, negotiated the Commission On Presidential Debates. Posing as a non-partisan institution the CPD took control of the most influential event of the Presidential Elections, the Presidential Debates. The CPD, which is a private corporation, co chaired by former heads of the two parties agree through secret contracts who will be invited to participate in these debates. So those third parties or controversial ideas only come into play if the demopublicans say they can.

So you can understand now why i am not going to vote for either of the mainstream candidates this year, or probably ever again. The system has been manipulated at every juncture, and there seems to be nothing the people can do about it. Which brings me to my last point. What if the we the people can spark a revolution of knowledge in this country. The disinformation campaign designed to keep us dumb has worked for the most part, but its not too late. Knowledge is power, and we can have a lot more power to control our own lives if we just continue to seek knowledge, and leave the to a minimum. What if the entire country just didn't vote? Its clear to me that we are a culture in decline, but it may not be too late. I fear though if we don't wake up, we face some very dark days in our future, darker than most can imagine.

Iranian Conflict.............The Next Cold War?

2012-01-12T15:29:00.000-05:00

     The last major military standoff the western world experienced was against the former Soviet Union. As we all know this standoff came to a political finale in 1991 with the demise (which I believe to be a pr hoax) of the Iron Curtain. It was the planets largest ever arms race and resulted in a culture of fear on both sides of the coin. The key factor in this standoff, was powerful politics.
     The undisputed benefactors of such a standoff, were most certainly the military defense contractors who became incredibly wealthy and influential.   There wealth and power were a direct result of decades of 20th century global power politics. Their influence still looms large today and some are already reaping the benefits of this drawn out diplomatic stalemate with Iran. Corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and General Electric, actually control US policy to a large drgree. The CEO's of these comapnies actually blong to think tanks including the Council On Foriegn Relations and The Atlantic Council. These corporate elite dictate thier recommendations to Washington and London, in turn these governments adopt these as official foriegn policy.
     So, as this theat of a potential military conflict between the west and Iran continues to drag itself out, the trend of profitability continues to play out. This is eveident as most of the United States regional allies continue to re-arm and upgrade thier countries defense sytems and capabilities.
     The Arab Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait have already started the re-arming process in there countries. In 2011, the US announced an arms deal worth about 3.5 billion dollars with the UAE. This deal included the state of the art T.H.A.D missle defense system. This is obviously part of a greater American effort to beef up the missle defenses of Persian Gulf allies, to counter the Iranian threat. In addition to this, the US and Saudi Arabia agreed on a deal worth 1.7 billion earlier in 2011 to shore up the Saudi Patriot missle defenses. Furthermore Kuwait also put in an order to purchase over 200 GEM-T missles totaling about 900 million in expenses. Of course the regional missle defensees will need land based interceptor systems to knock out any incoming missle threat, backed up by a sophisticated detection network that's equipped upon US Navy Aegis-class warships.   By the time this most recent round of regional re-arming of US allies in the gulf is complete, defense contractors will have seen a sharp rise in thier profits. Of course this willl also result in a sharp rise of the all important share prices.
     Despite all these recent aquisitions of the GCC, they by no means provide absolute safety from an Iranian threat. It still looms large, especially if they get a bomb. This is just more of American time honoured tradition of stoking regional tensions of the middle east in one hand, while the american arms industry bleeds the Arab nations of cold hard cash for expensive military upgrades to protect themselves from a percieved threat on the other hand. And in a sort of full circle for the US, these arab nations will certainly pay for these upgrades with the recent surge in iol profits caused by the ever present threat of military confrontation which would result in the blocking of the key Stait Of Hormuz.
     It's easy to see the similiarities between these geo-political relationships and the standoff between the US and the Iron Curtain after WWII. We have the perfect set of conditions for a New Cold War to emerge here. On the allied side you have the US, Europe, Israel, and the UAE, and the axis powers of Iran, Russia, China, and Syria. However this cold war would be more about regional dominance in terms of economics such as natural gas, mineral and trade relationships.
     How long will this particular stalemate drag out? Your guess is as good as mine, but one thing is for sure, that while this continues to brew, there are still very large profits to be made by key players on both sides.

Iran conflict will not lead to WW3..........for now

2012-01-10T14:36:00.002-05:00

It certainly seems, on the surface anyway, that the tensions between the west and Iran seem to be heading toward a regional war. The establishment media is playing up the threat Iran poses to the United States and our strategic interest in the western world but if you take a closer look at the recent events you begin to come away with a different picture.   There is still way too much money to be made on both sides of this conflict to unleash a regional war at least for now, and the foreseeable future.
     Here are the facts: military posturing among the US and Israel DID seem to reach a new level this week around the Strait of Hormuz with the commencement of naval drill Austere Challenge 12. this exercise would seem to be designed to ramp up pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, while Iran is simultaneously shoring up defensive positions by conducting their own war games in neighboring waters.
     Unlike the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, its a foregone conclusion that Iran is very capable of defending itself and sustaining a conventional war with the US and its regional allies. This fact would indicate that the ensuing conflict with Iran would almost certainly turn into a multi-regional war which would be hugely unpopular in the west, plunging the economy into a global recession. To add to these facts, the US or Israel have yet to secure Syria, which most analyst agree would be a pre-requisite to engaging Iran militarily, not to mention the US and Israel have yet to eliminate the military threat of Iranian allies Hezbollah in Lebanon. These things have to happen first for their to be a green light for a preemptive strike on Iran, and it appears at least for now, the light is red.
     Most energy analyst and economic experts are in agreement that and conflict between the West and Iran and friends would lead to a serious disruption in the flow of oil to a petroleum dependent global economy that definitely needs oil now. These are the realities of the situation that the mainstream media are predicting will become a military conflict between now and the spring.
     Now to the issue of profits of this potential conflict. It would appear that any US led sanctions on Iran would not have the teeth to isolate the country very long at all. This week South Korea announced it's plans to consume Iranian crude in 2012, while China says sanctions on Iran will not be looked upon kindly and plans to make Iran it's second largest oil importer. Interestingly enough, Japan is expecting to receive an exemption from US penalties on Japanese banks doing business with Iran. So at least according to Japanese Foreign Ministry, they have no considerations of banning Iranian imports. Many major oil companies are well represented among the elite clique of American foreign policy think-tanks. And like their corporate relatives in the defense industry, they have a lot of profit to gain from an appearance of instability in the Persian Gulf. In 2007 and 2008, the steady slide in the dollar contributed to the oil price peak of over 140 dollars a barrel. The recent price spikes however, are a direct result of war hyping by the establishment media and its partners around the world. This undoubtedly will benefit the OPEC petrol nations as well as many major US oil distribution and retail corporations.
     So at least for now it seems as if there is still much money to be made off this potential crisis in the Persian Gulf. Read my blog tomorrow as I analyze how a new cold-war may be emerging from the continuing conflict among the west and Iran and its allies.

Republicans Aiming To Steal Election

2012-01-04T20:37:00.000-05:00

     As my readers probably already know I have been saying for weeks that there seemed to be a coordinated effort among establishment insiders to discredit Ron Paul by simply ignoring his presence in the Iowa caucuses. Dr. Paul is the one candidate in these elections that is above reproach so the liberals and neo-cons alike have been labeling him a nut job and gave the Iowa caucuses to Romney before there was any votes. There have been some serious accusations of voter fraud at the caucuses last night, some outright intentional and other instances just a product of human error. Either way Ron Paul has been given the shaft so far, and still managed twenty percent of the vote.
     On Monday night Republican strategist Dee Dee Benkie appeared on a radio show stating that the Republican party had decided they could not leave to chance that Ron Paul would win Iowa last night, and were offering very sweet deals to move large voting blocks to vote for either Romney or Santorum. Now, I will give the Republican party the benefit of the doubt and say these were not outright bribes, which would be illegal, but these actions at the very least are brazenly unethical.
     I believe the Republicans felt that a Paul victory in iwoa last night could have potentially under-minded the legitimacy of the Iowa caucuses as the first Republican primary. Obviously having such an open libertarian would challenge the establishment neo-conservative party the Republicans have created in the past twenty five years.
     Republicans are ignoring all of Ron Pauls support, and when they do acknowledge him they are quick to point out there is no way that he could ever win against the Obama re-election machine. Benkie, who was pretty open during her interview on the radio, stated "Ron Paul doesnt do us any good in Iowa, doesnt do the country any good, will never get there, so lets figure out what we need to do.... We dont want him to get to number one, its very bad for Iowa. Terrible. I hope for all my friend's sake he is not victorious". This is clear proof that the GOP had no intentions of letting there be a fair election and have disenfranchised Iowa caucus- goers.
     Now I'd like to point out that she is openly calling for the subversion of the Iowa primary. She along with her republican cronies are anti-Paul and are flagrantly advocating that he be prevented from winning Iowa by means of exerting undue influence on voters. Yes this is the same Dee Dee Benkie that was decrying the threat posed by voter fraud in the primaries only last week. This was of course in reference to the fact that the republicans wanted voters to present photo identification to vote.
   Anyone who has been paying attention to the news leading up to the caucuses this year should be able to pick up on the GOP establishment's fear of Dr. Paul doing well in the primary. In turn they have themselves, virtually sabotaged the legitimacy of the Iowa caucuses. Governor Branstad, essentially under-minded the legitimacy of his own states caucus when he urged voters " in the event of a Ron Paul victory, ignore the winner, and concentrate on the second or third place candidate." He hypothesized that if Romney were to finish second or a close third it would boost him significantly and there would be no way for Paul to keep up going into New Hampshire. These are obviously comments designed to restrain republican voters from "wasting" their vote on Paul and lending it to a candidate who had a shot at beating Obama. Could Paul beat the President? Probably not. Does that make this fair and constitutional? Absolutely not!
    Establishment insiders who have absolute control over the talking heads in the media are outright manipulating the results of these primaries. And if that's not enough we have candidates dropping out because they don't have enough money to compete. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind when establishing this electoral system we have in place today.

2012-01-04T12:33:00.000-05:00

In light of the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act which among other things allows for the detaining and indefinite incarceration of U.S citizens suspected of domestic terrorism, I thought it fitting to post an article about one of my favorite black operations of our lovely government. Since the early 1980's the United States government has maintained a database listing the personal and financial information of millions of Americans suspected to be a threat to national security. This database is called Main Core and the data stored had been collected from NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources, all without court orders or warrants to do so.

The Main Core database is believed to have originated with FEMA in 1982, and as of 2008 was reported to include eight million Americans deemed threats to National Security. Most times these people are thrown on the list for trivial reasons but are tracked none the less, and can be brought in and questioned or detained in a time of crisis. The Main Core was first reported on in 2008 by Christopher Ketcham.

To make things scarier the origination of this database coincides with a military exercise know as REX 84. There has been a lot of discussion about REX 84 lately, but for those who don't know i will elaborate. REX 84 was a military readiness exercise anticipating major civil disturbances and numerous attacks that would threaten to interfere with the continuity of government. The plan indicates that FEMA, along with over thirty other federal agencies would conduct a civil readiness exercise between April 5 and April 13, 1984. The main objective was to test the ability of the military to assist in civil defense.

The basic facts about REX 84 and the threat it poses to the civil liberties of Americans if the operation is to be fully implemented, is something taken very seriously by scholars and civil libertarians alike. These "type" of exercises happen regularly in our country and go largely unnoticed. Planned roundups of large numbers of civilians are something that is always planned and ready for action in times of civil unrest and increased political repression i.e the Palmer Raids and the McCarthy era. From 1967-1971 the FBI maintained a list of 100,000 Americans to be picked up and detained. This list contained prominent citizens of the time, such as labor leaders, public figures, and scholars.

2008 marked the first time in US history that a military unit had been tasked with the stateside assignment of civil unrest containment. It is assigned to NORTHCOM, a command responsible for control of federal homeland defense efforts and to provide and coordinate defense support for civil authorities. Last week the NDAA, as I mentioned in the opening paragraph was passed in the House and Senate and legislated the detaining of American citizens suspected of aiding Al-Queda, or perhaps even being involved with low level domestic terrorism. The language of the bill makes it hard to define just who could be a suspected terrorist as it is very ambiguous, but its safe to say if you're dissenting against the US government in any way shape or form you're probably already being monitored.

This is a very serious issue and I encourage everyone to ask themselves what they would do in a time of great civil unrest in this country. Are you prepared for the things i describe here? And what are your rights if you or a loved one is taken into custody for no apparent reason?

For more info on the REX 84 go to http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/6466/The-info-you-are-not-supposed-to-know-Rex-84-HR-645.aspx

2012-01-04T12:32:00.000-05:00

I would like to start this series of articles by discussing a well known event that is virtually single-handedly responsible for the escalation of The Untied States Of America's military operations in Vietnam. It was reported that on the night of August 2nd 1964 that two US Destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats eventually sinking one of the three torpedo boats. A similar even reportedly took place two nights later on August 4th. These events coupled with the assassination of John F Kennedy were largely responsible for sweeping the nation into support of a military operations in Vietnam. These same tactics were employed many times in the history of this country including on September 11, 2001.

The outcome of these events in the Gulf of Tonkin resulted in the passage by US Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave President Lyndon B Johnson authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be "jeopordized" by communist agression. In 2005 an internal NSA historical study concluded that these reports may have been unfounded. While it seems appearant that there was a military engagement between the said naval vessels on the night of August 2nd, 1964, there was no incident two nights later. This event was totally fabricated by the US intelligence agencies. The report stated, " It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened, it is that no attack happened that night. In truth Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing but the salvage of the two boats damaged on August 2nd. " These are damning quotes from high officials. President Johnson would say later in 1965 that, " for all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.

In 1981 the ships Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheerer re-examined the ships logs and determined that the first torpedo strike on August 4th had actually never occured. So why the cover up. I beleieve this was a way to build public support for millitary efforts in Vietnam, which President Kennedy wanted no part of by the way. Many may argue the intent of the US governemnt saying they did not fabricate this to bring us into war and I hear that point of view and wont dismiss it. However the intention of this cover-up doesnt need to be called into question as much as the fact that there was any cover up at all. An attack was reported to happen that never took place and was the selling point for a war we became stuck in for a decade, and it was based on a lie. That fact cannot be argued. For whatever the reason, there was a cover-up and the entire nation was decieved.

This is just the first of many articles I plan to write here, please feel free to comment as I am gauging interest for my book. Thank you.

Attacks on Ron Paul Ramping Into High Gear

2011-12-29T16:50:00.002-05:00

It used to be if you wanted to take control of a country you had to gain control of law enforcement and military. Today if you have a fascist army general carrying out some sort of coup d' etat you are considered backward and third world. This is because in this technological day in age, if you want to control the people, you must first control the communications.
Today someone controlling communications could be a blogger with a million followers, perhaps a multinational CEO with newspapers in several countries, or even an online news anchor with a big high dollar studio. And it is thanks to this Internet Revolution that there lies hope that perhaps the establishment media no longer has the choke-hold on the people that it once did. Over the past month I have watched Ron Paul soar in the polls, and generate massive interest among the Iowa Caucuses, despite the ongoing attacks against him by the establishment media.
Suddenly, Ron Paul is the man to beat. He is the modern day embodiment of the founding fathers and their principles of liberty, and the establishment media would be the tyrannical ruling monarchy in the UK in 1776. Mainstream journalist and commentators are standing by the criminal oligarchy that owns DC and wants to extirpate the American Constitution.
With many polls showing that support for Newt Gingrich is fading in Iowa, the kingmakers on the inside are facing a very real problem. What if Paul wins Iowa? With the recent news of turmoil in Iraq, many voters fearing the worst with Iran, and an economy that just can get up from its knees, how on earth are they going to stop this anti-government, anti-war movement backing Ron Paul. This movement is pulling from conservatives, libertarians, and honest liberals alike.
Despite every effort by the establishments sources like CNN, MSNBC, or even the faux conservative FOX News to denigrate him or pretend he doesn't exist the movement continues to gain strength. How desperate has it gotten for the establishment insiders? They have moved into an outright attack mode and have even used establishment elitist and former president George H W Bush to endorse Mitt Romney, the very man they have been attacking as a fake conservative since the beginning of this thing. These patterns are easy to see.
So the establishment media may be losing strength these days, as the blogosphere and other internet social media are providing Americans with alternative sources to learn about their candidates. The now fringe mainstream media, if you will, represent the criminal 1% that have hijacked this country and ran it into the dirt. And Americans are waking up to the realization that their media sources refuse to question political leaders about their criminal activity. The networks were more than happy to cover the Arab Spring but lent no credence to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. They've watched their pensions disappear and homes foreclose, and jobs lay them off. They want change that was promised eight years ago, but were instead subjected to four more years of Bush policy.
Voters seem to think Paul is the kind of guy who will get the country back on track. The establishment is scared to death of this, and so far the attacks haven't worked. So be ready people, because the shadow forces at work here wont be denied so easily and if Ron Paul does win the Republican, or perhaps a third party nominee, then the final solution will be to engineer the re-election of Barack Obama. We cannot let this happen.

Would you make a deal with Devil?

2009-05-16T17:14:00.003-04:00

As I wast listening to Coast to Coast in the AM with George Norry last night he had a guest on the show that authored the Lennon Prophecies, a biography of the Beatles front man. And for those of you who aren't familiar with the show, it's kind of wacky. I'm not sure where you could find it on your dial, though it broadcast on FOX News radio here in Myrtle Beach SC. His show usually features guest with backgrounds in studying the occult.

I refer to him as space man.

In the guest's(Ray Coleman) book, he explains the Beatles meteoric rise to fame in the UK and subsequently in the states. How did they do it.

John Lennon sold his soul to the Devil.

Wild, right?

Coleman claims in December of 1960 john Lennon was approached by Lucifer himself and asked to sell out. Lennon, who himself had a passion for the occult, numerology, magic, and being bigger than Elvis Presley decided to take him up on the offer.

There is an album the Beatles released in the UK, in the early sixties that seems to have even featured a cameo from Satan. I believe the album was titled Feel Oldies.

Coleman says the Devil owned Lennon for twenty years until he was assassinated in December of 1980 by Mark David Chapman. Chapman would later claim while serving on death row that he had to have demons exorcised from him a few years after he was sentenced.

Now whether or not you believe this, it is still yet another weird interesting story involving the Beatles and I love it.

Now personally I don't think I could sell out. But I hear everyone has their price. I would like to hear from all of you on this one.

Could you make a deal with the Devil?

And if you have any interesting stories involving Lennon or The Beatles, please share.

Mommas Day

2009-05-09T15:08:00.003-04:00

Well I wanted to start first and foremost by thanking all the readers that have stopped by my spot so far. Your comments are all appreciated, even the ones that tell me I cannot spell, which by the way reminds me of a funny story. It must have been fourth or fifth grade and I had made it to the regional round of the spelling bee. First word I have to spell, aluminum. Never got past the first three or four letters. As you can imagine as a young boy I was quite dejected to have spelled my fist word incorrectly. I remember quite vividly looking into the audience and realizing, before the judge even had to say anything, by the look on mom's face that I had gotten it wrong. And that brings me to the point of this blog.
Let me start by saying my mother raised me well. I am polite to my elders, I hold the door ladies, I treat everyone with respect, and I love my family. But I am twenty four years old, and that's a lot of time to have made mistakes. And though there are much worse children growing up in this world today, I think my mom would agree I was no picnic. It is probably still hard for her to deal with me at twenty four.
I recall several occasions that I drove my mother up a wall. For instance, when I was a freshman in high school my mom had imposed a curfew on me. Now twelve in the evening is very generous looking back at it, but at the time it wasn't enough. I had some trouble with breaking curfew, I would come home late and mother would enforce. As you can imagine this would cause argument after argument and I remember her telling me don't bother showing up if I am going to be late. I'm pretty sure this would not meant in the literal way, but more so as a threat to cut my you know what. Well one night I obliged her and stayed out all night. I would love to say that was the last time but it wasn't. These are just minor incidents, I could probably go on for the entire day. Because I always heard mom's know everything that's going on, but I would beg to differ. I was kind of a cut-up in school, usually getting by with C's, though there were subjects I really enjoyed and payed attention to such as history and........lunch. High school was a tough time for the two of us as we battled each other a lot. I screwed up my military career due to alcohol, which must have been disappointing to her as well.
And there are a few other things that I have done to cause her heartache, and stress that I will not get into here, not because I am afraid to talk about it, but I know she reads me some things are better left in the past. But despite all this, she is still proud of what I have done in my lifetime. I often wonder how I can repay her for everything she has done for me in my life, and I draw a blank. How can you repay someone who has put up with that for twenty four years? I don't know. I only know that things got bad for me for a while, and that hurt her, and worried her too probably. But I have tried to turn all that around, and maybe she can tell. I guess if I had just one thing to say to her on this Mother's Day it would be this:
Mom I love you very much, I have made many mistakes and I am so happy you forgive me for all of them. I hope to not cause you any more disappointment, though I am not making any guarantees. But I do promise to try so much harder than I have to make you proud, though I know you will always be proud of your boys no matter where they end up in life. You are the best mother in this world, and as long as Drew and I have you to turn to; I think we can handle anything this crazy world throws at us. Thanks for all your patience, love, and the occasional financial assistance. And in case you were wondering I didn't have to spell check aluminum. Happy Mothers Day to all the other great mothers out there, you truly have the most noble job in the world.

100 Days......Well We Asked for It

2009-05-06T22:43:00.005-04:00

I was visiting with my mom and dad tonight, they get all the Red Sox games on TV we fell into a bit of a discussion about the first 100 days of the change. I stated that, I felt he had not lived up to the hype, and she argued that it was 100 days how could you tell. Now my mother has a very good point, usually I would not think the first 100 days are very significant, but the Obama administration made it into a hollywood production, so I am more than happy to critique. Now some of you may not even know what the POTUS vowed on the campaign trail, let me jog your memory.
President Obama promised to be a hope-filled change agent who would fix politics and repair "a broken nation". He would do it by refusing to appoint lobbyist's in his administration, increasing transparency in government, and forging much needed bi-partisan consensus. His campaign promised to strengthen the checks and balances within the government by limiting presidential signing statements, mandating public review of legislation, and vetoing wasteful congressional earmarks. None of these survived his first 100 days.
Even before his was sworn in Obama appointed several lobbyists to his administration. When challenged on the issue, and asked to produce waivers for the nominees, the White House dragged it's feet.
Though his broken promises came very swiftly and with much ease, they are only eclipsed by his policy changes where his good government reversal seems like politics as usual. The policy changes lean on both sides of the aisle.
His signature legislation of the first 100 days, was a trillion dollar spending bill, that was littered with earmarks. The bill had virtually no bi-partisan support, and it should be mentioned that the public got to see none of this bill before it was passed as President Obama promptly issued a signing statement.
It seemed that with every passing day I find myself saying now that is not change at all, and with the speed and ease that each promise has been broken, it's only eclipsed by his policy change, or lack thereof. It seems his good government reversal is actually just politics as usual. .
Though his platform was change, we have seen very little. It seemed Americans were ready for some foreign policy change due to the fact that the previous administration had run up quite a bill for Mr. Obama on the two wars in the middle east. You may recall President Obama saying such things as, "American GI's were air-raiding villages and killing civilians", and even went so far during his brief stint in the senate to side with his dem buddies and vote to cut funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his campaign he vowed to get all soldiers home within sixteen months, but his "new" Iraq policy looks strikingly familiar to the one he inherited from George W. Bush's which includes a condition based withdrawal that would leave up to 50,000 troops there until 2011.
And what about renegotiating NAFTA, which in my opinion could be the root of alot of our economic woes. He seems more open to free trade now than he did on his campaign trail. And though he opposed new free trade with Colombia and South Korea, he now says he has no plans to reopen negotiations and is pushing congress to ratify the trade agreements. Personally I say NAFTA should be abolished and free trade is just another way to loose jobs in America, something we we really don't need at this juncture.
Though these policy changes seem quite conservative, many of his ideals are as liberal as I thought, especially on issues of taxing, spending, and borrowing.
During his campaign Obama portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative. He promised to cut taxes for most while putting us on a path of fiscal responsibility and implementing a "net spending cut". This of course would include making some very tough budget choices, which he has yet to do. Matter of fact, not only did he increase the defense budget to fund the wars, his proposed budget would double the national deficit in the next five years and triple it in ten. And those signature middle class tax cuts well, the expire in just two years, while his promise to cut taxes for the small business owners is postponed to after his term in office.
Now I understand the gravity of our nations woes affect the terms of some of the campaign promises, but for the last eight years all we heard every time we turned around was about our criminal in the oval office growing the government too much. Offering no transparency, and not working with dems in a professional manner seemed to really bother most Americans. But that was supposed to change. We were supposed to be able to trust our government again. And say what you want about the previous administration but the fact is they cared first and foremost about national defense, and keeping you safe at home. President Obama is going to face some tough decisions with a nuclear Iran, and a failing Pakistani government. Is this something a community organizer can handle.
Now I don't want to seem like I am bashing the guy, I am not. I don't think he intentionally broke all those promises. The problem is it seems to me that he has no idea how he is going to help this country, no new ideas. And if he is going to fix any of it, then the administration should stop looking into the past,and finger pointing. Let the discussion begin

LIberal Columnist vs. US Soldier

2009-04-30T09:38:00.005-04:00

I recently stumbled across this letter on Grand Rants from US Army Maj. Sarah Albrycht desbring how American GI views themselves in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I thought the letter was quite interesting and later found that it was in response to liberal columnist Charles Putney's account of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Charles Putney writes for the Bennington Banner out of Vermont. I was just going to post the letter from Maj. Albrycht but Ithink it's important to understand the context in which her responsewas written. Mr. Putney's article is first followed by the major's response.

Their ultimate sacrifice03/11/2009Charles Putney
In the Gettysburg Address, one of the greatest speeches in our nation’s history, Abraham Lincoln tried to make sense of the horrendous loss of life at Gettysburg and the entire war. He said, in part, “It is … for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain… “
Lincoln enshrined in his speech what we would all like to believe: that those who die in war will have done it for a noble reason. This is particularly important in a “citizen army” made up of volunteers, reservists and National Guard members. Ironically, as Lincoln pointed out in his Second Inaugural Address, Northern and Southern combatants and their families all prayed to the same God for the same victory.
It is a common refrain, in unpopular and losing efforts, that withdrawing without winning negates the value of the sacrifice made by soldiers. It leads us to persist in wrong-headed war policies because not to persist means we are diminishing the sacrifice of those who have died.
In the 60 years since the end of World War II, the U.S. has had to face the fact that not all of our wars have been successful. Korea was a draw. Vietnam was a loss. Time will tell about the outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In these wars, there has been a big risk that those who have died — more than 56,000 in Vietnam, for example, lost their lives with no discernible benefit to the U.S. The Civil War, which led to the deaths of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, had a major impact on the way we think about war and death. The number of soldiers who died in the American Revolution was relatively small, and subsequent wars were small and localized. The Civil War led to massive numbers of young Americans — from both the North and the South — dying in horrific battles. The three-day battle at Gettysburg resulted in about 50,000 casualties on both sides.
In “This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War,” published last year, Drew Gilpin Faust details the difficulty Americans faced when their young men died away from home, often remaining unidentified amidst the carnage. The U.S. Army was incapable of keeping up with the identification of wounded and dead or their graves, and it was not until after the war that many cemeteries were established for Union dead.
In the South, community-based organizations, largely run by women, took the lead in establishing cemeteries for Confederate war dead. The U.S. Congress was not about to worry about the dead from the rebellious states.
Given the carnage, Lincoln faced the task of how to calm Union sentiments to pull out of the war and let the Southern states go their own way. His argument was, in part, that to do so was to negate the deaths of Union soldiers who had died in the effort to keep the U.S. whole to promote liberty. Its logic was appealing and convincing — one of the reasons the Gettysburg Address is probably one of the best known of U.S. speeches. In a few words he brought home the point that death in war is about the final ends, not about the deaths, and that these deaths are ennobled when the ultimate objective has high moral purpose.
So, what do we tell family members of military personnel who have died in our modern and very ambiguous wars? Or those who are permanently disabled as a result of active service in Iraq? Do we say it was all worth it? America is safer for your sacrifice, or do we say “sorry, but we goofed”?
Charles R. Putney is a consultant to not-for-profit organizations nationally. He lives in Bennington.

Maj. Sarah Albrycht’s response:
Service itself is our honorMarch 21Sarah Albrycht
“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. “— Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
A few nights ago, I walked a quiet mile with hundreds of other service members. It was a clear night in Bagram, Afghanistan. Although it was late, the birds were singing, perhaps roused by the unusual occurrence of people walking under their trees at the late hour. Soft voices broke the solemnity, but no words were discernible. Suddenly, as if on cue, soldiers, airmen, seamen, marines, broke off the sidewalk and lined the road, spacing themselves regularly and assuming a position of silent watchfulness. The honor cordon had formed.
Heads began to turn right as flashing blue lights appeared far down the road. As the vehicles neared, one by one, service members assumed the position of attention and rendered the hand salute. In the back of an open truck sat eight military members, and between them, at their feet, was a flag draped casket.
As I rendered my salute, I thought about the fallen soldier. I did not know his name, his unit or his home. I never saw his face or spoke to his family. I did not know why he volunteered for the Army or what he was doing when he was killed. But there was much I did know. I knew he had fought and died in an honorable cause, a cause that had little to do with our policy on Afghanistan. This soldier had volunteered to put his very life on the line in service to his nation and his brothers-in-arms. I see no more honorable cause that that.
In a column, Mr. Putney has again raised the debate about the sacrifice of America’s “sons and daughters” in uniform. Some have argued that we must continue the fight to honor their memory “so that they have not died in vain.” Others argue we must stop the wars to save soldiers from this fate. I think an essential understanding of what motivates those of us in uniform is missing in this debate.
We are not your sons and daughters, whom you must protect and defend. We are your sword and your shield. We are men and women who volunteer to place our lives on the line so you do not have to. We do not decide when or where we will be sent. We go. You are our advocates, not our parents.
We trust you to care for our families, to hold our jobs, pay for our equipment, salary and medical care and yes, to honor our sacrifice. We trust you to vote for good political leadership, to speak out against bad policy decisions and to demand public accountability. However, we do not count on you to explain the honorable character of our service. We are ennobled by the very fact we serve.
Our “high moral cause” is one of service to a nation whose principles we believe in. We miss the point of political debate when we distill it down to numbers of service member deaths. Debate should be about the policy that leads us in or pulls us out of war. I, as a soldier, am personally insulted when debate about war becomes not about policy, but about deaths, because it implies that my service is at best uninformed or ill-conceived, and at worst valueless.
I know my life is in the hands of others because I choose for it to be that way. I am not your daughter, a child who must be guided. I have made my choice and pledge my honor to it. I will thank you to remember that because we serve our nation, none of us dies in vain, regardless of the cause; end of debate.
Every day a new Marine enlists or an airman puts on her uniform is a reminder that our defenders come from people who still believe in our nation and the values it aspires to, as flawed as we sometimes are. War does not make our sacrifice honorable, death does not make our service honorable; service itself is our honor.
We, your American service members, do not see the cause for which we may give our last full measure of devotion, as our nation’s goals in Iraq or Afghanistan, and perhaps that is the difference. Our cause is our nation, in all her beautiful, imperfect glory.
So on a dark night in Afghanistan we stood under a velvet sky of a million stars to honor one man who lay under 50. We never doubted what he died for. Pfc. Patrick A. Devoe II died for you, the United States of America. That, Mr. Putney, is no goof.

Sarah Albrycht is a native of Bennington and serves in the United States Army in Afghanistan. And to Mr. Putney maybe now you understand a little better about what it means to be a public servant.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Naming the Nameless
This is a drop in the bucket!
JOHN MCCAIN ADDRESSES THE 108th NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE VETERANS OF FORE…
From AWOL to Exile
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am and is filed under Barking Moonbats, War, military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Welcome to The Voice of Reason

2009-04-29T21:10:00.002-04:00

Hello readers, my name is Christopher Menard. I have set up this blog for several reasons, mainly because as an aspiring journalist I am trying to gain a following of readers. Also, I feel like in these scary times we live in, it is important to have an alternative to the fly by media that dominates your television screen. My blog will feature a very aclectic range of topics, basically whatever I am feeling that day. I previously had my posts on facebook, but found that maybe well though out articulate editorial, has no place on facebook. Now that is not to bash facebook, I would say as far as social networking goes it's spot on, but not a place to engage intelectual conversation. I hope the audience here will not only read my posts but give me feedback, whether you agree or disagree.
I would like to tell you a little something about myself to begin with. I was born February 25, 1985 in West Warwick, RI. I have younger brother, Andrew, who was recently married. My parents, Debra and Micheal, have been married for twenty five years and still going strong. The whole fam loves sports, baseball in particular.........Lets Go Red Sox!!!!!!! We all reside in Myrtle Beach, SC now. Love the beach, hate the traffic and I will say every year the CanAm festival is enough to make me sick. I graduated high school in this lovely beach town and though there is a lot to do here, it's laregely a tourist trap. This will no doubt be a source of a post or two. I will be using this blog as a platform to discuss my political views, and doing my part as a true conservative to inform Americans of what is going on in this country. Whether you agree or not you are welcome to read and comment however you like. I love conversation and unlike my extreme right counterparts, I am more open to listen to the whiny liberals, may not agree, but i will listen
Writing about myself is not my favorite thing to do, but if you have any questions I am happy to answer. So without further adue I give you The Voice of Reason. I hope you enjoy