Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.


Search for Registered Sex Offenders by State

Until the federal government creates a national sex offender registry, parents will find it difficult to find out information that can help them keep their children safe. I usually advocate states be allowed to make their own laws without much interference from the feds, however in this case, the feds need to step up to the plate.

Megan's Law was passed so that CHILD MOLESTERS AND ABDUCTORS would have to register and so parents could know if a child sex predator lived in their neighborhood.

But as usual, our elected crooks in washington dc decided to apply it to all sex offenders including those that got caught pissing outdoors or mooning the president of their college. Unfortunately Registered Sex Offender applies to not only child sex predators, but to rapists, and to those that have exposed themselves to someone else at one time or another.

Then, just to make it worse, some state politicians decided to extend Megan's Law to allow them to put people into the database for burglary, armed robbery, and other crimes. They liked Megan's Law so much, they decided to abuse it and water it down so no one can distinguish between the crimes committed by those in the database anymore.

We need a category that labels Child Molesters and Abducters as just what they are. We need to put them in an entirely different database than for sex offenders who commit crimes against adults. REGISTERED CHILD SEX PREDATORS have no rights in my opinion. They should have to drive cars with pink license plates and wear a damn sticker on their forehead that says "I Rape Children."

Since there is no national database yet and each state is different, I'll direct you to a portal where you can search for registered sex offenders by state. Make sure you read what crime they actually committed before passing judgement.

Click here to search for registered sex offenders in your state.

by Chris McElroy

More things that just piss me off


Another Republican Indicted

When is this much smoke going to prove to people that our government is corrupt. It's republicans and democrats both, but this current administration is the worst yet.

We have Frist doing insider trading by all appearances, Delay violating campaign finance laws and possibly money laundering, and others like Libby under indictment. Now we have Representative Randy Cunningham, a Republican from San Diego, resigned from Congress on Monday, hours after pleading guilty to taking at least $2.4 million in bribes to help friends and campaign contributors win military contracts.

And through all of this, the Limbaugh Listeners and Hewitt Listeners all saying that it's all some huge left-wing conspiracy to make them look bad. Listen up Hewitt, Limbaugh, and the rest of the people who listen to them. This administration needs no help at all to look bad or corrupt.

Republicans like to say that it's a conspiracy theory whenever someone accuses this administration of anything. That Bush lied about WMDs is just a conspiracy theory. That Bush planned to attack Iraq way before 9-11 is just some conspiracy theory, etc. etc. Then you justify all of these indictments by saying it's a left-wing conspiracy? Give me a break.

For those that don't know the story about Randy "Duke" Cunningham yet, Click here for the full NY Times Article.

I'll give you some excerpts here;

Mr. Cunningham, a highly decorated Navy fighter pilot in Vietnam, tearfully acknowledged his guilt in a statement read outside the federal courthouse in San Diego. "The truth is, I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office," he said. "I know that I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation, my worldly possessions and, most importantly, the trust of my friends and family."

Well at least he was TEARFUL!

Mr. Cunningham, 63, pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion and one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, tax evasion, wire fraud and mail fraud. He faces up to 10 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and forfeitures.

Prosecutors said he received cash, cars, rugs, antiques, furniture, yacht club fees, moving expenses and vacations from four unnamed co-conspirators in exchange for aid in winning military contracts. None of this income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service or on the congressman's financial disclosure forms, the government said.

He's so sorry for doing this, yet the co-conspirators remain UN-NAMED?

Mr. Cunningham, who is known as Duke, lived while in Washington on a 42-foot yacht, named the Duke-Stir, owned by one of the military contractors that received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts that prosecutors said Mr. Cunningham helped steer its way.

The charging document said that in addition to the other gifts and services, Mr. Cunningham received from several unnamed co-conspirators a Rolls Royce, a graduation party for his daughter, a $200,000 down payment on a condominium and the payment of capital gains taxes.

Mr. Cunningham's troubles began last summer when the Copley News Service and The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that Mitchell J. Wade, the founder of MZM Inc., a military contracting firm, bought Mr. Cunningham's home in Del Mar for $1,675,000 in 2003 and sold it nine months later for $975,000, a $700,000 loss.

Where is the indictment for Mitchell J. Wade, the founder of MZM Inc and the other contractors? I want to see any contractor who is found guilty of bribing an official to get contracts not be allowed to EVER get military or government contracts again. The company itself, and each director/officer of the company, should never be allowed to associate with any company that does business with the government again.

Mr. Cunningham denied any wrongdoing in the house sale, but announced a few weeks after the reports appeared that he would not seek a ninth term in Congress in November 2006. Mr. Cunningham used the profits from the sale to buy a luxury home in Rancho Santa Fe for $2.55 million, which he and his wife, Nancy, have since put up for sale. Under the plea agreement announced on Monday, he will forfeit the Rancho Santa Fe house and nearly $2 million in cash and home furnishings.

Awww. poor guy.

In the Senate, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee and the majority leader, is under scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission for the timing of his trades in the stock of his family's health care company. In the House, Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, was forced to step down as majority leader after he was indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges.

In a separate Justice Department investigation, Michael Scanlon, a former spokesman for Mr. DeLay, pleaded guilty last week to bribery. Prosecutors said Mr. Scanlon was part of a conspiracy to defraud Indian tribes and win legislative favors from lawmakers in return for campaign donations, meals, entertainment and other benefits. A former White House aide has also been indicted in that investigation, which is centered on Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist and an ally of Mr. DeLay who worked with Mr. Scanlon. As part of his plea, Mr. Scanlon agreed to cooperate in the investigation.

In addition, I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted last month on charges of perjury and false statements in the investigation of the leaking of the name of a C.I.A. operative. Other White House officials, including the senior political adviser Karl Rove, remain under investigation in that case.

When is there going to be enough that will convince people they are backing the wrong administration and that they made a mistake? You trusted these people. They turn out to be crooks. It's not your fault. But it is time to admit it, otherwise you are making the statement that you think it's okay for them to break laws and line their pockets.

More things that just piss me off


Is Google becoming irrelevant and a big threat to your privacy?

I like using google as my default search engine, however I am beginning to have reservations about this for several reasons. One is that they are so concerned about not being spammed and not having their system manipulated that they are punishing websites that are not doing any of those things.

I'll give you a couple of examples. is a website about missing children, child safety, and free child id kits. It's run by a nonprofit organization. It has more information about missing and abducted children than any other website. There is legislative info, research and statistical data, the ability to search for missing children by state, search for registered sex offenders by state, success stories where the organization has found missing children, featured missing child cases, and more. Google doesn't rank it in the top 100 missing child websites, let alone the top 10. Do a search for "missing children" or "free child id kits" or "child safety" on google. Then compare the top 10 websites to The Kidsearch Network Website and tell me if you think the top 10 results are more relevant to the search.

Second example; which is #1 in MSN for the term "runaway teens". It is also run by a nonprofit and contains great information about runaway teens, how they can get a bus ticket home, how they can get food and shelter, how parents can prevent them from running away and how to recognize the signs your child might be thinking of running away. Google puts the same website at #41 last time I checked.

If in their zealousness to police their results from being manipulated, they are giving users less relevant websites at the top of those results, then they have defeated their own purpose, to be the search engine with the most relevant results.

The next issue of being associated with or even using google as my default search engine is about privacy. At a North Carolina strangulation-murder trial this month, prosecutors announced an unusual piece of evidence: Google searches allegedly done by the defendant that included the words "neck" and "snap." The data were taken from the defendant's computer, prosecutors say. But it might have come directly from Google, which - unbeknownst to many users - keeps records of every search on its site, in ways that can be traced back to individuals.

Google has long presented itself as the anti-Microsoft, a company that the digerati regard as a force for good in the technology world. In many ways, it has lived up to that reputation. But if it wants to hold on to its corporate halo, Google should do a better job of including users in decisions about how their personal information is collected, stored, and shared.

Google has succeeded so extraordinarily because its founders were able to see the future of the Internet more clearly than the rest of Silicon Valley. At a time when "Web portals" - sites that directed users to online services - were seen as the future, Mr. Brin and Mr. Page were convinced Internet searches would be pivotal. They developed technology that was far better than other search engines at sifting through the galaxy of information online. They slapped a typo of a name on their project - a misspelling of "googol," the number represented by a 1 followed by 100 zeroes - got venture capital, and quickly built a company.

Google operates according to two core principles. One is its mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." The other is its motto, "Don't be evil," which Mr. Brin and Mr. Page take so seriously that they included it in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. As Google grows and spreads into new areas, these two principles are turning out to be in tension. Google's book search, for example, aims to make books universally accessible in a way some authors regard as dismissive of their rights and illegal.

The biggest area where Google's principles are likely to conflict is privacy. Google has been aggressive about collecting information about its users' activities online. It stores their search data, possibly forever, and puts "cookies" on their computers that make it possible to track those searches in a personally identifiable way - cookies that do not expire until 2038. Its e-mail system, Gmail, scans the content of e-mail messages so relevant ads can be posted. Google's written privacy policy reserves the right to pool what it learns about users from their searches with what it learns from their e-mail messages, though Google says it won't do so. It also warns that users' personal information may be processed on computers located in other countries.

The government can gain access to Google's data storehouse simply by presenting a valid warrant or subpoena. Under the Patriot Act, Google may not be able to tell users when it hands over their searches or e-mail messages. If the federal government announced plans to directly collect the sort of data Google does, there would be an uproar - in fact there was in 2003, when the Pentagon announced its Total Information Awareness program, which was quickly shut down.

In the early days of the Internet, privacy advocates argued that data should be collected on individuals only if they affirmatively agreed. But businesses like Google have largely succeeded in reversing the presumption. There is a privacy policy on the site, but many people don't read privacy policies. It is hard to believe most Google users know they have a cookie that expires in 2038, or have thought much about the government's ability to read their search history and stored e-mail messages without them knowing it.

Google says it needs the data it keeps to improve its technology, but it is doubtful it needs so much personally identifiable information. Of course, this sort of data is enormously valuable for marketing. The whole idea of "Don't be evil," though, is resisting lucrative business opportunities when they are wrong. Google should develop an overarching privacy theory that is as bold as its mission to make the world's information accessible - one that can become a model for the online world. Google is not necessarily worse than other Internet companies when it comes to privacy. But it should be doing better.

George Bush and Family inspire hatred. Why?

When researching for articles on the Internet, I constantly run across many theories, opinions, and outright accusations involving GW Bush, his father, and even his grandfather, Prescott Bush. There are many facts mixed in with these theories and accusations. The actions of our President in public reinforce many of the theories. My question is this; If George Bush and his family are squeaky clean and are out for only the best interests of this country, what is it that inspires such hatred against them? Usually when a person or group of people inspire this much hatred and innuendo, there is some truth to the accusations. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire, in other words.

Here is yet another theory put forth by someone who has some facts, but the rest is conjecture it seems. As you read it, I just want you to ponder the questions I raised here. What is it that inspires such hatred? Is it all unfounded? Did the grandfather Prescott Bush not have his assets confiscated by the US Government for dealing with Hitler in world war 2? I know that to be fact. Did GW Bush, our current President not say that we were attacking Iraq because he had irrefutable proof they had WMDs? Did his father do any of what is discussed in the article below?

You can go to the actual article by clicking here.

Re: New Evidence suggests ex-President George Bush led a coup d?e tat in leading the CIA gang that killed President John F. Kennedy, JrCurrent rating: 0
12 Jul 2005
by reader
Reply to this comment
Also see for evidence on the above and the London bombing.

Re: New Evidence suggests ex-President George Bush led a coup d?e tat in leading the CIA gang that killed President John F. Kennedy, JrCurrent rating: 0
16 Jul 2005
by reader
Reply to this comment

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."

George Bush Senior speaking in an interview with
Sarah McClendon in December 1992

. Rodney Stich's book Defrauding America tells of a "deep-cover CIA officer" assigned to a counter-intelligence unit, code-named Pegasus. This unit "had tape-recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy" from a tap on the phone of J. Edgar Hoover. The people on the tapes were "[Nelson] Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, [Lyndon] Johnson of Texas, George Bush and J. Edgar Hoover."

This is from educate yourself:

Could George Bush be involved in the JFK assassination? In 1963, Bush was living in Houston, busily carrying out his duties as president of the Zapata Offshore oil company. He denied the existence of a note sent by the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover to "Mr. George Bush of the CIA." When news of the note surfaced, the CIA first said they never commented on employment questions, but later relented said yes, a "George Bush" was mentioned in the note, but that it was "another" George Bush, not the man who took office in the White House in 1988. Some intrepid reporters tracked down the "other" George Bush and discovered that he was just a lowly clerk who had shuffled papers for the CIA for about six months. He never received any interagency messages from anybody at the FBI, let alone the Queen Mary. It is also worth noting that a CIA code word for Bay of Pigs was Operation Zapata, and that two of the support vessels were named Barbara and Houston.

Many say that George Bush was high up on the CIA ladder at the time, running proprietorial vehicles and placed in a position of command, responsible for many of the Cubans recruited into "service" at the time. All through the Iran-Contra affair, Felix Rodriguez, the man who captured and had Che Guevara killed for the CIA, always seemed to call Bush's office first. From The Realist , (Summer, 1991): "Bush was working with the now-famous CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez, recruiting right-wing Cuban exiles for the invasion of Cuba. It was Bush's CIA job to organize the Cuban community in Miami for the invasion.... A newly discovered FBI document reveals that George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy. The document places marksmen by the CIA. Bush at that time lived in Texas. Hopping from Houston to Miami weekly, Bush spent 1960 and '61 recruiting Cubans in Miami for the invasion.... "George Bush claims he never worked for the CIA until he was appointed Director by former Warren Commission director and then president Jerry Ford in 1976. Logic suggests that is highly unlikely. Of course, Bush has a company duty to deny being in the CIA. The CIA is a secret organization. No one ever admits to being a member.

The truth is that Bush has been a top CIA official since before the 1961 invasion of Cuba, working with Felix Rodriguez. Bush may deny his actual role in the CIA in 1959, but there are records in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that expose Bush's role..." On the Watergate tapes, June 23, 1972, referred to in the media as the 'smoking gun' conversation, Nixon and his Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, were discussing how to stop the FBI investigation into the CIA Watergate burglary. They were worried that the investigation would expose their connection to 'the Bay of Pigs thing.' Haldeman, in his book "The Ends of Power", reveals that Nixon always used code words when talking about the 1963 murder of JFK. Haldeman said Nixon would always refer to the assassination as 'the Bay of Pigs'. On that transcript we find Nixon discussing the role of George Bush's partner, Robert Mosbacher, as one of the Texas fundraisers for Nixon. On the tapes Nixon keeps referring to the 'Cubans' and the 'Texans.' The 'Texans' were Bush, Mosbacher and Baker. This is another direct link between Bush and evidence linking Nixon and Bush to the Kennedy assassination." So, why would an intelligence agency/secret society want to smuggle drugs and assassinate JFK? Well, they make a lot of money, and they garner intelligence assets through their participation. There's also the rationale that the world is a seamy and unseemly place, and if you're going to be the 'big boy' on the block, you better know what's going on.

And what better way of knowing than by running it yourself? There are also some who theorize that the covert drug trade fits with to destabilize American families and society. Through demoralizing and fracturing the body politic, they can impose their will using psychological warfare and the political alchemy of the Hegellian dialectic. James Shelby Downard's article, "Sorcery, Sex, Assassination and the Science of Symbolism ," an underground classic, links American historical events with a wild, numerological, grand occult plan "to turn us into cybernetic mystery zombies". The assassination of JFK, this article contends, was the performance of a public occult ritual called The Killing of the King, designed as a mass-trauma, mind-control assault against our U.S. national body -politic. During Operation Sunrise, Operation Blowback, Operation Paperclip and others, thousands of Nazi scientists, researchers and administrators were brought to the United States after World War II. Many were "smuggled" into the country against direct, written, orders from President Harry S. Truman. Project Monarch was the resumption of a mind-control project called Marionette Programming, which started in Nazi Germany.

The basic component of the Monarch Program is the sophisticated manipulation of the mind, using extreme trauma to induce Multiple Personality Disorder. Mr. Downward feels that the perpetrators purposefully murdered JFK in such a way as to affect our National identity and cohesiveness -- to fracture America's soul. Even the blatancy of their conspiracy was designed to show "their superiority" and "our futility". There have been studies that show a correlation between the JFK assassination and the rise in violence in society, distrust of government and other extensions of social ills. Why this attack against our body politic? In 1785, a bolt of lightning struck a courier enroute to Paris from Frankfort-on-the-Main. A tract written by Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Illuminati, "Original Shift in Days of Illuminations," was recovered from the dead messenger, containing the secret society's long-range plan for "The New World Order through world revolution". The Bavarian Government outlawed the society and in 1787 published the details of The Illuminati conspiracy in "The Original Writings of the Order and Sect of the Illuminati." In Adam Weishaupt's own words: "By this plan, we shall direct all mankind in this manner. And, by the simplest means, we shall set all in motion and in flames. The occupations must be so allotted and contrived that we may, in secret, influence all political transactions."

The Harriman security regime created the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) in 1951. The man appointed director of the PSB [was] Gordon Gray.... Gordon's brother, R.J. Reynolds chairman Bowman Gray Jr., was also a naval intelligence officer, known around Washington as the 'founder of operational intelligence.' Gordon Gray became a close friend and political ally of Prescott Bush; and Gray's son became for Prescott's son, George, his lawyer and the shield of his covert policy." So you have the Whitney/Stimson/Bundy clan and the Harriman/Bush boys wielding a tremendous amount of influence on the political, economic and social affairs of America and the world. Then you have Prescott Bush's buddy Richard Nixon as an activist vice-president. Then, a nation-chilling assassination, some time under LBJ with the Bundy boys keeping things in line, then Nixon as President with "Bonesmen" aides Ray Price ('??) and Richard A. Moore. Some time out for a Trilateralist-Democrat-patsy president, followed by Prescott's son as an activist vice-president under Reagan.

Next, we get a Skull and Bones president who declares a "New World Order" while beating up on his business partner, Saddam Hussein. After twelve years of Republican administrations, Bush passes the reins to his drug smuggling buddy from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, who studied at Yale Law School. According to some researchers, Clinton was recruited as a CIA operative while a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Could this be the "old Hegallian historical dialectic process"? Will we get another failed Democratic administration? A scandal as disgraceful as Nixon's fall?

Why is the Bush family so often accused of acts against the US? Are they simply innocent and being attacked wrongly? so often? What of the parts of these accusations that ARE based in fact? Is there not enough smoke coming out of the house that Bush built for you to yell fire yet?

More things that just piss me off


Darfur, The Forgotten Genocide

Those who supported the war in Iraq from the beginning claimed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. When that proved to not be the case, they switched to supporting the war because Saddam Hussein was a "bad man" and that he killed a lot of people.

If that is a justification, then why are we ignoring this atrocity Click here for the quicktime version of the video or here to view it with real player

More things that just piss me off


BYU professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC

By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News

The physics of 9/11 — including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell — prove that official
explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.

In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.

In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous
skeptics, including the authors of the Web site, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at This Page.

Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics
professor Steven E. Jones says.

Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes — which were
actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that
until we do the scientific investigation."

Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation — that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse — can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.

Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive
demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "

In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled
demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever
steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object
dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly
removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not
analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the
towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior,
without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when
pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions
occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had
had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."

Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September. Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

What do you think happened? No matter how unthinkable, could the American public have been fooled in regards to what actually happened on 9-11? Could someone other than Osama Bin Laden been behind the attacks? Where is any proof that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with it? We now know we were lied to about the Iraq War and WMDs, etc. Could that same administration be hiding something else?

Comment in our Forum!
More things that just piss me off


Rush Limbaugh using war to support his drug habit?

This takes the cake. Rush Limbaugh charges 49.95 to have access to all the stuff at his website. He is now asking the American Public to support the troops in Iraq by adopting a soldier. You send Rush the $49.95 and he gives a membership to a serviceman or woman.

Rush isn't supporting the soldiers by giving them a free membership, no siree, not one to blow his own horn or anything, not one who likes to talk about himself, his contribution is to let you send him money to pay him for the soldier's membership.

It says in small print that it isn't tax deductible. Of course not. It's his extra oxycontin money!

More things that just piss me off

Movie explains the Wilson Plame Libby Controversy


International Control vs US Control of the Internet Debate

So, Larry Lessig , law professor at Stanford, in his interview in Foreign Policy thinks the EU distrusts the US and that is why the EU is recommending an independent body to oversee the root functions of the internet.

Well, with the greatest respect for Prof. Lessig, and there is indeed much to respect him for, he is wrong on this one. The reason the EU, and the rest of the world for that matter, wants control of the root to be taken out of US hands and into that of a third international body is simple: the US position, that control of the root server system should remain in the hands of ICANN, is simply politically not defensible.

Here's why.

To begin at the beginning, one must understand that the internet is not entirely decentralised. At its apex is a server, the A-root server , sometimes called the "Number 13 server , " because there are 12 other similar root servers, and this server is under the control of ICANN.

The A-root server works from data sent it by a " hidden server, " so called because it is hidden from hackers. This hidden server then feeds" the other 12 servers, as it were, keeping all of the information on all 12 servers synchronized. And it is this server that is at the core of the dispute: who gets to decide what goes on and what goes off? Currently, it is ICANN, a California company operating under the authority of the US Department of Commerce.

Now to be fair, ICANN is doing an excellent job technically. No one seriously disputes that. It even has an international corp of officers and managers. But the politically indefensible question is this: What happens should there be a war between, say, Iraq and the USA? This hypothetical case turned real with Iraq. The TLD (top level domain) name .IQ, representing Iraq based websites, disappeared from cyberspace. And it disappeared because the owners of the domain name, who were based not in Iraq but in Texas, were jailed for unauthorized sale of computer parts and for aiding terrorists. A coincidence? (editor comment: maybe bush attacked Iraq because the tld was .IQ and he has such a low one.)

Now, if ever there was a case that put governments on edge, that was one. Many countries were looking at how the USA would handle the issue of a dispute. this case demonstrated that the US could make any nation virtually "disappear" from the Internet altogether, and if governments were not concerned with internet governance up to that point , this case brought it to life . It is not surprising, therefore, that there were initially two positions: the US position of status quo, and the Brazil-China-India position to let the UN run it. It would be too crass for any government to say that it would run the hidden server.

The US, however, distrusts the UN even more than the EU distrusts the US. Into this impasse, the EU inserted itself. Now, it should be noted that this is a strange insertion. The EU presidency rotates once every six months. At the time when the proposals were floated, the presidency was with the UK. Of all the governments in the world, who is the friendliest to the US? It is the UK. So in fact, at the PrepCom3 meeting that concluded last October, it seemed as if the US position would prevail. But the US position is simply indefensible. No government can agree that it would put the internet, on which critical infrastructure is now being built, in the hands of the US and only the US. If anyone needed convincing, the treatment of .IQ is enough. The difference between the EU and the Brazil-China-India position is this: the EU takes it out of the UN.

The US position is just not defensible. In my lectures across the US earlier in October, I did not encounter a single person who could support the US position, especially against the backdrop of .IQ. Officially, the .IQ TLD was in limbo because, supposedly, since the owner was in jail, there was no one to hand it over to. Well, within days of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) report being published, the report that made the recommendation that the UN take control of the A-server, the .IQ TLD was handed back to the interim Iraqi government. Another coincidence? It's beginning to feel like the X-Files coming to life.

In my book, Ordering Chaos: Regulating the Internet, I've predicted that in general, the EU is the place to look to for guidance on internet law and policy. They are smart, they try to maintain a sense of balance of competing interests (as in here too) and they reconcile various cultural differences. I never expected the EU to come up with a position like they have. Given the compromise it offers, it looks like it could be a winning formula in Tunis.

[Author: Ang Peng Hwa is the Dean of the School of Communication and Information and Director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He was also appointed by Kofi Annan as a member of the Working
Group on Internet Governance, which issued a report recently calling for a change in the global system of Internet Governance.]

Louis Farrakhan the Racist

I have been searching for missing children of all colors since 1998. Our search team has helped find many missing children. I have addressed groups on this topic in several states. It's been a struggle most of the time to even keep our doors open and the phone bill paid.

Not one time through all of those years has Minister Louis Farrakhan EVER mentioned missing children. He has not helped to find any missing children. He has not donated money to help us find missing children. He has not used his big mouth to help raise awareness about missing children.

Yet, now, after hurricane katrina, he is speaking out. But he only has concern for the missing "black" children. I qoute him below;

"The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCME) says 63% of those missing children are African-American. Where are the nearly 2,000 children still missing after hurricanes Katrina and Rita? Why have their faces disappeared off the radar? Where is the president who in the aftermath debacle promised to ‘do whatever it takes to reunite separated families’? Where are those glaring post Katrina headlines and CNN cameras that rattled America’s collective conscience?

Those are the questions the Nation of Islam’s Minister Louis Farrakhan says the African-American community should be asking. “Can we stand by and allow it to be said, that thousands of our babies are missing and we will not rise up as a people, to demand to know where our children are?”

“Every unresolved case should haunt us and remind us of America’s original sin when children of slaves were snatched from their mother’s hips. We must stand up and demand answers.”

For Louis Farrakhan it's a black thing! For those of us who have been searching for missing children without consideration of what color those kids were, it's a much too important thing to allow this muslim racist leader to play politics with.

by Chris McElroy

More things that just piss me off


GM restates earnings - film at 11

Now this is just plain ridiculous;

DETROIT, Nov. 9 - General Motors said on Wednesday that it overstated its 2001 results by as much as $400 million, or 35 percent, and said that it might have to restate results for the following years as well. The company said a review of its supplier payments for the years 2000 through 2005 concluded that it erroneously credited some payments to its results for 2001, instead of recording the payments for later years.

Don't you have an accountant? How do you make a $400 million dollar mistake in accounting? Elementary school children can count. This is not a mistake. This is manipulation of stock prices and assets used to secure loans.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, G.M. said that it would revise its 2001 results and that it estimated it had overstated results by $300 million to $400 million, 25 percent to 35 percent of its net income for the year. But the company said it had not determined a final number. G.M. earned $1.2 billion in 2001, after accounting for the sale of Hughes Electronics, which doubled its net income.

A 25% to 35% MISTAKE? Let's break that down into terms we can understand. If I go to McDonalds and order something from the dollar menu, with tax it comes to $1.07. I give them $2.00. They give me back 58 cents. I KNOW I'M SHORT 35 CENTS! It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Think about it. If with all their billions to account for they overlooked $1000, okay. They overlook $100,000 and there is a problem here! A 300-400 million dollar "mistake" cannot happen unless it is meant to happen.

Without the Hughes sale, G.M. earned $601 million, meaning that the restatement could be more than half those results if the figure comes in at the high end of G.M.'s estimate.

More than half! Thats like saying I worked 40 hours this week at $10 per hour and got a check for only $200 and not noticing the mistake for 4 years!

G.M. said it might restate results for some other years, which had been affected by "erroneous accounting." It did not expect those changes to have a material effect.

More than half! Thats not something that will have a "material effect"? "Erroneous accounting" is way too light a term for anyone that can make a 300-400 million dollar mistake. Thats the equivalent of Bush's "Faulty Intelligence" that Iraq had WMD.

Because of the review, the audit committee of G.M.'s board said in a statement that "investors should no longer rely on G.M.'s previously filed financial statements for that year, nor the related auditors' reports." G.M. said that a review of its supplier payments was still under way and that it expected to complete its investigation by the time it filed its 2005 annual report.

That is the understatement of the year. Investors should no longer rely on GM is the only part that makes any sense. These corporations keep having "accounting errors" that cost investors millions. CLUE: If you own a corporation that hires an accounting firm that makes these kinds of mistakes, get a new one. CLUE 2: If you own an accounting firm and your company makes these kind of mistakes, go into some other business. CLUE 3: If you run the SEC and you hear an accounting firm makes this kind of mistakle you should close them doen. Have them sell off thier assets to pay back investors. Make them promise to never count money again.

By Chris McElroy
More things that just piss me off

Ahmad Chalabi is Iraqemon!

When Bush and Cheney needed to produce reasons for going into the Iraq war, they found themselves a hero! Iraqemon! Ahmad Chalabi!

Chalabi is Iraqemon!

Now Chalabi hated hussein just as much as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld did. So he provided them lots of "eyewitness" accounts by other Iraqis who also hated saddam. He gave them all sorts of ways to deceive the american public about Iraq, so they could get the bad guy they all loved to hate.

While Chalabi was doing this he was also giving the Iranians, other enemies of saddam hussein, secrets about the USA and of course also getting information in return to give to bush and cheney about ol saddam.

In the meantime, Iran was having secret talks with the villian osama bin laden, who used to be our friend when he was performing terrorism against the russians, but now is the arch-villian in our story. Now bin laden also hated saddam because saddam wouldn't make Iraqi women wear veils and such and also because he wouldn't let bin laden set up some of his survival camps where he teaches muslims things like positive thinking, self-assertiveness, and of course 10 ways to blow yourself up.

Now, get the picture here. Bush and Cheney hated Saddam. Bush and Cheney have bigger guns than anyone else. Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam. The Iranians hated Saddam. Chalabi hated Saddam. With me so far boys and girls?

Osama was having talks with the Iranians at the same time Chalabi was talking to the Iranians at the same time Chalabi was talking to Bush and Cheney and giving them information about why they should use their big guns to kill saddam. Was that too fast for anyone?

Cheney, Rumsfeldt, and Wolfowitz all were members of an organization in the 90s. They wrote letters to Clinton urging him to attack Saddam then. Then Bush gets elected, puts all these members of this organization in his administration. Then 911 happens. They all suddenly say Iraq is behind it and ONLY AFTER 911 we thought of attacking Iraq. The letters say different.

Make up your own mind. In the meantime, Iraqimon Chalabi is coming to the US for a state visit since he is now a bigshot in Iraq with his enemy Saddam out of the picture. Iran not only got rid of their biggest threat, but are now influencing elections and causing havoc in Iraq, which they hope to control. And Osama is having latte at a starbucks somewhere laughing.

By Chris McElroy

More things that just piss me off


Oil Companies "Explain" Record Profits

You know, we Americans will just believe anything. Let's make a list;

15 of 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi Arabian, but Saudi Arabia had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11.

Money came from the Saudi Royal Princess to the Hijackers, but the Saudis had nothing to do with terrorism.

Iraq was proven by the 911 commission to have had nothing to do with 911 but the Iraq war is about terrorism and 911.

We have proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It is possible that Nicole Simpson's killers have them because they can't be found either.

And now, the oil companies are making huge profits and are telling us that they had to raise gas prices because of shortages and all the extra money they have had to spend due to Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

We believe all this.

And . . . I have a bunny.

More things that just piss me off


Spam Blockers Organization block millions of legitimate emails from getting through

This is ridiculous and just pisses me off!

From the about us section of their website;

" is the Open Relay Database. is a non-profit organisation which stores a IP-addresses of verified open SMTP relays. These relays are, or are likely to be, used as conduits for sending unsolicited bulk email, also known as spam. By accessing this list, system administrators are allowed to choose to accept or deny email exchange with servers at these addresses."

Please note: does not block any email. No mail passes through ORDB servers. Any and all blocking that occurs, takes place at the receiving system. Please do not complain to us if your email is being blocked, complain to your local postmaster, who, most likely, is the only one able to solve your problem."

However, today I went to send an email to someone I do business with and it came back as blocked and the address for this website was cited as the server that caused it to be blocked. The email referred me here, so how can they say they do not block any emails?

In their FAQ, there is the question "My email was rejected. Why was I sent here?" again if they are not responsible for the blocking then why does the email notifying you that you have been blocked send you to this website?

It answers this way, "First of all we are sorry to bother you. In fact your mail is not bounced to annoy you. We'll try to explain what's happening here. The email server that you use for sending email is probably listed in our Open Relay DataBase (ORDB). Your email server can easily be tricked into sending large amounts of unsolicited email, called spam. The email server is a so-called "open relay".

System administrators all over the world choose to use our database to refuse mail from such servers, until the server has been fixed to stop relaying spam to innocent users. So here's what you should do: Contact the system administrator of your mail server and forward him a copy of the bounced email you received. The standard system administrator email account for an Internet mail server is "". For example; If the name of your ISP is then forward a copy of the bounced email to "". Otherwise, you should call tech support and alert them of the problem.

If the server is owned by your school or employer, then contact your support department and explain the same thing to them. We know that email is important to you, and we want to help your ISP resolve the problem of your mail bouncing. Correcting this problem is usually a very simple process, involving your ISP changing a few lines of one configuration file, or ticking a checkbox on a configuration form."

I use Gmail, Google's server in my case. So the millions of people who use gmail are going to be blocked because this org. says they don't configure their servers the way this org. thinks they should do it. Then they want ME to go to my ISP and try to force them to do it the way these people think it should be done. Not my job.

They are blocking legitimate email in the name of spam protection. In this case the cure is worse than the disease. You cannot force the ISPs to do anything. They each have their own business to run and this org. is not the law. Anyone using this database they are creating has been fooled into thinking that this will somehow stop spam. It won't. It's an idiotic attempt at stopping a problem that will always exist as long as the Internet does.

How do I use ORDB to protect my mailserver?
The Open Relay Database can be used by anyone in the configuration of their own network or mail relay, toward the goal of limiting theft of resources by spammers. This step must not be taken lightly -- ORDB creates intentional loss of connectivity for anyone who chooses to use it. While we try to limit that connectivity loss to only IP-addresses that are currently running open relays, sometimes a spammer hides in and amongst nonspammers in order to share a more positive fate with those nonspammers. What actually happens is that the nonspammers share an unpleasant and negative fate with spammers in that case. In other words, if you are not willing to accept occasional blockage of legitimate email, then ORDB is not for you.

So it's okay in their opinion to block legitimate emails in their hunt for the Evil Spam Monsters. A few innocents must be sacrificed for the greater good and all that garbage.

by Chris McElroy More things that just piss me off


Redistricting Proposal to go to 3 Judge panel

The Governator, Arnol Swartzeneggar takes action to curb redistricting abuses. He is proposing that redistricting be done by a three judge panel, instead of the politicians who frequently use the process to favor incumbents, so they can ensure re-election. You probably remember the democrats from Texas going to New Mexico to avoid voting on the redistricting being done by republican incumbents there.

With a three judge panel handling the redictricting, it would serve the purpose it was intended to. I will explain this here;

A "Voting District" is supposed to be based largely on geography and population. Unfortunately redistricting has been being decided by voter registration. Using computer programs, they break down where the republicans and democrats live, then draw the lines so that they give up one district to the opposing party, but gain two districts heavily in their favor.

These districts look weird on a map because they carefully draw the lines based on registrations. Then with each district the majority is weighed heavily repub or dem. Then the party that controls each district gives a bunch of money to their designated candidate who uses that money to beat anyone else who might run for office. This way the party is assured that their chosen ones get into and remain in office.

It's basically mathmatically impossible for the party designated hero to lose. This apparatus captures the office in question because people vote the party line. When you proclaim you are a dem or repub and vote accordingly, it is loyalty in your mind, but what it does is allow special interests to use redistricting as a tool to control elections. Your declaration of loyalty is admirable. The problem is that these people want to control all elections and thereby control your life.

The 3 judge panel idea is a good one. It's called proposition 77 in California. Support it. But until they have this in your state, quit registering to vote as one party or the other. Change your registration to say you don't want to disclose your party affiliation. You can still vote all repub or all dem if you so choose. You can tell people which party you prefer. However taking it off the registration card stops people from using redistricting as a way to control elections.

More things that just piss me off
Who Let The Blog Out?


Online Freedom of Speech Act

Okay, I have mixed feeling about this one. First I love it because it provides free speech protection on the Internet. With some of the drivel I write I need all the protection I can get. On the other hand the bill is only being pushed to circumvent the election reforms that limit the amount of soft money that can be spent on advertising by organizations on behalf of candidates.

I have always been for the election reform bill because of the abuses by "so-called" nonprofit orgs that create ads on behalf of candidates running for office. The limits that are in place as to the amount of money that can be contributed by an individual or entity to a campaign are reasonable limits and tries to insure that special interest groups and corporations looking for favors can't capture the political process for themselves. Therefore any law that circumvents those limits is worrisome at best.

The law that was passed set limits on the amount and when those ads by the special interest groups can run, on television, radio, and in print, but it did not specifically state and on the Internet. Because of this oversight, a bill is currently being pushed through congress called the Online Freedom of Speech Act. Pretty nice name. Makes you want to feel all patriotic doesn't it?

In Politics beware for names deceive you. They call infringing on your right to privacy The Patriot Act. I haven't made up my mind on this one yet and I am going to study this one hard. I'll post later about it. Tune in. You read it. Make up your own mind. Do not let your politicians push you around on this. Read it! Make up your own mind!

Online Freedom of Speech Act

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Congressman Jeb Hensarling's letter to other House Members

Dear Colleague:
When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation did not identify the Internet as a target of regulation, and rightly so. The explosion of new technology has done much to democratize our politics, encourage grassroots political involvement, and act as a tremendous catalyst for civic engagement across our country. With the emergence of blogs, the Internet truly puts the power in the hands of the people.

Unfortunately, a federal judge has ruled that the FEC's previous broad exemption of the Internet was impermissible absent clear direction from Congress. Within the next sixty days, the FEC is expected to finalize rules and regulations that could squash not only free speech and citizen activism, but could well impede innovation and technology – unless Congress acts now.

Today, I introduced the Online Freedom of Speech Act to offer that direction, amending federal election law to specifically exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of "public communication" for purposes of regulation. It will allow the growth and expansion of new voices in our political process without interference. An identical bill (S.678) has been introduced in the Senate by the distinguished Minority Leader signifying that this effort is not a partisan one.

We ought to embrace these newcomers to our political process instead of applying complex and chilling regulatory burdens. Please cosponsor this important legislation and help me protect bloggers and online activists from the heavy hand of federal regulation. For more information, please call Gerry O’Shea on my staff at 5-3484.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling
5th District, Texas

Is it protecting of free speech or is it simply a dodge around campaign finance laws?

My News Parody Blog
More things that just piss me off

Powered by Blogger